Ann Coulter Exposed

[sirio11]

Here's the article

http://captainnormal.typepad.com/captainnormal/2005/02/canadians_to_co.html

and here is the video

http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/Coulter.mov

[cardcounter0]

Do we really need any more evidence that Ann Coulter is a mindless monkey spank?

Ahhhh Hahahaha! Yeah, all those Americans crossing the border into Canada during the Vietnam War, they were trying to get Canada to send them! Yeah, that's the ticket.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Wake up CALL]

1973
International Commission for Supervision and Control (Vietnam) - ICCS.

Canadian troops in Vietnam.

[cardcounter0]

The mandate of the ICCS in Vietnam was to supervise the cease-fires and withdrawal of French troops and to supervise the movement of refugees. The ICSC Laos was to supervise the cease-fire and promote negotiations between the Royal Laotian government and the Pathel Lao. Canadian participation in the ICSC Laos was 1954 - 1958 and then 1961 - 1969. The ICSC Cambodia monitored the Geneva Accords and helped the Khmer resistance forces disband and return home and the Viet Minh to leave the country. Much of the work was done from 1954 to 1955 and Canada had only token representation after 1958. The commission withdrew completely in 1969.


I guess in a fantasy land where a dozen inert, decomposed, left-over sarin shells are WMDs, then a group of observers monitoring the Geneva Conventions is "sending troops to Vietnam".

Another round of kool-aid for the house!!!

[whiskeytown]

Al Franken does some wonderful stuff on her in his book "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them"

The woman apparently is one of the worst examples of misquoting and misleading references in the free world.

Example - muslim says "you'd have to be a total moron to think I want to kill innocent women and children. Allah would totally forbid it and I would never do such a thing"

Ann's referenced quote that she uses - Muslims say - "I want to kill innocent women and children"

The woman is a terrible, terrible misleading source, not to mention a crackpot in general. -

actually, as a book from the Left, Al's is one of the best, cause he can also use humor and satire to much better effect then most lefties. And the story of the splochy O'Reilly picture on the front and O'Reilly getting his panties in a wad over it are hilarious.

RB

[Wake up CALL]

So while agreeing that Canada sent troops to Vietnam you are at the same time disputing that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. I love Liberals, they look like monkeys trying to screw a football when they post.

[whiskeytown]

the International Commission for Supervision and Control, like most commissions of international bodies, does not mean that COMBAT SOLDIERS were in vietnam.

So to summarize it up for your monkey sized brain - is it at all conceivably possible that there was a Canadian in Vietnam....YES -

Was he there as a combat troop engaging any enemy forces? - probably not, and nothing I've read about the commission suggests it even had combat forces attached to it - and God knows there sure weren't on the side of the US as Ann asserted in the first place.

you awake yet?

RB

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
and God knows there sure weren't on the side of the US as Ann asserted in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]

Another Liberal monkey speaks! Their were over 12,000 Canadian citizens in the US Armed Forces in Vietnam in combat positions. Next monkey please. This is kinda like duck pin bowling with a full size bowling ball.

Also nowhere did Ann state combat troops, please reread the linked article.

[cardcounter0]

Two Canadians have been killed in Iraq, both serving in different capacities.

In spite of all the griping and political posturing, and the poor state of our military, Canada has ships in the Gulf. We have Canadian military serving with US troops and Canadians who join the US military. We also have a lot of Canadians working with aid agencies.

Cpl. Bernard Gooden, 22, serving with the Marines, died on Friday.
The one-time York University student and Canadian reservist moved to Whitby, Ontario from Jamaica in 1997.

Canadian aid worker Vatche Arslanian is dead.

The International Red Cross said the vehicle carrying him was hit by gunfire on Tuesday afternoon. Attempts were made to rescue him, but the fighting in the area was too intense.

Arslanian, 48, was from Oromocto, New Brunswick. He headed up logistics for the Red Cross in Iraq.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Why does the right wing lie and say Canada is not assisting our armed forces in Iraq? Canadian Troops in Iraq!

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]


Another Liberal monkey speaks! Their were over 12,000 Canadian citizens in the US Armed Forces in Vietnam in combat positions. Next monkey please. This is kinda like duck pin bowling with a full size bowling ball.

Also nowhere did Ann state combat troops, please reread the linked article.


[/ QUOTE ]


The Goverment of Canada never sent troops to Vietnam.

Repeat after me

The Goverment of Canada never sent troops to Vietnam.
The Goverment of Canada never sent troops to Vietnam.
The Goverment of Canada never sent troops to Vietnam.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
The Goverment of Canada never sent troops to Vietnam.

Repeat after me


[/ QUOTE ]

I can repeat after you till I'm blue in the face but it will not change the truth unless you want to eliminate the entire year of 1973.

[cardcounter0]

The commission withdrew completely in 1969.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
The commission withdrew completely in 1969.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect, no bonus round for you either.

[whiskeytown]

I didn't think it was possible to get 2222 posts and pooh-bah status by simply putting your hands over your ears and going LA LA LA YOU'RE WRONG AND I CAN'T HEAR YOU - over and over again.

sorta dilutes the whole status of pooh-bah -

RB

[slickpoppa]

when i saw the title of this thread i was really expecting some nudity. man was i disappointed

[whiskeytown]

don't be - you'd be blind if that were the case right now. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

Peace keepers and peace monitoring troops are not exactly the same as combat troops, now, are they? Otherwise, the Swedes and the Norwegians and the Fijians, and all those folks that are the first to volunteer for UN peace-keeping duty, would have been classified as rather adventurous militarily!

Moreover, for a nation to be accepted as part of such missions, that nation must ! In other words, the very fact that Canucks took part in ICCS proves that they did nothing like what Coulter meant.

Ann Coulter clearly meant that the Canadians helped the Americans in combat, in Vietnam; that Canadians went to Vietnam to fight and to contain a danger as threatening as Saddam Hussein. Her comments indicate this clearly:

[ QUOTE ]
Ann Coulter: "...Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"

[/ QUOTE ]

She is a major dickbrain.

[Wake up CALL]

Cyrus, aren't you the one who doesn't like other people to tell them what you meant no matter what you said? Just how do you know what Ann meant after quoting what she said?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I can repeat after you till I'm blue in the face but it will not change the truth unless you want to eliminate the entire year of 1973.

[/ QUOTE ]

Repeat after me:
Those Canucks were NOT there to do battle.
Those Canucks were NOT there to do battle.
Those Canucks were NOT there to do battle.

...Blue in the face? Hah. If you had any sense of embarassment, you'd be all red in the face.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Ann Coulter Exposed

[/ QUOTE ]

I want pics!

-Zeno

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
There were over 12,000 Canadian citizens in the US Armed Forces in Vietnam in combat positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your disingenuous chaff won't be allowed to pass, baby!

The question is NOT if there were Mexican, Honduran or Canadian citizens in the US Armed Forces.
The question is whether or NOT, Canad, as a sovereign nation, decided and officially sent combat troops to fight alongside the American troops in Vietnam, like the Australians did.

Answer: No. Nope. Negative. It did not. Never happen. No, sir. That's a no. (Spelled N-O, no.)

Next monkey please. This is kinda like duck pin bowling with a full size bowling ball. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Also nowhere did Ann state combat troops, please reread the linked article.

[/ QUOTE ]
Alright, so your credibility as a credible supporter of conservative causes was no great shakes to start with, anyhow. But you've out-done yourself!

Here is the relevant portion of that idiot Ann Coulter's remarks: "...Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"

Her statement is crystal clear. She claims that Canada helped America fight in Vietrnam and contain a threat as dangerous as Saddam Hussein. This is not by doing ICCS work.

...Do continue to support untenable stupidities. You are funnier than the Coyote who has not yet realized he overshot the cliff by a mile. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

Ann Coulter has been nailing liberals on their lunacy for years.

So what.....Ann makes one mistake.
The howls and jeers from the left are just proof of Ann's effectiveness.

If the left thinks their schaudenfraude is going to win them points with the voters, then the Republicans will stay in power for at least the next 20+ years...

[BCPVP]

Kinda like this Felix? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/DesperatelySeekingScandal-X.gif

[The Dude]

Conservatives trying and defend Ann Coulter is almost as disappointing as liberals trying to defend Al Franken. Almost.

She's an as[/i]shole who opened her pucker one too many times. Get over it.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]

So what.....Ann makes one mistake.


[/ QUOTE ]


Yep, every time she opens her mouth.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the relevant portion of that idiot Ann Coulter's remarks: "...Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"

Her statement is crystal clear. She claims that Canada helped America fight in Vietrnam...

