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

xxxxliberal

Here, for the record, is the post Mandy glossed over (and chose to reply to the last two lines, only):

IC PROVED NOTHING.

He expressed amazement at the IAF having any such planes in a MUSLIM (as he put it) country. Big emphasis on Muslim. He challenged the statement. He accused Chomsky, or KB, of lying. He was asked/told to back up his challenge that the planes (12% of the IAF) couldn't possibly be in Turkey.

The original statement wasn't Chomsky's. Chomsky was quoting another source. 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."

IC quit there, preening himself, deciding he'd proved his case. He'd done NOTHING OF THE SORT. Neither had he proved that Chomsky had done anything wrong or sloppy -- not to mention "lying".

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.

In other words, NOBODY HAS REACHED ANY SOURCE WHICH HAS CAGETORICALLY DENIED THE 12%. The 12% has never BEEN denied.

Is that simple enough for you?

Because I'm finished with your nitpicking and suggestions that Chomsky did anything wrong. When patently IC proved nothing of the sort. And neither have you.

Posted by: xxxxliberal | July 11, 2008 at 03:35 AM

xxxxliberal

Now, will he wave his silly shovel some more?

mandible claw

mandroolIC said:

I don't recall Olsen saying that Chomsky had done something wrong.

I don't recall him saying Chomsky hadn't done anything wrong. All he said was the he "always thought the figure was highly exaggerated," note the word "always," indicating that at the time Chomsky used the figure Olsen already thought it was exagerrated.

"And that you would even try to put this forward just after having had you ass handed to you repeatedly, with evidence every single time,"drool

Uhh...YOU/IC are the ONLY ones having had their asses handed to them, and have had them handed to you repeatedly and in every possible wrapping.

Ah.. No. Not remotely.

"What evidence? Find me a single piece of evidence you've posted in this thread, go on. You can't even be arsed to do what IC did and contact someone to back up your opinion."

Uhh...If you haven't seen the evidence you have no business discussing this topic at all, dumbass.

I haven't seen it because it doesn't exist. "Evidence" denotes something that backs up your argument independently. You don't have that.

Boy, your and IC's cognitive dissonance is sure awfully similar.

Suit yourself.

I have given evidence about 50 times now that NOTHING wrong took place,

No, you have given an OPINION.

...and not a single one of you have given a single example that something has.

Except for what IC's source said. The fact you personally dismiss it as unimportant has precisely zero bearing on its relevance.

"All you've done is tell us why YOU think Chomsky didn't make a mistake and we're wrong, not him. That's evidence of NOTHING."

Uhhh...Wrong again. Unlike you I'm NOT simply telling my opinion about anything, or the way I cross my fingers and HOPE it to be. I'm simply relaying the facts as they happened.

Bullshit. You are not relaying the facts. You are spinning them. And you are projecting your own techniques onto your debate opponents.

Chomsky did NOT make a mistake here whether I like it, don't like it, am indifferent, love it, hate it, or anything else.

What's your proof for this? Find an independent source to verify that an instance such as this one doesn't qualify as a mistake and you might have a point. You'd even have the evidence you're constantly pretending exists to back you up. In the meantime all you've got is your own opinion, which is worth less than shit to anyone besides you.

Again, this is NOT some matter of interpretation. There is what DID happen, and there is what did NOT happen.

Correct. Chomsky's source DID say he always thought the number was exaggerated. Chomsky DID NOT check the number in the first place.

Chomsky simply did nothing wrong, and no one has come even within a ballpark of demonstrating that he has. That's all.

Repeat it as many times as you like. It doesn't become any truer.

And regarding your being wrong, there's also nothing to discuss via interpretation. You WERE wrong, and it WAS demonstrated repeatedly, and with MOUNDS of evidence to boot.

What evidence? Where is it? No need to repeat it, just remind me what exactly it was again that you used to back up your view.

You simply cannot see it,

That's because you haven't provided any. All you've done is said "Chomsky never made a mistake, no-one has proved that he did," and that's it. That's not evidence. It's not even an argument. It's nothing. Just you telling everyone else what constitutes reality.

....and are thereby helping to support another argument I've made all along, and that's that you are indoctrinated.

Blah, blah blah, the same bullshit, over and over and over again, with the same lack of basis the first time around.

Unless someone else out there has a better argument for your inability, or should I say disability, to read and understand words.

How about your inability to understand the concept that the existence or otherwise of evidence doesn't depend on what you say. Saying I have no evidence does nothing to address the evidence I have. Saying you have evidence does nothing to address the fact you've provided none. I never said I have proof, I said I have evidence. I explained to you numerous times what that evidence means, you have never responded except to say "he did nothing wrong" and then claim you've proved something.

For someone supposedly in the "media profession" you sure don't read and understand very well.

For someone who's supposedly trained in treating others' mental disorders you sure haven't got much of a grasp on your own.

"...demonstrates quite clearly your own intellectual dishonesty."kb

"No, what demonstrates that YOU are the one who is intellectually dishonest is the fact you keep claiming to have provided "evidence" to back up your viewpoint when you have provided NOTHING."

I have nothing to provide as there is nothing there TO provide,

I'm glad you were able to admit it. Never mind the deafening cognitive dissonance that ought to be causing given that you've just finished repeating about a dozen times that you have provided something.

...nor has there been from the beginning. It's rather hard to prove a negative you know.

No-one asked you to prove it. The problem is you are claiming you've proved it, despite admitting that you've provided nothing, and that you couldn't prove it even if you wanted to. Provide some evidence of some sort, then go from there. No one is asking you to prove anything.

That being said, I HAVE repeatedly proved that YOU/IC have most definitely NOT proved that Chomsky has done anything wrong.

No, you haven't. You've given no evidence, you just admitted this. To then claim that you've proved your point is a little insane, don't you think? Again, here it is:

I have nothing to provide as there is nothing there TO provide

As a matter of fact, it's hard to read a single comment from this thread without seeing this over and over. xxx has repeatedly, and correctly observed the situation as it has unfolded from the beginning.

By which you mean he/she agrees with you, despite your own admission that I have nothing to provide as there is nothing there TO provide

xxx IS literate.

You mean s/he agrees with you.

And it has nothing to do at all with their liking or disliking or anything else anything I've written at all. For all I know they hate Chomsky, too, though we don't know because they have yet to say much about him.

Who said it does? It obviously has something to do with something, and not facts, evidence, logic or literacy since you have nothing to provide as there is nothing there TO provide.

I mean, if we're going to stick to the facts. xxx has simply, and correctly, observed what has taken place.

All these words, about all these topics, and still not a single shred of evidence to back yourself up, other than what you have said yourself.

I don't really see any irrational signs that they just want me to be right about anything, or if they even care if I am or not.

Except perhaps agreeing with you despite the fact you have nothing to provide as there is nothing there TO provide.

It's actually not all that relevant anyway. There is simply what HAS happened i.e., what WE see, and what a few of us, droolers if you will, WANT to see.

Wrong way around. You're projecting again. There's what you don't want to see, and what is there.

You act as if I care if Chomsky was right or wrong. Why would I care? I don't own stock in Chomsky. He's just a professor who has written a lot, makes good arguments,

I've yet to see any. I read a few of his essays the other day and they were bollocks. I refuted the central premise of one of them with ease - not because I was looking to disagree with it, simply because I knew the facts. It's in one of these threads somewhere, the essay about Mexicans being driven off the land by U.S. corn imports.

...whether you like what you hear or not, is smart as hell in a variety of areas, and is rather down to earth and unpretentious at the same time.

His political writing's inaccurate and his sourcing's shaky. I've no doubt the man's a genius in the field of linguistics, I mean he pretty much wrote the book, right? Doesn't follow that that necessarily translates into political works, though.

What's the big deal? So, like my dialogs are obviously about to literate folks, this has never been about Chomsky really. It's been about the salivating fervor some have when wishing to prove someone wrong who they think they dispise even though they know nothing about him.

I didn't say I despise Chomsky. I was a language student myself, though not a linguistics student, and I have nothing but respect for linguists. It's just that his political work is contrived, and transparently so, to fit a liberal agenda.

THIS is what's interesting. Perhaps if even ONE of you would actually read some of his material and try and make an intelligent argument you might get somewhere.

I explained to you perfectly clearly why I am not reading his books. I read through his site and looked at his essays, and they didn't impress me. It took me about 2 minutes to completely disprove his essay on Mexican farmers.

Been trying to encourage this for years on the web only to have to repeatedly deal with droolers who are actually proud NOT to want to read his material, and then try and talk about him for weeks on end afterward. THIS is what's interesting. I mean, sure Chomsky is interesting to ANYONE who can read, or at least ought to be, and especially for thinkers. But the irrational fervor of the anti-Chomskyites is almost as interesting from a psychological point of view.

Um.. I read his stuff. I only have access to a tiny variety of books where I am now and I've never seen Chomsky's books on the rare occasions I go book shopping. I read his other stuff on the web. I wasn't really impressed. It wasn't uninteresting, just factually wrong, and fairly weak. Perhaps his books are different, perhaps they're not.

"Hell, you never even read the entire data to see what was taking place."

Uhh...Yes, I did.

