Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Hmmm.

Are these the same"intelligence" estimates that the Dems are now running around calling a pack of lies that unwittingly duped them into voting for the Iraq war (until they voted against it)?

if Bush had Kayser Sose's balls there wouldn't be a problem. Nuke Seoul, fuck it, yeah we love it, but what you going do. Then wait an hour for word to get to NK then start nuking every NK city with 1000 people in it. I hope those fucking Dems do impeach Bush, because Cheney would pull the trigger on my plan.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
mores the pity.

It's like you're more interested in being a pain in the ass than in having a conversation. Funny, that.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's like you're more interested in being a pain in the ass than in having a conversation. Funny, that.

Hey, that is my job.

:trout:

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Hey, that is my job.

:trout:

3 or 4 days ago we prove (I prove with 2000 documents) that his entire position is crap. I suggest if he wants to refute, documents created in 2006 are of little value. He gets quiet and seems to give up. Instead his act is to wait 4 days then post the same crap I discredited, but now who can remember Hank's cites. I could link to them again, but- because I'm a troll- I lack the energy to continuosly disprove the same bullshit over and over.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
3 or 4 days ago we prove (I prove with 2000 documents) that his entire position is crap. I suggest if he wants to refute, documents created in 2006 are of little value. He gets quiet and seems to give up. Instead his act is to wait 4 days then post the same crap I discredited, but now who can remember Hank's cites. I could link to them again, but- because I'm a troll- I lack the energy to continuosly disprove the same bullshit over and over.

Talk about the same bullshit. You posted something suggesting that North Korea had some plutionium in 2000. No kidding, Dick Tracy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Talk about the same bullshit. You posted something suggesting that North Korea had some plutionium in 2000. No kidding, Dick Tracy.

some? enough for 2 bombs. and the other article stated that it was cheating AND that the deal was a really bad idea. AND everything I posted was from before there was the dispute.

What I find most dishonest is that I think you are a good enough attorney to know that evidence created after the dispute arises is of little consequence, and evidence that existed prior might not directly answer the question, but the implied inferences are strong since the evidence is less likely contrived.

Fuxk Ty if I can cite an opinion from 2006 how about I cite to Penske's blog. P, whose fault do you think NK is? speculate on your blog then link it here. K?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
some? enough for 2 bombs. and the other article stated that it was cheating AND that the deal was a really bad idea. AND everything I posted was from before there was the dispute.

What I find most dishonest is that I think you are a good enough attorney to know that evidence created after the dispute arises is of little consequence, and evidence that existed prior might not directly answer the question, but the implied inferences are strong since the evidence is less likely contrived.

Fuxk Ty if I can cite an opinion from 2006 how about I cite to Penske's blog. P, whose fault do you think NK is?

Hank, you linked to this document (in #3099) and this one (in #3101). (I actually read them.)

The first document is three pages long, and appears to have been written by a "nuclear consultant" and apparently delivered at a conference in Rome in 2000. Inter alia, the author suggests that the LWRs promised to 1994 -- but not built in 2000, and never in fact built -- might be used by the North Koreans to obtain plutonium. The author proposes additional safeguards to prevent this from happening in the event that the reactors were built.

The second document is an unclassified report by the CIA, also from 2000. Regarding North Korea, it says:

• P'yongyang continues to acquire raw materials from out-of-country entities needed for its WMD and ballistic missile programs. During this time frame, North Korea continued procurement of raw materials and components for its ballistic missile programs from various foreign sources, especially through firms in China. We assess that North Korea is capable of producing and delivering via munitions a wide variety of chemical and biological agents.
  
  During the first half of 2000, P'yongyang sought to procure technology worldwide that could have applications in its nuclear program, but we do not know of any procurement directly linked to the nuclear weapons program. We assess that North Korea has produced enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons. The United States and North Korea are nearing completion on the joint project of canning spent fuel from the Yongbyon complex for long-term storage and ultimate shipment out of the North in accordance with the 1994 Agreed Framework. That reactor fuel contains enough plutonium for several more weapons.
  
  North Korea continues to seek conventional arms. It signed a contract with Russia during this reporting period.

Neither of these documents contradicts either the New York Times article I quoted today or my other posts on the subject, or any of the following propositions:

1. North Korea was enriching plutonium up to 1994, and had some plutonium as of that year.

2. As a result of the deal with Clinton, NK stopped with the plutonium.

3. NK breached the deal with regard to uranium, but not with regard to plutonium.

4. NK restarted its program in 2002-03 after the US terminated the deal, and just tested a bomb made of plutonium.

If you think I'm missing something in one of those documents, point me to the page and sentence.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Neither of these documents contradicts either the New York Times article I quoted today or my other posts on the subject, or any of the following propositions:

1. North Korea was enriching plutonium up to 1994, and had some plutonium as of that year.

2. As a result of the deal with Clinton, NK stopped with the plutonium.

You have no evidence of 2.

3. NK breached the deal with regard to uranium, but not with regard to plutonium.

you have no evidence of the 2nd part of this.

