Pentagon officer (ret.) dissects the President's speech

[Cyrus]

"...an incoherent, inaccurate, duplicitous, arrogant piece of trash that no intelligent staff should ever have approved." But this is just the reporter's opinion.

Let the officer speak for himself :

ETHICS OF INTELLIGENCE: Retired Pentagon Officer Comments on Bush's Recent Speech (http://www.oss.net/extra/news/?module_instance=1&id=1558)

[Chris Alger]

It's interesting that one can find correctives and rejoinders like this all over the net but never sees them in the TV or radio media. There were a number of mainstream objections to Bush's speech, almost all of them on pragmatic policy grounds (the Bush team suffers from "bad planning") but none drew the more obvious moral conclusions. For example, Bush called his war "one of the most humane military campaigns in history." It would be relevant for the media to note that Bush's war killed roughly ten times as many civilians as all Palestinian terrorists since 1987 (comparing figures from Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm) to B'Tselem statistics. (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Total_Casualties.asp))

It also would have been appropriate for them to note Bush's record for nondisclosure and outright lying (e.g., African Uranium). For example, consider the excellent rejoinders (http://www.accuracy.org/bush/) to Bush's Oct. 7 speech about the war. A truly informative, properly adversarial broadcast press would have run correctives hourly, but TV watchers never saw or heard anything like that. On August 10, AP reporter Charles Hanley published a detailed corrective to Powell's UN speech (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/6496667.htm) regarding Iraq, but to my knowledge none of the broadcast media, including NPR, paid much attention to it. (Cyrus: thanks. The OSS link led to this gem).

The most striking thing about Bush's speech is the sheer silliness and crudity, even compared to Bush's earlier speeches. Of course we're unpopular in Iraq. Of course we're taking pot shots from local resistance groups. Given the hatred against the U.S. throughout the Arab world and the political jockeying in Iraq, it's not even surprising that real terror has beguan to take a toll. Even Rumsfeld contends that no one should be surprised at these events. Yet Bush makes it sound as if the predicted, probable result of the U.S. occupation proves that we're operating near the heart of international terror and on the verge of cutting it out.

Overall, the speech reads less like the usual white v. black propaganda and more like a psychological warfare campaign targeted against the American public. For example, in some 18 minutes Bush used the word "terror" or "terrorism" more than 20 times, with a dozen or so other scare word references like "murder," "torture" and "tyrant."

Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be working. Polls suggest that the average American is much less gullible than the average Republican.

[Wake up CALL]

"It's interesting that one can find correctives and rejoinders like this all over the net but never sees them in the TV or radio media. "

How about the obvious reason Chris? That any yahoo can publish a webpage and call it gospel even though it may be inaccurate and nothing but political propaganda. Wheras a reputable news organization requires some facts and substantiation.

[Chris Alger]

Because the links I used for evidence were riddled with substantiated, highly relevant and largely uncontested facts that rarely see the light of day on TV. It's the reason why so many Americans assume absurdities such as the 9/11 attackers being from Iraq, or that Iraq has nuclear weapons, or is the most prolific violator of UN resolutions.

[BruceZ]

It's interesting that one can find correctives and rejoinders like this all over the net but never sees them in the TV or radio media.

Well, depending on what networks "one" watches, that would be false. FOX News cites these constantly. Just last night, a writer (didn't catch the name) was quoted referring to our president as "that drooling redneck", and declaring Brit Hume as "the most unobjective news reporter he's ever heard". The show that was on? Special Report with Brit Hume.

Kind of blows your world view now, don't it? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Chris Alger]

I was referring to facts, not petty insults and silly debates over "objectivity." If it's sensibly skeptical, candid and honest it doesn't need to be objective. Besides, what passes for objectivity is usually cross-rhetoric filler, Carville-Maitlin stuff.

[BruceZ]

How about FOX's reporting on Arianna Amanpour's claim that FOX News and the White House "intimidated her" in her war coverage?

FOX also has a program on Sunday called FOX News Watch which is a whole show focusing on issues of journalistic integrity and objectivity. It features Cal Thomas and a journalism professor from American University, among others.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the links I used for evidence were riddled with substantiated, highly relevant and largely uncontested facts that rarely see the light of day on TV. It's the reason why so many Americans assume absurdities such as the 9/11 attackers being from Iraq, or that Iraq has nuclear weapons, or is the most prolific violator of UN resolutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dear Chris it appears you are unable (or unwilling) to distinguish a fact from an opinion. I went to every single link provided in your post and found nothing but commentary, opinions and unverified statistics. Must I restate the difference between a biased yahoo's website and a verifiable news source? Please, please learn to tell the difference and these threads will become more useful and much shorter.

[Chris Alger]

I have no idea what she means by "initimidated." I doubt that she ever qualified a story by pointing out that media access to power centers like the White House is conditioned upon broadcasting the official line.

Putting a bigoted crank like Cal Thomas ("it is the express purpose and policy of Arafat and the terrorist groups (and most Arab states) to eliminate Israel and eradicate as many Jews as possible from the region") on a show about "journalistic integrity" is about par for Fox (whose regular reporting, imo, is rarely worse than the other networks).

[BruceZ]

Putting a bigoted crank like Cal Thomas ("it is the express purpose and policy of Arafat and the terrorist groups (and most Arab states) to eliminate Israel and eradicate as many Jews as possible from the region")

He's a journalistic icon, and he was quoting a direct statement.

[Chris Alger]

Obviously, they include many facts. One can dispute the evidence supporting them, or deny the evidence exists, but they are fact-based counterpoints to offical statements. And they're rarely in the mainstream.

You're evidently referring to the right-wing line that the news should simply regurgitate what the government says and refrain from citing facts in argumentative form that tend to contradict the official line, which you guys call "opinion" to distinguish it from (official) "fact."

It's a totalitarian notion of how the press ought to operate, but a fairly accurate description of what it does, witness the right-wing hysteria over the slightest expression of skepticism regarding anything Bush says.

Your comment about "unverified statistics" is revealing. It suggests that the media should broadcast any bit of nonsense that comes out of official mouths, but not counter it with statistics unless they can also supply the "verification," so that any rebuttal to Bush would require hours of statistical minutae.

[Chris Alger]

I agree he's an icon of the right. He's probably one of the smarter ones (as in the theory of evolution "led to the holocaust").

Quoting a direct statement? You're just making up facts like you icon Cal. The statement wasn't in quotes, doesn't purport to be a quote, couldn't be a quote for reason of multiple attributions, wasn't attributed to any particular person or entity, and wasn't supported by any reference. The entire editorial is here. (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20020212.shtml)

[BruceZ]

I'm not making up anything, what he is referring to was reported all over the news as a direct statement by a Hammas leader. They also had a spokesman for Hammas on FOX, and I saw him make the same statement myself.

You have a long way to go before you have 1% the credibility of Cal Thomas. Now go read about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

[Cyrus]

"I went to every single link provided in your post and found nothing but commentary, opinions and unverified statistics."

I doubt you did any of the above. Let me get my scalpel :

Iraq body statistics (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm) cites the casualties' figures in Iraq. Its sources are all the world's mainstream media (it lists them in full, as you saw down the page...) and it follows strict rules (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#methods) about data verification. But you didn't find that good enough.
B'Tselem (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Total_Casualties.asp) cites the numbers of Palestinian casualties. Numbers and more numbers. But I understand. You don't like those numbers!

Perhaps you didn't appreciate the link to the Institute for Public Accuracy (http://www.accuracy.org/bush/), because Dubya's recent speech is dissected more incisively than kosher meat. There are no figures, unfortunately, only logical arguments. But, since those arguments point to a direction you don't particularly appreciate, you have every right to dismiss it.

Then, you were provided with the dissection of Powell's UN speech (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/6496667.htm), performed item by item : Satellite photos; audiotapes; anthrax; bioweapons trailers; "Four tons" of VX; "Embedded" capability; chemical agent; deployed weapons; nuclear program; scuds, new missiles. All ripped to bloody pieces.

...I could go on but I need some encouragement first : Do you enjoy this kind of punishment or is this a one-way street?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
"I went to every single link provided in your post and found nothing but commentary, opinions and unverified statistics."

I doubt you did any of the above. Let me get my scalpel :

Iraq body statistics (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm) cites the casualties' figures in Iraq. Its sources are all the world's mainstream media (it lists them in full, as you saw down the page...) and it follows strict rules (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#methods) about data verification. But you didn't find that good enough.
B'Tselem (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Total_Casualties.asp) cites the numbers of Palestinian casualties. Numbers and more numbers. But I understand. You don't like those numbers!

Perhaps you didn't appreciate the link to the Institute for Public Accuracy (http://www.accuracy.org/bush/), because Dubya's recent speech is dissected more incisively than kosher meat. There are no figures, unfortunately, only logical arguments. But, since those arguments point to a direction you don't particularly appreciate, you have every right to dismiss it.

Then, you were provided with the dissection of Powell's UN speech (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/6496667.htm), performed item by item : Satellite photos; audiotapes; anthrax; bioweapons trailers; "Four tons" of VX; "Embedded" capability; chemical agent; deployed weapons; nuclear program; scuds, new missiles. All ripped to bloody pieces.

...I could go on but I need some encouragement first : Do you enjoy this kind of punishment or is this a one-way street?


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me see if I understand your post correctly Cyrus. The sites in question are accurate because you say they are so therefore I must be mistaken. Any more logic like that and you'll be running for Governor of California along with the rest of the West Coast goobers.

Please give me more Cyrus, I am laughing so hard right now I may wait till I am bored again to read your next response.

[Chris Alger]

Then you're calling Thomas a liar because, even though he doesn't even purport to be quoting anyone, he attributes the statement to Arafat and "most" Arab states. And you expect people to believe that you can recall the exact language of one sentence you heard on TV more than 19 months ago, even though the only source anywhere on the web for Thomas's "quote" is Thomas himself? Pathetic.

[John Cole]

Cyrus,

I read quickly through the Institute's analysis of Bush's speech, and I find quite a few instances where the analysis is less than incisive. In reality, some of the analysis comes across as mere axe-grinding. For example, the Institute's comments on anthrax do not disprove that Iraq had anthrax; instead, the analyst reports the United States sale of seed to Iraq in the 1980's. Certainly, our earlier support of Iraq is left unmentioned by Bush's speechwriters (as if they would mention it anyway), but these instances of finger pointing detract from the overall credibility of the report, I think.

John

[BruceZ]

Then you're calling Thomas a liar because, even though he doesn't even purport to be quoting anyone, he attributes the statement to Arafat and "most" Arab states. And you expect people to believe that you can recall the exact language of one sentence you heard on TV more than 19 months ago, even though the only source anywhere on the web for Thomas's "quote" is Thomas himself? Pathetic.

Uhh...no, I don't think I'm calling anyone a liar. I was referring to a similar statement he made on television in the last few weeks, not the old editorial you cited. I thought that was what you were talking about. He made it the day after the statement issued by Hammas which was well covered in the media. I saw the whole discussion, and it was clear that he was referring to the Hammas statement. By bringing up this old editorial, you've basically shown him to be quite astute, since Hammas came out 19 months later and admitted what he was saying. Of course this was no shocking revelation to anyone with a lick of common sense. And yes, I can remember the exact words and context of conversations I had 20 *years* ago. Can't you?

[Cyrus]

Wake up CALL > "I went to every single link provided in [Alger's] post and found nothing but commentary, opinions and unverified statistics."

Out of the 4 websites provided by Alger, one dissected Powell's UN speech item by item with plain facts, such as we watch every day in the news (eg Anthrax -- no findings at all abt Iraq manufacturing same), and one dissected Bush's recent speech. John Cole found the latter exercise less than perfect and, while I disagree with him, I don't mind ascribing that one to a difference of opinion. (I have seen, admittedly, beter dissections of Dubya's stand-up routine but this is about Alger's links.)

The other 2 links are choke-a-block with figures and stats! What you call "unverified statitiscs" (a better term is "statistics I don't like") are actually figures and data collected under stringent rules, which, moreover, are listed exhaustively and naturally have not been refuted as yet. The list of sources if quoted at the bottom of this post, for your further amusement/punishment.

So, the whip cracks still : You have not really read anything in the links provided by Alger. You just dismissed 'em out of hand because they are so embarassingly against your worldview.

(If I knew you get a kick from this stuff, I would have been more collaborative. But we have all those winter months ahead of us to catch up. /images/graemlins/cool.gif)

--Cyrus

LIST OF SOURCES USED IN DATA ABOUT IRAQI BODY COUNT

ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post

[nicky g]

Bruce, you are rather ignoring the point that what Chris quoted referred to Arafat and "most" Arab governments, and was entirely unsubstantiated, whereas what you refer to is a Hamas quote. Arafat, Hamas, and the various governements of the region, are independent entites. Arafat's Fatah and Hamas are rival Palestinian groups with differing (and incompatible) objectives for the region, while many Arab governments are extremely hostile to Hamas, Arafat, or both. You cannot substantiate a claim against Arafat and Syria, for example, just because it's true of Hamas.

[Wake up CALL]

Nice post Cyrus, did you realize all those sources have either funny papers and/or editorial sections? As far as reading each link, as I said I did and discovered that verifiable information from those sources was impossible to discern. Again just because you can read it on the net with unverifiable sources doesen't make it so. Also just because you say it is accurate that fact alone certainly casts more doubt on the subject than before. You are not exactly anyone's idea of a useful research tool. However you did start my morning with a good joke so kudos to you for the effort. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[BruceZ]

That's true, he really didn't distinguish between the objectives of Hamas, and of Arafat, and all those other Palestinian terrorist groups that are benevolent towards Isreal. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Thomas expressed his opinion, which is what one does in an editorial. I don't think it's entirely unsubstantiated that Hamas would not be able to operate if it did not have the support of Arafat. However, Chris will jump all over Thomas for expressing an opinion, while at the same time he endorses Robert Scheer, who is the most irresponsible journalist in the nation, and who's columns are nothing but unsubstantiated opinion. For example, he has openly praised the Castro regime. This extreme imbalance destroys Chris' credibility, no matter how many facts he has memorized.

If a person lacks the ability to draw balanced conclusions from facts, every additional piece of knowledge he gains just becomes all the more terrible for him. A person with far less knowledge of facts than Chris could actually form far more accurate opinions because at least he could step back and see the forest for the trees. Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

"The problem with a guy like you is that one of these days you're going to start to do a little thinking for yourself, and you're going to realize that you just blew $150,000 for an education you could have gotten for a buck sixty in late charges at the public library."

-Good Will Hunting

[nicky g]

"I don't think it's entirely unsubstantiated that Hamas would not be able to operate if it did not have the support of Arafat. "

OK - I don't agree but this is at least an argument. But don't also forget he included "most Arab governements" in this. You can't lump all Palestinians and Arabs with Hamas. What he effectively did was to take one statement by one Hamas activist and present it as the objective of most Arabs. That's clearly wrong.

[BruceZ]

The experts who make their living studying such things tell us that these terrorist groups such as Hamas wouldn't be able to operate in the manner they do without the financial sponsorship of the state. You don't think Arafat could shut them down if he wanted to? You're spinning.

As for "most Arab governments", that depends on if you go by what they do, or if you are gullible and go by what the tell the west their policy is. If you want to know what their true attitude is, look at what the government controlled schools teach their kids. That it is their duty to hate the west, to hate Israel, and that it is an honroable purpose to kill all the infidels who trespass on their land.

[Chris Alger]

Okay, so now you're changing it from a "direct quote" to a "similar statement" made not by Arafat or "most" Arab countries, as Thomas put it, but by one Hamas leader over a year later. Figures. Just once I'd like to meet a right-winger with an elementary respect for facts.

[Chris Alger]

"Chris will jump all over Thomas for expressing an opinion"

No, I jumnped all over Cal Thomas for making a false statement of fact, namely that Arafat, "most Arab countries" and unspecified terror groups have all "said" that they seek to eradicate Jews. No opinion (inference, actually) in that. This is one of Thomas's characteristic outright lies, which you have attempted to defend by manufacturing falsehoods of your own. Its SOP for the American right.

[Chris Alger]

Give me two or three examples of fact statements where the information was impossible to verify. Frankly, I suspect that you don't understand the meaning of the term.

[BruceZ]

Oh go back to kindergarten and learn how to read, will you please? I said Thomas was referring to a direct quote by Hamas when he made his statement, not that Arafat made any similar statement. Everything I have stated in this thread is factual. You are the one trying to drag some 19 month old editorial into it, not me. If you can't counter my statements, you can't just bring up some material of your own, assign it to me, and then attack that! Typical misdirection and spin from the addled left, and SOP for Chris Algae.

[BruceZ]

I have stated no falsehood in this thread.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Give me two or three examples of fact statements where the information was impossible to verify. Frankly, I suspect that you don't understand the meaning of the term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris of course a fact is able to be verified. Your links contained no true statements of fact but purported them to be facts which of course cannot by their nature be verified. The other content was opinion and propaganda supporting your position. I know very well the meaning of a fact however you have trouble comprehending the difference. If you insist your links provide factual information it is up to you to prove not up to me to disprove. The information is of course false until proven otherwise. If you believe differently let me put up a webpage telling you Arafat is a terrorist, this would make it true and you could then argue about some other fact in another thread.

[BruceZ]

If you believe differently let me put up a webpage telling you Arafat is a terrorist, this would make it true and you could then argue about some other fact in another thread.

That's correct, it's simple to make a theory in which something is true, you just include a statement in your theory that says it's true. If this conflicts with other statements in your theory, that makes the theory "inconsistent". Usually people want consistent theories, so you wouldn't include conflicting statements. If all statements can be proven true or false, then the theory is complete. If a theory is complete, and if your theory supports basic arithmetic, then you can prove it is consistent only if it is inconsistent.

[Chris Alger]

You said Thomas was "was quoting a direct statement," and later admitted that the "direct statement" was in fact only a "similar statement" that you (claim to have) heard on TV some 18 months after Thomas published his piece.

Which of these terms do you not understand: direct, similar, "was quoting" or falsehood?

[Chris Alger]

Here are some facts statements quoted from my links:

"the U.S. and Britain have bombed Iraq 46 times in 2002 when their aircraft are ‘targeted’ by Iraqi air defense systems in the bilaterally enforced no-fly zones."

"Most of our ‘friends’ in the region -- Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan -- have strongly urged us not to go to war, and to tone down the war rhetoric."

