Stunning!
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I suppose it's completely relative, but no more so than the many things that society, virtually in total, agrees is not good or noble, such as murder (at least murder of people born (purposefully)).
On the other hand, every timeline that invents time-travel goes back and kills Hitler. Presumably with good intentions. Until they discover what Joe Stalin is like if he isn't forced to fight a debilitating war.
BoneSoft wrote:
One man's good intentions are anothers threat to all that is holy.
But understanding that they are good intentions gives you an insight into how to combat him. Sun Tzu (who wrote the original and still the best book on gaming, politics, corporate intrigues, and family get-togethers - oh yeah, and on warfare, too) said once that if you understand you enemy but not yourself you will win half the time; if you understand yourself and not your enemy you will also win half the time. Only when you understand yourself and your enemy can you win every time.
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 wrote:
On the other hand, every timeline that invents time-travel goes back and kills Hitler. Presumably with good intentions. Until they discover what Joe Stalin is like if he isn't forced to fight a debilitating war.
True, but to date nobody has run for office with that as their platform. :laugh: Well... actually... for all the idiots who think Bush was Hitler...
Oakman wrote:
Sun Tzu
Yes! Know yourself. In the biblical sense? ;P I hear ya, but it's been pretty difficult knowing what's really bouncing around in this maniac's head. He excels at hiding his true intentions.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Oakman wrote:
On the other hand, every timeline that invents time-travel goes back and kills Hitler. Presumably with good intentions. Until they discover what Joe Stalin is like if he isn't forced to fight a debilitating war.
True, but to date nobody has run for office with that as their platform. :laugh: Well... actually... for all the idiots who think Bush was Hitler...
Oakman wrote:
Sun Tzu
Yes! Know yourself. In the biblical sense? ;P I hear ya, but it's been pretty difficult knowing what's really bouncing around in this maniac's head. He excels at hiding his true intentions.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
He excels at hiding his true intentions.
I agree. I believe you've just come up with another trait of successful politicians (in a Democracy or a Dictatorship.)
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
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I suppose it's completely relative, but no more so than the many things that society, virtually in total, agrees is not good or noble, such as murder (at least murder of people born (purposefully)).
On the other hand, every timeline that invents time-travel goes back and kills Hitler. Presumably with good intentions. Until they discover what Joe Stalin is like if he isn't forced to fight a debilitating war.
BoneSoft wrote:
One man's good intentions are anothers threat to all that is holy.
But understanding that they are good intentions gives you an insight into how to combat him. Sun Tzu (who wrote the original and still the best book on gaming, politics, corporate intrigues, and family get-togethers - oh yeah, and on warfare, too) said once that if you understand you enemy but not yourself you will win half the time; if you understand yourself and not your enemy you will also win half the time. Only when you understand yourself and your enemy can you win every time.
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 wrote:
On the other hand, every timeline that invents time-travel goes back and kills Hitler.
You also read that this morning? :)
-
Oakman wrote:
On the other hand, every timeline that invents time-travel goes back and kills Hitler.
You also read that this morning? :)
Brady Kelly wrote:
You also read that this morning?
Yes. But for the life of me, I couldn't remember where until after I posted.
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
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
ok, gotta give you props for that one.
Well, at least we make sense to each other some of the time, right?
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 wrote:
Well, at least we make sense to each other some of the time, right?
yep
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
I hope this isn't a repost, I haven't been hanging around too much lately. But I totally missed it until somebody sent it to me... Uhbama's "sustained detention"[^] Now, the fact that he would propose such a thing isn't stunning in the least. Frightening, but not stunning. However, the fact that Rachel Madcow would call him on it, truly is stunning. Coming from the most flamingly liberal pinko commie Bush-bashing media whore ever to tow the party line, this is serious. It's now obvious that our government isn't even a shell of what it once was any more. It's too big, self important, and free to do as it pleases with no regard for the people. We need to figure out what all derailed it, scrap it completely, and start over clean again.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
When you are clueless, I guess the surprises just keep on coming. Maddow has had critical things to say about Obama from well before he was even elected. She is one of the smartest, most honest commentators around.
John Carson
modified on Friday, May 22, 2009 11:23 PM
-
When you are clueless, I guess the surprises just keep on coming. Maddow has had critical things to say about Obama from well before he was even elected. She is one of the smartest, most honest commentators around.
John Carson
modified on Friday, May 22, 2009 11:23 PM
John Carson wrote:
When you are clueless, I guess the surprises just keep on coming.
Nope, when you are truly clueless you don't see anything that surprises you. You've got it all figured out, don't you. The dumbest people I know are sure they've got nothing left to learn.
John Carson wrote:
She is one of the...
And Anne Coulter is the most mild-mannered and tactful centrist I know :laugh: . And burlap skivies are pure comfort :rolleyes: . Well gee that just makes sense. The most partisan leftist I know thinks the most partisan personality in the leftist media is smart, honest and not at all way off in left field. You know, I've got the pattern down now. There's really no need for you to post anymore, I already know what you're going to say. You'll start with a baseless insult to insure that who you're addressing won't listen and/or are on the defensive, then you'll spew whatever leftist bilge best fits the situation and declare victory in your own mind.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
John Carson wrote:
When you are clueless, I guess the surprises just keep on coming.
Nope, when you are truly clueless you don't see anything that surprises you. You've got it all figured out, don't you. The dumbest people I know are sure they've got nothing left to learn.
John Carson wrote:
She is one of the...
And Anne Coulter is the most mild-mannered and tactful centrist I know :laugh: . And burlap skivies are pure comfort :rolleyes: . Well gee that just makes sense. The most partisan leftist I know thinks the most partisan personality in the leftist media is smart, honest and not at all way off in left field. You know, I've got the pattern down now. There's really no need for you to post anymore, I already know what you're going to say. You'll start with a baseless insult to insure that who you're addressing won't listen and/or are on the defensive, then you'll spew whatever leftist bilge best fits the situation and declare victory in your own mind.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
You know, I've got the pattern down now. There's really no need for you to post anymore, I already know what you're going to say.
You know, this applies exactly to you? You're the classic partisan hack who just can't see what he is.
"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!!! -
John Carson wrote:
When you are clueless, I guess the surprises just keep on coming.
Nope, when you are truly clueless you don't see anything that surprises you. You've got it all figured out, don't you. The dumbest people I know are sure they've got nothing left to learn.
John Carson wrote:
She is one of the...
And Anne Coulter is the most mild-mannered and tactful centrist I know :laugh: . And burlap skivies are pure comfort :rolleyes: . Well gee that just makes sense. The most partisan leftist I know thinks the most partisan personality in the leftist media is smart, honest and not at all way off in left field. You know, I've got the pattern down now. There's really no need for you to post anymore, I already know what you're going to say. You'll start with a baseless insult to insure that who you're addressing won't listen and/or are on the defensive, then you'll spew whatever leftist bilge best fits the situation and declare victory in your own mind.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
The most partisan leftist I know thinks the most partisan personality in the leftist media is smart, honest and not at all way off in left field.
Anyone with a clue could see she is very smart just from watching her program. For those without a clue, it may help to know that she was a Rhodes Scholar and has a Doctorate from Oxford. As for honest...again, anyone with a clue can see it from watching her. As for "not at all way off in left field", you just made that up; I said nothing about where she fits on the political spectrum. Clearly, she is one of the most left wing people on television. That means that you are incapable of appreciating her talents, but that is your failure, not hers.
BoneSoft wrote:
There's really no need for you to post anymore, I already know what you're going to say.
I don't post in order to convince you of anything; I post to (i) help bystanders see that you are talking rubbish, (ii) make posting rubbish less enjoyable.
