Dumb Dems
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Tiger is Cabalasian... Obama is a Mulatto
Next: Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
From: Alan Baker on 26 Sep 2008 14:49 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. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: the Moderator on 26 Sep 2008 15:21 "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.
From: Alan Baker on 26 Sep 2008 15:25 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. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: the Moderator on 26 Sep 2008 16:10 "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.
From: Alan Baker on 26 Sep 2008 16:33
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. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |