"Niceness" or "Even-handedness" or "Multi-culturalism"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You fight your enemy where you find him.
I guess they didn't teach you much about Strategy or Tactics in the National Guard, did they?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Same tactics they teach everyone else - Army War College (by correspondence of course).
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Well, Troy, at least Stan had the balls to put on a uniform and end up in Vietnam. You, on the other hand, are far too cowardly to ever do anything like that.
You foolish, foolish, intellectually dishonest thing, you. It was *over* years before I came of age. If you weren't so committed to intellectual dishonesty, you'd not step in it all the time like this. But, you can't help but be yorself, can you? edit: Hell! You can track down my address (or so you claim), but you can't figure out my age, even though the two numbers needed to compute it are on one of those pages you love to look at? (Which, by the way, ought to disappear in a few days.) Frankly, I'm shocked that a "chicken-hawk" like you could miss that.
modified on Monday, January 12, 2009 8:55 PM
Ilíon wrote:
You foolish, foolish, intellectually dishonest thing, you. It was *over* years before I came of age.
Really? So the U.S. didn't maintain any armed forces during the 70's? Surely you don't think there was no chance for you to serve your country? Admit it. You are a lying coward, content to let others fight and die, while you post heroic messages on the internet.
Ilíon wrote:
Which, by the way, ought to disappear in a few days.)
What a coward. Taking down your website because I found it. Are you afraid I won't figure out that your email is tdhailey@sprintmail.com? What a yellow-bellied coward :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Ilíon wrote:
Frankly, I'm shocked that a "chicken-hawk" like you could miss that.
Interesting. You seem to know all the gayboy insults. Now I worked as a lighting designer in theatre for years, so I've heard 'em all from the chorus queens insulting each other, but why is it you know them? Does it have anything to do with that 'wide stance' you like to take?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Ilíon: ... do cynics hold anything ... dear? DryRot: How should I know? And don't call me "dear."
Or perhaps it's just his fantasies kicking in again.
Pathetic. Actually editing quotes as if the original would somehow go away. Or are you so narcissistic that you think that there are people who read only your posts? By the way, your use of illiterate was incorrect. I know it stung when I called you that yesterday, after you demonstrated your total lack of knowledge about Dickens, but still and all, you should have checked out exactly what it meant before you started using it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ilíon wrote:
You foolish, foolish, intellectually dishonest thing, you. It was *over* years before I came of age.
Really? So the U.S. didn't maintain any armed forces during the 70's? Surely you don't think there was no chance for you to serve your country? Admit it. You are a lying coward, content to let others fight and die, while you post heroic messages on the internet.
Ilíon wrote:
Which, by the way, ought to disappear in a few days.)
What a coward. Taking down your website because I found it. Are you afraid I won't figure out that your email is tdhailey@sprintmail.com? What a yellow-bellied coward :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Ilíon wrote:
Frankly, I'm shocked that a "chicken-hawk" like you could miss that.
Interesting. You seem to know all the gayboy insults. Now I worked as a lighting designer in theatre for years, so I've heard 'em all from the chorus queens insulting each other, but why is it you know them? Does it have anything to do with that 'wide stance' you like to take?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Same tactics they teach everyone else - Army War College (by correspondence of course).
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Do you honestly have nothing better to do?
You really ought to stay in the lounge, Josh. Everybody plays nice there.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
He has a point. I assume you are wise enough to understand that when the wise man argues with a fool, it becomes hard to tell the difference. Take your own advice: vote to remove his message and move on.
Shepman wrote:
He has a point. I assume you are wise enough to understand that when the wise man argues with a fool, it becomes hard to tell the difference.
Which is precisely why I do not even attempt to argue with you "community" boys: there is no there there with you all.
-
DRHuff wrote:
Because it is way too much to expect people to OBEY the friggin LAW? :omg:
Persons of certain "protected" classes are not to be expected to be law-abiding. And certainly not in Canada (of course, in many European countries the crisis-point is even closer). Far too many in "the west" ... and here in the Sandbox ... imagine that we can satisfy Islamic blood-lust by tossing the Jews to them. And, of course, I must be silenced because I scoff at that rank foolishness [edit: both the immorality of it, which is one sort of deliberate foolishness, and the futility of it, which is another].
modified on Monday, January 12, 2009 7:28 PM
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
We all see what we want to see. I prefer smelling myself.
