Still Hating America.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Say what you will - surge, new leadership, whatever - the news out of Iraq has been better and better in the last few weeks.

How many Iraqis have been killed in bombings in the last few weeks?

How many US helicopters have been shot down?

How many US soldiers have died in Iraq?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
How many US helicopters have been shot down?

The fact that insurgents are shooting down more helicopters just shows that they're getting desperate.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Just as I make this joke, it appears Sadr is indeed actually on the move - to the guys we're supposed to be "talking to"

Say what you will - surge, new leadership, whatever - the news out of Iraq has been better and better in the last few weeks.

He's just going to Tehran to pick up the tactical nukes. This is not the sort of thing you trust to underlings.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I know I will regret weighing in to the neverending Spanky education harangue.

(1) I think your perspective on testing is just pure mimetic ideological regurgitation uninformed by even a passing familiarity with reality.

(2) You grossly overstate the extent to which social promotion occurs (having fallen out of favor about a decade ago).

(3) While I have nothing against teacher review and terminations for non-performance in principle, I think you once again have a knee-jerk tendency to genuflect to every test you see.

(4) and (5) I also favor Mom and Apple Pie.

(6) Regardless of (1)-(5), above, I'd happily concede all points to get to (6). At the end of the day, the more time for one-on-one and small group teaching, particularly in elementary school, the better the education. That's my simplistic recipe.

(7) Sure, why not. But I'd get there just with (6).

So, show us the money and you win. Now, can we talk about something else?

_______________________________________________

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I know I will regret weighing in to the never-ending Spanky education harangue.

People criticize my posts, but is there any substance to any of this post? All this post says, is "I don't like what you say and your argument is ideological." Is there any analysis, evidentiary support, or even a linear argument to back up any of these claims? Has this changed from the discussoin board to the emotional venting board?

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
(1) I think your perspective on testing is just pure mimetic ideological regurgitation uninformed by even a passing familiarity with reality.

If you take out the word "testing" and changed it with "abortion" you would never know that this statement wasn't about abortion. In other words, there is absolutely nothing in this post that differentiates if from an unsubstantiated harangue about any possible political subject.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (2) You grossly overstate the extent to which social promotion occurs (having fallen out of favor about a decade ago). And for the record, in the post you were addressing I never made any statements as to the extent of social promotion, I just said that it should be ended.

Are we just supposed to take your word for it? Are you going to say anything to back up your claim? Again, you could substitute the word "social promotion" with incidents of assaults on abortion doctors and you would never know that this was a discussion about education. You could slap this criticism on any post made on this board, and its effect would always be the same. It would simply show that GGG doesn’t like your argument and thinks it is faulty. Why don’t you try and, I don’t know, maybe tell us something substantive, instead of what we could already surmise: that you are not going to agree with the post.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (3) While I have nothing against teacher review and terminations for non-performance in principle, I think you once again have a knee-jerk tendency to genuflect to every test you see.

Any argument to support this? Any evidence of my genuflecting? Any evidence of why my reliance on annual testing is misplaced? Any evidence or logical analysis to support the idea that tests don’t actually help that much, or cause damage? Thanks for sharing GGG, but now that you have vented is there anything intelligent you would like to say?


Adder made this claim about my posts “The whole stupid exchange is because you showed up, proclaimed truth, intentionally implied that there was no ambiguity in what you were saying, and made proposterous assertions of fact.”

Adder, doesn’t this criticism really apply to this post by GGG?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The fact that insurgents are shooting down more helicopters just shows that they're getting desperate.

There has been some positive news.

The six choppers shot down in three weeks (?) reflect either: (a) improved weaponry and/or and tactics by the insurgents (which the Army says is not the case) or (b) higher risk operations, involving more close air support in dense urban environments. Part of the price of the plan.

S_A_M

P.S. Sadr's departure is all the more reason we should talk to the Iranians -- to negotiate for his extradition.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
_______________________________________________




People criticize my posts, but is there any substance to any of this post? All this post says, is "I don't like what you say and your argument is ideological." Is there any analysis, evidentiary support, or even a linear argument to back up any of these claims? Has this changed from the discussoin board to the emotional venting board?



If you take out the word "testing" and changed it with "abortion" you would never know that this statement wasn't about abortion. In other words, there is absolutely nothing in this post that differentiates if from an unsubstantiated harangue about any possible political subject.



Are we just supposed to take your word for it? Are you going to say anything to back up your claim? Again, you could substitute the word "social promotion" with incidents of assaults on abortion doctors and you would never know that this was a discussion about education. You could slap this criticism on any post made on this board, and its effect would always be the same. It would simply show that GGG doesn’t like your argument and thinks it is faulty. Why don’t you try and, I don’t know, maybe tell us something substantive, instead of what we could already surmise: that you are not going to agree with the post.



Any argument to support this? Any evidence of my genuflecting? Any evidence of why my reliance on annual testing is misplaced? Any evidence or logical analysis to support the idea that tests don’t actually help that much, or cause damage? Thanks for sharing GGG, but now that you have vented is there anything intelligent you would like to say?


Adder made this claim about my posts “The whole stupid exchange is because you showed up, proclaimed truth, intentionally implied that there was no ambiguity in what you were saying, and made proposterous assertions of fact.”

Adder, doesn’t this criticism really apply to this post by GGG?

You missed the punchline. The whole point of the post was the punchline. The rest was just color.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
There has been some positive news.

The six choppers shot down in three weeks (?) reflect either: (a) improved weaponry and/or and tactics by the insurgents (which the Army says is not the case) or (b) higher risk operations, involving more close air support in dense urban environments. Part of the price of the plan.

On (a), how could the Pentagon know whether the insurgents have better tactics or not?

On (b), most of the helicopters shot down have not been the sorts (e.g., Apaches) you'd want doing close air support.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Adder made this claim about my posts “The whole stupid exchange is because you showed up, proclaimed truth, intentionally implied that there was no ambiguity in what you were saying, and made proposterous assertions of fact.”

Adder, doesn’t this criticism really apply to this post by GGG?

Probably.

As for the totality of your program, as you know, I am not in full agreement with parts of it, but, like G3, at the end of the day I would probably support it as an overall compromise.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Adder
... like G3, at the end of the day I would probably support it as an overall compromise.

I warn you. He takes offence if you say anything nice about him. I was agreeing with him and look at his reaction.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I warn you. He takes offence if you say anything nice about him. I was agreeing with him and look at his reaction.

Yes, but to be fair, before you agreed with him, you needled him more than a little. He does not like that.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
On (a), how could the Pentagon know whether the insurgents have better tactics or not?

On (b), most of the helicopters shot down have not been the sorts (e.g., Apaches) you'd want doing close air support.

(a) They may not know, though it is possible to gauge what your enemy is doing. If the insurgents have been getting better training, we may not want to acknowledge it yet for political/diplomatic reasons. That's a bit less likely now that we're going after Iran in the press.

[For a long time, we wouldn't admit shootdowns, and still won't announce sniper kills as such, to try not to let the enemy know they've succeeded.]

(b) Thanks for the tip. I meant to use an (e.g.). I would still say that the losses reflect the natural results of more aggressive operations over urban population centers .

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(a) They may not know, though it is possible to gauge what your enemy is doing. If the insurgents have been getting better training, we may not want to acknowledge it yet for political/diplomatic reasons. That's a bit less likely now that we're going after Iran in the press.

[For a long time, we wouldn't admit shootdowns, and still won't announce sniper kills as such, to try not to let the enemy know they've succeeded.]

I mistook your parenthetical as an endorsement of the Pentagon's statement. It seems most likely to me that some of the insurgents have recently focused on taking out our helicopters, and have come up with a new way to do it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Adder
Yes, but to be fair, before you agreed with him, you needled him more than a little. He does not like that.

It's true. And, unlike RT, he's not cute when he's angry.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I mistook your parenthetical as an endorsement of the Pentagon's statement. It seems most likely to me that some of the insurgents have recently focused on taking out our helicopters, and have come up with a new way to do it.

do you ever pass your thoughts on to the Pentagon? I'm sure there is a "contact us" at www.pentagon.gov

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you ever pass your thoughts on to the Pentagon? I'm sure there is a "contact us" at www.pentagon.gov

I usually try to stop by on my way home. Unfortunately, as my work day usually ends sometime after 5, there is no one there. Making war is apparently only a 9-5 type of thing.*


*yes, this is a gratuitious, unsubstantiated cheap shot about nothing.