From: n0rt (xianan@ozemail.com.au)
Date: Mon Mar 11 2002 - 21:46:12 MST
Ha ha, thats funny, I'm an intelectual (sic) sloth in the extreme who
doesn't go beyond the first level of ressearch (sic) before forwarding a
suppostition (sic) and only half assed reading posts. I know the issue of
attacking someones spelling is not particularly welcome here, but I am
offering it in support of my supposition that there is a sloth here who is
not proofing his posts, or is doing so in a half assed manner.
I will admit to being a sloth, but asserting that I am in any way
intellectual, slothfull or otherwise, thats going too far! For the record, I
admit to not being an intellectual. I am merely here to learn. I am an empty
vessel waiting to be filled, and fortunately I have the ability to choose
what it is that will fill me up. It is how and what I choose to take in that
will define my intelligence. Kirk, you are welcome to offer a psychological
analisys on this but please save your ad hominem attacks until you have some
history to work with.
I agree with your point about the importance of little chickens. Take what
they say with a grain of salt. (And then pluck em, stuff em, roast em, and
add some more salt. Tasty.) I agree with one of the underlying tenets of
your post, i.e. that subjects should be thoroughly researched. To my mind,
Zphobic has done that. He is asking about US censorship, obviously in the
mainstream media which he says that he has checked out. But you try to show
what constitutes a thorough research job by offering outdated links that
have very little to do with the issue at hand. You are trying to show that
further research would have uncovered information that would support the
proposition that there is no US censorship. But your offered links clearly
do not do this, and I have pointed it out.
Thus, in an effort to champion the cause of thorough research, the
underlying tenet of your post becomes a counter to Zphobics supposition of
there being a significant newsworthy development, that was not being
reported in the US press, with your supposition that it is not so newsworthy
because we knew three months ago that some generals were sent to the region.
I have then asserted that your point of veiw is not sufficiently supported
by your links. You have had a chance to offer something that will re-educate
my point of veiw but I am afraid you have not done that.
Your link to the New Yorker goes to a page about fashion. I have looked
through the site and while there are plenty of archived aricles relating to
this issue, I cannot find anything that specifically refers to evidence of
a massive troop deployment against Iraq. There is a lot of speculation and
innuendo that this could happen, but this recent mention of an actual figure
is the sort of thing that will get the public jumping. Why has it yet to be
reported to American public?
You are right that we all know there has been a build up of military in the
region, rumours and rhetoric have been circulating for a while that Iraq is
next in line, but Zphobics offering, points to a much more solid and hard
hitting indication that something big is about to happen. A request for 25
000 British troops (more than what is currently in afghanistan) will affect
the mind of the public more than a few yankie officers being sent to set up
a HQ that for all we know, is there to support the afghan effort.
Have you ever accused your government of manipulating the media? Im sure I
can find evidence of this in your previous posts. Why can't Zphobic suggest
that this is happening now?
Please point me directly to the reference in the New Yorker that concerns
Zphobics article. I dont think you will find it because the story only
"broke" two days ago. "Less than a week old" is not good enough.
Virians, I have taken issue with this because I have often seen
inconsistency with the values you preach, and what is practised by some
without reprehension, whereas others get the shit flamed out of them (and it
will be interesting to see what happens here). Probably the single most
important and most frequent accusation in this list is that of poor research
leading to insufficient support of assertions. Kirk is one of the most
frequent finger pointers in this respect, (and usually the most hastiest as
well), and in this instance, I have shown some clear flaws in his reasoning.
Ultimately, it is the not really the issue of the newsworthiness of 25 000
troops that it is at stake here, but a principle that seems to be held in
the highest regard at CoV.
Kirk, show me the money!
n0rt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steele, Kirk A" <SteeleKA@nafm.misawa.af.mil>
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 10:56 AM
Subject: RE: virus: US Apparently going to war? DUH?
> And I can't resist this....
>
> The underlying tenet of my posting was to point out that the original
poster
> had not gone beyond the first level of ressearch. As you obviously did
not.
> That is intelectual sloth, in the extreme. And in fact one post, by the
New
> Yorker magazine is less than a week old. If you seek to make point of
> quoting sources to forward a suppostition, do so well. Half assed
research,
> much less half assed reading of a post, just don't fly in these here parts
>
> Fall back
> Regroup
> Consider you next plan
> You been smoked
>
> KirkafreakingGAWDdamnedsaurus Wrecks
>
> Progress comes from the forefront of knowledge. If you're not thinking on
> the edge, you're taking up space. Get out the way!
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT