| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
|
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
John H wrote in message . ..
On 15 Jan 2004 04:33:43 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message . .. On 14 Jan 2004 05:05:57 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message . .. On 13 Jan 2004 04:27:24 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: Did you not make the following statement? ************************************************** ******** Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary" ************************************************** ******* +++++++.+ Again, the Army War College said nothing. Read the article. The war college published the report. It didn't write it and disclaimed agreement with it. No, I didn't make the above statement. That is a title. I just don't understand the right. It wouldn't matter if someone caught Bush killing a cat with his bare hands, on tape, with sound, and perfect video. You all would still say the person who took the video was a left wing, unpatriotic liar!!! In my computer, when I post a new message, I type the title. In doing so I am making a statement. You, for example, could have titled your post: *Jeffrey Record says Iraq "unnecessary"* But that wouldn't be much of an attention grabber, would it? Therefore you chose to make the statement you did, which was a lie. In your example, I would entitle the piece something like: *Bush kills rabid cat with bare hands, thus protecting hundreds of spectators who were soon to be bitten* See how easy it is to be honest? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! It is a TITLE, John. Nothing more. Nothing less. Now, if in the body of the piece, I said that I *knew for a fact* that the War College says Iraq war unneccessary, that would be different. But, again, your too far right, with too tight of blinders to see anything but your BushCo agenda. Again, I can't believe how you rights can't see anything but that. So, if I wrote a title which said, Basskisser is full of "****" and then went on in the body of the piece to say something different, there would be no problem? Nope, if there was no implication of truth in the body, there wouldn't. In this case, there is. You made a statement of fact in your title. That was a false statement. Again, my comments regarding your statement do not reflect my leanings. If name-calling ("too tight of blinders") helps your self-esteem, go for it. I think everybody here knows which way YOU lean! |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT: Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
John H wrote in message
Marty, are you implying that the Army War College agrees with everything in the article? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! John, are you implying that the Army War College DISagrees with everything in the article? Sorry, basskisser, I should have been more clear for you. I've implied that the publisher should publish both sides of the story. The publisher's agreement, or lack thereof, with the article is not pertinent. Then why did you ask the question? |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT: Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
John H wrote in message . ..
On 16 Jan 2004 08:12:14 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message Marty, are you implying that the Army War College agrees with everything in the article? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! John, are you implying that the Army War College DISagrees with everything in the article? Sorry, basskisser, I should have been more clear for you. I've implied that the publisher should publish both sides of the story. The publisher's agreement, or lack thereof, with the article is not pertinent. Then why did you ask the question? Because of Marty's comment. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Typical right side spin. You find it quite all right to think that, because somebody agrees with an article critical of BushCo, that the person must state that he must agree with everything the article states. Then turn it 180 degrees, and ask the right winger the question, and then it's a whole different story. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT: Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
On 19 Jan 2004 04:29:46 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:
John H wrote in message . .. On 16 Jan 2004 08:12:14 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message Marty, are you implying that the Army War College agrees with everything in the article? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! John, are you implying that the Army War College DISagrees with everything in the article? Sorry, basskisser, I should have been more clear for you. I've implied that the publisher should publish both sides of the story. The publisher's agreement, or lack thereof, with the article is not pertinent. Then why did you ask the question? Because of Marty's comment. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Typical right side spin. You find it quite all right to think that, because somebody agrees with an article critical of BushCo, that the person must state that he must agree with everything the article states. Then turn it 180 degrees, and ask the right winger the question, and then it's a whole different story. I think I understand your problem now. I used the word 'everything' in my question to Marty. You keyed on that word, and thus your questions. I probably should have asked, "Marty, are you implying that the Army War College agrees with the arguments presented in the article?" Would that have been a better way to help your understanding of what I was asking Marty? As to your paragraph, above, perhaps you should go see what Marty said. He neither agreed nor disagreed with the article. So, your comments about 'right wing, left wing, spin, etc" are pointless. Perhaps you should question Marty as to the meaning of his post, assuming you've read it. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT: Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
John H wrote in message . ..
