Looking Askance

Daniel Ferguson

Tim Craig wrote:

there's no longer a link to Soapbox 1.0 (Backroom) so you have to know how to find us

It should be renamed The Secret Lair™. :rolleyes:

Tim Craig wrote:

Welcome back.

Thanks! :-D

You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt

Stan Shannon

Daniel Ferguson wrote:

really disastrous mistakes

They were only mistakes to those who share your world view. His great mistakes were the attempts to give any credence at all to the views of the political opposition. The invastion of Iraq was going to happen sooner or later, just as the invasion of Iran will and the invasion of Pakistan will and probably any number of other such nations. Its going to happen. The left will play their games and let the problems fester until there is simply no alternative to military force. Aside from that and the lack of fiscal discipline, most of Bush's policies were succesful as any attempt by the democrats to change them will quickly verify.

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.

Daniel Ferguson

Stan Shannon wrote:

The left will play their games and let the problems fester until there is simply no alternative to military force.

Wait, did you just admit that there are alternatives to military force? What might those alternatives be, and what's the compelling reason to go to Pakistan and Iraq or Iran anyway?

You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt

Stan Shannon

There are always alternatives to war, but pacifism isn't one of them. Obviously, surrendering to your enemy is an alternative to war. Suffocating him economically before he is powerful enough to make war is an alternative (of course that one means being willing to allow him to let his own citizens die of starvation which is actually more cruel than war). The best alternative to war is, of course, free market capitalism, which simply makes war unnecessary and counter productive. Why drop bombs on your enemy when you can just get him to buy stuff you make.

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.

Daniel Ferguson

Stan Shannon wrote:

The best alternative to war is, of course, free market capitalism, which simply makes war unnecessary and counter productive. Why drop bombs on your enemy when you can just get him to buy stuff you make.

I'm glad we can agree on that. China's a great example of "trade not war" and it works pretty well.

You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt

Oakman

Daniel Ferguson wrote:

China's a great example of "trade not war" and it works pretty well.

You have got to be kidding. I am relatively sure that we will be in a shooting war with China within the next 5 - 25 years.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

Why drop bombs on your enemy when you can just get him to buy stuff you make.

You have been advising the Chinese and Indians, have you? Venezuelans, maybe?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Ilion

Oakman wrote:

We were immediately hacked to the point that people were having their messages removed with scores of 5.

Not true.

Ilion

Daniel Ferguson wrote:

Oakman: We were immediately hacked to the point that people were having their messages removed with scores of 5. Daniel Ferguson: Crazy!

Crazy or not, that's not what happened. Or, to be more precise, there was no hack, but some posts besides just mine did vanish -- the reaction was highly entertaining.

Daniel Ferguson wrote:

Oakman: So now we have a forum of our own with no ratings Daniel Ferguson: I thought it was weird that there's no ratings in here, but they didn't represent message quality, so I don't miss them.

Don't bother to mourn them. That anonymous ability is the main driver of the childishness ... and boringness ... of the forums.

Tim Craig

Daniel Ferguson wrote:

It should be renamed The Secret Lair™

Sometimes I think it should be called the Bat Cave and not because Batman lives here. :doh:

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

Brady Kelly

Stan Shannon wrote:

unrestricted penis freedom

Only we have that. Our president has four wives. :laugh:

You really gotta try harder to keep up with everyone that's not on the short bus with you. - John Simmons / outlaw programmer.

Brady Kelly

5

You really gotta try harder to keep up with everyone that's not on the short bus with you. - John Simmons / outlaw programmer.

soap brain

Ilíon wrote:

Not true.

Imbecile! There were messages removed with scores of 5. That cannot happen under ordinary circumstances. Explain how it happened.

Ilion

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Imbecile!

And you're worse than an imbecile: you a fool.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

There were messages removed with scores of 5. That cannot happen under ordinary circumstances.

Obviously, your theory of CP Forii is false. But then, your theory of The World is also false. Facts: 1) there was no hack 2) there were no sock-puppets 3) there was noting "illegal" at all done Ergo: it was entirely by the rules that those posts were vanished

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Explain how it happened.

Talk to Mr Maunder. He'll know exactly how the rules allowed it. I can speculate, but it remains speculation. edit: As is typical of your sort -- irrational and illogical types who "judge" ideas and statements to be logical, rational and true by whether those things agree with what they already believe and/or assert -- you are not reasoning; you are doing the old "I can imagine'X' and I cannot imagine anything else, so it must be 'X'" fallacy.

soap brain

Ilíon wrote:

And you're worse than an imbecile: you a fool.

Aren't they, like, pretty much the same thing?

Ilíon wrote:

Obviously, your theory of CP Forii is false. But then, your theory of The World is also false. Facts: 1) there was no hack 2) there were no sock-puppets 3) there was noting "illegal" at all done Ergo: it was entirely by the rules that those posts were vanished

Where are you getting these facts from? I would agree with your conclusion if I could verify your premises.

Ilíon wrote:

Talk to Mr Maunder. He'll know exactly how the rules allowed it. I can speculate, but it remains speculation.

He didn't when we asked him.

0x3c0

Fisticuff's profile[^]

General ITS NOT MYSTERIOUS AT ALL GOD IS PUNISHING US FOR DARING TO CENSOR HIS CHOSEN PROPHET ON EARTH [^] by Fisticuffs at 17:40 28 Feb '09 The Back Room (Forum) Score: 5.0 (4 votes).

Tenth or eleventh from the bottom. I clicked the link, and got a 'Message Automatically Removed' message. I would give more examples, but the latest messages page only goes 200 messages back. There's still about three or four others just below the one I pointed out though

Ilion

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Ilíon: And you're worse than an imbecile: you a fool. L'il Twit: Aren't they, like, pretty much the same thing?

You don't really read, do you? I've pointed this out many times: an 'imbecile' (or an 'idiot' or a 'retard' or whatever equivalent term one wants to use) cannot help but be stupid. On the other hand, a 'fool' *chooses* to behave stupidly.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Where are you getting these facts from? I would agree with your conclusion if I could verify your premises.

You can verify them to be true by the fact that I have said them. You might also recall that I said them at the time and that I also explicitly said (at the time and when he was actively taking a part) that Maunder knows them to be true and that he didn't contradict me.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Ilíon: Talk to Mr Maunder. He'll know exactly how the rules allowed it. I can speculate, but it remains speculation. L'il Twit: He didn't when we asked him.

Well then, perhaps it's the case that the speculation I have thought of, which seems to me most reasonable, is not so far from the truth. But it's not very flattering, on multiple levels, and I'd hate to think it of someone.

Ilion

Yes, your post was vanished; that is not in dispute. And it was soooo unfair, wasn't it? But, the fact remains that it was done entirely by the rules: there was no hack and there were no sock-puppet accounts.

soap brain

Ilíon wrote:

You don't really read, do you? I've pointed this out many times: an 'imbecile' (or an 'idiot' or a 'retard' or whatever equivalent term one wants to use) cannot help but be stupid. On the other hand, a 'fool' *chooses* to behave stupidly.

Fool: 1. unintelligent or thoughtless person: somebody who is regarded as lacking good sense or judgment 2. ridiculous person: somebody who looks or is made to appear ridiculous, or who behaves in a ridiculous way 3. US enthusiast: somebody who is particularly talented at, interested in, or fond of something specified 4. court entertainer: somebody employed in the past to amuse a monarch or noble, usually by telling jokes, singing comical songs, or performing tricks 5. FOOD creamy fruit dessert: a cold dessert made from puréed fruit mixed with cream or custard 6. offensive term: an offensive term for somebody with below average intelligence or a psychiatric disorder (archaic)

Ilíon wrote:

You can verify them to be true by the fact that I have said them.

I'm bookmarking this.

Ilion

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

I'm bookmarking this.

Good for you: I doubt not that you'll take it out of context; you are what you are, after all.