[/ QUOTE ]


No, Cyrus; I'll grant you that she might think that, but the quote you provided does not indicate that she claimed that.

[lastchance]

Better argument.

"...Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?" - Ann Coulter

This statement only makes sense when you read into "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" as meaning "Canada sent troops to Vietnam to help the US fight Vietcom." The argument only works if you read into it that way. Otherwise, the entire paragraph makes no sense. So clearly, we were meant to read into it so we could agree with the author's conclusions rather than reject them.

[Cyrus]

And the liberals are always scoring on Coulter safeties!..

[ QUOTE ]
Ann Coulter has been nailing liberals on their lunacy for years.
The howls and jeers from the left are just proof of Ann's effectiveness.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are mistaking our laughter for jeers. We LIKE Coulter! We APPRECIATE Coulter! We wish Ann Coulter the best health possible and longevity on TV! What would we ever do if it were'nt for Ann Coulter to expose the neo-con's true and ugly face?

If Ann Coulter didn't exist, the Left would have to invent it.

[ QUOTE ]
So what.....Ann makes one mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hah. It figures. Dickbrain Ann has dickbrain followers. "One mistake"?! Her whole political philosophy (and I am insulting, of course, philosophy) is based on outrageous assertions that are based on insanely false premises and imaginary "facts". Similar to her Vietnam howler.

A sampling, for Ann Coulter's dickbrain fans:

--> She accused "leftist" NY Times of being "out of touch" with that "real Americans" care about. Like NASCAR racing. Her "argument" was supported by the claim that the NYT did not bother to run the story of the death of NASCAR legend Dale Earnhardt for two whole days after the star died. In fact, the NYT run the story the day after his death. (On the front page.)

--> Ann Coulter argues continuously that the American media is a cesspool of pinko liberals. Her outrageous "arguments" are supported by equally outrageous claims; like the one about the famous Socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas being the father of Newsweek bureau chief Evan Thomas. Reds under the bed! Socialists in the media! Only it was a simple coincidence in name.

--> Ann Coulter steafastedly maintained that her hero Ronald Reagan's reputation did not suffer much when the Iran/Contra scandal broke out. She claimed that the President's approval rating "fell only 5 percent points, from 80% to 75%". Which looks pretty much unassailable, as claims go, since Ann could invoke whatever poll suits her numbers, right? Wrong. (I told you. She is a dickbrain.) No, Ms Coulter had to put in a footnote, referencing her poll numbers to a specific Christian Science Monitor article. However, a simple check on that CSM article reveals that the approval rating of Reagan, in fact, dropped "from 63% to 47%". (It's all there, in Coulter's book Slander. A lot of fun!)

...So, Ann and her fans, you folks were made for each other.

[djack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is the relevant portion of that idiot Ann Coulter's remarks: "...Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"

Her statement is crystal clear. She claims that Canada helped America fight in Vietrnam...

[/ QUOTE ]


No, Cyrus; I'll grant you that she might think that, but the quote you provided does not indicate that she claimed that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Game on.

[zaxx19]

Unfortunately most Americans more readily accept Coulters idiotic jingoisms like - "take over their countries and convert them to..." than accept the radical left winger's view of abandoning Israel, giving into any demand the "arab street" might make, and calling American victims of 9-11 little Eichmans.

Bummer for you Cyrus.....

[Il_Mostro]

If Ann Coulter is known for her vivid defense of the Geneva convention, and has expressed her disdain about the apparent breaking of the convention in Iraq I could possibly construe the quote from her, in the context it's taken from, as to mean that she is dissapointed that the canadian government has not sent troops to Iraq to monitor the following of the convention, as they did in Vietnam.

If she is not known for this it seems ludicrus to belive that she did not mean that the canadian should send fighting troops to Iraq, as they did to Vietnam. Only they didn't.

If you belive that she meant troops as part of a peace keeping / monitoring mission, why do you belive it? It seems strange to me.

I don't know who Ann Coulter is, so I only look at what she said.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
If you belive that she meant troops as part of a peace keeping / monitoring mission, why do you belive it? It seems strange to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Because she did not state otherwise, why should I read something into her words that were not there? Unlike a Liberal I take people at their word and not what they might be thinking. After all Cyrus is the psychic, not me.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Because [Ann Coulter] did not state otherwise, why should I read something into her words that were not there? Unlike a Liberal I take people at their word and not what they might be thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, let's play some more. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

(And I don't want any of those moralizing spoilsports on my case for engaging Wakey in his addiction. He likes to get embarassed. His kick, my spare time. Go away.)

So. What do YOU say Ann Coulter meant, Wakey? I do not think there are two ways to interpret her words, they were not ambiguous at all. The lady spoketh clearly! But let's see what YOU are reading.

[ QUOTE ]
Ann Coulter: <font color="purple">"Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"[/b]</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

...Go on, let's have it. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
What do YOU say Ann Coulter meant, Wakey?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are boring me, I've already stated what she said is what I think she meant. Not some "read between the lines, I'm a psychic fortuneteller interpretation".

Sometimes (unless it is a Liberal) what people say is what they really mean. If you have concrete verifiable evidence otherwise please post the source.

[MMMMMM]

There do exist types of troops other than combat troops.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Unlike a Liberal I take people at their word and not what they might be thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course that has nothing to do with political views. I assume you understand this? Or do you really think that every conservative always look at the objective value of the words before making a judgement? And that a liberal never does? That sounds a bit far-fetched to me.

[ QUOTE ]
Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say that there really is only one way to understand these words. Common use of language would dictate that "Canada sent troops to Vietnam" must mean troops for combat, nothing else. How do you suggest these words should be understood?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you suggest these words should be understood?


[/ QUOTE ]

See my response to Cyrus, he asked the same unusual question.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
See my response to Cyrus, he asked the same unusual question.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. And you didn't answer him either.
How should one understand her quote? Her words are very clear. It's clear that she means sending fighting troops, no other meaning to her words make any sense.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
It's clear that she means sending fighting troops, no other meaning to her words make any sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps something is lost in the translation to Swedish. In English the word combat never apperars in her words, sorry to disappoint you. Now you may very well be as psychic as Cyrus however I see no evidence of this from either of you. If you are psychic would you please tell Harry Houdini Hello for me?

[Il_Mostro]

Ok. Let's just hope that you will use the same level of semantic objectivity when evaluating statements from everyone.

I still don't understand how anyone can possibly understand her words as meaning anything but combat troops. Or is she known for her zeal when it comes to the Geneva convention?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. Let's just hope that you will use the same level of semantic objectivity when evaluating statements from everyone.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I wrote before, just like duck pin bowling with a full size ball when sparring with you dolts.

Semantics:

1. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form.

I am taking her words literally since I wasn't there when she spoke them. You however are practicing semantics in an attemt to interpret her meaning outside of any other context save the one you wish to arbitrarily ascribe.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Semantics:

1. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form.

I am taking her words literally since I wasn't there when she spoke them. You however are practicing semantics in an attemt to interpret her meaning outside of any other context save the one you wish to arbitrarily ascribe.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you mean that her words:
[ QUOTE ]
Coulter: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"

[/ QUOTE ]
can litterally be understood to mean that she thinks Canada should send peace keeping troops to Iraq?
I'd say that interpretation is the one that requires the use of "semantics", and quite a lot too. But you'll never agree with that, so, feel free to think so.

[sirio11]

These guys are amazing, if they're capable to defend this undefendable position, what can you expect of them?

CANADA never, never, never sent troops to Vietnam.

No matter how you want to spin it, peace keepers, people from the red cross, contractors, salesman, priests,Canadian-Americans fighting in the US Army.

The goverment of Canada, never sent troops to Vietnam.

If so, state the dates, who in the goverment send them, and which troops from the Canadian Army went to Vietnam.

But this whole discussion says more about most of conservatives. They don't care about the truth, about the facts, if the facts dont accomodate to their position. They just change the facts !

And that's why is so difficult to have an honest discussion with them. If somebody doesnt have any sense of ethics, how can you debate?

I think that maybe this is the real reason why they won the election. When you're mean and you dont care about the means, the job is easier.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that maybe this is the real reason why they won the election. When you're mean and you dont care about the means, the job is easier.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe it is as simple as the American people don't want wacko Liberals to run our country into the ground.

[ QUOTE ]
The goverment of Canada, never sent troops to Vietnam. CANADA never, never, never sent troops to Vietnam.



[/ QUOTE ]

I know Liberals dislike reading but read the thread it is all in here.

[LomU]

Wow, Ann Coulter made a mistake... hardly 'exposes' her.

Also, Wake up CALL is seriously deluded. It amazes me that you can't see how dumb you look trying to defend something so obviously stupid. Get a grip.

[LomU]

[ QUOTE ]
These guys are amazing, if they're capable to defend this undefendable position, what can you expect of them?

CANADA never, never, never sent troops to Vietnam.

No matter how you want to spin it, peace keepers, people from the red cross, contractors, salesman, priests,Canadian-Americans fighting in the US Army.

The goverment of Canada, never sent troops to Vietnam.

If so, state the dates, who in the goverment send them, and which troops from the Canadian Army went to Vietnam.

But this whole discussion says more about most of conservatives. They don't care about the truth, about the facts, if the facts dont accomodate to their position. They just change the facts !

And that's why is so difficult to have an honest discussion with them. If somebody doesnt have any sense of ethics, how can you debate?

I think that maybe this is the real reason why they won the election. When you're mean and you dont care about the means, the job is easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wake up CALL obviously believes the facts have a Liberal bias.

[Wake up CALL]

Two brilliant and insightful posts LomU.
Where have you been keeping these jewels of wisdom?
I'm not actually defending Ann, just the truth. If you don't know better (which you obviously don't) you might just open another beer and watch the remainder of your Tuesday evenings bowling league on video tape.

[cardcounter0]

Can you imagine a room full of these brain dead creatins drinking kool-aid, babbling to each other, and validating each other's crazed perspectives? Then going home, watching FAUX NEWS, and listening to the Grand Wizard Rush?

They have gone beyond ignoring facts, now they just make them up or distort them.

If you can finally pin them down, then they just resort to name calling and insults. Don't get under his skin, he might start posting "poetry" again.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Wake up CALL]

There once was a cardcounter from Gaul
whose dick was ever so small
he took out the tweezers
wondering if all the old geezers
could help him find his dick after all

EDITED:


Hell, this is so good it deserves it's own post. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."---Rivera Live 8/2/99

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity &amp; Colmes, 6/20/01

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."---Salon.com 11/16/00

Juan Gonzales is "Cuba's answer to Joey Buttafuoco," a "miscreant," "sperm-donor," and a "poor man's Hugh Hefner."---Rivera Live 5/1/00

On Princess Diana's death: "Her children knew she's sleeping with all these men. That just seems to me, it's the definition of 'not a good mother.' ... Is everyone just saying here that it's okay to ostentatiously have premarital sex in front of your children?"..."[Diana is] an ordinary and pathetic and confessional - I've never had bulimia! I've never had an affair! I've never had a divorce! So I don't think she's better than I am."---MSNBC 9/12/97

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity &amp; Colmes, 8/17/99

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"We're now at the point that it's beyond whether or not this guy is a horny hick. I really think it's a question of his mental stability. He really could be a lunatic. I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane."---Equal Time

"It's enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert."---The Case Against Bill Clinton, Coulter's 1998 book.

"Clinton is in love with the erect penis."---This Evening with Judith Regan, Fox News Channel 2/6/00

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death this century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of it."---MSNBC 7/27/97

"If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman. ... Don't pray. Learn to use guns."---Politically Incorrect, 12/18/97

"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."---Hannity &amp; Colmes 8/24/01

"I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly."---MSNBC 3/22/97

"Originally, I was the only female with long blonde hair. Now, they all have long blonde hair."---CapitolHillBlue.com 6/6/00

"I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn't."---TV Guide 8/97

"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married."---Rivera Live 6/7/00

"Anorexics never have boyfriends. ... That's one way to know you don't have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."---Politically Incorrect 7/21/97

"I think [Whitewater]'s going to prevent the First Lady from running for Senate."---Rivera Live 3/12/99

"My track record is pretty good on predictions."---Rivera Live 12/8/98

"The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."---Washington Post 8/1/00

On Rep. Christopher Shays (D-CT) in deciding whether to run against him as a Libertarian candidate: "I really want to hurt him. I want him to feel pain."---Hartford Courant 6/25/99

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."---MSNBC 2/8/97

[Wake up CALL]

I see you understand why I like her so much Andy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[sirio11]

I have to admit that some of the quotes are funny

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
1973
International Commission for Supervision and Control (Vietnam) - ICCS.

Canadian troops in Vietnam.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, let me get this straight. If Bush goes over to vietnam, is HE counted as a troop too?

Morons....seriously, there is no reason to defend this harpy. Doing so only erodes the legitimacy your party is clinging so tenously too already. The proper answer is;

"She's got a few good lines, riles up the troops well, but she doesn't speak for us".

[Il_Mostro]

The truth, ey?

When are you going to answer this:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Unlike a Liberal I take people at their word and not what they might be thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that has nothing to do with political views. I assume you understand this? Or do you really think that every conservative always look at the objective value of the words before making a judgement? And that a liberal never does? That sounds a bit far-fetched to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
"I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly."---MSNBC 3/22/97

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this 100%.

There's even a fantastic Robert Heinlein novel from 1957 that explores the effects of this approach to the penal system. There were no prisons. Just lashes, and nooses. It's called Starship Troopers. Excellent book.

natedogg

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I've already stated what she said is what I think she meant. Not some "read between the lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no "reading between the lines". Her statement needs no interpretation. The wording is crystal clear. Ann Coulter claimed (http://captainnormal.typepad.com/captainnormal/2005/02/canadians_to_co.html) that Canada (not some individuals but Canada, the country) sent troops to fight in Vietnam alongside the Americans.

Unless you don't understand English well, her words are saying this, no more and no less.

Let Lastchance clear it up for ya!.. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1680833&amp;page=158&amp;view =expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)

<font color="white"> . </font>

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ann Coulter:"I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly."---MSNBC 3/22/97

[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="white"> . </font>

Natedogg: I agree with this 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd feel right at home in Saudi Arabia.

(Most neo-cons would, as a matter of fact.)

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ann Coulter:"I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly."---MSNBC 3/22/97

[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="white"> . </font>

Natedogg: I agree with this 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd feel right at home in Saudi Arabia.

(Most neo-cons would, as a matter of fact.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a neo con. Whatever gave you that idea?

natedogg

[Cyrus]

So, you cannot even understand English. This much is clear.

...Isn't it hilarious when the conservative loonie faction was all over Bill Clinton for his pathetic attempts to clarify what the meaning of "is" is? And you have conservative loonies like Wakey trying to semantically assign different meanings to a crystal-clear statement by Ann Coulter?

Maybe when Coulter acknowledges the error, Wakey instead of opening up his mind, will get even more excited with Ann! He already confessed he'd like to marry the girl.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus this is precisely why you guys couldn't have scored really high on your Verbal SATs.

You picked multiple choice option "D" (Ann Coulter could have meant ONLY the above).

Sorry Cyrus that is wrong and it is now time to move on to the next question. Hopefully someday you and your cohorts in this thread will get a clue how to think about things when taking the SAT Verbal.

[Il_Mostro]

I'm still missing an explanation on why her statement should be interpreted such that she belives Canada should send peace keeping troops to Iraq. She can be meaning that, see my first response to Wake, but it seems if she does she uses very clumsy wording. So, why should I belive she mean that?
Again, I don't know who she is.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still missing an explanation on why her statement should be interpreted such that she belives Canada should send peace keeping troops to Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm missing that explanation, too. By the way, do there exist there any types of troops other than "combat" or "peace-keeping"?

[ QUOTE ]
She can be meaning that, see my first response to Wake, but it seems if she does she uses very clumsy wording. So, why should I belive she mean that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to convince anyone that she meant or didn't mean anything in particular. The point is that the given context is insufficient to conclusively rule out that (or other) meanings. And most of the posters in this thread still don't get it.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm missing that explanation, too. By the way, do there exist there any types of troops other than "combat" or "peace-keeping"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this a rethorical question? If Canada sent peace keeping / monitoring troops to Vietnam, and she draws a parallell to that she really must mean either combat troops or peace keeping, right?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to convince anyone that she meant or didn't mean anything in particular. The point is that the given context is insufficient to conclusively rule out that (or other) meanings. And most of the posters in this thread still don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with you here. The context and her words are enough to draw the conclusion that she meant combat troops. It's not a 100% sure conclusion, but it's the natural conclution to draw, and if she meant something else she must learn to be more clear in her use of language.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The context and her words are enough to draw the conclusion that she meant combat troops. It's not a 100% sure conclusion, but it's the natural conclution to draw, and if she meant something else she must learn to be more clear in her use of language.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you Il Mostro! Now please go and tell that to Cyrus and LastChance et al, because that is the only thing I have been arguing with them about: they claim it is the ONLY conclusion to draw, whereas I say no; rather it is the likely interpretation but inconclusive.

Thank you for agreeing with me! There are yet some more than I had hoped in this thread whose skulls are not cast in bronze.

[webiggy]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus this is precisely why you guys couldn't have scored really high on your Verbal SATs.

You picked multiple choice option "D" (Ann Coulter could have meant ONLY the above).

Sorry Cyrus that is wrong and it is now time to move on to the next question. Hopefully someday you and your cohorts in this thread will get a clue how to think about things when taking the SAT Verbal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Total fallacious hyperbole. Sure, in the context of the SAT, Cyrus may get the wrong answer. But this is not the type of critical thinking exercise that can be applied here. Anyone who had ever listened to this hate mongering fascist party doll and has heard the numorous distortions, lies and inflamatory comments would and should easily acknowledge that she is being very critical of Canada for not supporting our efforts in Iraq.

I once heard her say in a debate against the Editor in Chief of the New Republic that we should invade other countries with the intent of spreading Christianity because of some pretzle logic that Christianity promotes peace and goodwill to mankind. Her support for this was that it wasn't Christians who flew airplanes into the WTC.

More crimes against humanity have been made in the name of God. While it's clearly not okay to fly planes into buildings, why is it okay for Christians to terrorize Planned Parenthood Clinics? Why is it okay to kill over 100,000 Iraqi's in the name of freedom and democracy? How does that promote freedom.

Back to my original point - To have witnessed a number of outragous quotes from this venomous pig (who is actually quite hot) as quoted from a previous poster, it's not such a huge leap to think that she her statement was clearly intended to imply that Canadians supported our efforts in Vietnam. To not have the critical sense to recognize that is at best, selective criticsm.

My general complaint with righties is that they never question the half-thruths or total falsehoods told by the demagogues who support their political biases

[MMMMMM]

Webiggy,

Are you yet another person who cannot comprehend what you read? Have you read this entire thread? Do you have any notion as to what the crux of the argument between Cyrus and myself might be?

I happen to AGREE with you and Cyrus regarding what Ann Coulter very likely meant! But he claims it is the ONLY possibility based on the limited context initially rendered! Well...it isn't the ONLY possibility, especially based on that paragraph!

The volume of loons this forum somehow attracts is truly astounding. No offense to you, but...Welcome Home!

Well I'm out of here. You guys have finally driven me off with the sheer and overwhelming weight of pure repetitive idiocy. If I had wanted to argue with asylum inmates I'd rather have taken a trip to Bellevue. I never would have guessed it could be accomplished so easily from the comfort of my own home.

Note to Cyrus and LastChance: Look up the word "only" in the dictionary. Alternatively, please define 100% confidence level.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ann Coulter:"I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly."---MSNBC 3/22/97

[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="white"> . </font>

Natedogg: I agree with this 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd feel right at home in Saudi Arabia.

(Most neo-cons would, as a matter of fact.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a neo con. Whatever gave you that idea?

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just Cyrus throwing around the neoconservative term once again with no clear idea of what it actually means. Anyone who posts here as much as Cyrus does and who had a clue would realize that about the only thing you and a neoconservative would agree on is tax policy and Social Security.

[cardcounter0]

Sure Let's All Go To Kool-Aid Fantasy Land, Where Any Thing Is Possible, And Reality Doesn't Count:

Well, she "could" have meant "let's all go to StarBucks and have coffee".

OR, she "could" have meant "I really like to give head to Rush Limabaugh".

OR, she "could" have meant "Any one who listens to me must be totally deranged".

But no, I really think, she meant exactly what she said. She is so frigin' stupid she thought Canada had sent combat troops to Vietnam to fight beside the Americans, and they should do the same thing in Iraq today.

[cardcounter0]

and Penal Systems.

[cardcounter0]

HaHaHaHa -- glad you brought up the invade other countries to spread christian belief thing.

Coulter Logic has said that the reason to support the no same sex marriage law is because marriage is between a man and a woman and it is 4000 years old.

When confronted about all the bad things that people did in the name of christian gods (like during the crusades) Coulter Logic said "that happened 1000 years ago, it is time to move on and let it go".

So if history agrees with you, you should stubbornly cling to it. If history doesn't agree with you, the past is the past, forget about it.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[cardcounter0]

"He already confessed he'd like to marry the girl."

Ann Coulter = Lesbian.

Cheney's daughter has a better chance of marrying her.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you Il Mostro! Now please go and tell that to Cyrus and LastChance et al, because that is the only thing I have been arguing with them about: they claim it is the ONLY conclusion to draw, whereas I say no; rather it is the likely interpretation but inconclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Baby, you're so far gone, you'll be bumping tails with the Soyuz in a coupla days!

Do we really need to go over this? I guess we do. That's what happens when I'm dealing with posters with "superior IQ". /images/graemlins/cool.gif (171 huh?)

Any lawyer or linguist can tell you that the meaning of words can be twisted around. I could say to you "Give me the glass of water from the table", which is a clear and unambiguous message -- and turn around and claim that I meant something else.

Of course, we assign probabilities as to the possible meanings of the words we say! Why do you think that this is news to me -- or Lastchance or anyone else, for that matter?

The point is (and it is a kindergarten point, really), that we assign meaning (and carry on communicating) by choosing the most likely explanation for the words under analysis. Our brain hears or reads stuff and proceeds on the basis of the most likely explanation -- or even explanationS.

There is, however, an undefined but pretty strong threshold of probability, beyond which our understanding of words crosses from multiple-choice to single-choice. There is a threshold, in other words, beyond which we elect to follow one meaning because that meaning is so obvious as to not merit any further examination.

Example: I say "Give me the glass of water from the table".

Situation: There is you and me in the room only and there is only one glass of water on top of only one table in the room we are in. We are not discussing anything related to water or tables. We are friends.

Possible meanings:

1. "Pick up the glass of water from the table and give it to me".
2. "Throw to me the glass of water from the table".
3. "Use the theoretical example of 'the glass of water on the table' in the argument we are having".
4. "Recite the poem 'The Glass Of Water On The Table".
etc

Resolution: Through either a process of elimination or by assigning a probability to every possible meaning listed above, you understand that Meaning #1 is so far ahead from the others, that you can be certain that this is indeed the meaning of my phrase "Give me the glass of water from the table", and you proceed accordingly.

Ann Coulter: One meaning stands out so clearly and so strongly among the possible (but improbable) as to render any doubt, and any discussion about it really, a waste of time. That meaning is "Canada sent troops in Vietnam to contain a threat as dangerous as Saddam Hussein". Since the way to contain a threat is fighting it (and not doing ICCS duty), Ann Coulter clearly is referring to Canadian combat troops. Corroboration : If she had meant ICCS Canucks, she would have corrected the TV reporter who was correcting her. Q.E.D.

General Rule: When people claim that a phrase has "only one possible meaning", the claim is not based on technical terms. (See remark above, about lawyers and linguists.) The claim of "only one possible meaning", is equivalent to (is the shorthand for) "the one meaning that is so far ahead of the other meanings as to make that meaning the only reasonably possible meaning".

Regards, and consult your neighborhood licenced Linguist for more,

--Cyrus

PS : You guys must be truly fond of crazy old Ann to defend untenable "positions" like that! /images/graemlins/cool.gif Isn't it a bit weird to adore and lust after sick persons?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone ... who had a clue would realize that about the only thing you and a neoconservative would agree on is tax policy and Social Security.

[/ QUOTE ]

And flogging.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Cyrus]

So you decide to hightail it outta town. Not an unwise choice, I must admit.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm out of here. You guys have finally driven me off with the sheer and overwhelming weight of pure repetitive idiocy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not before you taste my linguini (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1686428&amp;page=0&amp;view=e xpanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=1) first !

Happy trails.

[nicky g]

This forum has completed 99% of its journey towards becoming a complete waste of time.

[Felix_Nietsche]

This post reminds me of those bull**** quotes that Dan Quayle and Clinton supposedly made. Some quotes are definately Ann's but many seem dishonest to me. For example;

"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."---Rivera Live 8/2/99
****Wow a 4-word quote. Four words. Mmmmmm..... call me suspicious but I don't think this is an accurate quote. So I'm calling Bull**** on this alledged quote. If can't attack a person's arguments honestly then just make up lies. Right?

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC
****And what was the context? What did the Vietnam vet do or say for Ann to make this statement (if she did)? John Kerry is a Vietnam Vet. Furthermore, I think he contributed to the USA losing the Vietnam war but giving aid and comfort to the enemy on supposed war crimes. Kerry later said that he regretted many of the things he said (when he was running for election). Don't believe me. John Kerry's picture is hanging in the Vietnam War Crimes museum in Ho Chi Minh City for his contributions to helping the Viet Cong.

So if this Vietnam Vet did the same things that Kerry did, then I have ZERO problem with what Ann said.

This is just a lame attempt to discredit Ann.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
The truth, ey?

When are you going to answer this:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Unlike a Liberal I take people at their word and not what they might be thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that has nothing to do with political views. I assume you understand this? Or do you really think that every conservative always look at the objective value of the words before making a judgement? And that a liberal never does? That sounds a bit far-fetched to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only speaking for myself and in response to the Liberal posters on this board (such as yourself) with which I am both familiar and of which I have an opinion. I hope that answers your question.

[TransientR]

I'd put the percentage higher myself /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Frank

[lastchance]

K, you're right. There may be some other conclusion to draw from this, but given the context of the quotes and the intended audience (English 101), she is either A) An inept writer (what other obvious, logical conclusion would you have me draw?) or B) trying to twist the facts.

B is the logical conclusion to draw here.

You cannot prove anything to true without any doubt. I cannot prove that I am writing this post right now. I cannot prove I exist.

But there is enough here to make me think B is true 95% of the time, at least, which is probably enough.

[MMMMMM]

I agree with 95% or so, LastChance. Thank you. And Cyrus, just admit you're wrong for once.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus, just admit you're wrong for once.

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk to my link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1686428&amp;page=159&amp;view =expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;vc=1).

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
This forum has completed 99% of its journey towards becoming a complete waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMM could interpret those words to have half a dozen different meanings. We'd end up with another hundred-post thread!

[lastchance]

-_-

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
This forum has completed 99% of its journey towards becoming a complete waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why because people are defending Ann Coulter? I don't get it.

Note: I despise Ann Coulter but not sure why defending her makes this forum a waste of time.

natedogg

[lastchance]

Did you read the banter between M^6 and Cyrus and me? (hopefully to a lesser extent)

It's really pitiful.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]

This is just a lame attempt to discredit Ann.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think she's pretty discredited by now, at least in the political news world, maybe she should do some comedy programs, Im pretty sure she has an audience, there are many bitter mean people, they need some Coulter's comedy.

[sirio11]

LatsCh, I think your posts were in the right track to solve the discussion, while M^6 posts were trying to generate chaos (dont know if deliberately) out of a simple statement.

[Felix_Nietsche]

When individuals manufacture quotes to discredit another person, that is a sign of fear.

Ann has several best selling books and can be on TV anytine she wants. I think her star is sill rising....

If this is being discredited, then I wish I could be discredited.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

95% probability..or anything thereabouts...does NOT qualify as something being the "ONLY" possibility. Case closed.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
LatsCh, I think your posts were in the right track to solve the discussion, while M^6 posts were trying to generate chaos (dont know if deliberately) out of a simple statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple but WRONG statement. That's all I was trying to say.

[Felix_Nietsche]

http://www.anncoulter.com/

This might be too radical for some of you be try reading her own words unedited and uncut...

[TransientR]

Yeah,

Ann has written "best selling books," and she can "be on TV anytime she wants," top notch criteria for intellectual depth and scholarly accuracy /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Frank

[Il_Mostro]

Yes, but you also agreed that the statement was very likely to mean exactly what Cyrus et. al. are saying, which means you just like to cause a ruccus. Which is fine, but you are not entlitled to complain about the ruccus afterwards...

[Il_Mostro]

You need to be more careful when expressing yourself, what you say now is not at all what you said before.

Also, should I understand you as that I am one of those who do not take people by their words but invent meanings? I don't recognize me in that, care to give me some examples of when I have done that?
On the other hand it seemed you did exactly that to Sam (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1681800&amp;page=0&amp;view=c ollapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1#Post1690008) , so I am really confused as to what you mean now.

[MMMMMM]

Well, Il Mostro...Cyrus kept claiming that that was THE ONLY POSSIBLE interpretation...which is a load of bullcrap.

It is not "causing a ruckus" to point out an important error. I had good reason to do so, and will explain.

Claiming 100% certainty on something like that is a very grave reading/thinking error, which happens to epitomize the frequent lax reading and thinking that is so often encountered on this forum.

I am saying this not in order to be a didactic dick, but rather because such sloppy reading and thinking has in the past caused much larger and unnecessary ruckuses on this forum.

If we are going to have discussions or debates it is essential that we read as accurately as possible, and think with precision about that which we read.

This was but one example of a very pervasive, and significantly pernicious, problem.

Debating online without reading carefully is a bit like playing poker without knowing who the bet is on. Those who try to do so will soon find themselves saying, "huh?"--and will be prone to make errors that create more errors and confusion for everyone else as well (much like the problems sometimes caused by someone acting out of turn in a poker game).

[Il_Mostro]

No point in arguing this anymore, we are more or less in agreement.

But i must say that "I am saying this not in order to be a didactic dick" has a very nice ring to it, as a sentence.
Cudos for that /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
This forum has completed 99% of its journey towards becoming a complete waste of time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why because people are defending Ann Coulter? I don't get it.

Note: I despise Ann Coulter but not sure why defending her makes this forum a waste of time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Because this completely absurd argument has gone on for 11 pages.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
95% probability..or anything thereabouts...does NOT qualify as something being the "ONLY" possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1686428&amp;page=159&amp;view =expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;vc=1) explained, in detail, to you and to anybody who is willing to read and understand, the practicalities of everyday speech and writing -- and the shorthand involved in assigning meanings to words.

Yes, a meaning with "a 95% probability or thereabouts", as you put it, is assigned the label "only possible meaning" in everyday communication; otherwise, we would not be able to progress beyond one phrase, the initial phrase, which we would then analyze to death.

Your argument reduces to Paralysis By Analysis.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif You would probably make a good analyst in Chess, with that mental attitude, a reliable second for overnight analysis. Were it not for the silicon beasts.



[ QUOTE ]
Case closed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mind closed, more like it. It's truly amazing that you folks would spend the better part of a thread defending an untenable position ("No one can be sure what Ann Coulter really meant!"), instead of attacking the heart of the matter (e.g. "So what? Ann Coulter made a mistake in recalling her History; her basic point about Canada is perfectly valid", and so on).

Ultra pathetic.

[vulturesrow]

Agreed. I have to say this is one of the worst threads ever in OOP.

[CORed]

Ann coulter doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground?

That's almost as hard to predict as a guerilla insurgency in Iraq.

[MMMMMM]

95% does not equal 100%--even in everyday writing shorthand.

The difference is the reason for words like "almost" and "nearly". Convenience cannot be an excuse for selecting the wrong word of choice when another one-syllable word of choice would be far more accurate. And it's not like these are obscure words or anything.

No, you selected the wrong word not out of convenience, but because you weren't thinking clearly, and because you were too attached to your side of the argument.

Why, you might just as well say, "The roulette wheel can ONLY come up red or black--the green zeros on the roulettee wheel will not come up". See how WRONG that is, even though it is only off, coincidentally, by about the same 5%?

Where approppriate, try using "almost" or "nearly" instead of "only" or "completely", and you won't look like such a goof. And for ONCE, try admitting you were wrong, and you won't look like so stubborn a mule.

[Cyrus]

"I am saying this not in order to be a didactic dick."

Dickus Biggus, at least, only lisped.

You were persistently digressing (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1686428&amp;page=159&amp;view =expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;vc=1). Which makes you precisely what you say you don't want to be.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[CORed]

I can't be absolutely certain based on her statement, but I think it's much more likely that Ann Coulter is so ignorant that she believes Canada sent combat troops to Vietnam than that she knew anything about the ICCS. For what it's worth (probably not much) I never heard of the ICCS before reading this thread.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to be more careful when expressing yourself, what you say now is not at all what you said before.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I don't and it is the same, I haven't contradicted myself on the subject at hand that I am aware of.

I did nothing of the sort to Sam, if you read his post and then read my response it is entirely accurate. You however may be seeing something I am not. Would you please quote the exact phrase to which you are referencing?

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]


Why, you might just as well say, "The roulette wheel can ONLY come up red or black--the green zeros on the roulettee wheel will not come up". See how WRONG that is, even though it is only off, coincidentally, by about the same 5%?

Where approppriate, try using "almost" or "nearly" instead of "only" or "completely", and you won't look like such a goof. And for ONCE, try admitting you were wrong, and you won't look like so stubborn a mule.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only stubborn over here are you M^6. The roulette analogy is not good at all. A better analogy using your "impossible" analysis of the meaning of anything is something like this.

Cyrus: The roulette wheel can ONLY come up red or black or 0 or 00

M^6: What if the roulette doesn't come at all? What if the ball stays in the air? What if come on red but after 2 seconds turn to black, and what if after that goes to green? What if the ball suddenly vanish in the air? What if God appears and decide the ball came in black? What if the people involved in the discussion think that red is green and green is blue and blue is music and 0 is a star? What if all the laws of logic suddenly change?

Pathetic, worthless, and I'm here wasting my time, well that's life, doing stuff while we wait to die. Well, better go, I have to drive to LA to play some tournaments.

Later, David

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually I don't and it is the same, I haven't contradicted myself on the subject at hand that I am aware of.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's see

[ QUOTE ]
Because she did not state otherwise, why should I read something into her words that were not there? Unlike a Liberal I take people at their word and not what they might be thinking. After all Cyrus is the psychic, not me.


[/ QUOTE ]
Look, no qualifier on "Liberal"
[ QUOTE ]

Sometimes (unless it is a Liberal) what people say is what they really mean. If you have concrete verifiable evidence otherwise please post the source.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dito
[ QUOTE ]

I am only speaking for myself and in response to the Liberal posters on this board (such as yourself) with which I am both familiar and of which I have an opinion. I hope that answers your question.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now suddenly we are not talking about liberals in general but a subset of them, namely the liberal posters on this board that you are familiar with.

Now, this is not contradictory, and I didn't say it was, I said:
[ QUOTE ]
You need to be more careful when expressing yourself, what you say now is not at all what you said before.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is true, because you impose boundaries in your last statements and then claim that's what you meant all along.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
I did nothing of the sort to Sam, if you read his post and then read my response it is entirely accurate. You however may be seeing something I am not. Would you please quote the exact phrase to which you are referencing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sam:
[ QUOTE ]
Even spread over several years, this is simply impossible. Or you would be printing so much money that inflation would go haywire. I don't think this would boost the economy at all - printing money and handing it out is very different than countercyclical deficit spending.

[/ QUOTE ]
Note that he talks about why M:s proposal nr.3 wouldn't work
[ QUOTE ]
I love it when they hang themselves!! LOL HO HO HO HE HE HE

[/ QUOTE ]
Who has he hanged, and why? It's seems you are drawing conclusions that are not warranted by the statement.
[ QUOTE ]
Unknowingly you have just agreed as to why we need to begin solving the SS insolvency dilemma today rather than waiting till the government is forced to do exactly what you outline to be a flaw in the plan proposed by MMMMMM.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unknowingly? How do you know that?

[MMMMMM]

Sirio,

Cyrus wrote this:

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, a meaning with "a 95% probability or thereabouts", as you put it, is assigned the label "only possible meaning" in everyday communication; otherwise, we would not be able to progress beyond one phrase, the initial phrase, which we would then analyze to death.
...

[/ QUOTE ]

So: the green zeros have about a 5% probability of coming up on the roulette wheel. So Cyrus's method would have us say, in everyday speech, that the next spin on the roulette wheel cannot come up on zero.

Plain and simple: WRONG. VERY WRONG.

The correct thing is NOT to say the green zeros "cannot" come up next spin, but that they "very likely" won't come up next spin. And so speaking--or writing--won't prevent us from progressing beyond that one phrase, won't cause is to be caught in the 'paralysis of analysis'--contrary to Cyrus' ridiculous claim.

Am I arguing with idiots here or what?

[sirio11]

Language is not an exact science my friend.

The 95% figure was just an intent to tell you, that "You should try to comunicate without spinning the language" but you seem to take it too seriously.

If he said 99%, maybe you would've said, not enough because I have some example from Medicine where people are dying because of the 1%.
If he said 99.97%, not enough because I have some example from Physics when that .03 is really meaningful
If he said 99.999999998%, still not enough, because you can come up with some example from Cosmology when the .0000000002 is really important.

So, the point is, you're being dishonest, because you're trying to apply an impossible analysis to the language used by other people when you don't agree with their point, and of course if a point is made in the direction of your ideas, you have no problem and use all your capabilities to try to understand it.

In your behalf, I'll say that at least you try to use some rational thinking in this process to justify your position; I prefer rational thinking used to discuss the issue, talking about ideas around the issue, but at least is an improvement with the usual conservative position of lying about the facts and name-calling people they disagree with.

[MMMMMM]

Look, Sirio, whether Coulter's statement could be interpreted as 95% or 75% or 99.999% chance of having a certain meaning, is not even the point.

Cyrus specifically cited a 95% chance and said that in everyday language, 95% is considered 100% to avert confusion or over-lengthy analysis. But that is factually untrue. All one need do is replace "only" with "usually" or "most likely" or any other common qualifying word or phrase that indicates strong likelihood without absolute certainty, and one will be correct and not misleading.

I'm not arguing for making language an
"exact science"--far from it--I'm just saying language can be horribly misused, and meanings grossly distorted--which is what those in this thread claiming that Coulter's statement could ONLY be interpreted the one way have done.

Moreover, Cyrus' follow-up argument is demonstrably false--as I have shown. You CAN'T say 95% must = 100% in everyday language or you will have the exact sort of problem you run into with the roulette wheel example. Let's take a car crash as another example. The chance of you having a car crash this Spring is, I would guess, well under 5%. But can you say the ONLY possible outcome of your driving this Spring will be to remain accident-free? Of course not. That is just horribly wrong. Insurance companies and village idiots alike both know it is horribly wrong.

Nothing dishonest here except Cyrus' claim and argument. And the lout is too stubborn to admit he is simply WRONG.

I am tired of this bullshit because it is a repetitive pattern. What is the point of having a discussion or debate with someone who will never, ever admit that they are wrong, or ever give you credit for a point, even when that point is PROVEN?

This sort of thing has happened many many times in the past, but now it is so clear-cut he can't wriggle out of it, and I am not going to drop it.

Cyrus, you have to learn to give others credit for valid points and admit error occasionally, else there is no reason for anyone to ever discuss or debate anything with you.

[Cyrus]

You still going on about what Ann Coulter "really meant" ?!? Oh boy, you must really be desperate, or in love with Ann. /images/graemlins/cool.gif (OK, so it's the same thing.)

[ QUOTE ]
You might just as well say, "The roulette wheel can ONLY come up red or black--the green zeros on the roulettee wheel will not come up".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is wrong -- and has no relevance to what I wrote. Calculating probabilities should not given to "shorthands" in communication, except when describing some size in general terms (e.g. calculating the precise advantage and then saying "your advantage is huge", etc).

But do keep thinking about Roulette in such terms! We need all the suckers we can get. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
95% does not equal 100%--even in everyday writing shorthand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. In everyday communication, words get assigned their most probable meaning - otherwise we could never proceed without 100% clarification, which would render communication useless in practice. In everyday communication, words have many possible interpretations, but we always respond to a pharse by assuming (automatically) it has the most probable meaning

I have already explained all this in detail (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1686428&amp;page=160&amp;view =expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;fpart=) -- but persist in your folly on this 'un. I have all year to tan your hide! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
You selected the wrong word[s i.e. "only possible meaning"] not out of convenience, but because you weren't thinking clearly, and because you were too attached to your side of the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. (shrug) I assigned that meaning and only that meaning to Ann Coulter's words because the overwhelming evidence points to a simple and clear understanding of what the ol' girl said: That Canadian troops were sent by their government to fight in Vietnam alongside the Americans.

The probability that this is what she meant is so high as to render the meaning I assign the only possible one, in practical terms. (In technical, i.e. linguistic and/or legal terms, we could argue till kingdom come. It'd be another matter, similar to Clinton's "is".)

You think this was about ideology? There has been no serious discussion yet in this thread about Ann Coulter's statement and about the underlying ideology of that statement! The reason for that is your (and Wake Up's) inane attempts at obfuscation. You are making a fool of both your political convictions and yourselves, I'm sorry to say.

(OK, I'm not too sorry... /images/graemlins/cool.gif )

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus specifically cited a 95% chance and said that in everyday language, 95% is considered 100% to avert confusion or over-lengthy analysis. But that is factually untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. You are wrong, matey. This is not something referring to everyday language (and its many charming alleyways), but about communication in everyday language.

And this is trivially shown. Put your mind to work, some.

[ QUOTE ]
You CAN'T say 95% must = 100% in everyday language.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. You are not being precise! (In a thread where you come on as the padin of precision, no less!) I did not claim equality in math terms. Here, do have another plate of that linguini (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1686428&amp;page=160&amp;view =expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;fpart=) !

[ QUOTE ]
This sort of thing has happened many many times in the past, but now it is so clear-cut he can't wriggle out of it, and I am not going to drop it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This looks extremely promising!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus here is what you wrote:

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, a meaning with "a 95% probability or thereabouts", as you put it, is assigned the label "only possible meaning" in everyday communication;...

[/ QUOTE ]

I already showed you that a 95% meaning isn't assigned a label "the only possibility", via the roulette wheel example. You DON'T say, in everyday langauage,, that the only possibility on the next spin is for rouge or noir to come up-- because you know that 5% possibility of a green zero is very meaningful. You say it's very likely, or most likely, etc. that red or black will show, but you DON'T say it's the "only possibility."

And don't try arguing Coulter's statement is more than 95% because that doesn't get you off the hook. No, YOUR WORDS above are plain: Cyrus said that any statement with about 95% probability is discussed in everyday language as 100%. Well it just ISN'T, whether the statement involves roulette wheels or traffic accidents. A fairly high probability of about 95% is not called a certainty--even in everyday languaage.

Therefore your statement above is WRONG. Case closed. End of story (except for buffoons who won't ever admit to being wrong).

[VBM]

hmmm, i, for one, was bitterly disappointed this didn't have some NSFW material.

am i twisted for being so turned off by her vigor...as to be turned on? she's not a bad looking piece of tail...

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Was bitterly disappointed this didn't have some NSFW material.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who was disappointed? What does the word "this" refer to??

The initials "NSFW" could be interpreted a dozen different ways. You are being inexact.

What do you mean by "material"?? Is the word used in a Physics context or in a commercial context?

We need to clarify very precisely what you mean in everything you wrote before we can comment on it.

[ QUOTE ]
She's not a bad looking piece of tail.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say "tail" do you mean [snip!]

<font color="white">. </font>

[Il_Mostro]

Now Now Cyrus. I'm not sure this poster deserves that, if it'd been Wakey, well, a completely different matter.
Note how he havn't answered my last posts to him...

[lastchance]

Most pitiful OOP thread ever.

[Il_Mostro]

I agree. But it served the cause of outing at least one poster as the hypocrit he is.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I think there is only one interpretation that makes any sense, given the context. And I'll bet anyone on the M^6's side anything that their score on the verbal section of the SAT ain't higher than mine.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Now Now Cyrus. I'm not sure this poster deserves that, if it'd been Wakey, well, a completely different matter.
Note how he havn't answered my last posts to him...

[/ QUOTE ]

I answered your last post that had any accurate content. If you care to address another issue with useful content fire away my little liberal goofball.

[Il_Mostro]

You are the one claiming we should only look at the words, not try to interpret the meaning behind them. Yet you do exactly that, conjure up meanings and points that's not there, change your definitions as you go along, without accknowledgeing it.

And you have not explained how that is not hypocrisy.

[housenuts]

I saw her in Farenhype 9/11 and thought she was hot, but that's all I know about her.

[Chris Alger]

Your post is a perfect example ofthe hypocrisy I was talking about. I just today received a flyer from some rightist bookseller called "American Compass -- The Conservative Alternative." The cover includes a picture of Ann Coulter with a version of her notorious quote: "I am often asked if I still think we should invade their countries, kill theri leaders, and convert them to Christianity. The answer is: Now more than ever." This is offered as satire or sarcasm but a firm prescription. Of course, who "they" are is unmentioned, but it's obvious that she's trolling for anti-Arab racists and genocidalists that one so frequently encounters among the right.

So what's the moral difference between someone like Churchill who condones mass murder and someone like Coulter who condones mass murder? None, obviously. The play the same qualifier game about how they really meant to say those who are guilty, deserve to die, etc., but the willingness to invoke mass criminal violence as a political weapon is virtually identical.

The only difference between Coulter and Churchill is that the she's politically correct by "conservative" standards. Since "conservatives" are really closet totalitarians that hate freedom and dissent, he therefore has to go while she should gets rich plugging murder.

[VBM]

[ QUOTE ]
Who was disappointed? What does the word "this" refer to??


[/ QUOTE ]
I was disappointed;
"this" == "this original post"

[ QUOTE ]
The initials "NSFW" could be interpreted a dozen different ways. You are being inexact.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not Suitable For Work

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by "material"?? Is the word used in a Physics context or in a commercial context?

[/ QUOTE ]
"material" == image files, video, any medium that is suitable for transmission via computer for the computer user to pleasure him/herself.

[ QUOTE ]
When you say "tail" do you mean [snip!]

[/ QUOTE ]
When I say "tail", I just mean "whatever gets you hot."

For me, i imagine her face-down buried in the pillow, knees on the bed and her na-na up in the air.

For you, given your nit-pickety reply, I'm going to guess something involving anal...

[Cyrus]

I guess you missed MMMMMM's "brilliant" reasoning in this very thread, which is why you missed the point of that li'l joke.

Maybe next time.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess you missed MMMMMM's "brilliant" reasoning in this very thread, which is why you missed the point of that li'l joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

No brilliant reasoning by me here. All I did was what any half-wit could have done, which was to point out a simple mistake or two.

Of course those who are a bit brighter than half-wits still sometimes overlook the obvious and therefore need someone to alert them. So you should consider this more like a public service effort by M, rather than anything more lofty or complex.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
All I did was what any half-wit could have done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, we finally, entirely agree!

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[jaxmike]

yet they were there.. just like in Iraq....... strange how facts have no place in a discussion with a liberal.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
yet they were there.. just like in Iraq....... strange how facts have no place in a discussion with a liberal.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what is your take on her statements? You also going to claim that there simply is no way we can know what she meant (a´la Wakey)? Or are you going to agree with most of us that it is very very likely that she meant combat troops and simply had no clue?

Or what facts are you talking about? And what relevance do they have, do you mean?

[sirio11]

wth are you talking about?

[MrFeelNothin]

[ QUOTE ]
And don't try arguing Coulter's statement is more than 95% because that doesn't get you off the hook. No, YOUR WORDS above are plain: Cyrus said that any statement with about 95% probability is discussed in everyday language as 100%. Well it just ISN'T, whether the statement involves roulette wheels or traffic accidents. A fairly high probability of about 95% is not called a certainty--even in everyday languaage.

Therefore your statement above is WRONG. Case closed. End of story (except for buffoons who won't ever admit to being wrong).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well let's see if you can admit when you are wrong. Cyrus never said anything about 95% being 100%. In fact, he never mentioned exact percentages at all in his "linguini" post which I would assume you read, considering he linked to it multiple times. Lastchance brought up the 95% stat later on and you seized on the opportunity to nitpick again as you had no response whatsoever to Cyrus's "linguini". Cyrus did not make the 95% claim, so do not use that bullshit argument against him.

Well, you successfully twisted this argument away from Ann Coulter and her lies. Are you happy now?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Well let's see if you can admit when you are wrong. Cyrus never said anything about 95% being 100%. In fact, he never mentioned exact percentages at all in his "linguini" post which I would assume you read, considering he linked to it multiple times. Lastchance brought up the 95% stat later on and you seized on the opportunity to nitpick again as you had no response whatsoever to Cyrus's "linguini". Cyrus did not make the 95% claim, so do not use that bullshit argument against him.

[/ QUOTE ]

That are incorrect, MrFeelNothin; Cyrus did precisely that, and below is the very post in this thread with the relevant paragraph highlighted.



"Your just dessert now
02/08/05 02:50 PM

(M): "95% probability..or anything thereabouts...does NOT qualify as something being the "ONLY" possibility."


(Cyrus): "I already explained, in detail, to you and to anybody who is willing to read and understand, the practicalities of everyday speech and writing -- and the shorthand involved in assigning meanings to words.

Yes, a meaning with "a 95% probability or thereabouts", as you put it, is assigned the label "only possible meaning" in everyday communication; otherwise, we would not be able to progress beyond one phrase, the initial phrase, which we would then analyze to death."

So Cyrus was clearly wrong above, and you somehow missed that before deciding to jump into this thread.

[MrFeelNothin]

[ QUOTE ]
AS YOU PUT IT

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you can be such a stickler about Coulter's language and then turn around and attribute quotes to Cyrus, even when they are clearly qualified. AS YOU PUT IT. Cyrus was merely using your terms in an attempt to get you to understand his point. He did not introduce the 95% figure or any statistical figure at all, because we are not speaking in mathematical terms here.

[ QUOTE ]
otherwise, we would not be able to progress beyond one phrase, the initial phrase, which we would then analyze to death."