On 19 Jan 2004 04:29:46 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message . .. On 16 Jan 2004 08:12:14 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message Marty, are you implying that the Army War College agrees with everything in the article? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! John, are you implying that the Army War College DISagrees with everything in the article? Sorry, basskisser, I should have been more clear for you. I've implied that the publisher should publish both sides of the story. The publisher's agreement, or lack thereof, with the article is not pertinent. Then why did you ask the question? Because of Marty's comment. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Typical right side spin. You find it quite all right to think that, because somebody agrees with an article critical of BushCo, that the person must state that he must agree with everything the article states. Then turn it 180 degrees, and ask the right winger the question, and then it's a whole different story. I think I understand your problem now. I used the word 'everything' in my question to Marty. You keyed on that word, and thus your questions. I probably should have asked, "Marty, are you implying that the Army War College agrees with the arguments presented in the article?" Would that have been a better way to help your understanding of what I was asking Marty? I perfectly understand what you were asking Marty, and you did so in a way to TRY to make it sound like the War College disagrees. When the tables are turned, you don't like it, huh? |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT: Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
On 19 Jan 2004 12:29:30 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:
John H wrote in message . .. On 19 Jan 2004 04:29:46 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message . .. On 16 Jan 2004 08:12:14 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message Marty, are you implying that the Army War College agrees with everything in the article? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! John, are you implying that the Army War College DISagrees with everything in the article? Sorry, basskisser, I should have been more clear for you. I've implied that the publisher should publish both sides of the story. The publisher's agreement, or lack thereof, with the article is not pertinent. Then why did you ask the question? Because of Marty's comment. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Typical right side spin. You find it quite all right to think that, because somebody agrees with an article critical of BushCo, that the person must state that he must agree with everything the article states. Then turn it 180 degrees, and ask the right winger the question, and then it's a whole different story. I think I understand your problem now. I used the word 'everything' in my question to Marty. You keyed on that word, and thus your questions. I probably should have asked, "Marty, are you implying that the Army War College agrees with the arguments presented in the article?" Would that have been a better way to help your understanding of what I was asking Marty? I perfectly understand what you were asking Marty, and you did so in a way to TRY to make it sound like the War College disagrees. When the tables are turned, you don't like it, huh? I made no attempt to do any such thing. If you will read the posts, you will see that I said, "Note that it ["Parameters"] is a vehicle for continuing education and professional development. Thus it is hardly a place to censor material to ensure only one side of a story is told." I went on to say that the publication of the article by the Army War College implies neither agreement or disagreement with the article. I realize that you are *trying* to be accusatorial, but you'll just have to dig a little deeper. You are most assuredly failing at your task. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT: Army War College says Iraq "unneccesary"
John H wrote in message . ..
On 19 Jan 2004 12:29:30 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message . .. On 19 Jan 2004 04:29:46 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message . .. On 16 Jan 2004 08:12:14 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message Marty, are you implying that the Army War College agrees with everything in the article? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! John, are you implying that the Army War College DISagrees with everything in the article? Sorry, basskisser, I should have been more clear for you. I've implied that the publisher should publish both sides of the story. The publisher's agreement, or lack thereof, with the article is not pertinent. Then why did you ask the question? Because of Marty's comment. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Typical right side spin. You find it quite all right to think that, because somebody agrees with an article critical of BushCo, that the person must state that he must agree with everything the article states. Then turn it 180 degrees, and ask the right winger the question, and then it's a whole different story. I think I understand your problem now. I used the word 'everything' in my question to Marty. You keyed on that word, and thus your questions. I probably should have asked, "Marty, are you implying that the Army War College agrees with the arguments presented in the article?" Would that have been a better way to help your understanding of what I was asking Marty? I perfectly understand what you were asking Marty, and you did so in a way to TRY to make it sound like the War College disagrees. When the tables are turned, you don't like it, huh? I made no attempt to do any such thing. If you will read the posts, you will see that I said, "Note that it ["Parameters"] is a vehicle for continuing education and professional development. Thus it is hardly a place to censor material to ensure only one side of a story is told." I went on to say that the publication of the article by the Army War College implies neither agreement or disagreement with the article. I realize that you are *trying* to be accusatorial, but you'll just have to dig a little deeper. You are most assuredly failing at your task. If that is what you think, you aren't as brilliant as you'd like everyone here to believe. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT--U.N. Unanimously Adopts Iraq Resolution | General | |||
| OT--Don't play politics on Iraq | General | |||
Linear Mode