I didn't say this. You did. You're responding to your own post.

xxxxliberal

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

I posted it here:

Posted by: xxxxliberal | July 11, 2008 at 03:35 AM

And here:

Posted by: xxxxliberal | July 24, 2008 at 05:03 PM

It's short and concise. Why do you continue to have difficulty with it??? You've now ducked it it at least TWICE.

kb

mandroolIC said:

"I don't recall Olsen saying that Chomsky had done something wrong."kb

"I don't recall him saying Chomsky hadn't done anything wrong. All he said was the he "always thought the figure was highly exaggerated," note the word "always," indicating that at the time Chomsky used the figure Olsen already thought it was exagerrated."drool

Even if true, it's STILL 100% irrelevant. Olsen put the number he was given. Period. As has been mentioned hundreds of times now, 'some' number was given to Olsen by his source. Whether he thought it "may" have been exaggerated is not relevant either. He evidentally reported what he was given, regardless of what he thought "may" be the case. In other words, he told the truth. Perhaps he mentioned the the very same article that he had a suspision that the number was exaggerated to emphasize Israel's relationship with Turkey, but we do NOT know as IC never finished his job. Actually, had IC actually followed through on it, and found it there OR missing, it would STILL make little difference. We should assume that Olsen did NOT mention his impression in his article or Chomsky would have mentioned it as well. By him NOT mentioning it proves even further that Chomsky was correct in his use of his source. Are you guys REALLY going to keep trying to drag this non-existent thing out? Incredible! How MANY more times are we going to have to prove you're drooling out both sides of your mouth? Are you TRYING to help us? You have NOT read the material here. If you have, and this is your "interpretation", you ARE illiterate. Period. The is NOT now, nor has there EVER been an issue here. 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.

"And that you would even try to put this forward just after having had you ass handed to you repeatedly, with evidence every single time,"drool

"Uhh...YOU/IC are the ONLY ones having had their asses handed to them, and have had them handed to you repeatedly and in every possible wrapping."kb

"Ah.. No. Not remotely."drool

Well, this is true. There ARE even more ways to hand you your ass again, so my "every possible wrapping" was not entirely correct.

"What evidence? Find me a single piece of evidence you've posted in this thread, go on. You can't even be arsed to do what IC did and contact someone to back up your opinion."drool

"Uhh...If you haven't seen the evidence you have no business discussing this topic at all, dumbass."kb

"I haven't seen it because it doesn't exist."

It exists all over the place. I've left evidence a few lines up as well.

"Evidence" denotes something that backs up your argument independently. You don't have that."

Don't try and lecture me on what evidence consists of, drooler. I have backed up my argument in virtually every way, shape, and form. That being said, I have little to do given there is nothing there to really need to back up. You/IC said Chomsky did something wrong, we've repeatedly asked what, and have not received a single line demonstrating any of the players has done anything incorrectly. We've already left you what they've said, who said what, when it was said, what was missing for your attempt at some sort of argument to carry even a drop of water, which it doesn't, and on and on....We've left countless analogies demonstrating that your "argument" is absurd, and you simply black it out. YOU, my drooling friend, ARE indoctrinated, just as I said you were from WAY early on. The more you babble on, the more evident is becoming as well. This is the only reason I'm continuing with you. As I said, there IS no issue regarding Chomsky having done anything wrong, nor Olsen, Nor HIS source. This is not only settled, is was never started. The ONLY issue here is how you are fighting like a cat with diaper rash sitting in a frying pan trying to create something. THIS is the issue. Perhaps you're unaware, though IC should have perhaps told you, I'm collecting data of just this sort, so you really ARE helping MUCH more than you realize. Keep it coming though. Now, what did you say...uhhh...ANYONE had done wrong? I mean, your evidence proving it? I don't have to prove anything as I'm not the one who made the intial dumbass argument. I would have known better. I'm simply showing, over and over, where you have no argument. None. Zero. Zilch. And yet you persist, apparently hoping that eventually something will crack and your fairy tale will have a nibble of meat on it. This will NOT happen, anymore than were you to try and find a single "anti-American" word in anything Chomsky has ever written. It does NOT exist. Remember the unicorn!

!Boy, your and IC's cognitive dissonance is sure awfully similar."kb

"Suit yourself."drool

It's actually sort of scary.(Not really)

"I have given evidence about 50 times now that NOTHING wrong took place"kb

"No, you have given an OPINION."drool

And once again you do NOT seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion. I have NOT simply given an opinion. I have show repeatedly that nothing exsts as you are trying tosay that it does. True, it's hard to 'show' when nothing is there, but it is possible. Sort of like when dumbass "anti-Chomsky" droolers ask me to prove a negative when they say that I must prove that Chomsky doesn't say anything "anti-American". Now, most folks know that asking to prove a negative is not the norm, though it IS possible. So I gave them exactly what they needed to prove this to be the case. I gave them a list of his books as my evidence. And were they to read the books, as if THIS were remotely possible, and if they understood the words, as if THIS, too, were remotely possible, they would see that there is nothing there. Well, I'm sure you can guess how many times the drool squad has taken me up on looking at the evidence. Anyway, there IS nothing here for me to really have to defend. You folks really don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. Here, let me dumb it WAY down for you:

kb: 2+2=4
drool: That's just your opinion.
kb: No, that's a fact.
The End

The above scenario is NO different than this. Not at all. Not in any way, shape, or form, other than in this analogy I'm using numbers.

Actually, this is sort of incorrect. It should look like:

drool: 2+2=54
kb: No, 2+2=4.
drool: That's just your opinion.
The End

kb

"...and not a single one of you have given a single example that something has."kb

"Except for what IC's source said. The fact you personally dismiss it as unimportant has precisely zero bearing on its relevance."drool

MY source, Olsen, demonstrates nothing other than he thought the 12% number "may" have been exaggerated. So what? That YOU keep denying that this "may" could have been incorrect, or anything else is what keeps bouncing off. But even further away from demonstrating anything, this itself demonstrates that Chomsky did exactly ZERO wrong. Not only is it unimportant, it's virtually irrelevant. Please show us where ONE person involved has done something wrong. What you ALSO keep dismissing is that I've asked you repeatedly to give me a list of what anyone has done wrong. You have NOT. I've also asked for a list of historians, scholars, anyone who you believe has not done exactly what Chomsky has done here, and you have not.((Another common theme of the right is to NEVER give names of where they get their information from. Sort of interesting. I ask almost every time I get on a blog, and get virtually nothing. Are you folks ashamed? Perhaps you just "pray" and some warrior-God tells you what to think? Where does your information come from?
You see, in educated circles, usually people have no problem at all giving their sources. This way they can be challenged, etc...It's easy to see why you folks wouldn't wish to engage in something like this))

"All you've done is tell us why YOU think Chomsky didn't make a mistake and we're wrong, not him. That's evidence of NOTHING."drool

"Uhhh...Wrong again. Unlike you I'm NOT simply telling my opinion about anything, or the way I cross my fingers and HOPE it to be. I'm simply relaying the facts as they happened."kb

"Bullshit. You are not relaying the facts."

Uhhh...Yes, I am. I'm sorry that you don't like them, though I don't really care. And you haven't demonstrated a single thing I've said to be incorrect. I HAVE demonstrated everything you and IC has said to be incorrect. The "facts" are VERY simple. SHall I give you yet ANOTHER outline:
1)Olsen contacts source.
2)Source tells Olsen information.
3)Olsen writes down what he was told.
4)Chomsky sees what Olsen has written and passes it along.
The End That's it. There IS nothing else, other than Olsen's saying YEARS later, that he thought the number "may" have been exaggerated so as to emphasize the relationship i.e., ANOTHER point I was correct on during this entire nonsense. ((IC balked at the notion that Israel would have anything to do with a Muslim country, demonstrating HIS "understanding" of the issue))

"You are spinning them."

I have nothing TO spin, dumbass. This is a textbook case of projection from your side. You/IC have done nothing since day one other than try and spin something into exitence which does not exist so as to fit your incorrect preconceived notions and thereby support your fairy tale ideas about Chomsky. It's SOOOOO obvious that I would think even an indoctrinated person could see it at least a little bit. Listen, you can keep coming back here ALL you want pretending to have something, but there is nothing there to have. You have NOT proved it AT ALL. As a matter of fact, you haven't even said what you think you were proving have you?

"And you are projecting your own techniques onto your debate opponents."drool

This is need to be demonstrated. I have already demonstrated the opposite, and NOT just said it, but you can try if you wish.((This is also a common symptom of the indoctrinated cult members. Leaving the technical words aside, it amounts to trying to turn the tables. I've been talking about you doing this for days now, and IC for months, as if there was a difference. Now, having nothing left, you are trying, apparently not even conscious that the only reason this even entered your little pea-brain in the first place is because I mentioned it, to find another way out. Sorry, but it won't work. You can try all you want though. In fact, I hope you do.

kb

"Chomsky did NOT make a mistake here whether I like it, don't like it, am indifferent, love it, hate it, or anything else."kb

"What's your proof for this?"

Uhhh....I have his book. I've read the material. I've talked to Olsen. I have the material. All the material supports my position, not that it was really all that complicated. It's VERY simple, in fact. Have you read nothing above? If you have, and you have not seen the evidence, you are in serious need of help.