John Carson
-
BoneSoft wrote:
How about changing your mind, and instead of admitting it,
Boney, he made the right decision. You can speculate and impugn his motives all you want, but it comes down to he made the right decision. Ultimately, I don't care why he did something or how machiavellian some folks think he's being. When he makes the right decisions (imho) I'm glad; when he doesn't, I'm pissed. Since I don't imagine this was the first time you've noticed a candidate promising one thing and then delivering another, we're back to so why is it different when he does it?
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
-
BoneSoft wrote:
The most partisan leftist I know thinks the most partisan personality in the leftist media is smart, honest and not at all way off in left field.
Anyone with a clue could see she is very smart just from watching her program. For those without a clue, it may help to know that she was a Rhodes Scholar and has a Doctorate from Oxford. As for honest...again, anyone with a clue can see it from watching her. As for "not at all way off in left field", you just made that up; I said nothing about where she fits on the political spectrum. Clearly, she is one of the most left wing people on television. That means that you are incapable of appreciating her talents, but that is your failure, not hers.
BoneSoft wrote:
There's really no need for you to post anymore, I already know what you're going to say.
I don't post in order to convince you of anything; I post to (i) help bystanders see that you are talking rubbish, (ii) make posting rubbish less enjoyable.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
For those without a clue, it may help to know that she was a Rhodes Scholar and has a Doctorate from Oxford.
I lived with an American citizen who had been a Rhodes scholar with a full scholarship to Oxford for almost five years. There was much to admire about her, but she was no better at keeping her preconceptions from coloring her opinions than I am or you are.
John Carson wrote:
make posting rubbish less enjoyable
Then why go after boney when you could be going after Ilion?
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
-
Actually that's a great point. Would have had better effect on target without the added bile though.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Oakman wrote:
Since I don't imagine this was the first time you've noticed a candidate promising one thing and then delivering another, we're back to so why is it different when he does it?
You are sooo dishonest[^].
I can't imagine that Boney is very pleased by the concept of you linking to him. Is it possible that you think that unless you provide some citation to something someone has said that whatever you might post or think is meaningless? If so, let me assure you: Even with the citation, what you post or think is meaningless.
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
modified on Saturday, May 23, 2009 8:44 AM
-
John Carson wrote:
For those without a clue, it may help to know that she was a Rhodes Scholar and has a Doctorate from Oxford.
I lived with an American citizen who had been a Rhodes scholar with a full scholarship to Oxford for almost five years. There was much to admire about her, but she was no better at keeping her preconceptions from coloring her opinions than I am or you are.
John Carson wrote:
make posting rubbish less enjoyable
Then why go after boney when you could be going after Ilion?
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 wrote:
I lived with an American citizen who had been a Rhodes scholar with a full scholarship to Oxford for almost five years. There was much to admire about her, but she was no better at keeping her preconceptions from coloring her opinions than I am or you are.
That doesn't surprise me.
Oakman wrote:
Then why go after boney when you could be going after Ilion?
I think Ilion is a damaged person who won't be improved by criticism. He also seems to have a near-zero ability to convince anyone of anything.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
I lived with an American citizen who had been a Rhodes scholar with a full scholarship to Oxford for almost five years. There was much to admire about her, but she was no better at keeping her preconceptions from coloring her opinions than I am or you are.
That doesn't surprise me.
Oakman wrote:
Then why go after boney when you could be going after Ilion?
I think Ilion is a damaged person who won't be improved by criticism. He also seems to have a near-zero ability to convince anyone of anything.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I think Ilion is a damaged person who won't be improved by criticism.
True. I should remember that. :-O
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
-
BoneSoft wrote:
You know, I've got the pattern down now. There's really no need for you to post anymore, I already know what you're going to say.
You know, this applies exactly to you? You're the classic partisan hack who just can't see what he is.
"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!!!Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle, dutch oven and wok. :rolleyes: Go ahead there Timmy, what's my pattern? The only thing you've noticed is that you never agree with me. But go ahead and see if you can make something up.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
The most partisan leftist I know thinks the most partisan personality in the leftist media is smart, honest and not at all way off in left field.
