My Photo

From the
Fascist's Mouth

What I'm Reading

Answers

« DNC to PAC's, Lobbyists: "No Thanks!" | Main | McCain: Too Old to Lead? »

Comments

kb

"I understand your argument perfectly."drool

"This has yet been demonstrated a single time."kb

"It has been demonstrated numerous times, you fucking bare-faced liar."drool

Uhh...Not once.

"I summarized the points you were making in your "satire""drool

Uhhh...No, you didn't. You DID, however, demonstrate that you didn't understand them at all, and as I ALSO demonstrated. As I recall, you made some illiterate, dumbass, comment about them amounting to my saying Chomsky was right and everyone else was wrong. Well, THIS demonstrates that you ARE illiterate, in that they have almost nothing to do with Chomsky at all. They have to do with dumbass anti-Chomsky droolers not knowing what they're talking about. But then again, I've already been through this, shown how your "interpretation" was incorrect, and finished it. Before you go assuming that simply because you farted out some irrational and factually incorrect opinions, perhaps you shoud stay around to make sure your opinions had anything to them. Regarding my satires, they didn't. Not a single line. But I can send you more and you can try again if you like.

"and you never responded to the post - you never even acknowledged it had been made."drool

Uhhh....As I said, you should shut the hell up unless you know what you're talking about. I responded to your demonstration of not understanding my satire.

"Don't think you can just ignore that and come back with the same old high-handed shit about others not understanding your arguments."

Your premise is incorrect and irrelevant. YOU have ignored my response after your babble demonstrating you didn't understand my satire.

"Try to have a little honesty. I mean, I know it's a foreign concept to liberals, but do make an effort."drool

Projection.

"As far as that goes, there really IS no argument other than the fact that Chomsky, the professor, and the original source as done nothing inappropriate, or at least it hasn't been demonstrated that they have."kb

"It's indicated that at least one of them may have. That's a little better than you've got on your side"

Uhhh...No, it's not at all. There IS nothing on "my side" other than no one did anything wrong.

"which consists of your own opinion and precisely nothing else."drool

Projection in a VERY ICian sense and style.

"There's nothing really to discuss."kb

"Opinion, not fact."drool

No, fact. ANd has been proven to be fact. If you haven't read it, I am NOT responsible for reading it for you over and over, even though I have alreayd anyway.

"That's why I find it odd that you'd keep going with the fairy tale non-issue."kb

"Fine, admit that I busted Chomsky"drool

"You"? I thought it was IC? Hahahahaha...You did nothing of the sort, as I've already proven. In fact, I've proven, repeatedly, that you've helped clear Chomsky yourself. However, this is so far off your rationality radar that it just doesn't compute as to how. Your problem, not mine.

"- and you - once again, and we'll agree it's over."drool

I'll agree it's over when you admit that IC had nothing from day one, and that you've done exactly nothing to move things any further.

"Then you can get on with something useful like learning the first thing about Israeli/Palestinian relations."drool

No evidence presented thus far that demonstrates that I don't. Just empty opinion on your part.

"It's THIS sort of behavior which makes you resemble IC all the more as this was one of his defining characteristics."kb

BOY, I can sure say THAT again: "It's THIS sort of behavior which makes you resemble IC all the more as this was one of his defining characteristics."kb

"Bullshit."drool

Uhh...Not at all. And how the hell would you know anyway?

"You're making another fucking stupid claim that's not even remotely based on reality."drool

Not a claim at all. The reason I've said it is because there is MUCH evidence which would support it, as I have already mentioned repeatedly as well. Even MORE evidence of your illiteracy.

"IC's not even in the discussion."

Uhhh....hahaha....okay....uhhh.....It's not really all that important to me whether I'm showing him to be incorrect, or you to be incorrect, or both of you. It'S the same for me, other than you seem to have even less knowledge of the issue than he. That or you're a damn bad sockpuppet.

"I presume he can't even be bothered arguing with you."drool

I would presume that your presume correctly. He knew he had been proven wrong, and did the smart thing and quit. Right, IC, I mean, drool?

"I on the other hand am arguing with you. See how those two things are different?"drool

Uhh....No. They are OT different. But since you obviously don't know what IC has said then how would you know if you were saying the exact sorts of things anyway. I on the other hand, have had to endure BOTH of your stupidity, and am therefore in a position to see the patterns. However, this doesn't interest me.

xxxxliberal

I'm just looking at the quantity of drivel 'mandible' has managed to write about this statement below. (I'm not bothered about the amount KB writes, as I know he's interested in the psychology behind 'mandible''s so-called 'arguments'):


Chomsky faithfully quoted Olsen. Olsen faithfully quoted his source.

Olsen may have had an opinion then or afterwards that his source might have exaggerated the figure to indicate the strong military/security connections between Turkey and Israel - but that's completely immaterial. The above statement stands.

I'm outta here. I'll take your advice, KB, and ignore him. You have an altogether different reason for being here. But I'm intrigued (and appalled) at the twisting and wriggling 'mandible' is prepared to go through in an attempt to make some sort of point. Which he's never succeeded in making. Not even close.

xxxxliberal

"I'm just looking at the quantity of drivel 'mandible' has managed to write about this statement below. (I'm not bothered about the amount KB writes, as I know he's interested in the psychology behind 'mandible''s so-called 'arguments')"--(me)

Oops, small correction:

I'm not bothered about the amount *of words* KB writes. Sorry, kb.

kb


"You have NOT read the material here. If you have, and this is your "interpretation", you ARE illiterate. Period."kb

"If you think a statement like the above makes any sense then you are a fucking idiot, period."drool

It makes perfect sense. Your eyes crossed over things called words, these words have meanings, at least to folks who are literate, you apparently did NOT understand these meanings, so they may have well been just scratches, or some other sort of scrambled markings with no special meaning, and you did not understand these scratches, called letters, and which are orgainized into things called words. Uhhh....Period.

"The is NOT now, nor has there EVER been an issue here."kb

"Chomsky's use of shaky sourcing is"drool

And once again you repeat the same dumbass statement which has no basis in fact at all. What "shaky sourcing"? There is no evidence of anything shaky at all. Nothing. Zero. What do you persist in asserting that there was? Olsen is well respected and no "shakier" than anyone else as far as I'm aware. And I'm SURE that's more that you are aware.

"was and always has been an issue."drool

It has NEVER been an issue, and is still NOT an issue. The only issue is that you keep persisting that it was at some point, and what causes this? It's indoctrination as far as I can tell. ALL the classic symptoms.

"It will continue to be an issue until you come up with something better than simply stating your opinion that it isn't one."drool

It is NOT an issue, and has not been remotely made to be an issue. To watch you guys flailing around like shrimp in hot oil is interesting though. I have also seen not a single line of evidence from you showing that something from me was only opinion. Not a line.

"For starters, and since you've supposedly already liaised with Olsen"drool

Another dumbass statement. There's NO "supposedly" about it. Period. I contacted Olsen. I gave IC his contact info. And that's that. There is NO opinion here. There is NO interpretation of what happened or didn't happen.
There is simply what happened i.e., that I did the things I said above. And evidentally YOUR opinion, based on a fart or something, which would lead you to saying "supposedly". Are you incapable of reading the material, you know, in order to find out the truth, or do you just prefer doing what I've been demonstrating you to have been doing the entire time by crossing your fingers and hoping Chomsky did something wrong, regardless of the facts?

"e-mail him again and ask him for the text of the original article"

Why the hell should I? I'm not interested as there is no issue. I'm not the one trying to create one or questioning anything. This is YOUR lazy-ass job. Perhaps between you and IC oneof you can actually try and muster up the energy to get off your lazy rightwing ass and send an entire mail. Why not contact Chomsky directly with this nonsense? I've told IC to do so repeatedly, but he is probably at least aware enough that his shit would be shoved back down his throat in a matter of seconds, and he prefers to wallow in the ignorance of his fairy tale.

"why he thought the figure was exaggerated"drool

Your/IC's job. I'm tired of doing your work for your ilk.

"or any number of completely pertinent questions."drool

Why are you telling me? There was never an issue as far as I was concerned, nor is there now. Why are you trying to make me do your work?

"'Til you get some sort of fact, evidence, opionion or, well, anything to back your argument up, you're really just talking shit and presenting it as pure unbridled truth."drool

I'm finished and was on the first day when I correctly stated that Chomsky had done nothing inappropriate. And as of the sentence I'm writing now, there has not been a single word of evidence to show otherwise.

"How long will you continue to beat this horse which was never even born? I have yet to see a single word demonstrating anyone has done anything wrong at all. Please make a list. Or even just one."kb

"I am not going to indulge your stubborn refusal to comprehend facts once again."drool

You do NOT know the facts, dumbass. And your "stubborn" charge is projection 101.

"The reasons behind my argument are clearly laid out in my previous posts."drool

And your "reasons" were shown, repeatedly, to be bunk.

"You haven't dealt with them at all"drool

Hahahahahahahaha...I have done nothing BUT.

"why would I post them again now only for you to run off on another tangent about my supposed illiteracy"drool

It's NOT "supposed".