"Resolution 687 also speaks of 'establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction' -- which also means Israel's 200-plus nuclear weapons as well as Syria's and Egypt's apparent chemical weapons capabilities, and any nuclear capability the U.S. has placed in the region."

How are these statements impossible "by their nature" to be verified?

[BruceZ]

You said Thomas was "was quoting a direct statement," and later admitted that the "direct statement" was in fact only a "similar statement"

You're still not getting this. See below. I said Thomas quoted a direct statement. That is a true statement. I said a "similar statement" was made by Thomas a few weeks ago, not that he quoted a similar statement. Similar to the statement he made in your editorial.

If you don't understand, then say you don't understand. Don't ask me what I don't understand. I understand everything, including what you don't understand. Actually I don't understand why you don't understand, but I have a theory about that.

[Chris Alger]

You said "what he [Thomas] is referring to was reported all over the news as a direct statement by a Hammas leader."

As I pointed out before, this would make Thomas a liar because he attributed the (nonquoted) statement to Arafat and "most Arab countries," not "a Hamas leader." Now, do I have to also walk you through the differences in these terms as well?

You also said "They also had a spokesman for Hammas on FOX, and I saw him make the same statement myself."

You then changed this to a "similar statement," which by means "different but having by common attributes."

And now, having been unable to come up with any statement by any Hamas leader about a desire to "eradicate Jews," much less any by Arafat or any Arab country, you now expect us to beleive that what you really meant to say was that Thomas was quoting something you heard 18 months ago, and heard recently again, but can't offer any specifics other than it was on Fox.

[Chris Alger]

Now look what you've done. You've pointlessly drawn this thread out so far that Bruce has been obliged to write a lot of gobbledygook about nothing in order to see his name in it.

Anyway, I take it that by arguing over whether the statements of fact have been proven true or verified that you are admitting to lying when you said that there were no fact statements at all. Fine. I'm done.

[BruceZ]

Gobbledygook is relative to the sophistication of the observer.

[nicky g]

"The experts who make their living studying such things tell us that these terrorist groups such as Hamas wouldn't be able to operate in the manner they do without the financial sponsorship of the state. "

OK then. Tell us a bit more about these experts. I'm unaware of any evidene showing PA financial support to Hamas; if you are, please direct me to it.

"You don't think Arafat could shut them down if he wanted to? "

No, I don't. Hamas is extremely popular, well-resourced, andthe PA securty forces infrastructure was almost entirely destroyed by the Israelis at the start of the intifada.
It goes back to the start of tis thread; Israel can't stp Hamas, so there is no way Arafat could.

"As for "most Arab governments", that depends on if you go by what they do, or if you are gullible and go by what the tell the west their policy is. If you want to know what their true attitude is, look at what the government controlled schools teach their kids. That it is their duty to hate the west, to hate Israel, and that it is an honroable purpose to kill all the infidels who trespass on their land. "

A shred of supporting evidence for this would be helpful. Which Arab governments you're talking about, evidence of these lessons etc would all be of interest. The last statement is pure fiction. or someone who claims only to post on topics he's well enough informed about to be 100% certain of his position, you make a lot of sweeping and inaccurate statements.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are some facts statements quoted from my links:

"the U.S. and Britain have bombed Iraq 46 times in 2002 when their aircraft are targeted by Iraqi air defense systems in the bilaterally enforced no-fly zones."

"Most of our friendsin the region -- Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan -- have strongly urged us not to go to war, and to tone down the war rhetoric."

"Resolution 687 also speaks of 'establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction' -- which also means Israel's 200-plus nuclear weapons as well as Syria's and Egypt's apparent chemical weapons capabilities, and any nuclear capability the U.S. has placed in the region."

How are these statements impossible "by their nature" to be verified?




[/ QUOTE ]

What a stubborn boy you are Chris! In order to show the problem with the facts you just posted let me first quote your first post in this thread to which I have been referencing in all my subsuquent posts to you.

"It's interesting that one can find correctives and rejoinders like this all over the net but never sees them in the TV or radio media. There were a number of mainstream objections to Bush's speech, almost all of them on pragmatic policy grounds (the Bush team suffers from "bad planning") but none drew the more obvious moral conclusions. For example, Bush called his war "one of the most humane military campaigns in history." It would be relevant for the media to note that Bush's war killed roughly ten times as many civilians as all Palestinian terrorists since 1987 (comparing figures from Iraq Body Count to B'Tselem statistics.)

It also would have been appropriate for them to note Bush's record for nondisclosure and outright lying (e.g., African Uranium). For example, consider the excellent rejoinders to Bush's Oct. 7 speech about the war. A truly informative, properly adversarial broadcast press would have run correctives hourly, but TV watchers never saw or heard anything like that. On August 10, AP reporter Charles Hanley published a detailed corrective to Powell's UN speech regarding Iraq, but to my knowledge none of the broadcast media, including NPR, paid much attention to it. (Cyrus: thanks. The OSS link led to this gem).

The most striking thing about Bush's speech is the sheer silliness and crudity, even compared to Bush's earlier speeches. Of course we're unpopular in Iraq. Of course we're taking pot shots from local resistance groups. Given the hatred against the U.S. throughout the Arab world and the political jockeying in Iraq, it's not even surprising that real terror has beguan to take a toll. Even Rumsfeld contends that no one should be surprised at these events. Yet Bush makes it sound as if the predicted, probable result of the U.S. occupation proves that we're operating near the heart of international terror and on the verge of cutting it out.

Overall, the speech reads less like the usual white v. black propaganda and more like a psychological warfare campaign targeted against the American public. For example, in some 18 minutes Bush used the word "terror" or "terrorism" more than 20 times, with a dozen or so other scare word references like "murder," "torture" and "tyrant."

Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be working. Polls suggest that the average American is much less gullible than the average Republican. "

Now none of the facts you posted do anyting to substantiate your supposition. This is the same as me saying "Arafat is a terrorist." Then you asking "please provide some facts." Then me responding " I currently reside in North America and it is sunny outside. I drive a Toyota. The earth is larger than the moon." Although these are verifiable facts they have nothing to do with proving Arafat is a terrorist just like your quoted statements of facts have nothing to do with proving your original post was accurate and objective.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
It goes back to the start of tis thread; Israel can't stp Hamas, so there is no way Arafat could.