Anyone with a clue could see she is very smart just from watching her program. For those without a clue, it may help to know that she was a Rhodes Scholar and has a Doctorate from Oxford. As for honest...again, anyone with a clue can see it from watching her. As for "not at all way off in left field", you just made that up; I said nothing about where she fits on the political spectrum. Clearly, she is one of the most left wing people on television. That means that you are incapable of appreciating her talents, but that is your failure, not hers.
BoneSoft wrote:
There's really no need for you to post anymore, I already know what you're going to say.
I don't post in order to convince you of anything; I post to (i) help bystanders see that you are talking rubbish, (ii) make posting rubbish less enjoyable.
John Carson
OK, fair enough. Smart doesn't guarantee right. But I might argue that true honesty would by necessity negate a fair amount of partisanship. As for left field, yes I added that to the list since I see it as one of her lesser worst qualities. Some of her other crappy qualities, like smug arrogance, you share with her. That's probably why you think so highly of her.
John Carson wrote:
Clearly, she is one of the most left wing people on television. That means that you are incapable of appreciating her talents
Not at all. If she actually had talents of persuasion, I could appreciate what she does. However, she, like you, have absolutely no ability whatsoever to appeal to the other side. At least, we have no evidence to suggest that either of you have ever tried. Her purpose seems to be to insult those she disagrees with as much as humanly possible, with maybe a little side project to fan the flames of those who hold her exact perspective. Maybe that's why Oreilly's ratings completely dwarf hers. If you want to appeal to others you kind of have to speak to them, or at least not constantly insult them.
John Carson wrote:
I post to (i) help bystanders see that you are talking rubbish
So you engage in conversation so you can speak to phantoms that might be within ear shot. That's just brilliant not. :rolleyes: So, you're entire purpose for entering discussions is predicated on the assumption that everything you post is superior in content and honesty to everybody else on the board. How very Ilion of you. :thumbsup:
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
OK, fair enough. Smart doesn't guarantee right. But I might argue that true honesty would by necessity negate a fair amount of partisanship. As for left field, yes I added that to the list since I see it as one of her lesser worst qualities. Some of her other crappy qualities, like smug arrogance, you share with her. That's probably why you think so highly of her.
John Carson wrote:
Clearly, she is one of the most left wing people on television. That means that you are incapable of appreciating her talents
Not at all. If she actually had talents of persuasion, I could appreciate what she does. However, she, like you, have absolutely no ability whatsoever to appeal to the other side. At least, we have no evidence to suggest that either of you have ever tried. Her purpose seems to be to insult those she disagrees with as much as humanly possible, with maybe a little side project to fan the flames of those who hold her exact perspective. Maybe that's why Oreilly's ratings completely dwarf hers. If you want to appeal to others you kind of have to speak to them, or at least not constantly insult them.
John Carson wrote:
I post to (i) help bystanders see that you are talking rubbish
So you engage in conversation so you can speak to phantoms that might be within ear shot. That's just brilliant not. :rolleyes: So, you're entire purpose for entering discussions is predicated on the assumption that everything you post is superior in content and honesty to everybody else on the board. How very Ilion of you. :thumbsup:
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Her purpose seems to be to insult those she disagrees with as much as humanly possible, with maybe a little side project to fan the flames of those who hold her exact perspective. Maybe that's why Oreilly's ratings completely dwarf hers. If you want to appeal to others you kind of have to speak to them, or at least not constantly insult them.
It is just hillarious that you think O'Reilly doesn't constantly insult the people who disagree with him. Maddow is sweetness itself compared to O'Reilly. Maddow, for example, has a long history of generally amicable debates with Pat Buchanan.
BoneSoft wrote:
So you engage in conversation so you can speak to phantoms that might be within ear shot.
Newsflash. This is a public forum, not a private conversation.