"or otherwise avoid answering them besides to state that "you're wrong" or some equally irrelevant opinion?"drool

I haven't given any opinions regarding this subject. I have said what exists and what doesn't. This is NOT the same as giving an opinion, thought eh right, as I've said, AND demonstrated before, confuse the two all the time.

kb

Thanks, xxx. Actually, I'll be gone for 5 days. Going up north to a big Festival with my son. I'll finish with mandrool when I get back.

mandible claw

Posted by: kb | July 31, 2008 at 12:23 AM

"Why are you afraid to answer MY post, Mandy??"xxx

"Yer an idiot."

No evidence.

No evidence needed. xxx makes statement that reason I haven't answered it yet is because I'm "afraid." This is wrong, there's no reason to assume so, every reason to assume not so as I have answered pretty much every post either of you have put in here. Hence, at least in this instance, xxx is an idiot. No evidence needed, fact.

"You're making the exact same arguments kb is trying to"

There IS NO argument. There is what IS in fact existing in the real world, and there is what is NOT existing in the real world. Your supposed "argument" does NOT exist. Not seriously anyway. And it has been repeatedly shown NOT to exist.

2+2 doesn't equal 4! Say it enough times and it will come true!

"and I've already answered them over and over again, because he basically repeats the same crap every time he posts. However to shut you up I will respond to you below."drool

Of course I repeat the same thing over, as nothing has changed from the first day when IC's fairy tale began.

And guess what? It's still not factual or relevant.

What's there to change? He tried to claim Chomsky lied, and failed. Period. Was spotted on day one, and nothing has changed since then. Nothing. What should I change? There hasn't been a single line of evidence even hinting at any reason to change.

Right, you have no argument except for "nuh uh" and you refuse to bring anything into the discussion besides that. But it's me who's "dug a hole." Lolz..

Simply because you keep repeating your fairy tale because you already, and mistakenly, dug the hole so deep that you are bound to fight for it, even if it's been shown to be false,

You've yet to deal with MY points in the debate. You think you've dealt with IC's to your own satisfaction - fine, they weren't my points to begin with. His opinion is irrelevant to the debate. Try debating what I said instead of claiming you've proven something when you haven't even addressed my contentions.

you know, sort of the uncomfortable position many soldiers are put in when they're lied to about why they are fighting, only to already been inthe middle of the fighting when they find out they were lied to, and can't really get out of it, doesn't mean that it's too late.

Wow, you're great with the analogies. I've never seen someone produce so much of so irrelevance.

Just simply say that you fucked up because you WERE WANTING to find that Chomsky had done something wrong, and immediately went for the supposed evidence.

Or you could bother addressing the evidence and my interpretations of it, or providing evidence of your own. You don't win an argument by simply telling the other guy he's wrong and then demanding he admit it.

Oh, and that you HAVE, ever since day one, been trying like hell to make this square peg of yours fit into a round hole, and it's just NOT working. If you're lucky, we MAY fogive you.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.. Your delusions of significance in the lives of others' are quite incredible. They compliment your delusions of logic quite nicely..

"IC PROVED NOTHING."xxx

"He got an expert opinion from Chomsky's source that the number was shaky."

Here we go AGAIN with EVEN MORE evidence supporting MY argument. First, "HE" got NO expert at all. I got the expert.

Er... IC contacted the expert. I am referring to his communications with that expert. It's irrelevant who gave him the contact details. The fact you'd even try to use "but I did it first so I get to say what's right" up as an attempt at argument demonstrates how completely your supposed argument is based on nothing else but your own stubborn opinion, and how you can't differentiate that from reality.

I GAVE IC Olsen's contact information because he was too lazy

So-the-fuck-what? Does this in any way shape or form alter the substance of what he said to IC?

I thought not.

(remember one of the terms used for you folks above, i.e., MORE evidence that the term was correct).

Er.. Translate into English please?

ANd AGAIN you are NOT looking at the relevant information here.

Er... Actually, I am looking at the relevant information. Which is what the source said to IC. You on the other hand are trying to imply that the fact you gave IC an e-mail address somehow affects the content of the e-mail he got from the owner of that address. You're about as irrelevant as it gets.

YOu are assuming that when Chomsky used Olsen as a source, that a)Olsen already had this notion of exaggerated numbers

...as evidenced by the fact he said he "always" thought the number was exaggerated...

b)That he must have said something about it of which Chomsky just ignored

Ah... Nope, I am not assuming this, and nor did I ever say so. Once again you are attempting to argue against points that I never made.

c)That Olsen had this feeling at the time, or years later in retrospect, and after seeing that it did not, IF it did not, come into fruition, and on and on....There are about 30 more things I've already listed which absolves Chomsky, Olsen, AND Olsen's source, from doing anything wrong at all.

Right, unfortunately none of them have any bearing on my argument, since the points you are making are in response to things I never said and which you have simply pulled out of your ass and injected into the discussion.

I've asked about a hundred times now for ANY evidence showing that ANY of these folks did something wrong and there hasn't been a single sentence produced. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.

I've presented it about a hundred times, you've ignored it and put words into my mouth, then attempted to argue against your own straw men, then insisted you've won the debate.

"He de facto proved that an expert on the topic doubts the accuracy of Chomsky's work."drool

Huh? WHat the HELL are you talking about?! He proved nothing of the sort. The reason Chomsky referred to Olsen is because he IS an expert on the topic. Chomsky used Olsen's figures from the journal. Period. Olsen hasn't been shown at ALL to doubt the accuracy of Chomsky's work given that this part was based on his own work.

Did he, or did he not, indicate that he doubts the accuracy of the figure? And did Chomsky, or did he not, use that figure in his work? How are you not getting this? Should I print it onto a big piece of wood and beat you over the head with it?

Are you taking drugs?

Apparently you aren't taking yours.

Did IC force you to take up Mormonism?

Ad homs, a true sign of a poor debater.

"He expressed amazement at the IAF having any such planes in a MUSLIM (as he put it) country."xxx

FACT!

"And? Olsen gave no reason as to why he personally thought it was an exaggeration. It could very well be for the exact same reason."drool

And even if it was, it wouldn'T matter one iota as to Chomsky's being correct or not.

No, none at all, except for the fact that Olsen is enough of an expert that Chomsky references him, yet he doubts the accuracy of the figure.

"Big emphasis on Muslim. He challenged the statement."xxx

FACT!

"He got an expert opinion supporting his challenge of the statement."drool

He did NOT "get an expert", and I've mentioned this 50 times so far. What is your problem? Can you not understand the words? Here, let's make them bigger: I CONTACTED OSLEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

How do you not get that that makes not the slightest bit of difference to the content of IC's communications with Olsen? IC e-mailed Olsen, Olsen responded. IC therefore "got" an expert to respond. The expert agreed with IC's opinion.

IC DID NOT CONTACT OLSEN UNTIL LATER, AND AFTER I GAVE HIM THE CONTACT INFORMATION WHICH HE WAS TOO LAZY TO GET ON HIS OWN.

Er... And? You think the semantics of the word "got" are the real issue here?

There. Did you understand the words? He got MY expert opinion which says nothing whatsoever about Chomsky not having given correct information.

Er.. No. Your psychosis is showing. He got Olsen's expert opinion. You see, Olsen being an expert, and having given his opinion to IC, means IC has got Olsen's expert opinion.

I'm not sure how you read that sentence and came up with IC having got your expert opinion as a more accurate protrayal of the circumstances. In fact it's quite a disturbing indication of your mental state.

How many more times must we tell you what took place? It's right up there in words for you to read. IC supposedly got Olsen to say, YEARS after his article was written, that the numbers MAY have been exaggerated. So? This means nothing at all.

Ah.. Yes, it does mean something, especially given that Olsen specifically said he "always" thought the figure was exaggerated, and did not in any way, shape or form refer to elapsed time as a mitigating factor but rather clearly implied that he did not consider it to be so.

"He accused Chomsky, or KB, of lying."xxx

FACT!

"Maybe so. I didn't, though, and the current debate is with me, not him."

There is nothing to debate.

Wow, compelling argument.

"Besides, there's no evidence Chomsky wasn't lying, you're assuming he wasn't."drool

Perhaps that's because he usually doesn't, and it has never been proven that he does.

Right. You have precisely zero evidence that he wasn't doing so this time, however. And yet you're completely adamant that he wasn't.

If YOU think he's lying, then YOU must prove that he is.

I never said he was lying. I said it's a possibility.

I need prove nothing regarding him NOT lying.

Actually, you would, if you were to prove that he wasn't lying. Your adamance on your position given the fact that you have precisely nothing in the way of evidence is somewhat revealing, though.

mandible claw

Posted by: kb | July 31, 2008 at 01:12 AM

"And he got an expert opinion stating that they probably weren't."drool

The "expert" IS Chomsky's source, dumbass.

Actually if you want to split hairs, the expert's source is Chomsky's source, via the expert. Irrelevant, though, since the source said he doubts the number is accurate.

"The original statement wasn't Chomsky's."xxx

"Chomsky used it without fact-checking."drool

He used it because it was in a respectible professional journal and there was no reason to doubt it. That being said, even were Olsen to have said that he thought HIS own source MAY have exaggerated, it STILL would have meant nothing.

To you perhaps, since the concept of accuracy apparently means nothing to you.

"Chomsky was quoting another source."xxx

"Chomsky's responsible for what's in his writing, no-one else."drool

Yes, and what he write was correct, and it hasn't been demonstrated to be otherwise.

IF what he wrote attributed the source then yes, he would be perfectly correct.

You keep assuming that something was wrong with what the source said. Why? There's no evidence that anything was wrong at all.

Ah, no, I have never said that, nor implied it. You are once more arguing against straw men of your own creation. The evidence that something was wrong is that the source said he thought there was - I never said the figure was wrong, that Chomsky was lying, the source was lying, or any of the other red herrings you've brought in here. I said the fact the expert doubts the figure's accuracy is what is wrong with the figure.

You prove that Olsen LIED in his article, or that he told the truth and that Chomsky just lied himself, and THEN, MAYBE, you will have the beginnings of an argument.

No, then I would have a conclusive end to the argument, not the beginnings.

Right now you have nothing at all, other than you preferring NOT to do any of the work which might support your fairy tale, more laziness on your part, and try and keep beating the same nonexistent horse.

Fine. If you still have the source's contact details, give them to me, and I will e-mail him.

"IC got as far as that source, Olsen, who himself got the figure from elsewhere -- and who, on reflection, said that the figure of 12% COULD/MAY/MIGHT have been exaggerated by that original source "to indicate the strong security relationship that existed between Turkey and Israel."xxx

"IC quit there, preening himself, deciding he'd proved his case."

"His original case was that that proportion of the Israeli air force probably weren't in Turkey. He's got support for that. You've got nothing to support the opposing view."drool

No, his original case was to try and prove that Chomsky was wrong about something, or perhaps lied. He failed. And he did NOT get support for that from Olsen.

No, that's the case that you have invented so that you can argue against it, in lieu of arguing against what others actually said. And you apparently don't even realise you're doing it - although I guess introspection is never the strong suit of liberals, given how it tends to shatter their world view 'n all.

"He'd done NOTHING OF THE SORT. Neither had he proved that Chomsky had done anything wrong or sloppy -- not to mention "lying"."xxx

FACT!

"I never said he had proved that. On weight of evidence however, he has more to support that contention than you do to support the opposing one, since you have precisely nothing besides your own opinion and the pretty logical spirals you've spun to come up with it."drool

He has exactly NOTHING to support ANYTHING regarding Chomsky having something wrong. Nothing at all.

You keep saying this .. Are you planning to back it up at some point by looking at what myself and IC have ACTUALLY said?

And there is NO "contention" at all from our side. There is what exists and what doesn't. IC "proved" nothing and had NO support.

He had expert support on the contention the number sounded inaccurate. No-one said he'd proved anything. You are the one who inserted that as a trojan paramter to derail the debate.

He had Olsen saying that HIS source MAY have exaggerated. That's it. Means nothing at all.

Sure, means nothing at all if you deliberately misrepresent what Olsen said, as you just did.

"Olsen expressed an OPINION, give in hindsight/retrospect. IC never bothered to even ATTEMPT to reach Olsen's original source TO FIND OUT IF OLSEN'S OPINION WAS CORRECT OR NOT."xxx

FACT!

"So? He's got one expert backing him. You have zero. Hence, you lose."drool

Uhhh....AGAIN, what the HELL are you talking about? IC got NO exoert at all to back him.

I'm going to make this simple for you. IC contacted the source. The source replied. The source's opinion was the same as IC's. I'm not sure how you aren't getting this. The metal shutters you apparently keep between your eyes to block out the cognitive dissonace must be pretty effective if you think you can argue the semantics of the word "got" and then claim to have dealt with the actual issue at hand.

xxxxliberal

You're the one playing with semantics, Mandy. It's all you've got. And you didn't answer my post. But as I said, I'm out of here. I just wanted to see what you'd come back with. And it's zilch, as usual ...

mandible claw

Posted by: xxxxliberal | July 31, 2008 at 03:16 AM

Chomsky faithfully quoted Olsen. Olsen faithfully quoted his source.

Right, the accuracy of the information or the knowledge or opinion regarding its accuracy is irrelevant, gotcha.

Olsen may have had an opinion then or afterwards that his source might have exaggerated the figure to indicate the strong military/security connections between Turkey and Israel - but that's completely immaterial.

Please demonstrate how exactly it is immaterial? Accuracy is immaterial to you? Provision or otherwise of pertinent information or expert opinion is irrelevant?

The above statement stands.

The above statement means absolutely nothing. It proves absolutely nothing. It's simply an idiotic false parameter you've put onto the debate. Apparently it's satisfactory enough a device that you see no need to look beyond it - fine, that's simply a statement about your own standards, not about whether anyone else is right or wrong.

I'm outta here. I'll take your advice, KB, and ignore him.

You're lying, again, you dishonest a-hole. How long after you pledged here to ignore me did you start posting in at other threads referring to this discussion? You're a fucking liar.

You have an altogether different reason for being here.

Right, "collecting data." Lol.. It's slightly odd that kb claims to have been here collecting this data for several years and in that time to have received nothing new, yet he's still here? What data is he collecting? What is he using it for? In that entire period of time he seems to have written about five sparse "satire" articles and shopped them around a few different forums on the net - not very prolific is he? Not to mention effective..

But I'm intrigued (and appalled) at the twisting and wriggling 'mandible' is prepared to go through in an attempt to make some sort of point.

It's not me who's doing the wriggling and twisting, mate. It's you and your stooge kb who have employed every debate fallacy in the book - self-referencing, false claims of proof and evidence, so on and so forth.

Which he's never succeeded in making. Not even close.

Actually, I've made numerous points and neither you or kb has come close to providing a remotely convincing rationale for why they're supposedly invalid - let alone actually addressing their content. But oh well, if you've convinced yourself you've achieved something then good for you: you're not a complete waste of time since, for all your side's silly claims to be "collecting data" you've simply fed straight into the research that some very intelligent people have been doing on the thought processes of the completely incompetent.

kb

Posted by: xxxxliberal | July 31, 2008 at 03:16 AM

"Chomsky faithfully quoted Olsen. Olsen faithfully quoted his source."xxx

"Right, the accuracy of the information or the knowledge or opinion regarding its accuracy is irrelevant, gotcha."drool

As far as this demonstrating Chomsky did something incorrect, yes, it's irrelevant.

"Olsen may have had an opinion then or afterwards that his source might have exaggerated the figure to indicate the strong military/security connections between Turkey and Israel - but that's completely immaterial."xxx

"Please demonstrate how exactly it is immaterial?"

Because it is. There's nothing TO demonstrate. If you think it IS material, then YOU must show how. It's irrelevant up one side and down the other.

"Accuracy is immaterial to you?"

There has been nothing presented which was inaccurate. Why do you keep on insisting that there has been? You have STILL, NOT once, shown that ANY of the people invoved have done a single thing wrong. Neither Chomsky, Olsen, or Olsen's source. No one. Zero. Zilch. But boy do you sure want to believe that you have.

"Provision or otherwise of pertinent information or expert opinion is irrelevant?"drool

What's relevant, which hasn't been shown, or irrelevant which has?

"The above statement stands."xxx

Stands and is correct.

"The above statement means absolutely nothing. It proves absolutely nothing. It's simply an idiotic false parameter you've put onto the debate."drool

Uhhh....Prove it to be then and quit your whiny-ass drooling. Thus far you have done nothing of the sort. On the other hand, I have repeatedly shown how it's 100% irrelevant, given a dozen analogies showing that it is. xxx has done the same. Your "parameter" assertion is nonsense, but you're welcome to show ho9w it isn't if you dare.

"Apparently it's satisfactory enough a device that you see no need to look beyond it - fine, that's simply a statement about your own standards, not about whether anyone else is right or wrong."drool

There's nothing "beyond" to look at. That's the whole point. You're 'wanting' and 'trying' to "look beyond" to something which doesn't exist. We aren't. We're interested in what IS there, not "looking beyond" to some fairy tale. We've only been saying this from day one, when it was immediately exposed to be a nonissue.

"I'm outta here. I'll take your advice, KB, and ignore him."xxx

"You're lying, again, you dishonest a-hole."drool

Saying that he/she'll is going to be "outta here" and then returning has nothing to do with lying. They simply may change their mind. "Outta here" may be a day, a wekk, a month, a year, or whatever. It's should also be irrelevant to you whether they are outta here or are not. Personally, I do NOT hope ANY drooler here goes away because there will go most of my source material.

"How long after you pledged here to ignore me did you start posting in at other threads referring to this discussion? You're a fucking liar."drool

IC, I mean, drool, why do you care?

"You have an altogether different reason for being here."xxx

"Right, "collecting data." Lol.. It's slightly odd that kb claims to have been here collecting this data for several years and in that time to have received nothing new, yet he's still here?"

