In what kind of world is this right?
-
(Steven Hicks)n+1 wrote: Do you realize how much work is put in to farming? Its a lot more than you think. Again, I started off by saying that I disagreed with levelling the dude's farm! I also opined that for a person to wish their hands to be violently separated from their body rather than lose some agricultural assets means to me that they would need to be a little touched. Maybe they were touched by anger, maybe helplessness, maybe whatever. All I ever said was a person would need to be a little touched in order to want to lose both hands before *any* object. Not surprisingly, noone has actually responded based on what I wrote. They have responded based on their outrage at my assumed insult. I would need to be touched before I let someone chop off my hands.
Terry O'Nolley wrote: I also opined that for a person to wish their hands to be violently separated from their body rather than lose some agricultural assets means to me that they would need to be a little touched. He didn't say he wanted his hands cut off. When asked what the value of the orchard was, he said, "It is as if someone cut off my hands and you asked me how much my hands were worth."
"Pretending to guide me, you led me astray, And I don't want to fall into your kind of ways." "Melt" by Front 242
-
peterchen wrote: Are you playing stupid to get me up the tree, or are you indeed? He is indeed. He claims to be a democrat, if only 1% of democrats are like him, then the party is no better than the one GW is in. After all, less than 1% of republicans are as stupid as GW.
Anonymously wrote: if only 1% of democrats are like him, then the party is no better than the one GW is in Gee, really?
I think it's cool that Shog's coding johnson is longer than everyone elses -- JoeSox 10/8/03
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Cool! Another insult. I guess you showed me! An actual argument would have been nicer though. Niftier. More fun. I can never turn down a request for an actual argument even if I am busy at the moment. Ok, let's see what you said in your posts. You give the Iraqi farmers two choices, either turn in the ones who attacked the american troops or be killed. Here is the actual quote: "If the poor, innocent farmers weren't lying, then no guerrillas will ever enter their homes. If they were lying, then their time on earth could be mercifully cut short rather than chop down a few trees and have to listen to them in the news." On the other hand, you believe the Americans are there to liberate the Iraqis. Why can't the Iraqis believe that? Apparently, you think people like you are far more superior than the Iraqis and they should just do whatever they were told or be eliminated from the face of the earth. Hitler is probably more subtle and sensitive!
Anonymously wrote: You give the Iraqi farmers two choices, either turn in the ones who attacked the american troops or be killed. Actually what I said was...... hell - you can apparently read so you know this as well, what I said boils down to "if a household provides shelter and cover for murderous reactionaries, then they have just labelled themselves as combatants". I never said (as can be proven by simply having the intelligence necessary to parse the very sentence you quoted) that Iraqi farmers should be killed if they don't turn in terrorists. Your attempt to twist my meaning won't get you very far here because most people here understand logic. The logic in your statement would imply that I had written words to the effect of: "Hey Mr. Farmer - we know you have no idea where the Baathists are, but if you don't tell us where some Baathists are then we are going to kill you". I merely suggested that if the collaboraters were witnessed giving shelter and aid to the Baathists then they should be considered hostile and treated accordingly. Anonymously wrote: On the other hand, you believe the Americans are there to liberate the Iraqis If you don't like the word "liberate", just think of it as removing them from under the thumb of a brutal dictator. Anonymously wrote: Why can't the Iraqis believe that? Because there are too many people like you who try to make it look like the USA is the bad guy. Anonymously wrote: Apparently, you think people like you are far more superior than the Iraqis and they should just do whatever they were told or be eliminated from the face of the earth. Oh man, until now you at least sounded halfway intelligent. Whatever dude.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
Terry O'Nolley wrote: I also opined that for a person to wish their hands to be violently separated from their body rather than lose some agricultural assets means to me that they would need to be a little touched. He didn't say he wanted his hands cut off. When asked what the value of the orchard was, he said, "It is as if someone cut off my hands and you asked me how much my hands were worth."
"Pretending to guide me, you led me astray, And I don't want to fall into your kind of ways." "Melt" by Front 242
DING DING DING!!!!!!! Thank you!!!!!!! You see folks........ An real, living person who actually read and parsed what I said before replying!!!!!!!! Thank you Mr. Ferguson.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Look - you have Saddam Hussein and his clannish thugs. You have farmers that we suspect of harboring nazi Baathist reactionaries. The farmers tell us - We No see! We no see! You wrong! We no see terrorists! I agree - cutting off these people's livlihoods wasn't a good idea. But if we witness them allowing Baathist terrorists to use their homes then that makes them the enemy. Otherwise they would have told us. Therefore, we level them instead of cutting down their stupid trees. Or I guess we should just allow them to harbor your Baathist buddies and let them kill some more Americans so you can gleefully post about it. This last remark is consistent with your attitude to the Iraqi farmers and with your attitude in general. Anyone who is not with you 100% is the enemy and is to be treated as such. There was a story a while back about an Iraqi family whose son had given information to the Americans. Those he had informed on (I don't remember if they were Baathists or not) came to the family and said they had to kill the son or the whole family would be killed. Shortly thereafter, the son was dead. Even those sympathetic with the Americans may have good reason not to cooperate. You apparently favour matching terror with terror. I don't believe that this will lead to peace within any reasonable time frame. John Carson
John Carson wrote: This last remark is consistent with your attitude to the Iraqi farmers and with your attitude in general. Anyone who is not with you 100% is the enemy and is to be treated as such. Um, I thought I said that if we witnessed them giving succor and aid to the enemy that we should consider them hostile............ I have never said: John Carson wrote: Anyone who is not with you 100% is the enemy But yet that is what you, and people like you, always attempt to weasel into the conversation. I have been shot at for days at a time by enemies. And I never - NEVER - considered the civilian populations my enemy. If you think what you just wrote down (for the world to see) is true, then you are saying that I would behave in the way described below: Me: Are you with me 100%? He: No, I like President Bush. I am a Republican. Me: You are the enemey and you must die! BANG! BANG!!! Do you see how ferfish this is yet? If you are going to say things, at least make them logically consistent.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
That's rather sad.
I think it's cool that Shog's coding johnson is longer than everyone elses -- JoeSox 10/8/03
-
John Carson wrote: This last remark is consistent with your attitude to the Iraqi farmers and with your attitude in general. Anyone who is not with you 100% is the enemy and is to be treated as such. Um, I thought I said that if we witnessed them giving succor and aid to the enemy that we should consider them hostile............ I have never said: John Carson wrote: Anyone who is not with you 100% is the enemy But yet that is what you, and people like you, always attempt to weasel into the conversation. I have been shot at for days at a time by enemies. And I never - NEVER - considered the civilian populations my enemy. If you think what you just wrote down (for the world to see) is true, then you are saying that I would behave in the way described below: Me: Are you with me 100%? He: No, I like President Bush. I am a Republican. Me: You are the enemey and you must die! BANG! BANG!!! Do you see how ferfish this is yet? If you are going to say things, at least make them logically consistent.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Um, I thought I said that if we witnessed them giving succor and aid to the enemy that we should consider them hostile What you said was: Instead they should pre-plot the grid coordinates for all of those farmers homes and station someone with night vision goggles a kilometer away and as soon as they see anyone with an AK-47 or RPG enter the village they can immediateley level the place. If the poor, innocent farmers weren't lying, then no guerrillas will ever enter their homes. If they were lying, then their time on earth could be mercifully cut short rather than chop down a few trees and have to listen to them in the news. and But if we witness them allowing Baathist terrorists to use their homes then that makes them the enemy. Otherwise they would have told us. Therefore, we level them instead of cutting down their stupid trees. i.e., you are in favour of killing them, even though, for all you know, they may be "allowing" Baathists onto their property only because the Baathists have a gun to their head. Terry O`Nolley wrote: If you think what you just wrote down (for the world to see) is true, then you are saying that I would behave in the way described below: Me: Are you with me 100%? He: No, I like President Bush. I am a Republican. Me: You are the enemey and you must die! BANG! BANG!!! In suggesting that you view as the enemy anyone who is not 100% supportive, I was obviously not claiming that you shoot anyone who disagrees with you. The fact that you choose to adopt such a stupid interpretation is just a wank on your part. I was making the point that when people disagree with you in part or do not behave in the way that you want, then you exaggerate the extent of the disagreement or the lack of cooperation and paint the people as being in unqualified opposition. In my case, the fact that I have disagreements with you on Iraq induces you to tell lies about me making or wishing to make gleeful posts about American deaths (I have never made any post that even remotely had such a character nor would I). In the case of Iraqi farmers, you view their failure to actively oppose Baathist elements as grounds for killing them, making no allowance for the fact that they may just be the reluctant meat in the sandwich. (It may be that the farmers actually do support the Baathists, but you seem to be in favour of killing them even without clear evidence that this is the case.) John Carson
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Um, I thought I said that if we witnessed them giving succor and aid to the enemy that we should consider them hostile What you said was: Instead they should pre-plot the grid coordinates for all of those farmers homes and station someone with night vision goggles a kilometer away and as soon as they see anyone with an AK-47 or RPG enter the village they can immediateley level the place. If the poor, innocent farmers weren't lying, then no guerrillas will ever enter their homes. If they were lying, then their time on earth could be mercifully cut short rather than chop down a few trees and have to listen to them in the news. and But if we witness them allowing Baathist terrorists to use their homes then that makes them the enemy. Otherwise they would have told us. Therefore, we level them instead of cutting down their stupid trees. i.e., you are in favour of killing them, even though, for all you know, they may be "allowing" Baathists onto their property only because the Baathists have a gun to their head. Terry O`Nolley wrote: If you think what you just wrote down (for the world to see) is true, then you are saying that I would behave in the way described below: Me: Are you with me 100%? He: No, I like President Bush. I am a Republican. Me: You are the enemey and you must die! BANG! BANG!!! In suggesting that you view as the enemy anyone who is not 100% supportive, I was obviously not claiming that you shoot anyone who disagrees with you. The fact that you choose to adopt such a stupid interpretation is just a wank on your part. I was making the point that when people disagree with you in part or do not behave in the way that you want, then you exaggerate the extent of the disagreement or the lack of cooperation and paint the people as being in unqualified opposition. In my case, the fact that I have disagreements with you on Iraq induces you to tell lies about me making or wishing to make gleeful posts about American deaths (I have never made any post that even remotely had such a character nor would I). In the case of Iraqi farmers, you view their failure to actively oppose Baathist elements as grounds for killing them, making no allowance for the fact that they may just be the reluctant meat in the sandwich. (It may be that the farmers actually do support the Baathists, but you seem to be in favour of killing them even without clear evidence that this is the case.) John Carson
John Carson wrote: i.e., you are in favour of killing them, even though, for all you know, they may be "allowing" Baathists onto their property only because the Baathists have a gun to their head. Hmmmm, perhaps. Perhaps not. John Carson wrote: In suggesting that you view.....100% supportive, I was ... such a stupid interpretation .... etc. OK. You win - I am stupid.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
Anonymously wrote: You give the Iraqi farmers two choices, either turn in the ones who attacked the american troops or be killed. Actually what I said was...... hell - you can apparently read so you know this as well, what I said boils down to "if a household provides shelter and cover for murderous reactionaries, then they have just labelled themselves as combatants". I never said (as can be proven by simply having the intelligence necessary to parse the very sentence you quoted) that Iraqi farmers should be killed if they don't turn in terrorists. Your attempt to twist my meaning won't get you very far here because most people here understand logic. The logic in your statement would imply that I had written words to the effect of: "Hey Mr. Farmer - we know you have no idea where the Baathists are, but if you don't tell us where some Baathists are then we are going to kill you". I merely suggested that if the collaboraters were witnessed giving shelter and aid to the Baathists then they should be considered hostile and treated accordingly. Anonymously wrote: On the other hand, you believe the Americans are there to liberate the Iraqis If you don't like the word "liberate", just think of it as removing them from under the thumb of a brutal dictator. Anonymously wrote: Why can't the Iraqis believe that? Because there are too many people like you who try to make it look like the USA is the bad guy. Anonymously wrote: Apparently, you think people like you are far more superior than the Iraqis and they should just do whatever they were told or be eliminated from the face of the earth. Oh man, until now you at least sounded halfway intelligent. Whatever dude.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Your attempt to twist my meaning won't get you very far here because most people here understand logic. Here is your logic (again): "If the poor, innocent farmers weren't lying, then no guerrillas will ever enter their homes. If they were lying, then their time on earth could be mercifully cut short rather than chop down a few trees and have to listen to them in the news." If they weren't lying, you may let them live, which you didn't say explicitly, by the way. If they were lying, then too bad, you even implied that ending their lives is doing them a favor. Just who do you think you are? Terry O`Nolley wrote: I merely suggested that if the collaboraters were witnessed giving shelter and aid to the Baathists then they should be considered hostile and treated accordingly. I don't know what kind of logic you have to invent to make the above equivalent to what I quoted. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Because there are too many people like you who try to make it look like the USA is the bad guy. I, on the other hand, blame people like you for making USA look really bad in front of whole world.
-
peterchen wrote: Are you playing stupid to get me up the tree, or are you indeed? He is indeed. He claims to be a democrat, if only 1% of democrats are like him, then the party is no better than the one GW is in. After all, less than 1% of republicans are as stupid as GW.
Anonymously wrote: After all, less than 1% of republicans are as stupid as GW. And you MUST be among that hallowed 1% on one side or the other. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare