Dear Mother of God... I'm Glad We're on Their Side

[dclary]

I GOTTA get me one of these, once they're ready.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...1-MostViewed-2

[billythrilly7th]

That's awesome.

That's what I'm talking about!!

I started a thread in DD like two years ago asking what do we got coming out that's cool!?

This is cool!!

Send a whole flock of these things into the Afghan/Pakistan Mountains.

Bin Laden is sleeping in his bed and feels an itch on his back. He quickly scratches it and hears...."Bzzzzzzz"

He sits up, looks at it, it looks at him, the little bionic eye moves, somewhere in Tel Aviv, Bin Laden's mug is on a TV screen.

General: Target identified. Destruct.

BAM!!!!

Thank you.

[billythrilly7th]

I also want a pair of those super gloves.

We can start a whole new league...

Ultimate Bionic Super Fighting League

The U.B.S.F.L.

[dclary]

I think we gotta talk to Disney RIGHT NOW about "Winnie the Poohminator vs. The Cyborg Jewish Bees of Death" -- we can get Mel to voice the lead character.

Money, baby.

[dclary]

Man, can you imagine your bowling score with those gloves, billy?

"Dammit Joe, you just knocked down every pin in the building again. What's that score you got for this round?"

"3200?"

[greglondon]

From the story:

The 34-day war in Lebanon ... killed more than 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and 157 Israelis, mostly soldiers.

[TeddyG]

your point being Greg?

[greglondon]

reality-based knowledge comes from repeated observation, and from extracting patterns from those observations.

This as opposed to, say, making up some fiction, and then forcing observations to fit that story.

I read dclary's link and merely extracted a bit of observation. If you find similar patterns occuring elsewhere, then extract whatever knowledge you can from it.

If you simply wish to challenge me to maintain some fiction you've developed in you mind, then there isn't much point in trying to point out the pattern I see.

The 34-day war in Lebanon ... killed more than 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and 157 Israelis, mostly soldiers.

Do you see a pattern in those numbers?

[robeiae]

Originally Posted by greglondon

The 34-day war in Lebanon ... killed more than 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and 157 Israelis, mostly soldiers.

Do you see a pattern in those numbers?

Hmm, let's see...34...1200...157...

No, I don't see a pattern in those numbers. Do you?

These numbers have a pattern: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55...

Do you see it?

These have a pattern, also: 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17..

However, it's more difficult to spot, for most. Do you see it?

But on this board, last time we tried something liek that, we discussed the number of civilian casualties in Iraq since the US invaded. All the neocon chickenhawks keep saying its 50k no matter what evidence is brought forth. Iraq's new democratically elected government says the number is probably more like 150k. And another study says its probably 400k-800k.

Spin, wheel! Spin! Who, on this board, said it's definitely 50K? Come on, let's see the evidence.

If you want to have some real fun, try getting Rob to give some numbers on how many civilians were killed by Saddam from the end of the Iran-Iraq war (when we stopped supporting Saddam) and March 2003 when we invaded.

I don't see how that could be too much fun, since my answer would be "I don't know." And neither do you. Of course, you look for ways to minimize the numbers as a matter of course, even when it means misrepresenting information...

[billythrilly7th]

Originally Posted by robeiae

Spin, wheel! Spin! Who, on this board, said it's definitely 50K? Come on, let's see the evidence.

We're still waiting, greg.

Or please post a retraction and an apology.

Thank you.

[billythrilly7th]

I'll take your silence as an admission of guilt and I'll assume that you would apologize for making a mistake and I accept your apology and now I'm going to watch the Ohio State/Michigan game.

I hope you've learned a good lesson about making slanderous, unsubstantiated statements. And I hope it makes you a better poster in the future.

Good luck.

Thank you.

[greglondon]

Originally Posted by robeiae

Spin, wheel! Spin! Who, on this board, said it's definitely 50K? Come on, let's see the evidence.

Try reading my post one more time

But on this board, last time we tried something liek that, we discussed the number of civilian casualties in Iraq since the US invaded. All the neocon chickenhawks keep saying its 50k no matter what evidence is brought forth. Iraq's new democratically elected government says the number is probably more like 150k. And another study says its probably 400k-800k.

Did Iraq's new democratically elected government say anything in our discussion? No.

Did the folks who did the 400k-800k study come into our thread and say anything in our discussion? No.

And when I said the neocon chickenhawks, I was specifically talking about white house administration estimates that say the death toll is 50k.


In short, you read it wrong. Unles of course, you claim that Iraq's new democratically elected government did actually show up on Absolute Write and engage in our previous conversation.

You took the Rorsharch test and turned "neocon chickenhawks" into a reference to you. I was talking about the Bush administration. Every reference in my list is to some external source for civilian death tolls.

I await your acknowledgement of your misunderstanding here.

I won't hold my breath.

[billythrilly7th]

Originally Posted by greglondon

I await your acknowledgement of your misunderstanding here.

I won't hold my breath.

You see Greg, one of the great things about being a mature man is being big enough to say "Ooops" and "Sorry, I guess I made a mistake."

If you were referring to people in the administration and not posters on AW....

Then ooops, sorry, I guess I made a mistake.

I'm sure that you can see how that might have been misunderstood because of...

But on this board, last time we tried something liek that, we discussed the number of civilian casualties in Iraq since the US invaded. All the neocon chickenhawks keep saying its 50k no matter what evidence is brought forth.

..how quickly you went from "But on this board" to "All the neocon...keep saying."

I'm sure you can see that.

Thank you. Good day.

[robeiae]

Originally Posted by greglondon

Try reading my post one more time

Okay, I did.

You said:

"dclary posted a URL to an article. I read the article. I quoted one line from the article. If you would like to investigate the war, then we can accumulate a bunch of different sources, get their numbers for death tolls for the war, and then try to figure out what the real numbers probably were.

But on this board, last time we tried something liek that, we discussed the number of civilian casualties in Iraq since the US invaded. All the neocon chickenhawks keep saying its 50k no matter what evidence is brought forth. Iraq's new democratically elected government says the number is probably more like 150k. And another study says its probably 400k-800k."

Now, you read it. What does that "but" in the second paragraph signify, if not an exception as to why your proposal to Robert in the first paragraph will be useless or less than helpful? Further, you went from "we discussed X" into "all the neocon chickenhawks said Y." There is no reason to assume you weren't intending the latter to be a part of the "we." And then there are your repeated claims about Kool-aid drinkers...Really, I don't see why any reasonable person wouldn't assume you weren't including some people here in your "all the neocon chickenhawks" generalization. And note that only this group is a generalization. "Iraq's new democratically elected government" and "another study" are specific. So, at the very least, who are "all the neocon chickenhawks"? And please show me where each and every one of that group has said "50,000 no matter what," or something along those lines.

Having said all that, I'm happy to accept that you wanted to refer only to White House Officials with the label "ALL neocon chickenhawks" and mistakenly put the word "all" in there. And I'm happy to accept that you didn't really mean to put the word "but" at the beginning of the second paragraph. It's all good.

[TeddyG]

Greg:

Consider me incredibly stupid. I am thick. And I certainly dont have the IQ to follow such intelligent and word lengthy statements.

I am one of the lowlies of life, and I admit it.

So be that as my IQ is not at the point where I can read hints or innuendo, and I dont have the intelligence to read into your comment as everyone else here...

Spell it out for me. Be a man. Go ahead spell out exactly what you want to say, without me having to ask for an interperter. Go for it. Get it off you chest with easy words that won't force me to read something that is not there.

[greglondon]

Originally Posted by TeddyG

Be a man. Go ahead spell out exactly what you want to say

Since I could say the exact same thing right back at you, I think we're at an impasse. I merely presented information. extract whatever knowledge you can from it. I could be wrong, but I sense a lot of anger directed at me for simply presenting this information. I assume it isn't because I went off topic about the bionic bee and quoted something else from the article. This place is hardly known for ever keeping a thread on topic. If you have something to say to me, by all means say it.

