US gives up search for Iraq WMD

[Egaladeist]

Negative, I wasn't responding to the comments regardless..it may be a fact in that I said what you quoted ( very tricky )...but it still doesn't relate to my post.

[gothic_type]

Egaladeist, your post in response to neel and I was incorrect. You complain that we are both putting words into your mouth when, infact, it was your response to neel (where, interestingly enough, you did not complain about the fact that in WWII there were no nukes) that we were both responding to. You have, in effect, contradicted yourself by at first making a hypothetical remark responding to a hypothetical comment, and then deciding that our later responses did not suit you, and attempting to deceive everyone by saying that you do not interpret neel's comments hypothetically; you can't have it both ways.

This thread is now turning into a farce with you subtly twisting your (and others') words every time you read a response that you deem unacceptable. It has totally changed from the original topic.

ac

[Egaladeist]

I didn't feel I had to rehash old comments because it's not my job to do your work for you...it's your responsibility not mine to keep your comments in the context of the whole by reading the former posts! And where did I say how I interpreted your and neel's comments...how I interpret things or perceive them to be is an assumption on your part...do you have ESP and can read my mind and conclude that I see your statements as this or that?

When you respond do you respond to a statement like a reporter does when he takes words out of context...or do you respond upon the context of the whole argument?!

I do agree with you on one point though...this thread has degenerated into something that has nothing to do with the original post...and if you had read my posts you would have read that I had already mentioned that I thought it was rather long for what began as a tongue-in-cheek statement, and you would have read that in my response to neel that I said " tanks " not nukes...because I was still responding in a WW2 context, therefore your response was to neel's response to me and not to my post...but if you glanced over them or failed to read them...see above remarks !

[gothic_type]

neel...that depends upon your beliefs...some people value their own life above all others, and some don't...some people believe that this life is all they have, and some don't...

if you're the type that would jump in front of a bullet to save a stranger or run into a burning building to rescue a stranger then, chances are you would have been a resistance fighter...if not...likely you would have stood around and watched the tanks roll into town and done nothing...are you scared to die? Death doesn't frighten me at all.

Ok, the first paragraph of that quote was the part that I was responding to where you responded to his hypothetical analogy using nukes. And I read every post from start to finish, so stop spouting your crap. But then again, it doesn't matter what I write, because each time I make some statement, you'll just reinterpret what you've previously said in order to disagree.

And if you think that it matters whether we are talking about tanks or nukes, then you are completely missing the point in neel's post, and are seriously lacking in intelligence. I don't think that's the case; I think you are simply refusing to accept neel's point of view. But as I've previously said, why bother explaining this to you since you won't believe it anyway.

ac

[edit] And I did notice your points about the thread degenerating, but I didn't feel that I could let your ignorant comments stand (and it looks like others agreed). And btw -- the time that you made the point that the thread had degenerated was after you started to get negative feedback as it were, might not mean anything...

Oh, and I can use bold as well[/edit]

[Egaladeist]

gothic_type...I did not fail to see neel's veiw, he was stating that it would be folly to sacrifice a person's life for no benefit, I didn't feel the need to agree with that part of his comments because it goes without saying.
Now you say you were only responding to the first part of the comments after you see I was right about my assertions...who is the one here who's changing their story?

As for the bold ,I was using it as it was intended to highlight particular words...are you suggesting we should not use that feature because you find it offensive? Are there any other standard writing utilities that you do not want me to use ? I was under the impression it was CAPITOL letters that denoted yelling or offense not using the utility bold.

Obviously negative feedback doesn't bother me in the least...otherwise I would have taken the easy way out and ended my part in all this after the first post that disagreed with me by saying the usual cop-out " we agree to disagree " and go my merry way. I've been out-numbered many times in my life and I've always risen to the challenge.

gothic_type...being on the side of the majority doesn't make a person right! It is easy to agree with or to side yourself on the side of many...or to follow common patterns of thought...you say I am wrong but you can't say where...so you then say I refuse to accept other people's points of veiw...because there is nothing in what I've said you can point to and say...this statement is wrong.

Negative's statements I appreciate because he left it as it should be...he was not attacking what I said, because there was nothing to attack...but my omissions and lack of clarifications. So I responded to those by explaining myself and by adding the omissions. As the saying goes " the devil is in the details '...and it was the "details " that was the basis of Negative's argument ...not what I said.

Oh..and by the way...if you read my posts carefully you will see that at no time did I make statements such as " lacking in intelligence " or " ignorant " or any such words... and I'm not saying you called me such but am commenting on the fact of their usage...those comments are used by people who have to add them to give the appearance of strength to their argument because their argument cannot stand alone on it's own merits...I am not impressed.

[gothic_type]

So you wouldn't say that implying the french sided with the nazis was not ignorant? I did not add the word ignorant for strength, but because I was making a true point.

Now normally I would agree that it is a cop out to use the "agree to disagree" line, but do you really see this thread going anywhere? It doesn't matter what either of us says, we're both just going to write a new post that disagrees and doesn't really get anywhere. This is no longer a debate but an argument. Would you agree?

ac

[Egaladeist]

I never said the french sided with the nazis, they sided with the Allies...I said they collaborated with the nazis...which they did. As for the word " ignorant " I'm sure you can find better words to define your points..you are obviously a smart individual.

But I absolutely do agree with your last statement...I take it we can all now move on to other things!

Peace!

[RoadClosed]

Hmm can't help but spin my own definition here on what "sided" means or the "value" in death over being controlled.... ah never mind.

[Egaladeist]

lol !!!

[KuiXing-2005]

Just wanted to say that the search for WMDs is over, but the search for IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) marches on! Watch out for Route Michigan!

CBS 60 Minutes reports "Under Fire, Alongside the Fallen"