No doubt. But isn't the important question whether anyone else shares this preference? edit: And isn't it odd that you intend to simultaneously assert that there is no objective truth, or at least that objective truth cannot be known if it does exist (which assertion is a self-contradiction), with the assertion that what you see, or choose to see, is objectively true?
Ilíon wrote:
And isn't it odd that you intend to simultaneously assert that there is no objective truth, or at least that objective truth cannot be known if it does exist (which assertion is a self-contradiction), with the assertion that what you see, or choose to see, is objectively true?
What?
------------------------------------------- It's code that drives you - Shyam
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Army War College (by correspondence of course).
Uhuh, and on what page did they tell you to confront the enemy on ground of his choosing?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
On the back cover of "War for Dummies"
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
He has a point. I assume you are wise enough to understand that when the wise man argues with a fool, it becomes hard to tell the difference. Take your own advice: vote to remove his message and move on.
Shepman wrote:
I assume you are wise enough to understand that when the wise man argues with a fool, it becomes hard to tell the difference.
OK. Though it pains me to admit it, I guess you guys are right. (you, too, Josh, if you read this. You hit the nail on the head. I do have better things to do) No more back-and-forth with Ilidgit. I promise. It's a waste of my time and Chris's bandwidth.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Army War College (by correspondence of course).
Uhuh, and on what page did they tell you to confront the enemy on ground of his choosing?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Uhuh, and on what page did they tell you to confront the enemy on ground of his choosing?
When overwhelmingly outnumbered, always charge uphill into a heavily fortified position. :laugh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
Oakman wrote:
Uhuh, and on what page did they tell you to confront the enemy on ground of his choosing?
When overwhelmingly outnumbered, always charge uphill into a heavily fortified position. :laugh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Army War College (by correspondence of course).
Uhuh, and on what page did they tell you to confront the enemy on ground of his choosing?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Uhuh, and on what page did they tell you to confront the enemy on ground of his choosing?
It is standard US combat policy to be prepared to engage the enemy on any ground, chosen or not, and remove him from it. To gain the offensive initiative and maintain the offensive initiative, going on defense only for as long as is required to regroup, resupply. SO, yes, absolutely, you want your enemy on the defensive and worrying about choosing his ground.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Uhuh, and on what page did they tell you to confront the enemy on ground of his choosing?
When overwhelmingly outnumbered, always charge uphill into a heavily fortified position. :laugh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Tim Craig wrote:
When overwhelmingly outnumbered, always charge uphill into a heavily fortified position
Well, yes, generally speaking, when you are overwhelmingly outnumberd it is all the more important to be able to maintain the offensive. The last thing you want to do is turn over the offensive initiative to a superior force. Being on the defensive is, literally, for losers.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Shepman wrote:
I assume you are wise enough to understand that when the wise man argues with a fool, it becomes hard to tell the difference.
OK. Though it pains me to admit it, I guess you guys are right. (you, too, Josh, if you read this. You hit the nail on the head. I do have better things to do) No more back-and-forth with Ilidgit. I promise. It's a waste of my time and Chris's bandwidth.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Tim Craig wrote:
When overwhelmingly outnumbered, always charge uphill into a heavily fortified position
Well, yes, generally speaking, when you are overwhelmingly outnumberd it is all the more important to be able to maintain the offensive. The last thing you want to do is turn over the offensive initiative to a superior force. Being on the defensive is, literally, for losers.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, yes, generally speaking
In the situation that Tim said, your decision would have your troops annihilated in pretty short order. And being on the defensive is not for losers but can sometimes be the most effective action you can take. Examples include WWII Allied Forces defensive withdrawals from South East Asia under MacArthur, otherwise his remarks "I came out of Bataan and I shall return" would be hollow.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, yes, generally speaking
In the situation that Tim said, your decision would have your troops annihilated in pretty short order. And being on the defensive is not for losers but can sometimes be the most effective action you can take. Examples include WWII Allied Forces defensive withdrawals from South East Asia under MacArthur, otherwise his remarks "I came out of Bataan and I shall return" would be hollow.
Thats because MacArthur knew that he could mass force and counter attack. He went on the defense only long enough to resume the offensive. Until he (among others) did that, we were losing.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.