Dumb Dems
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Tiger is Cabalasian... Obama is a Mulatto
Next: Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
From: MNMikeW on 29 Sep 2008 10:40 "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-2E8799.13331026092008(a)shawnews.vc.shawcable.net... > In article <HIWdneoG2rwC3EDVnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d(a)centurytel.net>, > "the Moderator" <sparky(a)no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >> news:alangbaker-D4A6D4.12254126092008(a)shawnews.vc.shawcable.net... >> > In article <QcGdnepk3uLRq0DVnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d(a)centurytel.net>, >> > "the Moderator" <sparky(a)no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >> >> news:alangbaker-EB5164.11495326092008(a)shawnews.vc.shawcable.net... >> >> > In article <BvqdnUvp2IPquEDVnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d(a)centurytel.net>, >> >> > "the Moderator" <sparky(a)no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message >> >> >> news:alangbaker-44D54D.09515426092008(a)shawnews.vc.shawcable.net... >> >> >> > In article <6k4i0eF640asU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> >> >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It was easy to lookup, you should try it some time. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Having actual understanding without having to look things up: you >> >> >> > should >> >> >> > try that. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > That you couldn't simply articulate your claim without resorting >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > a >> >> >> > cut and paste job says much about your actual understanding. >> >> >> >> >> >> Translation: "I deal in opinion not facts." >> >> > >> >> > No. >> >> > >> >> > I understand the facts. You couldn't articulate your counter claim >> >> > without doing cut and paste. >> >> >> >> It wasn't my cut and paste. That is a fact. >> > >> > My mistake. >> > >> > So all you did was defend the guy whose total understanding of the >> > subject led him to have to do a cut and paste job. >> >> No, I pointed out that in the face of the facts, you decided to go with >> your >> opinion. > > No. I didn't. > > I went with the facts: > > There is a new doctrine in U.S. foreign policy that allows for > preemptive self-defense. That new doctrine is articulated in the > National Security Strategy of 2006. This is fact, not opinion. > > I knew this doctrine existed and what the gist of it was without need to > look anything up. Mike came along and tried to obscure the plain facts > by claiming that there were three doctrines (when all he really meant is > that the one doctrine had three elements, but then obfuscation was all > he was really after), but when pressed had to use Wikipedia to > articulate his claim. This, too, is fact. > And all three "doctrines" made it into the NSS of 06 as the wiki stated.
From: Alan Baker on 29 Sep 2008 13:36 In article <6kc7mrF6u88iU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > news:alangbaker-2E8799.13331026092008(a)shawnews.vc.shawcable.net... > > In article <HIWdneoG2rwC3EDVnZ2dnUVZ_vjinZ2d(a)centurytel.net>, > > "the Moderator" <sparky(a)no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > > > >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > >> news:alangbaker-D4A6D4.12254126092008(a)shawnews.vc.shawcable.net... > >> > In article <QcGdnepk3uLRq0DVnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d(a)centurytel.net>, > >> > "the Moderator" <sparky(a)no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > >> >> news:alangbaker-EB5164.11495326092008(a)shawnews.vc.shawcable.net... > >> >> > In article <BvqdnUvp2IPquEDVnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d(a)centurytel.net>, > >> >> > "the Moderator" <sparky(a)no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:alangbaker-44D54D.09515426092008(a)shawnews.vc.shawcable.net... > >> >> >> > In article <6k4i0eF640asU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > >> >> >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> It was easy to lookup, you should try it some time. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Having actual understanding without having to look things up: you > >> >> >> > should > >> >> >> > try that. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > That you couldn't simply articulate your claim without resorting > >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> > cut and paste job says much about your actual understanding. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Translation: "I deal in opinion not facts." > >> >> > > >> >> > No. > >> >> > > >> >> > I understand the facts. You couldn't articulate your counter claim > >> >> > without doing cut and paste. > >> >> > >> >> It wasn't my cut and paste. That is a fact. > >> > > >> > My mistake. > >> > > >> > So all you did was defend the guy whose total understanding of the > >> > subject led him to have to do a cut and paste job. > >> > >> No, I pointed out that in the face of the facts, you decided to go with > >> your > >> opinion. > > > > No. I didn't. > > > > I went with the facts: > > > > There is a new doctrine in U.S. foreign policy that allows for > > preemptive self-defense. That new doctrine is articulated in the > > National Security Strategy of 2006. This is fact, not opinion. > > > > I knew this doctrine existed and what the gist of it was without need to > > look anything up. Mike came along and tried to obscure the plain facts > > by claiming that there were three doctrines (when all he really meant is > > that the one doctrine had three elements, but then obfuscation was all > > he was really after), but when pressed had to use Wikipedia to > > articulate his claim. This, too, is fact. > > > And all three "doctrines" made it into the NSS of 06 as the wiki stated. They aren't three doctrines, Mike. They are three elements of one doctrine. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Jack Hollis on 30 Sep 2008 16:04 On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:13:31 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: >> Didn't the Canadian legislature recently pass a resolution defining >> Quebec as an independent nation within Canada, or something to that >> effect. That doesn't sound like it's quite over to me. > >Actually, that's pretty much what ended it. So the separatists basically won.
From: Jack Hollis on 30 Sep 2008 16:05 On 29 Sep 2008 05:27:43 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:44:30 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > >> I also like Quebec. It's close by and, unlike the rest of Canada. it's >> like being in a foreign country. > >It is a foreign country. English as well as French. Differences exist, >even if you can't see them. I'm sorry, being in English Canada is not like being in a foreign country.
From: The_Professor on 30 Sep 2008 16:29
On Sep 29, 9:40 am, "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > news:alangbaker-2E8799.13331026092008(a)shawnews.vc.shawcable.net... > > > > > In article <HIWdneoG2rwC3EDVnZ2dnUVZ_vjin...(a)centurytel.net>, > > "the Moderator" <sparky(a)no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > > >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > >>news:alangbaker-D4A6D4.12254126092008(a)shawnews.vc.shawcable.net... > >> > In article <QcGdnepk3uLRq0DVnZ2dnUVZ_tjin...(a)centurytel.net>, > >> > "the Moderator" <sparky(a)no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > > >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > >> >>news:alangbaker-EB5164.11495326092008(a)shawnews.vc.shawcable.net... > >> >> > In article <BvqdnUvp2IPquEDVnZ2dnUVZ_hmdn...(a)centurytel.net>, > >> >> > "the Moderator" <sparky(a)no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message > >> >> >>news:alangbaker-44D54D.09515426092008(a)shawnews.vc.shawcable.net.... > >> >> >> > In article <6k4i0eF640a...(a)mid.individual.net>, > >> >> >> > "MNMikeW" <MNMiik...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> It was easy to lookup, you should try it some time. > > >> >> >> > Having actual understanding without having to look things up: you > >> >> >> > should > >> >> >> > try that. > > >> >> >> > That you couldn't simply articulate your claim without resorting > >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> > cut and paste job says much about your actual understanding. > > >> >> >> Translation: "I deal in opinion not facts." > > >> >> > No. > > >> >> > I understand the facts. You couldn't articulate your counter claim > >> >> > without doing cut and paste. > > >> >> It wasn't my cut and paste. That is a fact. > > >> > My mistake. > > >> > So all you did was defend the guy whose total understanding of the > >> > subject led him to have to do a cut and paste job. > > >> No, I pointed out that in the face of the facts, you decided to go with > >> your > >> opinion. > > > No. I didn't. > > > I went with the facts: > > > There is a new doctrine in U.S. foreign policy that allows for > > preemptive self-defense. That new doctrine is articulated in the > > National Security Strategy of 2006. This is fact, not opinion. > > > I knew this doctrine existed and what the gist of it was without need to > > look anything up. Mike came along and tried to obscure the plain facts > > by claiming that there were three doctrines (when all he really meant is > > that the one doctrine had three elements, but then obfuscation was all > > he was really after), but when pressed had to use Wikipedia to > > articulate his claim. This, too, is fact. > > And all three "doctrines" made it into the NSS of 06 as the wiki stated.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Now don't go calling it by it's actual name. Baker is confused enough. |