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems to me he is spot on. You have successfully destroyed any opportunity for this thread to turn to serious or nontrivial matters which I assume was your goal from the start. Congratulations. Was it worth wasting everyone's time?

[MMMMMM]

Look, MrFeelNothin, Cyrus erroneously claimed something and I set him straight on it. Problem is, the little cuss NEVER admits he is wrong, and this goes back a LONG way. So I felt obligated to hammer the point this time.

Also, Cyrus is NOT spot on, because when we speak of very likely matters, even in ordinary language, we say "very likely" or "highly likely"--we DON'T say "for certain" or "only", because to do so changes the meaning substantially.

Also, where did you come from? I don't recall ever seeing your user name before but you've got over 300 posts? Why do you jump into a thread like this without even considering that there might be some BACKGROUND behind it?

Here's what I suggest for you, MrFeelNothin: You argue with Cyrus for six straight years, like I have, and have him NEVER acknowledge that a point you make is correct if it contradicts his views, or EVER admit when he is wrong--even if he is clearly wrong. Then see if after six years you don't press the point when the same thing happens for the bazillionth time (even if you know it is an almost trivial matter).

It wasn't the point itself so much; it was the principle that he is sloppy with meanings in writing and arguing, and invents BS excuses to never admit he is wrong. This thread is a clear (if trivial) case in point. And believe me, it has happened many, many a time when the point wasn't trivial.

So: sorry if you feel like your time has been wasted in this thread. I assure you the time you have wasted here is NOTHING compared to the time I have wasted trying to get Cyrus to acknowledge a point, any point, ever. Just how can you debate someone who never gives you credit for a point that contradicts theirs, or never admits when one of their points is faulty? That is why I felt it essential to press this issue in this thread--because Cyrus often has some worthwhile things to say, but tragically, discussions with him are often hopelessly marred by the abovementioned flaw, much to the discussion's detriment (and my exasperation).

[lastchance]

This is an incredibly stupid argument based on macho posturing.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
This is an incredibly stupid argument based on macho posturing.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there is nothing wrong with my argument.

As for what it is based on, it is based on EXASPERATION--and the posters who have been here for six or so years, as I have, will know exactly what I mean.

And one other thing: what is with you guys blaming ME for this sub-thread? Cyrus first made a false claim, then when called on it tried to weasel out of it with a false rationale. You guys are buzzing me about it; why aren't you buzzing Cyrus for not admitting he was wrong? All I did was call him on it.

[MrFeelNothin]

Alright M6, I realize you are not a troll but I have just felt that your attitude in this thread was very troll-like. If this is because of personal background with Cyrus, well, fine. I have heard before that he doesn't admit when he is wrong. This is probably one of the most frustrating qualities of typical internet forum posters. However, stooping to his level doesn't seem to be the +EV solution in my opinion.

Anyways, if you were seriously wondering why you haven't seen me before, well I haven't been here long. Also, I don't usually post in politics because of threads like the Kyoto one and this one. The argument always gets ridiculous and as you have pointed out, noone ever admits when they are wrong.

Anyways, lets all just agree that Ann Coulter is lying and/or misinformed and move on with our lives.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus was merely using your terms in an attempt to get you to understand his point. He did not introduce the 95% figure or any statistical figure at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry to say this but it is obvious from the practical and straightforward way you are seeing things, that you will never reach the heights of IQ 171 as the eminent MMMMMM did.

Take up rabbit chasing, to start yourself on the right track.

[nothumb]

Ann got some big-ass tit-tays

This kind of crap is the reason this forum sucks even worse now than before

NT

[MMMMMM]

It's not a matter of having a high IQ; it's more a matter of not making clear errors and then defending them at any cost.

Cyrus, on these forums I have admitted at times when I am wrong. I can't remember you ever doing so.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
This kind of crap is the reason this forum sucks even worse now than before

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothumb,

Blame Cyrus; he deserves it /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
"This kind of crap is the reason this forum sucks even worse now than before." &lt;-- Blame Cyrus; he deserves it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it is your weird proclivity to see arguments where there are none that is to blame.

You have been accurately identified, in this thread, by posters of all political persuasions, as the culprit for this "crap". And this "crap" started emanating from the monent you began your crusade to muddle Ann Coulter's statement.

Even if you were at all correct in yoru claim (and you are not, by the way) that Ann Coulter mysteriously meant "something else", your weirdness hijacked the thread and stopped dead the discussion on the issue itself. Well, you have already been "congratulated" for those efforts, so let me add my congratulations to the others'.

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder which causes you to act more weirdly than usual. This is indicated by your repeatedly offered excuse that I, somehow, cannot "admit it when I'm wrong". Well, for the record, the times we have discussed things, you have never proved anything to me! I have yet to see one thing offered by you where I can say, in honsety, that I learned something, something that gives me a different or better perspective. (As I could say about posts by Wacki, Lastchance, Natedogg, Utah, or others.)

You insisted, for instance, awhile back, that Arabs have been always most prominent anti-semites, throughout history, and I argued that their anti-semitism positively pales before the same sentiment held by Christians! In fact, Arabs and Jews co-existed without any serious problems for alomost two millenia in the Middle East. (BTW, you still persist in the folly of supporting the opposite. You googled up some anti-Arab websites, as proof, instead of studying a book or two about it.)

I do not immediately recall what else riles you (about you being right and me wrong - and me not admitting it!) but the record speaks for itself: Every time you strike the keyboard to ponder and posit something about Politics, Economics, the Middle East, Comparative Religious Studies, or any other matter that I've seen you declenching your wisdom on us about, in this page, you have been generally more wrong than right! And that's simply my sincere evaluation of your offerings here.

I trust you will not let this go and carry on. Carrying on, as this wretched thread showed, is kind of the equivalent of "winning the argument" in your eyes. So, I most willfully invite you to "win" this argument too.

Carry on.

[nicky g]

Can't you two take your private slapfight to PMs or something?

[sirio11]

What about a mud fight

[adios]

How about a tournament on PokerStars, right wing vs. left wing. Let's see who's right /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[thatpfunk]

that would be really interesting... i think a hu tournament would make it even juicier... anyone interested in making this happen? bracketology would be great.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you were at all correct in yoru claim (and you are not, by the way) that Ann Coulter mysteriously meant "something else", your weirdness hijacked the thread and stopped dead the discussion on the issue itself. Well, you have already been "congratulated" for those efforts, so let me add my congratulations to the others'.

[/ QUOTE ]


Cyrus,

I DID NOT claim Ann Coulter mysteriously "meant something else"; in fact, I did not suggest that she meant anything other than what you thought she meant; I even stated that it was very likely she meant just what you and others had suggested!

All I said was, that based on the context provided, one could not know that that was what she meant. You then claimed that your interpretation was the only possible, whereupon the fireworks started, as I knew that to be objectively incorrect. Later I said that she probably had a 95% chance of meaning what you suggested, yet it would still be very wrong to state that as a 100% chance (as you were doing).

To back up my position I gave the roulette wheel example, showing that one does not--even in casual speech--state that the roulette ball can "only" fall in red or black (not green). Rather, one says it is "very likely" if one is speaking casually. And I will state yet again, that Coulter quite likely meant what you suggested. But it is just HORRIBLY wrong to call a "very likely" or "pretty likely" scenario a "certain scenario"--even in casual speech--and based on the context provided with Coulter's quote, one simply cannot be sure that she meant Canadian combat troops (as opposed to ICCS or other troops). Yet you continued to hold onto your position, even claiming that one DOES call a 95% chance of occurrence a sure thing in everyday speech. But that too is wrong: one says such things are "pretty likely" or "very likely" or "highly likely".

The above is not merely a pedantic or didactic point: it is a conceptual matter at stake here and sloppiness in that regard--even in speech--may lead to further errors. I don't see why you and others didn't immediately agree that one could not know that she mean combat troops from the context of her words--I mean how the hell do you KNOW that she didn't mean the ICCS troops, which were there ? Fact is, you don't--at least based on that brief context.

All I was doing was arguing for reasonable precision--and instead of getting agreement, I got a sh*tstorm of protest. However since I was right I wasn't going to let it go this time.

And no, Cyrus, I do not have a chip on my shoulder: rather, I am just moderately exasperated.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
How about a tournament on PokerStars, right wing vs. left wing. Let's see who's right .

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be fun, but ironically, I haven't the time for such nonsense;-)

[lastchance]

Please, please take this to PM, both of you. This is the saddest argument I have ever seen on 2+2.

[ThePokerAddict]

Ok, so Michael Moore, who's _movies_ are COMPLETELY FICTIONAL STORIES and distortions of truth (if any) is used as a source here.

Do I need to say anything more?