"Find an independent source to verify that an instance such as this one doesn't qualify as a mistake and you might have a point."

I have. xxx knows the scenario, and has from the beginning, and has repeatedly demonstrated that they know the material. Has nothing to do with agreeing with "my opinion" either. They simply know the material, have read it, and are correct in what has taken place. Similar to the following:

kb: Here is my data: X,Y, and Z.
drool: kb thinks D,E, and F. This is his opinion.
xxx: No, kb gave the data which exists in the material above. This is X,Y, and Z.
drool: This is just your opinion, too(ad infinitum)
The End

In the above example, xxx has simply reported the facts. Doesn't even matter if they like them or not. This is simply what has happened. Now, what's of interest is HOW, or WHY, would someone look at this example, and KEEP ON repeating the droolers statement? Is it pathology? Indoctrination? Both? Virus effecting the brainstem? Too much Rush as a child? THIS is the ONLY thing of interest to me, as I have repeatedly said. The hows and whys of the person repeating the D,E, and F is rather interesting.((And he probably doesn't even know that I know exactly how he plans on responding to this, too. VERY predictable.))By the way, being in the "media profession" one would have thought that you would have been a little more attuned to what reporting amounts to. I mean, reporting the facts.

"You'd even have the evidence you're constantly pretending exists to back you up. In the meantime all you've got is your own opinion, which is worth less than shit to anyone besides you."drool

Projection. Have presented ALL the evidence, and MUCH more, that I need to demonstrate that you're a buffoon. You are NOT in the media business, unless it is cleaning toilets.

"Again, this is NOT some matter of interpretation. There is what DID happen, and there is what did NOT happen."kb

"Correct. Chomsky's source DID say he always thought the number was exaggerated. Chomsky DID NOT check the number in the first place."drool

He said this YEARS after the fact, idiot. WHAT CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS POINT? Never mentioned this as far as I know until IC supposedly contacted him YEARS after the fact. And for the 5000th time, if Olsen's source told HIM this number, and Chomsky saw it and called the source himself, do you think he would have changed it overnight? I mean, it's possible that the guy would change thenumber between day one and day two because he received new information, but we just don't know. All we know is that Olsen talked to the man, the man gave him a number, Olsen wrote it down, and Chomsky pulled it from a scholarly journal and passed it on. No one has down ANYTHING wrong. The ONLY thing, maybe, but we don't know, is that Olsen should have, maybe, if he didn't already, say that his impression of what his source had said was that this number may have been exaggerated to emphsize a point. And not only is this almost meaningless, in the bigger scheme of the topic, it's invisible. As I've REPEATEDLY stated, even if Olsen had gotten the 12% number on day one, and Chomsky saw Olsen's data on day one and reported it on day one, and the very next day it changed to 3000%, it would mean exactly NOTHING regarding Chomsky having done anything wrong at all. Nothing. Zero. If you don't understand something THIS basic regarding reporting, you are most defintiely NOT in journalism.

"Chomsky simply did nothing wrong, and no one has come even within a ballpark of demonstrating that he has. That's all."kb

"Repeat it as many times as you like. It doesn't become any truer."drool

It CAN'T become any truer. You're right. Also, this is projection yet again on your part.

"And regarding your being wrong, there's also nothing to discuss via interpretation. You WERE wrong, and it WAS demonstrated repeatedly, and with MOUNDS of evidence to boot."kb

"What evidence? Where is it? No need to repeat it, just remind me what exactly it was again that you used to back up your view."drool

Already have. And I have on the order of 30-40 times. I mean, will all the evidence needed to prove a negative.

"You simply cannot see it,"kb

"That's because you haven't provided any. All you've done is said "Chomsky never made a mistake"

Yes, he DIDN'T make a mistake. How would you suggest that I prove that he DIDN'T do something? If he didn't make a mistake, MY position, the correct position, then there's nothing for me to prove. If you thnk he DID make a mistake, then the burden is on YOU to have to try and prove it. You have not come remotely close of doing so, and I and xxx have repeatedly demonstrated how you haven't. THIS IS my evidence.

"no-one has proved that he did," and that's it. That's not evidence. It's not even an argument. It's nothing. Just you telling everyone else what constitutes reality."drool

Uhhh...No, it's not. There are words and data up above which supports my argument from top to bottom. You're projecting your own tendency to tell everyone else what constitues reality. This is the fairy tale nonsense which I've been talking about since day one as well. And NOT just talking about, showing that fairy tale fodder is all it is. You can't see it becaue YOU are the brunt of it. I referred to this inability as possibly a symptom of being indoctrinated. Dealt with this many times with cult members.

"....and are thereby helping to support another argument I've made all along, and that's that you are indoctrinated."kb

"Blah, blah blah, the same bullshit, over and over and over again, with the same lack of basis the first time around."drool

There's no lack of basis at all. It's ALL OVER THE PLACE. You can't see it. Why? You tell me. xxx has no problem seeing what exists in writing all over the place here. Why do you?

"Unless someone else out there has a better argument for your inability, or should I say disability, to read and understand words."kb

"How about your inability to understand the concept that the existence or otherwise of evidence doesn't depend on what you say."

Yes, I'm aware of this. Now you are repeating my own lines, which itself is another typical symptom of indoctrination. The lack of awareness that you're even doing it is quite fascinating. That I can even talk about it as it's happening and it doesn't change one iota is also fascinating. This is the cognitive dissonance blocking the data. Or better yet, trying to reject it. It's common. That you're sitting here trying to say that all I'm doing is nothing more than giving an opinion, when I have gone out of my way to show this NOT to be the case, from day one as a matter of fact, shows that YOU are projecting. Textbook case happening as we speak. Sorry, this is just a fact. NOT an opinion.

"Saying I have no evidence does nothing to address the evidence I have."

Uhhh...You have no evidence. Can't have evidence if there's nothing there to have. Well, maybe YOU "think" you can.

"Saying you have evidence does nothing to address the fact you've provided none."

I have provided all I need to provide to prove my position. It was quite easy, as I've been saying since day one as well.

"I never said I have proof, I said I have evidence."drool

You have no evidence.

"I explained to you numerous times what that evidence means"drool

YOU do NOT explain ANYTHING to me, drooler. I'm keenly aware of what it means. This is why I'm the only person to have used any thus far. Your "evidence" is worthless. It has been repeatedly shown to be. And the more YOU keep repeating it...Well, it's NOT going to change.

"you have never responded except to say "he did nothing wrong" and then claim you've proved something."

Uhhh...No, this is NOT all I've done. You have not read anything here if this is what you think has happened. You need help. I would say onthe order of 500 times now I have proved all that needed to be proved. You cannot read and understand words. Perhaps THIS is why you folks never take me up on my challenge for you to read ONE Chomsky book and try and tell me what the words mean. Forget agreeing or disagreeeing with what he says. You folks can't even tell us what the words mean, and there is a reason for this. And you MUST be aware of it on some level, or you would do what any halfway honest person would do, and that is to read a damn book and try. On some minimal level of awareness you know that you are going to interpret every line wrong, and thereby avoid doing this like the plague. Checkmydrawersforpoop said he was going to, and within the first few lines, lines that I immediately began demonstrating were wrong, he fled like the cowards you folks usually are. Even more interesting is the literal physical aversion you folks have to even the thought of picking up one of his books and reading it. And save any comments like "I just don't want to because I'm not interested." It's a lie. You folks ARE interested, and you repeatedly demonstrate it, as you have been doing all along here, unwittingly no doubt, much to my pleasure. THIS is MORE PHYSICAL evidence to support my argument. NOT just an opinion.

"For someone supposedly in the "media profession" you sure don't read and understand very well."kb

"For someone who's supposedly trained in treating others' mental disorders you sure haven't got much of a grasp on your own."drool

For someone who knows nothing about mental disorders you sure shouldn't probably be trying to talk about them as if you know what you're talking about as you may end up sounding as dumb about this subject as you have about Chomsky thus far. But if you have any evidence to support your contention that I have a mental disorder, I'd be most happy to look at it. Let's see YOUR evidence.

kb

As usual, the bottom line is that you do NOT know his work, in ANY of the fields of which he has worked, and are therefore in exactly NO position whatsoever to determine whether or not he knows what he's talking about. Perhaps some day after you have demonstrated that you are capable of reaching even the first minimal step of honesty, by actually reading some of his material, showing that you have understood the words, and then making some sort of argument, you MAY have something worthwhile to say on this subject. The "He should stick to linguistics" argument is embarrassing in it's naivete, and NO ONE respectible would dream of requiring some diploma as evidence of an argument being superior to another. Chomsky talks of this often. He said one would be met with scorn, and appropriately so, if this tactic was attemoted in the university. Doesn't matter what department, what degree one has, or anything else. One has their evidence and makes their arguments and they either stand up or they do not. It's surprising how often his do, especially in the variety of fields he's worked in, and how few have been able to make many good arguments against him. I'm all for it though. However, before you start trying to make your arguments you really ARE going to have to learn the material.

mandible claw

We should assume that Olsen did NOT mention his impression in his article or Chomsky would have mentioned it as well.

Why should we assume this? There's no basis whatsoever for doing so.

By him NOT mentioning it proves even further that Chomsky was correct in his use of his source.

Not to my mind. Plus, you've no idea whether or not he did mention it.

Are you guys REALLY going to keep trying to drag this non-existent thing out?

Yep. Get used to it.

Incredible! How MANY more times are we going to have to prove you're drooling out both sides of your mouth?

I count zero, so far. Perhaps you could improve on that by providing something factual, or at least some sort of evidence, rather than just your own opinion.

Are you TRYING to help us? You have NOT read the material here.

Yes, I have. And I have a different take on it than you do. And the evidence supports my view in absentia you providing anything factual to disprove it. All you've done is looked at the evidence and spun it as irrelevant. Oh, and claimed everyone else is lying/lazy/cowardly/ignorant/unintelligent/illiterate/indoctrinated, without proof or evidence for any of those claims.

mandible claw

Posted by: xxxxliberal | July 24, 2008 at 05:03 PM

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

Yer an idiot. You're making the exact same arguments kb is trying to, 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.

IC PROVED NOTHING.

He got an expert opinion from Chomsky's source that the number was shaky. He de facto proved that an expert on the topic doubts the accuracy of Chomsky's work.

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

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.

Big emphasis on Muslim. He challenged the statement.

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

He accused Chomsky, or KB, of lying.

Maybe so. I didn't, though, and the current debate is with me, not him. Besides, there's no evidence Chomsky wasn't lying, you're assuming he wasn't.

He was asked/told to back up his challenge that the planes (12% of the IAF) couldn't possibly be in Turkey.

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

The original statement wasn't Chomsky's.

Chomsky used it without fact-checking.

Chomsky was quoting another source.

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

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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

In other words, NOBODY HAS REACHED ANY SOURCE WHICH HAS CAGETORICALLY DENIED THE 12%.

I never said they had. I don't believe IC said they had either. That's never been the point of my debate on the topic. Even if IC had said that - and I'm not trawling the archives to check - fine, that's his opinion, it could be right or it could be wrong. What IC says about the matter is irrelevant in a discussion with me. I'm making a point based on what IC did, not what he said about it.

The 12% has never BEEN denied.

No-one said it had. That's a red herring, as I've repeatedly pointed out to kb.

Is that simple enough for you?

It's very simple. You've responded to a point that I never made and claimed that's won you the debate.

Because I'm finished with your nitpicking and suggestions that Chomsky did anything wrong.

Disprove them, then. My "nitpicking" is simply an attempt to get you to address the actual facts, not make up your own.

When patently IC proved nothing of the sort.

How did he prove this? All he did was use some analogies and arguments that are relevant to him but constitute nothing in the way of evidence or facts. Then he simply said he'd proved his point as effectively as a simple mathematical equation. If that's the best he's got, then he loses.

Posted by: xxxxliberal | July 11, 2008 at 03:35 AM

mandible claw

Posted by: xxxxliberal | June 28, 2008 at 04:57 PM

KB,

Mandy's spelling of "defence" and "criticize" are American (as far as I can see).

You're an ignorant moron. Australians don't adhere strictly to either British or American spelling conventions on consonants, only vowels, eg. labor/labour. Consonants usually follow whichever is in more general use. I haven't seen anyone spell either of those two words with an 's' for years.

On its own it mightn't mean a lot, EXCEPT that he says he's never been in the USA. And that he's an Aussie living in Asia.

Guess what? Even then it means precisely fuck-all.

And if you add the spelling to the facts that:

*he spends time on right-wing American blogs
*uses all the right-wing clichés
*comments with these clichés on internal American party politics
*defends all the other posters here to the hilt
*says he's "patriotic" about the USA
*let slip (on the subject of the torture of detainees) that "Plenty of people pay good money for what those freeloaders were getting on our tax dollar".

[''Our'' tax dollar. But he's an Aussie living in Asia who has never been in the USA?]

Lol.. "let slip" that I'm patriotic to the US and that people are getting kinky treatment on "my" tax dollar.

Hey, I know! I'm going to play detective too! This is supposedly a conservative site, and yet that Larry Chomstein guy who writes stuff here uses liberal talking points! I've cracked the case!! His writings on a satire blog mean he must actually be a liberal!

Idiot.

All leads me to be pretty sure he's living in the States,

Er.. no, as could be quite easily proven by looking at my time stamps.

...or, irrespective of where he was born, is probably a US citizen.

Wrong, again. Why would I be paying US taxes if I'm not in the US?

In which case, he's most likely a reincarnation of another poster. That's my detective work for tonight!

Well done, you just demonstrated your inability to use deductive reasoning, and how less intelligent you are than you think you are.

(part 2) The tedious exposure of manible lies:

"Well since you're making the claim, I presume you're going to assume the burden of providing evidence. You know, in order to avoid violating the principle that you're trying to apply to others."

"He posted the exact text of his e-mail communications. Go back and read them, you fucking liar."drool

"Uhhh....I don't need to. They were in response to the ones I had already posted, and they said nothing at all regarding the topic of Chomsky's being dishonest."kb

"...which is quite possibly because that wasn't the point. Who knew."

I knew, IC knew, and any literate person reading the conversations during the months before, during, and after knew.

That it wasn't the point? The fact you get hung up on comprehending simple vernacular doesn't say much for your literacy.

Other than that perhaps not too many.

The point in MY debate was not that Chomsky lied, or that the 12% figure had been categorically denied or disproven.

"Not a single word. There's nothing to see in the text of his supposed mails."kb

"Except for Chomsky's source backing out on him."drool

Chomsky's source backed out of nothing regarding him. Chomsky's source simply said years after he had written the article that the number may have, eventually, turned out to have been exaggerated.

Er.... No, he did not say this at all. He said he "always thought" the number was highly exaggerated.

Once again, neither, he, Chomsky, or even the original source has been demonstrated to have done anything wrong. Still waiting.

Chomsky didn't check his facts. Olsen saying he "always" thought the number was exaggerated, and why he thought so, is a strong indication something was wrong with Chomsky's work. You're shifting the goalposts to imply that only a categorical denial of the figure could indicate this - sorry but it's a pretty obvious tactic and it's not gonna work.

"But if you STILL think you see something there, please be specific and demonstrate how this shows Chomsky's dishonesty.

I never said Chomsky was dishonest or that this was demonstrated by the e-mails. YOU'VE yet to respond to my ACTUAL contentions.

No one has yet, but I'm willing to have a look."kb

"I'm not interested in Noam Chomsky's honesty."drool

And there's really no reason why you would be or should be given your apparent lack of knowledge of him.

Er.. I'm not interested in his honesty, or lack of, on this issue in particular, at least not primarily or unless evidence comes to light that causes me to question it. The point being that I am not debating Chomsky's honesty, but you are trying to debate against me on the basis that I am.

This would be an appropriate position for you to take. Sure seems odd that you'd spend so much time trying to prove that 1)He has done something wrong 2)That IC's supposed intention had nothing to do with this, etc....By the way, talked to IC lately?;)

I neither know IC nor talk to him except on this blog, even then rarely if at all.

I have posted responses to other Chomsky articles elsewhere on the forum - I specifically went to his site to read his essays in order to shut you up about reading him. And guess what, it took me about 2 minutes to debunk his essay on the Mexican farmers - whaddya know, the result of me reading his work was the same as simply debating an issue related to a work of his which I haven't read in entirety.

"And it most certainly was not Chomsky using a source AFTER the source backtracked slightly on his original statement."kb

"No-one said it was."drool

You haven't read and are uninformed.

Er.. No-one said this. Period. You brought it up as a red herring to avoid discussing the actual issue.

"Again, you have not the faintest idea whether Chomsky's use of the source was an innocent mistake, or a deliberate deceit."

"Uhhh...Nor do I need to."kb

"Except that you're assuming it wasn't."drool

"That isn't my job, nor is it of any interest to me as there is no issue."kb

"That's why I find it odd that you constantly bring it up, since I didn't mention honesty to begin with."drool

"I didn't mention honesty"? I thought it was IC who supposedly didn't mention it.

I said IC had proved his original point that the figures were shaky. Turns out he did say either you or Chomsky had lied, I didn't realize that til someone cut/pasted it here. So what, though? That's his take on the issue. Mine is completely different.

Boy, you two are very close, huh.

Yeah, so close that I didn't even know what he said. I must be his sock puppet!

This escape tactic in order to save face will NOT work, and I will continue to prove that it won't.

Save what face? Are you still trying to tell me I'm IC? Oh, and, I've yet to see you argue anything convincingly let alone prove a point to anyone but yourself.

There was exactly ONE reason the 12% number was ever even looked at and that was IC seeing it in a passage of Chomsky's and then went hell-bent wild trying to prove it wrong, which he has yet to do, despite you already internalized notion that he has.

How about you stop bringing up red herrings and address the actual point. Either that or FIND ME WHERE I SAID THE 12% WAS INCORRECT OR CATEGORICALLY PROVEN TO BE SO. The fact you insist on trying to debate something I never said, even when I point out to you numerous times that I never said it, indicates that either you start spouting crap without even processing what I write, or you're ignoring the facts.