4. NK restarted its program in 2002-03 after the US terminated the deal, and just tested a bomb made of plutonium.

I have a proof problem with "restarted."

We know they cheated and lied, we just don't know the full extent. if you had to choose one side of this to take to a jury- which side you want?

NK only cheated on some stuff but was honest on the rest?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You have no evidence of 2.

you have no evidence of the 2nd part of this.

I have a proof problem with "restarted."

We know they cheated and lied, we just don't know the full extent. if you had to choose one side of this to take to a jury- which side you want?

NK only cheated on some stuff but was honest on the rest?

Wait a second, Hank. You told me I was ignoring your documents. So tell me where in your documents it contradicts what I've said. I'm sick of your "you have no evidence" shit. You use it again and again on this board to be a troll, and to sabotage conversation. You called me dishonest a moment ago. Put up, or shut up and slink away.

And if you truly think that North Korea was reprocessing plutonium between 1994 and 2002, put up. I think you thought that one of those two documents said as much, but now you realize that you're wrong.

I'll give you a hint, if you're going to fire up Google now: We can monitor some of North Korea's activities better than others.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Radar magazine's ten dumbest politicians on the Hill:

• 10) Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)
  9) Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)
  8) Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT)
  7) Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)
  6) Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH)
  5) Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
  4) Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ)
  3) Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
  2) Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
  1) Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Wait a second, Hank. You told me I was ignoring your documents. So tell me where in your documents it contradicts what I've said. I'm sick of your "you have no evidence" shit. You use it again and again on this board to be a troll, and to sabotage conversation. You called me dishonest a moment ago. Put up, or shut up and slink away.

And if you truly think that North Korea was reprocessing plutonium between 1994 and 2002, put up. I think you thought that one of those two documents said as much, but now you realize that you're wrong.

I'll give you a hint, if you're going to fire up Google now: We can monitor some of North Korea's activities better than others.

here's where we get back to whether you know what you're talking about or whether you're parroting what you have read from biased sources and written in the last year or so. sure as shit I ain't a troll and ain't slinking anywhere, but I do believe someone should. And the certainty that you bring to the quoted post just shows why you would benefit from leaving. The board would really benefit too.

[Spanky]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
here's where we get back to whether you know what you're talking about or whether you're parroting what you have read from biased sources and written in the last year or so. sure as shit I ain't a troll and ain't slinking anywhere, but I do believe someone should. And the certainty that you bring to the quoted post just shows why you would benefit from leaving. The board would really benefit too.

You called me a liar and you are full of shit. Here are ten sources saying that North Korea was cheating with uranium -- not plutonium -- between 1994 and 2002: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Meanwhile, you don't have anything. Nothing.

I know you're not leaving, but it was a mistake to pay attention to you.

eta: Spanky and club, I assume y'all are ready to admit now that you were wrong on this one, too.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You called me a liar and you are full of shit. Here are ten sources saying that North Korea was cheating with uranium -- not plutonium -- between 1994 and 2002: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Meanwhile, you don't have anything. Nothing.

I know you're not leaving, but it was a mistake to pay attention to you.

eta: Spanky and club, I assume y'all are ready to admit now that you were wrong on this one, too.

I never claimed you lied- lying implies you know what you're talking about. I believe you believe the stuff you quote from biased contrived sources.

I really can't continue with this. This board once had the ability to allow the exchange of ideas. maybe it is limited to those ideas people can exchange w/o specialized knowledge- who knows.

it seems your support is based upon whether we can detect the generation of plutonium in a country where we have no access. I don't doubt you can find cites that say we can, I do think the person I should argue the point with is the person who wrote your cite, certainly not you. No offense.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I never claimed you lied- lying implies you know what you're talking about.

You called me "dishonest." But you can't back it up with shit.

From suggesting a few posts back that you know something real about the world which I know too, and which I am misstating, you have now retreated to suggesting that we can't know all that is going on in North Korea. As a philosophical matter, I'll admit that. The likelihood that North Korea was processing plutonium between 1994 and 2002 is greater than 0.

But if you know a quarter of what you pretend to know about this subject -- information you can never quite manage to put into a post -- then you also know that for various reasons we have much greater certainty about North Korea's processing of plutonium than we do about their attempts to refine uranium. I alluded to this earlier, on the off-chance that you actually would engage in the sort of high-minded conversation that you keep bitching about, but no. Anyone else who is interested in the reasons can find them discussed a few pages into the document -- a CRS study -- linked as #10 in my list above. Not the least of them is the cameras at the North Korean facility in question.

I really can't continue with this. This board once had the ability to allow the exchange of ideas.

You haven't tried to exchange ideas in a long time. You use a phony high-mindedness to try to poke holes in others' posts without ever saying much of anything yourself. It's a sort of intellectual gamesmanship, and it clearly amuses, but it's also clear that you're much more interested in the act than you are in any sort of exchange or ideas. You're always lamenting the decline in the discourse here, but you always undermining the discourse instead of participating in it.