| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> >
> > Larry:
> > > > > But please provide a cite where I said I
> > > > > supported that bombing (or any other bombing by the US for that matter), if
> > > > > you would...
> >
> >
> > Scott:
> > > > Did I say you did?
> >
> >
> > Scott:
> > > Perhaps *I* did not, but *you* did say this:
> > > "I would indeed *like* this to be a real war (...), because I see one as
> > > needful"?
> > >
> > > Did you mean a war without bombs? What did you plan?
> >
> > "Silence is a virtue in those who are deficient in understanding."
>
> So why do *you* talk so much, then? :-) Your deficiencies boggle the mind.
Your mind perhaps.
"Education's purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one."
>
> I believe I've answered this question of yours in other posts. But I will
> restate it for you since you seem to insist on repeating questions ad
> nauseum until the answer is packaged up neatly in the very thread, even if
> it appeared elsewhere. Your stubbornness rating as assigned by Dave may be a
> bit low, actually.(1)
If that is the case, feel free to provide the location of your answer.
>
> So here you go: I said I misspoke when I said this: "or any other bombing by
> the US for that matter" and corrected myself to say that it is bombing *by
> itself* that I don't support.
ROFL. This is a SQUIRM. Is this really the best you can do? Have you no shame?
> Bombing tends to be part of any modern war, it
> seems, unless it's completely covert. But it should not be the only part. No
> more standing off and firing cruise missiles and feeling we accomplished
> something.
>
> The bombing we've seen so far in this one has apparently done pretty well at
> minimizing (not eliminating, of course) collateral damage. And it is billed
> as act I, not the entire play.
Although we have no real way of really knowing that.
>
> This appears to be a needful war, this strategy appears to be an effective
> one (but who am I to second guess West Point grads?) so I'm in support. For now.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> 1 - careful readers will note that in Dave's view I outscored (1) Scott in
> everything except humility. Dave is correct, of course... Scott has much
> more to be modest about.
>
> 2 - higher when it was a good characteristic, lower when it was bad.
I have a lot of respect for Dave. I enjoyed his post a great deal. It was
one of the best I have read here ever. However, I will respect Dave's
independence a little more when he answers this one:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13379
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Bouhours
|
| (...) So why do *you* talk so much, then? :-) Your deficiencies boggle the mind. I believe I've answered this question of yours in other posts. But I will restate it for you since you seem to insist on repeating questions ad nauseum until the answer (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