ANyone having done their hoework here would have noticed for months that the topic of Chomsky was often brought up because I consciously and purposefully brought it up to take note of the responses, reactions, etc...Everyone who knows why I've been here knows this as well.

So? How is that relevant to the IAF in Turkey?

Taking things out of context, especially just the parts you want to see, is typical intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

I took nothing out of context. Context is irrelevant to this discussion. The discussion is over Chomsky's use of a shaky source.

Chomsky did nothing of the sort.

Nothing of what sort?

"That being said, Chomsky's use of the source was NOT a mistake as far as anything has been shown, dumbass. "Deliberate deceit" is not worthy of consideration. Why do you persist in making the assertion that Chomsky made any sort of mistake at all?"kb

"Because his source said he probably did?"

His source did not say that Chomsky OR himself had made any such mistake at all. He said that the original source, the person in the military who gave him the number, "may" have exaggerated, and said this AFTER the fact.

He said he "always" thought the figure was exaggerated to prove a point, the same point, incidentally, that Chomsky was making when he used the figure. I have NEVER debated whether or not the figure is accurate.

Why do you keep avoiding accepting this uncontroversial fact?

Why do you keep avoiding the even less controversial fact that the source indicated wrongdoing?

I mean, the entire fairy tale of Chomsky's anything hinges on this fact and you don't wish to see it. Why? It really isn't that complicated.

My word you really are stupid. The source himself said there was more than likely a problem, YOU are the one who's saying there isn't/never has been/never will be.

I gave MANY analogies demonstrating why this was nonsense.kb

"Why would you think I need an analogy to understand what you're trying to say?"

Uhh...Because I've repeated the same elementary point about 20 times so far and you have yet to respond.

I have responded to the your point, over and over and over again. You have no point. You only have opinion. You try to give analogies in lieu of arguing facts or presenting anything besides your own opinion, and you insist that others accept them when they're simply irrelevant.

"Don't you think that's a little patronising?"

And it should be much more patronising.

Fuck you. You know nothing about Israel or Palestine, you defend murderous dictators, you tell others they're illiterate when you can barely string a fucking sentence together and you repeat the same old shit, over and over and over again. You've got nothing that would qualify you to be teaching anybody about politics.

I've been trying to help you understand something which an elementary school would have little difficulty with, and you persist in NOT trying to understand the point.

In other words, you're losing the debate because you have no facts or evidence, so you adopt some smarmy posture of higher knowledge.

Were you giving any indication at all that you were honesty attempting to find the correct answer this would not be the case.

The correct answer would be the one that is correct, not necessarily the one that you arrive at. So far you've backed your opinion up with preceisely nothing.

However, you aren't. So, you receive the sorts of responses you ask me to give you.

Right, right, it's for my own good, heard that one before. You're really doing everyone else a favour by being a pompous ass, it's so they will leaaaaarrrrrn something.

"I understand your argument perfectly."

This has yet been demonstrated a single time.

It has been demonstrated numerous times, you fucking bare-faced liar. I summarized the points you were making in your "satire" and you never responded to the post - you never even acknowledged it had been made. Don't think you can just ignore that and come back with the same old high-handed shit about others not understanding your arguments. Try to have a little honesty. I mean, I know it's a foreign concept to liberals, but do make an effort.

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.

It's indicated that at least one of them may have. That's a little better than you've got on your side, which consists of your own opinion and precisely nothing else.

There's nothing really to discuss.

Opinion, not fact.

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

Fine, admit that I busted Chomsky - and you - once again, and we'll agree it's over. Then you can get on with something useful like learning the first thing about Israeli/Palestinian relations.

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

Bullshit. You're making another fucking stupid claim that's not even remotely based on reality.
IC's not even in the discussion. I presume he can't even be bothered arguing with you. I on the other hand am arguing with you. See how those two things are different?

mandible claw

Posted by: kb | July 26, 2008 at 03:57 AM

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

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

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

Chomsky's use of shaky sourcing is, was and always has been an issue. It will continue to be an issue until you come up with something better than simply stating your opinion that it isn't one. For starters, and since you've supposedly already liaised with Olsen, e-mail him again and ask him for the text of the original article, why he thought the figure was exaggerated, or any number of completely pertinent questions. '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.

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.

I am not going to indulge your stubborn refusal to comprehend facts once again. The reasons behind my argument are clearly laid out in my previous posts. You haven't dealt with them at all, why would I post them again now only for you to run off on another tangent about my supposed illiteracy, or otherwise avoid answering them besides to state that "you're wrong" or some equally irrelevant opinion?

"And that you would even try to put this forward just after having had you ass handed to you repeatedly, with evidence every single time,"drool

"Uhh...YOU/IC are the ONLY ones having had their asses handed to them, and have had them handed to you repeatedly and in every possible wrapping."kb

"Ah.. No. Not remotely."drool

Well, this is true. There ARE even more ways to hand you your ass again, so my "every possible wrapping" was not entirely correct.

Your ass-handing is about as real as your presentation in the debate of anything besides your own opinion. IOW completely fictional.

"What evidence? Find me a single piece of evidence you've posted in this thread, go on. You can't even be arsed to do what IC did and contact someone to back up your opinion."drool

"Uhh...If you haven't seen the evidence you have no business discussing this topic at all, dumbass."kb

"I haven't seen it because it doesn't exist."

It exists all over the place. I've left evidence a few lines up as well.

Where? You've said nothing besides repeating the same old opinion that the issue is a non-issue and that the fact I don't agree with you on that point is a testament to my lacking literacy, intelligence or some other mental facet. It's NOTHING but you talking about how you want things to be. It's evidence of nothing besides the fact you consider your own spouting to be evidence.

"Evidence" denotes something that backs up your argument independently. You don't have that."

Don't try and lecture me on what evidence consists of, drooler.

Do try to provide some of it then, any time you're ready, fucktard.

I have backed up my argument in virtually every way, shape, and form.

Bullshit. You've provided NOTHING besides your own opinion and stupid irrelevant analogies and incorrect assumptions about others. All those do is demonstrate that you're convinced you're correct despite what the evidence suggests, and that when challenged on what the basis is for that conviction you avoid making actual answers by self-referencing and false correlations presented through a de facto third-party delivery system, all of which are serious debate fallacies.

That being said, I have little to do given there is nothing there to really need to back up. You/IC said Chomsky did something wrong, we've repeatedly asked what, and have not received a single line demonstrating any of the players has done anything incorrectly.

I have posted MANY lines on what they/he may have done incorrectly. You've provided NOTHING to refute them besides more of the same bullshit you've put in this post. You claim you've got "evidence," you even get pissed when challenged over it, and yet I ask you to just identify what your evidence is - like make mention of "my use of xxx as a source who backs up my assertion that failure to check sources doesn't constitute wrongdoing" - something, anything, you've got nothing.

We've already left you what they've said, who said what, when it was said, what was missing for your attempt at some sort of argument to carry even a drop of water, which it doesn't, and on and on....

Okay, fine. Since you insist on repeating yourself, I'm going to post YET AGAIN my points, NONE of which you have responded to with anything meaningful.

-Chomsky did not check the source from whom he got the figure second-hand, ie Olsen;
-Olsen's EXPERT OPINION was that the figure was "highly exaggerated" in order to prove a point - the same point Chomsky was making when he used the figure;

Thus:

-Either Chomsky didn't realise the figure was controversial and should be checked, thus he lacks the knowledge that Olsen had which tipped him to the likely controversial nature of the figure, or;
-He cares less about accuracy than about making a point, or;
-He deliberately included the figure in an attempt to deceive.

There are no other options.

We've left countless analogies demonstrating that your "argument" is absurd, and you simply black it out.

You have left analogies that demonstrate only that you consider your own judgement of the situation to be as immutable as simple mathematical fact. That is demonstration of precisely nothing besides your own lack of logic, judgement and debating skills.

YOU, my drooling friend, ARE indoctrinated, just as I said you were from WAY early on.

You have NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE for this. The ONLY parameter you have provided so far, of the supposedly "many" that you use to make this judgement, was that I watch television news. You were wrong. Ergo, you are weaseling out of the debate by making unfounded speculation.

The more you babble on, the more evident is becoming as well.

Absolute bullshit. The longer this debate goes on the more you show that in actuality if anyone is indoctrinated it's you.

This is the only reason I'm continuing with you.

Feel free to continue. You're exposing yourself further and further each time and I'm more than happy to continue helping you do this. You've demonstrated that you know nothing about Israeli/Palestinian relations and that your viewpoint is based on ignorance and manipulation of facts. You've demonstrated that you're willing to support a murderous dictator who enslaved a people for fifty years and swallow his propaganda despite five decades of history. And you've demonstrated that you can't distinguish between evidence and opinion, and that you regard your own judgement on issues as comparable to basic mathematical fact in its accuracy.

As I said, there IS no issue regarding Chomsky having done anything wrong, nor Olsen, Nor HIS source. This is not only settled, is was never started. The ONLY issue here is how you are fighting like a cat with diaper rash sitting in a frying pan trying to create something. THIS is the issue. Perhaps you're unaware, though IC should have perhaps told you, I'm collecting data of just this sort, so you really ARE helping MUCH more than you realize.

I'm afraid you're going to have to redact a LOT of that data. Not that, having seen your "satire," I expect you to give anything like a fair and accurate representation of ideological opposition. I mean, much easier to just make up what the other side thinks/says/does and then argue about that, right?

Keep it coming though.

Sure, why not? After all I did help you expose your true mental state here, it's only fair that you should be allowed to lie about my viewpoint to impress anyone unfortunate enough to read your "satire."

Now, what did you say...uhhh...ANYONE had done wrong?

It's right up there ^^. It's all through this thread, in about ten different posts. And you've ignored all of them, you fucking liar.

I mean, your evidence proving it?

No-one said it had been proven. There're several scenarios that are most likely to have occurred, there's reasonable doubt as to which of them - if any - is the explanation. You are the only one attempting to argue from a definitive position and, ironically, you are the one with precisely zero evidence to back up the position. All you've done is jumped there by instinct and invented some reasons to hide from yourself how you got there after the fact. You're not fooling anybody.

I don't have to prove anything as I'm not the one who made the intial dumbass argument.

Bullshit. You're the one claiming that there "is no debate" and de facto arguing that there has been no wrongdoing simply because no-one's convinced YOU that there has.

I would have known better. I'm simply showing, over and over, where you have no argument.

Ah... No. You are simply showing, over and over again, how you are guilty of every fault you accuse "anti-Chomskyites" of and in far greater measure.

None. Zero. Zilch. And yet you persist, apparently hoping that eventually something will crack and your fairy tale will have a nibble of meat on it.

You simply persist in denying the fact that there is meat on it, right before your eyes. You could always try to do something logical, like remove the meat so that it isn't there before, but you don't need anything so factual to convince you. You simply say it isn't there loudly and frequently enough to convince yourself then move right on to trying to fault others for seeing it.

This will NOT happen, anymore than were you to try and find a single "anti-American" word in anything Chomsky has ever written. It does NOT exist. Remember the unicorn!

Bullshit. Opinion and semantics, plain and simple. For one thing, if your definition of anti-American is the same as Chomsky's then quite clearly neither of you will acknowledge it in yourselves.

Boy, your and IC's cognitive dissonance is sure awfully similar."kb

"Suit yourself."drool

It's actually sort of scary.(Not really)

Do you realize that conservatives on average are in much better mental and emotional health than, and are happier than, liberals? The fact you run so freely and often to discussions of mental state is fairly interesting given both that fact, and the fact that a deteriorated mental condition makes one unable to self-evaluate..

"I have given evidence about 50 times now that NOTHING wrong took place"kb

"No, you have given an OPINION."drool

And once again you do NOT seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion.

You have not presented facts or evidence. You have presented what YOU see as indicative that nothing has occurred, without reference to anything outside your own mind. That is the precise definition of OPINION.

I have NOT simply given an opinion. I have show repeatedly that nothing exsts as you are trying tosay that it does.

You have given your opinion on why nothing exists. Show me one fact, or one single piece of evidence, that you have provided.

True, it's hard to 'show' when nothing is there, but it is possible. Sort of like when dumbass "anti-Chomsky" droolers ask me to prove a negative when they say that I must prove that Chomsky doesn't say anything "anti-American". Now, most folks know that asking to prove a negative is not the norm, though it IS possible. So I gave them exactly what they needed to prove this to be the case. I gave them a list of his books as my evidence. And were they to read the books, as if THIS were remotely possible, and if they understood the words, as if THIS, too, were remotely possible, they would see that there is nothing there.

Self serving bullshit. You claim to have "proven the negative" when all you've done is tell others to read Chomsky and then tell them that if they consider it anti-American they are illiterate. It's circular logic. Until you provide something real, some factual metric by which things can be measured, you're simply talking shit.

Well, I'm sure you can guess how many times the drool squad has taken me up on looking at the evidence.

I read through Chomsky's site, I posted my response to an article here just the other day. Your logic is utterly flawed.

Anyway, there IS nothing here for me to really have to defend.

Well, there's certainly nothing you've proven yourself capable of defending. You're certainly practiced at mistaking your own opinions for fact, and mangling logic to suit your own ends, not much else.

You folks really don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. Here, let me dumb it WAY down for you:

kb: 2+2=4
drool: That's just your opinion.
kb: No, that's a fact.
The End

Bullshit. Illogical, self-serving and UTERRLY irrelevant.

The fact that ** and ** makes **** is physically demonstrable, testable and falsifiable empirically. It is thus completely incomparable in any way whatsoever to a discussion of ethics in academia which are set to various different standards and measured by many different metrics - which in comparison to the logical principles behind a simple mathematical equation are completely arbitrary. Secondly, even if the terms of the debate were comparable to the terms of a debate on a mathematical equation, you've preemptively assumed one position in the debate on the equation without providing any evidence that that is the position analagous to your position in the debate on academic standards - another fallacy. All you're doing is claiming that you're right, and the fact that you're right makes arguing against you nonsensical, which demonstrates that you are right.

The above scenario is NO different than this. Not at all. Not in any way, shape, or form, other than in this analogy I'm using numbers...

Which are measurable and verifiable in the physical domain, rather than being a matter of ethics set according to arbitrary rules, making a comparison of the two, or an extrapolation of the outcome of one from the outcome of the other, completely and utterly false.

Actually, this is sort of incorrect. It should look like:

drool: 2+2=54
kb: No, 2+2=4.
drool: That's just your opinion.
The End

Bullshit. Why don't you E-mail Chomsky with that analogy and see what he tells you about it.

mandible claw

Posted by: kb | July 26, 2008 at 05:09 AM
Posted by: kb | July 26, 2008 at 04:18 AM

I've responded to the first part of your post sufficiently in my post immediately above. I'm trying to trim out your endless repetitions of the same topic in order to cut down the immense size of each post in this debate.

"And you are projecting your own techniques onto your debate opponents."drool

This is need to be demonstrated.

It is amply demonstrated. You accused me of "ignoring the evidence" and offering opinions without evidence. In fact, you've offered not a scrap of evidence from any external source to corroborate your point of view. You have not offered any facts. You have simply expressed your opinion that I am wrong.

I have already demonstrated the opposite, and NOT just said it, but you can try if you wish.

Bullshit. You have presented no solid evidence or fact anywhere in the argument. You can't even point out where you have done so when challenged on your claims that you have - you simply evade the question again by saying it's "there." Where? Where is it? Where have you provided anything besides your opinion?

((This is also a common symptom of the indoctrinated cult members. Leaving the technical words aside, it amounts to trying to turn the tables.

Which is exactly what you have attempted to do by claiming that I am presenting only opinion without facts.

I've been talking about you doing this for days now, and IC for months, as if there was a difference. Now, having nothing left, you are trying, apparently not even conscious that the only reason this even entered your little pea-brain in the first place is because I mentioned it, to find another way out.

I have as much "left" as I had when I started. You've done nothing that would conceivably reduce what I "have" as you have presented no evidence whatsoever.

Sorry, but it won't work. You can try all you want though. In fact, I hope you do.

I pointed out, using an example from your own words, where you were projecting. This is what is known as "providing evidence." In response you simply clamed, once again, that the weight of evidence is on your side, without providing anything concrete to support that. You are projecting about projecting.

"Chomsky did NOT make a mistake here whether I like it, don't like it, am indifferent, love it, hate it, or anything else."kb

"What's your proof for this?"

Uhhh....I have his book. I've read the material. I've talked to Olsen. I have the material. All the material supports my position, not that it was really all that complicated.

None of the material supports your position. The ONLY material that has been presented in this debate is Olsen's statement to IC. Whether you have the book isn't relevant in the slightest.

It's VERY simple, in fact. Have you read nothing above?

I've read all of it, responded to all of it, and pointed out that you are talking utter shit.

If you have, and you have not seen the evidence, you are in serious need of help.

So PRESENT the fucking evidence! You don't get to claim that others need help because they can't see the evidence when you haven't presented any to begin with. You can't even summarize what it is that you have supposedly provided as evidence when asked, let alone recreate the supposed evidence. You've got NOTHING besides your fallacious analogies, your own opinion, and your baseless aspersions about others, NOTHING.

"Find an independent source to verify that an instance such as this one doesn't qualify as a mistake and you might have a point."

I have. xxx knows the scenario, and has from the beginning, and has repeatedly demonstrated that they know the material.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... Someone on your side of the political aisle agrees with you, and THAT'S your evidence? THAT'S your "independent source?" Guess what, every single conservative poster here agrees with me, and there are a lot more of us than there are of you, so if that's your "evidence" then I win by a landslide.. FFs man I don't know how you expect me to take you seriously after that one.

Has nothing to do with agreeing with "my opinion" either. They simply know the material, have read it, and are correct in what has taken place.

They are correct because they have the same opinion as you, therefore your opinion is correct because they have the same opinion as you. Right, well it makes about as much sense as your other arguments.

Similar to the following:

kb: Here is my data: X,Y, and Z.
drool: kb thinks D,E, and F. This is his opinion.
xxx: No, kb gave the data which exists in the material above. This is X,Y, and Z.
drool: This is just your opinion, too(ad infinitum)
The End

Not to mention that that analgoy is completely senseless and irrelevant, you unfortunately made a slight logical flaw in what you were actually trying to say. Being that xxxliberal has formed his opinions on the topic on the exact same basis that you have, which was the basis that I was challenging in the first place, and which you were supposed to be presenting an outside source to support.

Redacted: Repetitive bullshit. Does nothing to address that the "independent verification" you provided was someone arguing from the exact same basis that you were being challenged on.

"You'd even have the evidence you're constantly pretending exists to back you up. In the meantime all you've got is your own opinion, which is worth less than shit to anyone besides you."drool

Projection. Have presented ALL the evidence, and MUCH more, that I need to demonstrate that you're a buffoon.

Where is it? Where? What was it? Your opinion and analogies? The fact that another poster agrees with you?

You are NOT in the media business, unless it is cleaning toilets.

You know shit, as you constantly prove. You can't even keep your arguments straight between posts, you stupid fuck. First you're claiming I am not in media because I am ignorant/illiterate/indoctrinated etc. etc. ad nauseum, then you claim in another post that I am suited to being a journalist as I am indoctrinated/ignorant of reality/a propagandist/whatever else it was you said or implied, now we're back to my not being in media unless it's in a menial capacity..


mandible claw

As usual, the bottom line is that you do NOT know his work, in ANY of the fields of which he has worked, and are therefore in exactly NO position whatsoever to determine whether or not he knows what he's talking about.

It took me all of five minutes to demolish his article on Mexican farmers. FIVE MINUTES to track down the report from one of the world's most respected and trusted financial institutions that demonstrated his article to be complete crap.

xxxxliberal

Mandy,

One, you're on a loser.
Two, you know it.
Three, you won't back down because your arrogance won't let you. And a damn bad journalist that makes you.

xxxxliberal

PS, I'm talking about the IAF in Turkey, in case you mis-read me. Again.

mandible claw

Posted by: xxxxliberal | July 28, 2008 at 07:18 AM

Mandy,

One, you're on a loser.
Two, you know it.
Three, you won't back down because your arrogance won't let you. And a damn bad journalist that makes you.

Mmm hmm. Actually since neither your ugly self or kb are bringing anything to the discussion besides projection and opinion, and certainly nothing new, I'm about ready to put a fork in it. I'da done so already but then you idiots would think you'd won something.

Are you planning to write a book on things you think "make a bad journalist?" Since you've got at least one per post from both you and kb since I told you I work in media you should have almost enough material gathered by now.

xxxxliberal

"Are you planning to write a book on things you think "make a bad journalist?"

Your case is blatant. You'll assume that the kid in Guantanamo blew off an American soldier's head with a grenade, because it fits with your politics. You're not *remotely* interested in alternative evidence regarding a botched US assault that resulted in 'friendly fire' killing US personnel.

As I say, a bad journalist and blatantly so.

xxxxliberal

"I'da done so already but then you idiots would think you'd won something."

We know what we know. We have no need to prance around announcing that we "wiped the floor" with someone/everyone. That's an obsession of the right-wing here. It's visible on every thread.

kb

"We should assume that Olsen did NOT mention his impression in his article or Chomsky would have mentioned it as well."kb

"Why should we assume this? There's no basis whatsoever for doing so."drool

There's even less basis for assuming he did. He would probably have mentioned it when supposedly responding to IC had he done so, don't you think? He would have said that he DID say this in his article, and that Chomsky simply left it out, assuming he has, which neither IC or yourself knows because you haven't taken the time i.e., the FIRST step in trying to know something about the subject, and reading it. I have. I've heard him discuss it many times. Basics aside, if you think there is a problem here, that the most obvious thing should not be assumed, then I would think it was sort of up to you to try and prove it by reading the article for yourself. Haven't really had the time to do this, eh? Probably sort of clash with the preferred fairy tale you guys have attempted to construct, eh? Now, if you can find where Olsen said in his article that his source gave him a number which he thought may have been exaggerated, and then show me where Chomsky must have been aware of this and simply chose to eliminate it from the record, you MAY have the start of an argument. Haven't gotten close to this. Sorry. Learn the fuck how to read and be honest.

"By him NOT mentioning it proves even further that Chomsky was correct in his use of his source."kb

"Not to my mind. Plus, you've no idea whether or not he did mention it."drool

Well, your "mind" is wrong, as I, as well as xxx, has been repeatedly been demonstrating. That's the point. Change it. Change your mind. It's incorrect. This is what normal people do. Say, when one 'believes' it's 90 degrees outside because he misheard the radio which actually said 19 degrees, and he runs outside in his swimsuit, he usually does NOT insist, repeatedly, that it's 90, regardless that his wife, friends, weatherman, etc...have told him that this was NOT the case. This is also NOT just their opinion. So, he has two choices; drop the dumbass belief that it was 90 and bring himself inline with what's happening in the real world, or sit there shivering in his ignorance, refusing to budge because of his pride, and freeze to death. You choose.

"Are you guys REALLY going to keep trying to drag this non-existent thing out?"kb

"Yep. Get used to it."drool

Oh, believe me. I am VERY used to it. I've been dealing with this nonsense for years and it rarely changes. There are some VERY regular patterns, many of which I've already discussed. Would you care for a list?

kb

"Incredible! How MANY more times are we going to have to prove you're drooling out both sides of your mouth?"kb

"I count zero, so far."

So, you're as bad at counting as you are at reading and understanding words. Hmmm....Perhaps you should take up finger-painting? There are not really any rules. You can do whatever you want and say it means whatever you want, and it's pretty difficult to prove you're wrong, which I'm sure that you may STILL be able to find a way to do anyway. There are MANY reasons why you should probably take up the finger-painting "profession" instead of the "media profession".

"Perhaps you could improve on that by providing something factual, or at least some sort of evidence, rather than just your own opinion."drool

Uhhh...Don't know what you're referring to. I have hardly given anything at all regarding an opinion, at least with regards to the Chomsky non-issue. There's not much opinion to give. SOmething is either there to give an opinion about, or it's not, to which one doesn't really need to give much opinion. YOU mistakenly 'think' you see Big Foot. Big Foot is NOT there, and has been shown, if that's even possible, NOT to be there i.e., the proving a negative. You keep talking about it as if it's there, regardless of there being not a single line of evidence showing that it is. Nothing at all other than an opinion. You, my friend, are projecting, again, as expected.

"Are you TRYING to help us? You have NOT read the material here."kb

"Yes, I have."

Oh, then it's even worse than I thought. It would have been better for you to say that you hadn't read anything and was just pulling stuff from your indoctrinated butt. At least you would have had a smei-excusable excuse for not knowing what the hell has been going on. Instead, you have chosen to tell us that you HAVE read the material, and have just not understood the words? This shows MUCH more of a problem on your part.

"And I have a different take on it than you do."

At first, when you were new to the issue, you read had possibly read a few lines, you jumped to those which confirmed your preconceived notions about Chomsky, and headed down the wrong path, and BEFORE I and xxx set you straight with the factual data, dates, analogies, etc....perhaps this couold be just described as a "take". However, there IS NO "take" on this issue. It is NOT just an opinion, as I've repeatedly said, and as you projectingly tried to accuse me of on the other thread. There IS what happened and what exists in the real world, and there is what is NOT in the read world. YOU have either chosen to see what is not there, or you can't help seeing what you're seeing and are therefore indoctrinated at a more severe level. Period. There IS no "opinion" involved at all. None.

"And the evidence supports my view in absentia you providing anything factual to disprove it."

The "evidence"? There is not a single sentence of evidence which supports your "view" i.e., opinion. And I have repeatedly presented exactly that which disproves your even having any evidence at all. I have presented nothing BUT factual anything. But if you can find a single line I have presented which is not factual, please present it. I have presented yours enough times to choke a Linda Lovelace-like sperm whale.

"All you've done is looked at the evidence and spun it as irrelevant. Oh, and claimed everyone else is lying/lazy/cowardly/ignorant/unintelligent/illiterate/indoctrinated, without proof or evidence for any of those claims."drool

Uhhh....No, as the is NO evidence to begin with. Perhaps THIS is where you've gone off track. You're entire starting point is flawed from step one. There IS NO EVIDENCE for ANYTHING, nor has there been shown to be any. Not a single line. I have "spun" nothing, though through the eyes of the indoctrinated I'm sure telling the truth and facts would appear to be "spinning". And, for the most part, given that the evidence is right there in bright, shining, clear, easy to read, easy to understand, words, and given the number of times I, and xxx, have spelled out the words, what they meant, how nothing was there, repeatedly, how NOTHING you've put forth means squat, repeatedly, yes, well, most of the words above are probably rather accurate descriptions. My advise would be to try dropping your preconceived notions for once, looking at what actually exists, instead of what you HOPE exists, and try being honest for once. It really ISN'T that difficult once you practiced for a while.

kb


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

"Yer an idiot."

No evidence.

"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.

"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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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.

"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. I GAVE IC Olsen's contact information because he was too lazy(remember one of the terms used for you folks above, i.e., MORE evidence that the term was correct). ANd AGAIN you are NOT looking at the relevant information here. YOu are assuming that when Chomsky used Olsen as a source, that a)Olsen already had this notion of exaggerated numbers b)That he must have said something about it of which Chomsky just ignored 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. 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.

"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. Are you taking drugs? Did IC force you to take up Mormonism?

"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.

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

"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.

"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. If YOU think he's lying, then YOU must prove that he is. I need prove nothing regarding him NOT lying.

kb

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

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

"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.

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

"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.

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

"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. kb got the expert, which was Chomsky's source. That's it.

"In other words, NOBODY HAS REACHED ANY SOURCE WHICH HAS CAGETORICALLY DENIED THE 12%."xxx

"I never said they had. I don't believe IC said they had either. That's never been the point of my debate on the topic. Even if IC had said that - and I'm not trawling the archives to check - fine, that's his opinion, it could be right or it could be wrong. What IC says about the matter is irrelevant in a discussion with me. I'm making a point based on what IC did, not what he said about it."drool

Well, then perhaps trawling the archives is in order so that you'll know the entire story instead of just jumping in at a time useful to support your preconceived notions. And, YES, that WERE preconceived notions. Were they not, one would have perhaps asked, as a newcomer wanting to know what the hell was going on, why we were making the statements we were making. You were never interested in finding out what was going on. Not from the get go. You HAD a position which had already been determined, and this has influenced your "position" until today. Someone genuinely interested would have asked the folks involved where they were coming from and why. You did NOT ask such thing. You jumped in WAAAAAAY after the event, saw what you wanted to see, and ran with it. NOT a good idea when reading ANYTHING.

"The 12% has never BEEN denied."xxx

"No-one said it had. That's a red herring, as I've repeatedly pointed out to kb."drool

It has nothing at all to do with red herring.

"Is that simple enough for you?"xxx

"It's very simple. You've responded to a point that I never made and claimed that's won you the debate."drool

It probably IS wrong to claim to have won a debate when one never even really took place.

"Because I'm finished with your nitpicking and suggestions that Chomsky did anything wrong."xxx

You should ignore him, xxx. Boring to watch.

"Disprove them, then. My "nitpicking" is simply an attempt to get you to address the actual facts, not make up your own."droo;

Been there MANY times, and done that. Have just done it again, in fact. Both xxx AND I have in this very comment.

"When patently IC proved nothing of the sort."xxx

"How did he prove this?"

Well, he didn't. That's the point.

"All he did was use some analogies and arguments that are relevant to him but constitute nothing in the way of evidence or facts."

Uhhh....Yes, they do. And they have NOT been shown NOT to.

"Then he simply said he'd proved his point as effectively as a simple mathematical equation."

Uhhh...Yes, he has. And it IS as simple as a mathematical equation. The only one who seems not to think so is you and perhaps IC. As I've said from the beginning, there IS NO ARGUMENT as far as whether Chomsky did anything wrong, nor has there ever been, nor has there been a single lines of evidence showing that he has. What there HAS been is whatching a couple of indoctrinated anti-Chomsky droolers which, hope, spin, twist, squirm, wriggle, lie, ignore, resist, etc...or whatever they felt necessary to keep their "faith". Sad. Like a cult member.

"If that's the best he's got, then he loses."drool

There is nothing to lose from my side. There is what exists i.e., what both xxx and I have listed a couple of hundred times, and there is what does NOT exist i.e., what you keep hoping to find. Period. I lose nothing. Can't really lose something if there was nothing to begin with. For you NOT to prove that Chomsky did something wrong, doesn't really mean that I win anything, other that in relation to your being wrong, if that's some sort of criteria.

kb

skipping a few irrelevancies:

Uhh...Because I've repeated the same elementary point about 20 times so far and you have yet to respond.kb

"I have responded to the your point, over and over and over again."drool

No, you haven't. You have just repeated your mistake repeatedly over and over, apparently having not understood the words.

"You have no point."drool

And HERE we have even MORE evidence of my assertions that you're illiterate. I have a VERY definite point. MANY, in fact. That you STILL don't know what they are sort of, well, proves my point. The most obvious point is that you, IC, nor anyone else here proved that Chomsky did anything wrong. Period. THAT is THE point, and THAT has NOT happened.

"You only have opinion."

Uhhh...No, YOU have an opinion. I have NO opinion at all, other than the psychological reasons why you folks persist in seeing things which don't exist. As I've said repeatedly, THIS is the ONLY reason I'm staying here. There IS no issue regarding Chomsky and this was demonstrated to be the case the first day. EVERYTHING since that time has had NOTHING to do with Chomsky, but rather you/IC and your pathology. This, too, has been repeatedly mentioned.

"You try to give analogies in lieu of arguing facts or presenting anything besides your own opinion"

Now, this is either a flat out lie, of the usual rightwing sort, or worse, you really believe it, because there are at least a hundred times when I've done exactly the opposite. I have given exactly NO analogies inlieu of anything. ANd EVERY analogy I've given has had EXACT bearing and relevancy to the issue at hand. I have NOT given ANY opinions regarding this issue because none are necessary. This is YOUR projection, as I've ALSO repeatedly demonstrated, and NOT simple said.

"and you insist that others accept them when they're simply irrelevant."drool

And THIS is a projection. Given that ytour premise is wrong, as usual, then the remianing nonsense is as well. You have not presented a single line I've said to be irrelevant. You've simply SAID they were. THIS lack of evidence demonstrates that it is YOU who are simply giving an opinion. DO you think I don't see what you're doing now? YOu will NOT win a debate on this issue, or anything else which has to do with philosophical anything, so please spare us, but more importantly yourself.

"Don't you think that's a little patronising?"drool

"And it should be much more patronising."kb

"Fuck you."

Uhhh....Why? You asked for it.

"You know nothing about Israel or Palestine"drool

Opinion. No evidence given. Much to the contrary in fact. Boring. My butt itches again.

"you defend murderous dictators"drool

Not once have a "defended" a murderous dictator. And especially those "murderous dictators" who the U.S. has supported, and who WE are responsible for sustaining. You know, the ones which WE should be concerned about? You know, the ones who the right won't even acknowledges existing? You know, the ones who I have listed dozens of times here which have never been mentioned by the right? You know, the ones who have killed FAAAAAAAAAR more than anyone like Castro has EVER dreamed of doing? And on and on.....

kb


"you tell others they're illiterate when you can barely string a fucking sentence together"drool

No evidence. Opinion. Also irrlevant. But this is obvious. However, for the ???th time, if you can show me where I've "barely strung a sentence together" which you were unable to get the meaning, then maybe you will have something. Until then, NOTHING!

"and you repeat the same old shit"drool

Well why wouldn't I? It's correct.

"over and over and over again."drool

If it's correct why would I change it?

"You've got nothing that would qualify you to be teaching anybody about politics."drool

Never said I did. Never even hinted that I did. What I DO have is whatever data I do have, and arguments which will either be supported by the facts or not. Thus far, after this little dribbling of yet MORE of nothing more than opinion from yourself, you know, of the type you've keep projecting into me, or trying to anyway, you have done nothing at all other than demonstrate that you can't read, or should I say, comprehend and understand words, facts, or the real world. However, I'll allow you the opportunity to prove something I've said to be incorrect if you will. Nothing so far. How about taking one of the MAAAAAAAANY examples of U.S. crimes I've listed and show them to be wrong. Or better yet, how much better U.S. clients have been than Castro in the surrpunding region. There are only about a thousand items I've left which one having any balls or brains could try and refute. Not a peep so far other than more of your opinion.

"I've been trying to help you understand something which an elementary school would have little difficulty with, and you persist in NOT trying to understand the point."kb

"In other words, you're losing the debate because you have no facts or evidence, so you adopt some smarmy posture of higher knowledge."drool

No, I HAVE facts and evidence, and have presented from top to bottom repeatedly. In fact, I am the only person here to be asking for evidence about 95% of the time. I'm not interested in the "smarmy posture of higher knowledge" babble either. Sounds like the slip into the rightwing hatred of knowledge rationale which often arises from those who have themselves LOST a debate and have nothing to back up their arguments.

"Were you giving any indication at all that you were honesty attempting to find the correct answer this would not be the case."kb

"The correct answer would be the one that is correct, not necessarily the one that you arrive at. So far you've backed your opinion up with preceisely nothing."drool

Then it is YOU who ARE illiterate as I have asserted.

"However, you aren't. So, you receive the sorts of responses you ask me to give you."drool

Yes, I am.

"Right, right, it's for my own good, heard that one before. You're really doing everyone else a favour by being a pompous ass, it's so they will leaaaaarrrrrn something."drool

I'M being a pompus ass for simply demonstrating that you have no argument? Hmmm...

kb: 2+2=4
drool: That's just your opinion.
kb: No, it's a fact.(Goes through 20 math books demonstrating the fact)
drool: You know nothing about math. You are in no position to tell me anything.
kb: 2+2=4
drool: You just keep repeating the same thing over and over. It's just your opinion.
kb: Has nothing to do with being my opinion. 2+2 really DOES equal 4.
drool: You pompus ass.
The End

The comments to this entry are closed.

Fair Trade
Gift Shop

  • fairtradelogo.jpg

Sites I'm Banned From