It's not odd at all if you know what it is I'm looking for. As a matter of fact, the more it doesn't change, the better it supports my thesis. However, given that you are clueless as to what this is, you wouldn't know. Perhaps you should ask someone so that you don't start shooting more blanks in the dark while blindfolded like you have regarding Chomsky.

"What data is he collecting?"drool

Why not ask him? It's not a secret. I've been saying why since my first days on this blog.

"What is he using it for?"drool

Ask him? Why do you care? Starting to be concerned about your own contributions? I sure as hell would be if I were you. I mean, if I were you, but conscious about what I was doing and saying.

"In that entire period of time he seems to have written about five sparse "satire" articles and shopped them around a few different forums on the net - not very prolific is he? Not to mention effective.."

Well, again shows how much you DON'T know. I have dozens, haven't posted any for quite some time, have had MANY requests for more, and on and on....And thanks to folks like you, well, you're helping to make it possible. Besides, why do you care? You don't understand them anyway, as has already been demonstrated.

"But I'm intrigued (and appalled) at the twisting and wriggling 'mandible' is prepared to go through in an attempt to make some sort of point."xxx

"It's not me who's doing the wriggling and twisting, mate."drool

Uhhh....Yes, it is. It's been shown repeatedly to be as well.

"It's you and your stooge kb who have employed every debate fallacy in the book - self-referencing"drool

Not a single "fallacy" demonstrated. Not a single instance of "self-referencing" given. Sure sounds like you know what you're talking about though. OOoooOOOooo......Evidence or silence.

"false claims of proof and evidence"drool

Again, where? Not a single instance of anything false from our side. Repeatedly so from yours. AND with evidence provided by us. You have provided nothing but more empty headed opinions.

"so on and so forth."drool

projection

"Which he's never succeeded in making. Not even close."xxx

"Actually, I've made numerous points"drool

You have made exactly NO points. None. Zero. If so, what? Where are they? You've given a few opinons, and nothing to back up any of them. You've then proceeded to confuse these opinions with facts. They evolved into fact in your little indoctrinated brain, and we are now just watching you sin and spin like I said would happen WAY back when you first tried to rekindle the already dead nonissue. Sorry, but you have made nothing.

"and neither you or kb has come close to providing a remotely convincing rationale for why they're supposedly invalid"

We have done nothing but, idiot. You have not provided a single sentence which demonstrates anything at all. I've asked on the order of 40 times now to prove exactly WHO of ANY of the folks here has done something incorrect. You have NOT responded to even this basic of a question, instead preferring to spin in circles trying to make sure your fairy tale is self-sustaining somehow. It's actually quite embarrassing. And that you are supposedly in the media profession and aren'T aware of this makes it even more embarrassing. I mean, if you were just a simple, you know, blog drooler or something, and knew nothing about the topics involved, it could perhaps be excused or written off to naivete, or ignorance. However, you have tried to put yourself into a place where you are supposed to know better, and you simply don't. It's like a person going all the way through medical school, saying that we should listen to him because he has, and then says in passing that the heart is in the ankle. Well, this is more or less what you've done here. That THIS is the case is NOT in question at all, as I've repeatedly stated, and given evidence why. The ONLY thing interesting is how YOU are oblivious to it and the possible reasons why.

"- let alone actually addressing their content."drool

There IS NO CONTENT to ANYTHING you've presented. Same crap as IC tried to present from day one, and which was squashed from day one. Or perhaps day two, AFTER I had given IC MY Olsen contact information, another point you still seem to be having difficulting understanding for some odd reason. But if at some point in time you think you find something relevant, please show us. Nothing thus far.

"But oh well, if you've convinced yourself you've achieved something then good for you"drool

Projection. Projection aside, however, as far as I can tell we never had anything TO achieve. What was there to "achieve" from our side? That you folks don't know how to read and understand words? This doesn't make me feel better. That due to your indoctrination that you can't see an inch in front of your face? This doesn't make me feel better. What would make me feel better is for at least ONE of the anti-Chomsky droolers, to read even ONE book and try and make an argument. And this wouldn't make ME feel better because 'I' had done something to change their thinking, come to like Chomsky, or anything of the sort. This would simply make me feel better because I managed to get one person to actually read a book for themselves whereas before they were unable to. I guess there is some satisfaction when seeing a cult member realize that he has been fooled, grew out of it, and can now think for himself. That's about it. Now, which books of Chomsky's did you say you had read?

": you're not a complete waste of time since, for all your side's silly claims to be "collecting data" you've simply fed straight into the research that some very intelligent people have been doing on the thought processes of the completely incompetent."

No "claims" at all. And I doubt I would say "completely incompetent". I'm sure a few can tie their own shoes, and change their own diapers. I mean, when they have to.

Never did see any of YOUR sources, mandrool. Asked for them several times. Mentioned a few Australian folks I appreciated. Didn't hear a peep. Why? Dropped several names of folks in the "media profession" who most anyone would know about, and haven't heard a peep. Why? After all, you've attempted to make your credentials relevant somehow. Well, give us some reasons beyond your opinions which should make us listen to you anymore than the town drunk. Not much so far.

kb

"I'm going to make this simple for you."drool

You can't make anything any other way as far as I can tell.

"IC contacted the source."drool

AFTER I gave him the contact information. Or at least this is what he claims to have done.

"The source replied."drool

Supposedly.

"The source's opinion was the same as IC's."drool

Uhhh...No, it wasn't. First of all, we're not talking about "opinions", we're talking about Olsen having gotten information from a source and then printing what his source told him. Then, sometine later, Chomsky seeing the printing in a journal and repeating it. Period. Yes, it IS really quite simple as we've been saying from the start. That being said, your contention that IC's "opinion", the only thing he EVER gives, was the same as Olsen's is not correct anyway. A BIG difference. IC's notion was that it was absurd that the IAF would have ANYONE in Turkey given it was a Muslim country, and that there was no way that 12% existed there. Fine. The first part is factually and laughably false, and has been repeatedly proven to have been so. And the second part may or may not have been correct. This has never been determined, NOR is it the least bit relevant as to whether or not Chomsky did anything wrong by using it. So again I ask, if you can find a single example of a history book ever written which lives up to the standard which you're attempting to require Chomsky to abide by I'd like to see it. I would have NO hesitancy asserting that no such thing exists, nor never has. Sorry, but IC/you have a LONG way to go before being able to conclude that Chomsky has done anything wrong at all. A LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG way. You haven't even started as far as I can tell. You have little more than one source saying upon reflection that his source MAY have been exaggerating. If so, and if he didn't mention this, and if it is of any significance, then Olsen, if anyone, MAY be the one in the wrong. That's it. This has also never been approached. Basically IC/you have done almost nothing to prove anything, preferring instead to stop at a point which is convenient for confirming your fairy tale. But this is nothing really new with anti-Chomsky droolers. It's the norm. Look at your asinine comments regaring Mexican farming, or whoever's dumbass comments those were thinking that they had proved something. It's laughable.

"I'm not sure how you aren't getting this."drool

Oh, but we are. We're not only getting what's happening here, but we're getting why you aren't and have been discussing it the entire time, and possible reason for it, the possibility of rehabilitation, etc....

"The metal shutters you apparently keep between your eyes to block out the cognitive dissonace"drool

Now starting to try and use the same concepts to put bacl on us. Also old and predictable. Already discussed this as well. You are doing little more than 'saying' we are experiencing cognitive dissonance, even though you have presented not a line demonstrating this at all, whereas when I make claims of this sort I give concrete examples of when it's happening, where it's happening, and why it may be happening. A VERY BIG difference. You should learn the difference before starting to play with the big boys, drooler.

"must be pretty effective if you think you can argue the semantics of the word "got" and then claim to have dealt with the actual issue at hand."drool

The isn't a single example of xxx or myself NOT having dealt with the "issue" at hand. You can say this all you like, but until you start showing that we aren't it really does mean little. You see, we have MUCH evidence of you/IC NOT having dealt with the issue at all, assuming that one even wishes to refer to this non-issue as an issue, which is already technically incorrect. From start to finish. From IC NOT contacting Olsen until I spoonfed him his address, even though later I pretty much demonstrated that this was probably impossible given the times the mails were sent, received, etc...That aside, even though it is VERY much an ICian sort of thing to do, as was repeatedly demonstrated in various other droolings of his, we decided to let it go and pretend that Olsen may have actually sent the mail as even if he had supposedly sent this mail it would still not prove anything at all regarding Chomsky having done anything inappropriate at all. From then until now, nothing has changed at all. Nothing. I've already listed a dozen times what you would need to do to even start trying to build a case. You know, trying to assist you in making your own argument, which is already pathetic on your part, but you have fought NOT to even try to make a case. Personally, I find this really odd. I guess you guys are too arrogant in your "pride" to even be able to take avise which would be helpful for YOU. You know, very simple things, like, say, reading a few of Chomsky's books so that you'll possibly learn a little more about the topic. Know wonder you folks despise education so much. Like spoiled little boys who don't want to do their homework, and who think it makes them radical NOT to have to read and learn something. OoooOOOOoooo......(snore, burp, fart, roll over and goes back to sleep)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Fair Trade
Gift Shop

  • fairtradelogo.jpg

Sites I'm Banned From