[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to break it to you Nicky but the start of this thread is:

Pentagon officer (ret.) dissects the President's speech

[Cyrus]

You are unrepentant but maybe that's part of the masochist kink.

"As far as reading each link, as I said I did and discovered that verifiable information from those sources was impossible to discern."

Bullcrap.

Here's how one does that kind of research if one's truly open-minded (an unnecessary assumption in your case). Take B'Tselem for instance : The recap of its stats breaks down into various segments. Take one as a random test and check it. Take, for instance, incidents of "Family Separation in the Occupied Territories". If you had, you'd have "discerned" that the relevant data is referenced to the (Israeli administration's) Coordinator of Government Operations in the Territories. This is as good a source as one can hope for (it represents the bare minimum of the possible range, for obvious reasons).

Take another stat. For instance, the quiet deportation (http://www.btselem.org/English/Jerusalem/The_Quiet_Deportation.asp) stats. The sources for them are quoted as follows: " The figures for 1995 and thereafter are taken from the compilation prepared by the Ministry's Population Registry, in preparation for the visit of the new Minister of the Interior at the office of the Population Registry in East Jerusalem, which took place on 19 July 1999. The figures for 1999 were provided to B'Tselem by the Ministry of Interior on February 13, 2000."

Discernin' anythin' yet?

I did not go as far as contacting the Israeli Ministry, no. But perhaps you could do that for me. (I hear they are looking for a new laughing gas to put down the intifada.)

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

Dear Bruce,

It is somewhat of a faux pas to tell off Chris Alger to "GO BACK TO KINDERGARTEN!", and call him Chris Algae in the same post.

In my opinion, you should wait for at least the next post before you mock his name like a kindergarten kid yourself. It will allow people to forget what you said one post before. And it lends more authority to the knaptofts in your text.

As ever,

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

Dear Bruce,

I don't know what on Earth possessed you to butt into this thread but thank you all the same. So far, it's being extremely educational.

(And hilarious too, but I have a theory about that.)

As ever,

--Cyrus

[nicky g]

Oops - sent too much time in the other one, now I think it's just all one big thread.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
You are unrepenant but maybe that's part of the masochist kink.

"As far as reading each link, as I said I did and discovered that verifiable information from those sources was impossible to discern."

Bullcrap.

Here's how one does that kind of research if one's truly open-minded (an unnecessary assumption in your case). Take B'Tselem for instance : The recap of its stats breaks down into various segments. Take one as a random test and check it. Take, for instance, incidents of "Family Separation in the Occupied Territories". If you had, you'd have "discerned" that the relevant data is referenced to the (Israeli administration's) Coordinator of Government Operations in the Territories. This is as good a source as one can hope for (it represents the bare minimum of the possible range, for obvious reasons).

Take another stat. For instance, the quiet deportation (http://www.btselem.org/English/Jerusalem/The_Quiet_Deportation.asp) stats. The sources for them are quoted as follows: " The figures for 1995 and thereafter are taken from the compilation prepared by the Ministry's Population Registry, in preparation for the visit of the new Minister of the Interior at the office of the Population Registry in East Jerusalem, which took place on 19 July 1999. The figures for 1999 were provided to B'Tselem by the Ministry of Interior on February 13, 2000."

Discernin' anythin' yet?

I did not go as far as contacting the Israeli Ministry, no. But perhaps you could do that for me. (I hear they are looking for a new laughing gas to put down the intifada.)

--Cyrus


[/ QUOTE ]

Please refer to my response to Chris Alger as to why finding any verifiable fact in a link does nothing to support the purported facts that supported the position of his original subject matter. Perhaps I could have worded it better by stating any "pertinent facts" but I though that to be understood. Alas, when writing as well as speaking it appears best to write to the lowest level of the audience, I failed to do this.

[BruceZ]

GOD ARE YOU DENSE!!! Or else you don't understand because you just don't want to understand. Kind of like when foreigners pretend to not understand English when you want them to do something. You and Cyrus have the same technique, because nobody can possibly be as dumb as you two appear to be and still be walking upright. Why do you do this every time you have a discussion? Is your positoin really so weak that you have to resort to these kind of tactics? Oh, I guess it is.

I'm going to try this one more time, and if you don't get it this time, forget it, I don't have any more time to teach you that 1 and 1 make 2. Even nicky understood what I was saying, so maybe he can explain it to you.

You said "what he [Thomas] is referring to was reported all over the news as a direct statement by a Hammas leader."

YES. He was quoting a statment by a Hamas leader which was all over the news. How could you have missed this? You must have had your head buried in the Al Qaeda Journal or something.

As I pointed out before, this would make Thomas a liar because he attributed the (nonquoted) statement to Arafat and "most Arab countries," not "a Hamas leader."

He used the (quoted) statement to indicate the intentions of Palestinian terrorist groups. Hamas is a Palestinian terrorist group. So are other terrorist groups which are part of a loosely affiliated network of terrorists, funded and supported by Arab governments. (Picture me talking real slow and condescending now if that helps). This latter part was an inference made by him, and not a giant leap of one either, and certainly not a "lie". It was part of his commentary.

"There are no facts, only interpretations". - Frederich Nietzche

The "most arab countries" statement came from an editorial *you* brought up, and which I knew nothing about, so why should I be quoting that, hmmmmm? Forget about that one already. You can wipe your ass with it.

You also said "They also had a spokesman for Hammas on FOX, and I saw him make the same statement myself."

That is correct, they had a spokesman for Hammas who made this objective very clear.

Now for the rest of this nightmare:

You then changed this to a "similar statement,"

You're getting all confused between *Thomas'* statement and Hamas' statement. Go back and read carefully.

And now, having been unable to come up with any statement by any Hamas leader about a desire to "eradicate Jews

As you can see I came up with 2 such statements, one which was in the news, and one which was reinforced by the spokesman on FOX.

you now expect us to beleive that what you really meant to say was that Thomas was quoting something you heard 18 months ago

GOD BLESS AMERICA. I told you to wipe your ass with that, now I don't want to see it ever again.

Now, do I have to also walk you through the differences in these terms as well?

I leave you and your sidekick with this final thought from our friend Nietzche.

