A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man



Love you too.




:violin:

My recollection of your involvement in the whole debate is really hazy (I was being piled upon by quite a lot of people and I got a lot of the actors confused). I remember that you gave my first post credit (which I appreciated), and I remember lumping you in a group that I wasn't supposed to (I had confused one of your posts and credited a post to you that wasn't yours) which you quickly pointed out to me, and I don't remember you going after me very much.

I am too lazy to go back and read all this stuff, but I don't remember you being the ringleader (maybe you were, but I just don't remember it that way) so why do you assume that my post was an attack directed at you?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Meh. The majority of them still voted for it. They may as well have written the article about Lincoln Chaffee.

Is there any question about why the press didn't? Option A - You get to report a war. Option B - You get to report diplomatic wranglings. The press acts in self interest because its harder and harder to make money in the news business.

126 Democrats voted against it; so a majority of the Dems did not vote for it.

The Republicans controlled the House and had the votes locked up for whatever they wanted, and the question for the Dems was, do you go on record as being against both popular will and the President or not? A majority of Dems went on record. I would have been happier if more had, but, still, the vote was not the mandate that the Afghanistan vote was.

Stopping the war from starting was never an option as long as the Rs had party discipline such that they wouldn't listen to the good reasons these guys were putting forward.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
On this one Webb was wrong and Bush was right.

The least classy thing Webb did was tell the story to someone who went to a newspaper. So I don't think that either of them come out of the episode looking good. But I still think Bush's response made him sound like an asshole. If he'd wanted to stick it to Webb, he could have said something like, "We all want our troops to come home, but they have a job to do." If Webb had pursued the thing after that, he'd have looked truly jerky and small.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am too lazy to go back and read all this stuff, but I don't remember you being the ringleader (maybe you were, but I just don't remember it that way) so why do you assume that my post was an attack directed at you?

Wow. Am I a ringleader? Maybe even, gosh, the ringleader?

Suddenly, I feel pop-u-lar!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The press acts in self interest because its harder and harder to make money in the news business.

You have my proxy anytime you want to pursue this line of thought.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am too lazy to go back and read all this stuff, but I don't remember you being the ringleader (maybe you were, but I just don't remember it that way) so why do you assume that my post was an attack directed at you?

Hank was trying to foment unrest here by accusing unnamed PB posters of treating you poorly on the FB. S_A_M rose to the bait.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought you and TM were speaking past each other, and I tried to make that clear.

come on Ty, grow some Cajones. "Speaking past eachother" is one of those generlized statements that I was talking about. Like I said, the first posts are not that like, you can cite evidence for everything you are saying. You are being totally intellectually dishonest. Saying that we were talking past eachotther is just like saying we were both irrational, or being illogical. Clearly only one of us was being illogical because:

1) TM critisized one of my posts. He chose the subject (my post which was short and concise - no confusion what the subject matter was) and made sure the subject he was addressing by quoting it.

2) I showed hard evidence of where he was talking past me. He started right off talking past me in his first post. .

3) He picked the subject (my post) so how could I be talking past him? When I made the post I wasn't even talking to him. If he chose my words to address how could that be possibly interpreted as me talking past him?

4) After his harange on me, (and every time I posted) I very meticulously parsed each and every phrase of his and addressed it directly. You saw those posts, how could you possibly argue that I was arguing "past him"?

5) Then my meticulous posts were responded to by generlized diatribes against my posts. I never once "talked past him" and he very rarely did not talk past me.

Can you cite me one example where I "talked past him". And if you can't, why can't you just have the cajones to admit that only one of is was making rational arguments and addressing the other one's comments?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
come on Ty, grow some Cajones. "Speaking past eachother" is one of those generlized statements that I was talking about. Like I said, the first posts are not that like, you can cite evidence for everything you are saying. You are being totally intellectually dishonest. Saying that we were talking past eachotther is just like saying we were both irrational, or being illogical. Clearly only one of us was being illogical because:

1) TM critisized one of my posts. He chose the subject (my post which was short and concise - no confusion what the subject matter was) and made sure the subject he was addressing by quoting it.

2) I showed hard evidence of where he was talking past me. He started right off talking past me in his first post. .

3) He picked the subject (my post) so how could I be talking past him? When I made the post I wasn't even talking to him. If he chose my words to address how could that be possibly interpreted as me talking past him?

4) After his harange on me, (and every time I posted) I very meticulously parsed each and every phrase of his and addressed it directly. You saw those posts, how could you possibly argue that I was arguing "past him"?

5) Then my meticulous posts were responded to by generlized diatribes against my posts. I never once "talked past him" and he very rarely did not talk past me.

Can you cite me one example where I "talked past him". And if you can't, why can't you just have the cajones to admit that only one of is was making rational arguments and addressing the other one's comments?

Wow! Maybe you will get in the last word!










Must resist snide urge to ask him to find someone who cares. Must resist urge to point out loss of patience for this one. Must resist urge to bait him. No, GGG, don't do it.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why is that so outrageous? After Ty told me where it was I read it. Did you think the NYT summarized it correctly. I sure as hell didn't. The memo I read seemed to have no relation to what was being discussed.

I can't comment on the summary or the memo, because I refuse to register for the NYT site (quirk of mine), So I rarely follow those links. I suppose I will for this one.

It wouldn't surprise me if the article focused on one or two bits of a much longer and more complex memo. Pretty common in journalism.

Originally posted by Spanky
Sorry - I have forgot - what did I say about you?

Because I have traditionally been lumped in as one of the "left-leaning" "Berkeley-think" types here in the Board, and because I had posted on the FB during the brawl, I assumed that you were lumping me in as one of the people who allegedly attacked you, and whose opinions you don't respect, are intellectually dishonest, etc.

Perhaps I made the mistake of lumping you in with Hank, who has pretty clearly expressed that opinion. If so, I retract the statement. No need for a roll call.

S_A_M

PS. In a PM to Hank earlier, I made a helpful suggestion for a new avatar for him to at least use on the PB. Imagine, the Chinaski mug grinning out from a picture of that beloved South Park character "Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo."

He has not responded, so he might not like the idea, but I thought it was funny. On the other hand, there is still hope. Perhaps he missed the message among the flood of PMs begging him to stay and contribute. Or, maybe he is just closeted away drafting his Treatises to nail on our electronic door . . . So, I renew my suggestion.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am too lazy to go back and read all this stuff, but I don't remember you being the ringleader (maybe you were, but I just don't remember it that way) so why do you assume that my post was an attack directed at you?

Se my prior explanation. I wasn't.

I suppose I rose to Hank's bait. It's like a painful scab, you see, I can only ignore it for so long . .

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
come on Ty, grow some Cajones. "Speaking past eachother" is one of those generlized statements that I was talking about. Like I said, the first posts are not that like, you can cite evidence for everything you are saying. You are being totally intellectually dishonest. Saying that we were talking past eachotther is just like saying we were both irrational, or being illogical. Clearly only one of us was being illogical because:

1) TM critisized one of my posts. He chose the subject (my post which was short and concise - no confusion what the subject matter was) and made sure the subject he was addressing by quoting it.

2) I showed hard evidence of where he was talking past me. He started right off talking past me in his first post. .

3) He picked the subject (my post) so how could I be talking past him? When I made the post I wasn't even talking to him. If he chose my words to address how could that be possibly interpreted as me talking past him?

4) After his harange on me, (and every time I posted) I very meticulously parsed each and every phrase of his and addressed it directly. You saw those posts, how could you possibly argue that I was arguing "past him"?

5) Then my meticulous posts were responded to by generlized diatribes against my posts. I never once "talked past him" and he very rarely did not talk past me.

Can you cite me one example where I "talked past him". And if you can't, why can't you just have the cajones to admit that only one of is was making rational arguments and addressing the other one's comments?

I thought you were focused on a very specific point, and that he was speaking more broadly. By the time I posted, this had been going on for so long that I saw no upside in trying to explain you to him, or him to you. You certainly both were rational, but you weren't responding to a lot of things he was saying, and he was disinclined to focus on the specific point you kept returning to.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It wouldn't surprise me if the article focused on one or two bits of a much longer and more complex memo. Pretty common in journalism.

Rumsfeld told the White House:

• The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough. Following is a range of options:

The rest of the memo lists various options.

linky (at NYT's site)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Exactly. As did I.

See my reply to Tys post. It now applies directly to you also (since you agreed with him).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You may find it interesting sometime to get a couple of maps to compare - one of those who are linguistically Persian and those who are religiously Shi'a. If you compare the two and think about what is important to the people occupying these greatly overlapping lands, I think you'll discover the reason you don't hear much about greater Persia.

You are dead on about that. I have seen those maps. The persians outside of Persia seem to be all Sunni where the Persians in persia seem to be all Shia.

So it could be like a Croat Serb thing where they share the same language but the religions have created two distinct cultures.

But on the other hand, Pan Arabsim, Pan Kurdism, Pan Pastunism and Pan Turkism (althoug I admit there are not a lot of Shia Turks and Kurds) seem to cross the Shia Sunni divide. For the Arabs even the Christian muslim divide. So I guess it is odd that I have never seen anything about Pan-Farsisim. You think someone somewhere would push the idea, but I have never seen anything.

And also why haven't the persians in Afghanistan and Tadjikistan called for a united state? They are mostly Sunni are they not?

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy Culturally, I'd identify people in the area less by language (among the elites, certainly, virtually everyone is multi-lingual) and more by religion or even by their national epic poetry - the ever moving line between those who read the Shahnama and those who read the Mahabharata having more to do with national consciousness than their sub-ethnic group per se.

When it comes to Pan Arabism I am not sure you are correct. Almost every Arab I have ever talked to likes the idea of a united Arabia. At every Isreali Arab debate or discussion I have attended there are always those Arabs wearing those pins that show a united Arabia and portray Israel as a knife plunging right into the heart of Arabia.

In fact almost every Christian arab I have talked to likes the idea (much to my surprize). In addition, I think if people understood that many Arabs see Arabia as an unrealized nation they would understand the hatred of Israel better. If Arabia were united Isreal would divide it right in the middle separating the western portion with the eastern portion.

The Pan-Turkism is also a strong sentiment. The Russians were so scared of it the bent over backwards to give the Turks subethnic identities (Turkoman, Kazaks etc.) and carved them up into subethnic nations (which was not easy - just look at the map) so a united Turkestan would not be a threat. So even if the Russia defeated pan-turkism, the pan sub ethnic nationalism they have promoted is very strong, which would also be a threat to a united Afghanistan.

For me the the really interesting quetion is the Uighars in Sinkiang (or east Turkestan) in China. By the way, just last year I learned how to pronounce their name correctly - it is pronounced we (as in us) -grrs (like the sound Tony the Tiger makes). If Turkestan starts uniting, the strong pull towards separation these people feel will get even stronger.

The Pashtuns also seem to have a strong pull towards unity. Like the Kurds they have a recognized flag, national anthem etc. The Pakistanis are so worred about it they refuse to call the northest terrirtories Pashtunistan. Every other provice, Punjab, Baluchistan and Sind are all called by their ethnic names.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hank was trying to foment unrest here by accusing unnamed PB posters of treating you poorly on the FB. S_A_M rose to the bait.

Hank was using what seversl of you from posted here tp make a point against you as a group. "foment unrest"? holy fuck. I knew you were el capitain here, but I never realized it was that in the open.