BoneSoft wrote:
So, you're entire purpose for entering discussions is predicated on the assumption that everything you post is superior in content and honesty to everybody else on the board.
Now you are just making up stuff again. What I said was that I reply to you so that other people reading the thread will see that you are talking nonsense. There is no implication in this that I consider myself or what I post superior to everyone or everything (respectively) on this board. It is the case that when I disagree with someone, I think I am right. If it didn't think I was right, I would change my opinion to the one I did think was right. Isn't that what you do?
John Carson
-
Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle, dutch oven and wok. :rolleyes: Go ahead there Timmy, what's my pattern? The only thing you've noticed is that you never agree with me. But go ahead and see if you can make something up.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Go ahead there Timmy, what's my pattern?
Well, Bonehead, you like to come off oh so impartial and above it all but message after message you do the same right wing talk radio party line. You're a bit smoother than Gaskey but not enough to fool anyone.
"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!!! -
BoneSoft wrote:
Her purpose seems to be to insult those she disagrees with as much as humanly possible, with maybe a little side project to fan the flames of those who hold her exact perspective. Maybe that's why Oreilly's ratings completely dwarf hers. If you want to appeal to others you kind of have to speak to them, or at least not constantly insult them.
It is just hillarious that you think O'Reilly doesn't constantly insult the people who disagree with him. Maddow is sweetness itself compared to O'Reilly. Maddow, for example, has a long history of generally amicable debates with Pat Buchanan.
BoneSoft wrote:
So you engage in conversation so you can speak to phantoms that might be within ear shot.
Newsflash. This is a public forum, not a private conversation.
BoneSoft wrote:
So, you're entire purpose for entering discussions is predicated on the assumption that everything you post is superior in content and honesty to everybody else on the board.
Now you are just making up stuff again. What I said was that I reply to you so that other people reading the thread will see that you are talking nonsense. There is no implication in this that I consider myself or what I post superior to everyone or everything (respectively) on this board. It is the case that when I disagree with someone, I think I am right. If it didn't think I was right, I would change my opinion to the one I did think was right. Isn't that what you do?
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
t is just hillarious that you think O'Reilly doesn't constantly insult the people who disagree with him.
He isn't, constantly. Most of the time, but not constantly. But fine, you think she's the best thing since sliced bread, so be it.
John Carson wrote:
Newsflash. This is a public forum, not a private conversation. Now you are just making up stuff again. What I said was that I reply to you so that other people reading the thread will see that you are talking nonsense. There is no implication in this that I consider myself or what I post superior to everyone or everything (respectively) on this board.
Sounds like a thinly veiled excuse to be an insulting asswipe to people. Do you normally talk directly to people adjacent to people you are actually trying to communicate with? Do you call the waiter over and then tell your wife in a loud belligerent voice what you want to order? I would only think to do that when I just wanted to be a loud belligerent ass to my wife. But, whatever works for you. :rolleyes: OK, just so I got it, you berate people for posting things you don't like in the hopes that people not directly engaged in the discussion might benefit from it. Seems to me that constructive discussion with THE PERSON ACTUALLY IN THE DISCUSSION would be much more efficient.
John Carson wrote:
It is the case that when I disagree with someone, I think I am right. If it didn't think I was right, I would change my opinion to the one I did think was right. Isn't that what you do?
No it is not. I interject my opinions (which I recognize are only opinions) for two simultaneous reasons. 1) In case others find my perspective interesting or it helps them articulate their own points, and 2) to get feedback on my opinions for clues as to what I may need to put more thought or research into. But then again, my interest in discussion is to learn, gain perspective and help others better understand my perspectives (otherwise known as constructive argument). But I now understand. When you reply to somebody, you're actually addressing everybody else in the forum, not the person you reply to. Being such a unorthodox approach to discussion, (some might say bass-ackwards) you could save yourself and everybody else on earth a whole lot of grief if you would just announce that before starting in with