"The only thing that the argument by intimidation proves is that the one who makes it is in posession of an impotent intellect".

[BruceZ]

A shred of supporting evidence for this would be helpful. Which Arab governments you're talking about, evidence of these lessons etc would all be of interest. The last statement is pure fiction

Uh, the testimony of persons who went to school there, how about that? This is common knowledge, and if you have not seen any evidence for this then either you are ignorant, or you are just trying to cover up. Your ignorance of supporting facts does not imply they do not exist. I have seen posters made for schoolkids depicting suicide bombers blowing up a bus, and portraying them the way we might post an ad for the boyscouts. Have you ever even been to a 3rd world country? You said you were what, 12 years old? I like M's statement, "you are apparently under the influence of lack of years which time will soon enough correct", or something like that. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

or someone who claims only to post on topics he's well enough informed about to be 100% certain of his position, you make a lot of sweeping and inaccurate statements.

I am 100% certain of the information I have seen in the media, and that is what I am reporting. Nothing is inaccurate unless you don't believe the media. Oh, I forgot, everything in the media is made up too. Get real.

[BruceZ]

In addition to the logic exercises that M prescribed for you, I suggest that you try to understand this

proof of Goedel's theorems (http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/godel/theorems.html).

It will expose you to the extreme subtlties of logic and inference, and give your mind a real workout. In fact, don't come back until you have this completely figured out. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Chris Alger]

"He [Thomas] was quoting a statment by a Hamas leader which was all over the news. How could you have missed this?"

You see those little things that look like ant footprints at the beginning and end of the sentence above? They're called quotation marks. If one quotes someone else in writing, one has to use them, otherwise it's not a "quote." Thomas's attribution of genocidal statements to Arafat and most Arab countries could not have been a "direct quote" because he didn't use the little ant footprints. I know this probably seems very complicated, but you should accustom yourself to the way we do things on earth.

How are you going to change your story now? You started by saying that Thomas was quoting directly from what had to have been a multitude of sources (including "most" of the 22 Arab countries), then it was just someone in Hamas, then it was just a "similar statement" by someone in Hamas, which you now claim is different from the "direct quote" you claim was made but apparently never was, and now you're reverting by pretending that you "came up with 2 such statements, one which was in the news, and one which was reinforced by the spokesman on FOX." But what were the statements, Bruce? Let me make it simple: WHICH WORDS DID THEY USE, AND IN WHICH WORD CAME AFTER WHICH? This is the information one needs in order to discern a "statement."

I take it you've given up on trying to find any evidence that Thomas was actually telling the truth, or that Arafat or any, much less most Arab countries, have admitted their desire to "eradicate Jews."

[MMMMMM]

nicky, it's sad but true: the things BruceZ listed as being taught in Arab government schools are very frequently taught in those institutions. Also, the imams teach many such things regularly in the mosques. Now, not every single school or teacher or imam does this, but a considerable percentage of them do. Such teachings are quite widespread. All you have to do is get the texts of certain sermons to see this taking place in the biggest mosques, or read a bit about what's being taught in Wahhabi schools in Saudi Arabia or in the Pakistani madrassas. It's no joke, the Arab children are being systematically indoctrinated to hate us.

[John Cole]

"Nothing is inaccurate unless you don't believe the media."

Bruce,

Well, now I'm really confused, so I think I'll try to reconcile accuracy and belief for a while. /images/graemlins/grin.gif Someone might object to this thread, but I think it's a hoot.

John

[John Cole]

Bruce, Okay, I got it. What's next?

John

[BruceZ]

Do you know what it means when a computer system is said to be "off its rails?" It means that some resource of the system has been exhausted, either processing bandwidth or memory. It is caused by being unable to keep up with too much information to be processed in too short a period of time, so it stops functioning properly. It's also called "losing its brains". The condition is usually characterized by the system being generally unresponsive to new input, and producing continual output which is repetitive gibberish unrelated to the input. Your last post shows that you are off your rails.

Did you even read my last post at all before you responded? You have simply repeated the same confusion you had before I made that post, before I clearly explained everything to you. For example, what the hell is this:

then it was just a "similar statement" by someone in Hamas

I *just* explained to you, in the last post, very clearly, in so many words, that the "similar statement" I was referring to was made by *Thomas* not Hamas. Go back and look at my last post. You completely misunderstood, I explained it, and now you misunderstood again. I'm not getting anywhere with you. I can't even convey to you a single concept of who said something. You can't even discern between *Thomas* and *Hamas*. I know they sound kind of the same, but geeze.

I could stop right here, because this is clear evidence that you either cannot or will not understand anything. Communication is a two way activity. If you can't try to understand, if you just want to create perpetual confusion, either real or imaginary, then what is the point?

I wasn't going to respond again, but I'm finding this fascinating now. I'd really like to figure out what is going on. I mean, on a certain level you seem like a legitimate, even studious poster. But your method of discourse, to me an others as well, is something like talking to a 2-year old. I post, and you respond with something that doesn't make sense, I post again, you respond with a repetition of the same thing that doesn't make any sense, seemingly unaltered by anything I have said, etc. The other thing that is interesting is that I've experienced the same thing with Cyrus. Like

him: "I want something exact, not an approximation",

me: "it is exact"

him: "how can an approximation be exact?",

me: "it was an approximation, but I made it exact"

him: "how can you have an exact approximation?"

me: "it's not an exact approximation, it's exact"

him: "how can it be exact if it's an approximation?"

me: "it's not an approximation it's exact

etc., etc. repeat until exasperation. Months later:

me: I found exact solution months ago.

him: You overstate you accomplishments, you only found an approximate solution.

...

It's like a bad Laurel and Hardy routine. Same thing with you now, and before too, but I only just noticed the pattern. You got this idea in your head about some article that you dug up out of nowhere, and I can't seem to get you off of that. It seems like too much of a coincidence that you and Cyrus exhibit this same phenomenon, so the only thing I can think is that you get together and conspire to do this. Is that what you mean by "running rings around you". Seems pretty childish if that's what it is. Kind of like the game where kids repeat everything you say. Kind of the opposite of that though, because if you repeated *anything* I said correctly I would at least have that feeling like I'm communicating with an actual intelligent being, and not some AI bot that is off the rails.

I won't respond to your rendition of what you thought I said, because that's just confusing you. I'll make this real simple. You can forget this whole thread and start over because there were too many threads for you to manage, and you went off the rails. This is like hitting the big reset button and rebooting. Now here is a rendition of everything that has taken place so far in this thread so you don't have to look back. I'll paraphrase, but this is what was said, the important things anyway, so this will answer the question:

WHICH WORDS DID THEY USE, AND IN WHICH WORD CAME AFTER WHICH?

You: You never see correctives and criticisms issued in the media [referring to a writer's criticism of the Bush speech].

Me: That's false, FOX issues them all the time. [and I gave an example].

You: I didn't mean petty insults, I mean substantial criticism.

Me: [I gave another example of a substantial criticism of FOX and the White House by a CNN reporter, and I mentioned a show hosted by Cal Thomas that examines journalistic integrity.]

You: Leave it to FOX to let a crank like Cal Thomas host a show about media integrity. [then you related the statement he made in an editorial that was 19 months old without mentioning where you got this quote].

Me: [Thinking that you were talking about a statement I heard him say a few weeks ago on TV] He's a journalistic icon, and he was quoting a direct statement. [This direct statement I was referring to was from a Hamas leader. It stated Hamas' objective to eradicate Israel. The Hamas statement was all over the news that week, and FOX had a spokesman for Hamas on who said the same thing, hence 2 sources. Cal's statement on TV was something to the effect that it is the clear intention of the Palestinian terrorist organizations to eradicate the Jews, and now some of them have even stated this (referring to the statement by Hamas). I said this was "similar" to the statement from your editorial, hence the confusion. I said it was a direct quote because he used the same words the Hamas leader stated to make this point.

Now, the quote from your article used the words "Arafat, and most Arab nations". I don't believe his TV comment used those words, so I wasn't defending that. Certainly there was no quote from Arafat and most Arab nations. This part was Cal's opinion from his commentary 19 months ago, long before the Hamas statement. I was referring only to the statement he made on TV, which was based on the Hamas statement.

You: [Provided a link to Cal Thomas' article and called him a liar]

At that point you went off the rails, because you insisted on talking about your article, while I was talking about the statement I heard on TV. There were no "quotation marks" on the TV, (the little "ant footprints", thanks for patronizing, but you have NO right to talk about something being too complicated for anyone).

Whew! So there, you are now all caught up. If you go back and examine this thread (but don't because it will confuse you again) you would see this is exactly what happened. I didn't state anything that was false, and Cal didn't say anything unreasonable on TV. If you think his editorial comments were unreasonable, that's another issue, and I will be presenting more evidence to support that, but that wasn't what I was referring to at any time in this thread until nicky came in and we started to discuss it.

You should have been able to review this thread yourself and reach this understanding, but you don't want to reach an understanding. You only want to create a perpetual state of disagreement and confusion. It is now obvious to me why your conclusions are not credible even after all of the research you've done. You cannot possibly understand the meaning of the complex material that you read because you cannot even understand my simple statements in these posts.

[BruceZ]

Really, the whole thing? With all the symbols and indirection?

[BruceZ]

I saw an interview with a woman who was kidnapped by her estranged husband when she went back to Saudi Arabia. She was essentially held hostage at home, she couldn't go out. Her daughter went to a school during the day, and she related the hateful things that they made her daughter learn and say about America. There are still women and children in that situation that can't get out. It's a whole different world over there that we can't conceive of in the west. The women have no rights.

[ACPlayer]

Do u have a theory on why they are being so indoctrinated?

[BruceZ]

Well, now I'm really confused, so I think I'll try to reconcile accuracy and belief for a while.

Anything you believe or take on faith is true (and hence accurate) by definition until it can be proven inconsistent with other beliefs. It's like an axiom. You always have to start somewhere with some base assumptions. You can question those assumptions in other contexts. For example, I might make the assumption that Arabs are evil and proceed from there with my theory of American foreign policy. Someone else might want to question those assumptions, and that's fine, we can then develop a more fundamental theory. Like calculus presposes some basic properties of numbers, sets, algebras, etc. You can study calculus without getting into those more fundamental areas, and then study them as a separate theory. Then you can change the fundamental assumption, and develop new and different theories which are equally consistent but which reach different conclusions.

It's interesting to see how people's worldview and opinions parallel the mathematical structure of axioms and theorems. A person's beliefs and knowledge about the world tries to reconcile everything into one big super-theory. Usually a person's basic beliefs and values are not clearly stated, so it's difficult to distinguish what he considers a basic assumption, and what is a derived truth. If people would state their basic assumptions clearly, some of them would probably scare everyone away right off, so that's a reason many don't want to do that if they expect to relate to other people and be taken as credible. But then it's difficult to really have a logical argument if peoples assumptions are different and unstated. It's difficult enough to argue about mathematical conundrums and paradoxes, can you imagine if each mathematician had his own axioms, and then didn't tell anyone what they were?

"There are no facts, just interpretations." - Nietzche

Someone might object to this thread, but I think it's a hoot.

Yeah, I probably got a little carried away. Sorry.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, I do, and I have at least touched on it in a number of posts you may have missed.

Briefly, because it's my bedtime, I will list a few reasons:

1) Because Islam itself is, scripturally speaking, a very divisive religion, and Islam itself is also a religious-political system for domination and conquest. One of the most basic tenets is that there is the House of Peace (dar al-Islam) and the House of War (dar al-harb, I believe it is called--if I'm slightly off on the Arabic terms, sorry). The House of War refers to the entire outside world not yet conquered by Islam. When the outside world is subjugated by Islam, there will be peace over the whole world and the entire world will be the dar al-Islam. Infidels (non-believers) are to be given the choice of conversion to Islam, or being killed, or becoming one of the protected minority of non-Muslims living under Islam (usually Jews or Christians). Such dhimmi, as they are called, do not possess the political rights a Muslim does and must pay a special extra heavy poll tax called the jizya. As long as the dhimmi remain subjugated and obedient and pay the jizyathey are relatively protected.

Islam itself means submission (to the will of Allah). The religious-political structure of Islam calls for forcing everyone to so submit to the will of Allah (as interpreted by the clerics). The forced submission inculcated by Islam carries over psychologically to the power structures of the society--challenging authority is much rarer than it is in Western cultures. I personally suspect that so much forced submission builds deep-seated hidden resentments which can be directed once a convenient target is found.

The Arab cultures have stagnated in terms of accomplishment in recent centuries. This is due to their unfree societies which reward conformity rather than innovation, submission rather than free thought, and stifle free speech. Varying degrees of Socialism too are common in the Arab countries and this does not contribute much to economic development. So too the military dictatorships, monarchies and theocracies do not generally foster great free enterprise.
A casual friend of mine from Syria told me that if Bill Gates had lived in an Arab country instead of America, he wouldn't be rich, he would be dead or in jail because nobody is supposed to be smarter than the leader of many of these countries. It is dangerous to show up those above you.

Today many Arabs have resentment against the West for multiple reasons. The Arab world, centuries ago a leader, is now nearly dead last. The Western values of freedom and liberality shock and offend the traditional ultra-conservatism of Islamic societies. The Arab world is historically very tribal in outlook and this mentality, nurtured by the "us against them" stance of Islamic scripture, extends now to the world stage.

Some acts by the US and West have genuinely given the Arabs cause to feel anger or distrust. However these acts are also counterbalanced by the fact that the US literally saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein. The West also developed the Mideast oil initially, and Iran and the Arab countries later nationalized their oil industry, essentially kicking out those who had provided the initial capital and know-how from which these countries now reap billions of dollars. Oil provides nearly their entire economies, but it is also true that an economy based on export of raw materials is functioning at the lowest level on the ladder--it is not a good economic model, really.

Those are some of the reasons for their anti-Western feelings. But that still leaves the question of why is hatred of the West taught so pervasively in the educational systems and in the mosques and in the religious schools?

The answer to that question lies in part that it is better politically, from the rulers' standpoint, to have an outside focus for the great discontent that many in Arab societies today feel. This helps prevent that discontent from being turned against the rulers themselves; it helps protect them from the possibility of being overthrown, or a revolution.

Well, there's more, but I'm going to sleep.

[ACPlayer]

I'll have to think about what this means about your world view.

One thought though -- I always thought that the word Islam comes from the same route as Salam and Shalom (peace). To be a Muslim is to submit to god - but that is true of most religions.

Oh, Ok, another thought - how much is Religion and how much is Politics? The hatred I mean - does the Quran say kill Americans or do the politicians (who could be clerics in the role of a politician) say kill Americans?


Last time - During the era that the Christians were killing non-christians for being non-christians was that based on their interpretation of the bible, at the time?

[Cyrus]

Dear Bruce,

Sincere thanks for comparing us, yourself and me, with Laurel and Hardy. They are among my all-time favorites!

I have one question, though : Are you Ollie and I am Stan or is it the other way around? Seeing as you land in another fine mess every other post, I suspect the former but please clarify as soon as possible. I have to order the right-size hat.

As ever,

--Cyrus

PS : I studied carefully your script about our 'exact/approximation' routine and I have come to the conclusion that you are suffering from a certain variation of dyslexia. This is not an insult but merely a dispassionate statement : I suspected as much when you wrote post after post of your all-time favorite rock group and had it misspelled all the time but now that I read your totally inaccurate transcript of our 'exact/approximation' disagreement, I'm almost certain. We could talk about this, at no charge, over PMs at your convenience.

[Cyrus]

Dear Wake up CALL,

I see that you have decided to end this little repartee by satisfying yourself. After the various wild claims about "no discerning evidence", the obvious opening for masochistic punishment, and after that punishment was "swiftly administered" (as they say), in the form of a cavalcade of sources, aka whippings, you are under the volcano (as they say).

I can only depart discreetly here and leave you to it.

Yours, with a smile on my face,

--Cyrus

PS : I was gonna name this 'un The Whipping Post, but I it's Zappa over Allmans by a pip.

[MMMMMM]

John Cole, how in the hell could you vote for Cyrus to go on a date with your sister? Imagine what the man is capable of.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Wake up CALL,

I see that you have decided to end this little repartee by satisfying yourself. After the various wild claims about "no discerning evidence", the obvious opening for masochistic punishment, and after that punishment was "swiftly administered" (as they say), in the form of a cavalcade of sources, aka whippings, you are under the volcano (as they say).

I can only depart discreetly here and leave you to it.

Yours, with a smile on my face,

--Cyrus

PS : I was gonna name this 'un The Whipping Post, but I it's Zappa over Allmans by a pip.

[/ QUOTE ]

You certainly are a dreamer Cyrus, I prove you wrong yet take partial blame for assuming you could understand the concept of "in context" and now you claim some sort of imaginary victory. Wow talk about living in a constant state of confusion. It is evident you desperately need to be right so I understand your delusional behavior. Better luck with the new prescription Cyrus.

[John Cole]

Mark,

As I said, I don't have a sister, but given the choices, I figured, had I a sister, Cyrus would be the best choice. Now, you must consider the context. My poll came within a thread in which Bruce had cited his earlier post where he
looked at the respective EVs of going on a date and hiring a prostitute. Now imagine what that man is capable of. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

John

[BruceZ]

It was Wake Up CALL's example, I just optimized it.

That wasn't the part of the thread I was referring you to.

[Gamblor]

Sibling rivalry was a huge issue in your house, eh

[Cyrus]

Dear Bruce,

Thanks for the link to a random Goedel website from Sweden. I guess it was the first thing that popped up from your search engine. Never mind. It's comforting to see yet another pathetic invocation of poor Goedel in a totally unrelated context.

'Twas really funny 'cause in the preceding page (http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/godel.html) of your link, one reads the following, most telling text :

Every day, Goedel's incompleteness theorem is invoked on the net to support some claim or other, or just to whack people over the head with it in a general way. Whenever a bunch of people get together on the net, sooner or later somebody will invoke Goedel's incompleteness theorem.
Unsurprisingly, the bulk of these invocations covers a range from the nonsensical to the merely technically inaccurate.

Bruce, you are coming through loud and clear. You are not alone, Bruce.

As ever,

--Cyrus

[John Cole]

Bruce,

Nice optimization. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"That wasn't the part of the thread I was referring you to."

Ah, but the curious mind finds its own direction.

Best,

John