[TeddyG]

1. I never presented a view here and have no intention of doing so unless you explain yourself. Thus no impasse.
2. There is no impase. I tend to ignore pretentious statements and their owners. In the end their attempt at looking smart usually backfires.
3. If you have a point to make then make it. If you simply want to bandy around words and disjointed inuenndo, then for goodness sake grab a soapbox.
4. And finally, when you want to make a point - have the decency and courage to back it up. Don't play word games. They bore me.

[Bravo]

Originally Posted by TeddyG

1. I never presented a view here and have no intention of doing so unless you explain yourself. Thus no impasse.

1. you didnt present a view you "just" asked: "your point being Greg?" when he mentioned the civilian vs the military death toll in the recent lebanese war.

2. There is no impase. I tend to ignore pretentious statements and their owners. In the end their attempt at looking smart usually backfires.

2. yes, and if you can point out what was pretentious about mentioning the civilian to military death toll in the war, please do so. how exactly is mentioning that going to make a person look unintelligent?

3. If you have a point to make then make it. If you simply want to bandy around words and disjointed inuenndo, then for goodness sake grab a soapbox.

3. if you take issue w/ the death toll, than you should just say that. instead, you've once again taken your standard passive aggressive tactic of attacking any1 who even dares mention a statistic that might be unflattering to israel.

you can interpret the statistic how you want to interpret it.

greg just took something else than you from the article, its really not his problem if you get into another one of your infamous berserker rages over that.

4. And finally, when you want to make a point - have the decency and courage to back it up. Don't play word games. They bore me.

4. you must bore yourself a lot then.

[greglondon]

Originally Posted by TeddyG

1. I never presented a view here and have no intention of doing so unless you explain yourself. Thus no impasse.
2. There is no impase. I tend to ignore pretentious statements and their owners. In the end their attempt at looking smart usually backfires.
3. If you have a point to make then make it. If you simply want to bandy around words and disjointed inuenndo, then for goodness sake grab a soapbox.
4. And finally, when you want to make a point - have the decency and courage to back it up. Don't play word games. They bore me.

How is counting the dead pretentious? How is reporting the death toll bandying around words? How is stating a fact grabbing a soap box? Or playing word games?

More importantly, how is reporting a fact "inuenndo"?

The 34-day war in Lebanon ... killed more than 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and 157 Israelis, mostly soldiers.

What is the inuenndo there?

Sorry but I’m a wee bit confused as well, the OP and the next 4 posts are talking about nanotechnology. Suddenly Greg posts a mind numbing piece ending in casualty counts, which granted was referenced in the article on nanotechnology.

What was the point?

[Bravo]

Originally Posted by Robert Toy

Sorry but I’m a wee bit confused as well, the OP and the next 4 posts are talking about nanotechnology. Suddenly Greg posts a mind numbing piece ending in casualty counts, which granted was referenced in the article on nanotechnology.

What was the point?

if dclary had just mentioned israel's nanotech research then greg's post wouldnt make as much sense, i agree. (although, he's right that a thread in OP or in TIO is bound to take tangents)

but, by saying "im glad their on our side", dclary opened the floor for some1 to show another side of the relationship.

however, i dont speak for greg, that's just what i got out of that statistic.

[greglondon]

Originally Posted by Robert Toy

Greg posts a mind numbing piece

one sentence numbed your mind?

Originally Posted by greglondon

one sentence numbed your mind?

Nope - This did:

quote
reality-based knowledge comes from repeated observation, and from extracting patterns from those observations.
This as opposed to, say, making up some fiction, and then forcing observations to fit that story.
unquote

I find it numbing because it says nothing and is bs!

[greglondon]

Originally Posted by Robert Toy

Nope - This did:

quote
reality-based knowledge comes from repeated observation, and from extracting patterns from those observations.
This as opposed to, say, making up some fiction, and then forcing observations to fit that story.
unquote

I find it numbing because it says nothing and is bs!

I'm sorry if you find repeated empirical observations and the basis of the whole scientific method to be mind numbing and bs. Perhaps you'd rather just jump to dogmatic conclusion?

Originally Posted by greglondon

I'm sorry if you find repeated empirical observations and the basis of the whole scientific method to be mind numbing and bs. Perhaps you'd rather just jump to dogmatic conclusion?