So why is Saddam so bad?
and on a side note someone really needs to put up an archive of sages great victories
quote:
Tatsukaze had this to say about the Spice Girls:
So why is Saddam so bad?
Remind me again what the Cold War and Red Scare were, douchebag.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Mog wrote:
*sighs* why do eveyrone always think they can beet the great sage in a battle of wits....they never can...
Cause all those who are smart enought to realize this don't get into it with him. I doubt Anyone on this bored really could 'cept maybe Gydyon cause of his profession.
On the one hand, Bloodsage is nigh unbeatable.
On the other, everyone likes Gydyon.
So, I must say, in the battle of Gydyon vs. Bloodsage, there are no winners.
Everybody loses 
quote:
What point was that? You haven't actually answered any of my opinions (burden of proof lies on you remember), and apparently you didn't know that the word "feel" can be used to convey that the person's statement is opinion and in that context means the same thing as "think."
This is so fun I give it it's own reply!
While I detest the silly practice of answering pieces of a post individually, as it pointlessly leads to an ever-narrowing spiral of nitpicking while dodging the core issues--but some people seem to need such crutches--I'll make an exception for you, since you've obviously not paid attention (much like in civics class, apparently) to the 4328 separate times I've posted the difference between opinion and belief, including thinking versus feeling.
They are, in short, not the least bit interchangeable as concepts.
Try brining your intellect to the argument next time, rather than your feelings. No one gives a flying fuck what you feel, and your feelings aren't relevant to the discussion. What matters is the logical basis for your statements, which is almost entirely lacking in this particular thread.
Now, since you seem to see disparate concepts such as thinking and feeling as interchangeable, it's no wonder your argument comes across as muddled and emotional. Further, if you claim to know the distinction, but are too lazy or imprecise to use the correct words to express yourself, is it any wonder no one understands what the hell you are trying to say?
When arguing, precise language is de rigueur.
But thank you, anyway, for the moments of levity as I sit here in the desert working my ass off away from my family and friends. I've got no qualms at all about taking Saddam down if the President decides to do so, and I can pretty much guarantee I've looked into this situation more deeply than you have.
So, to repay the levity with which you've gifted me, I offer this advice:
When you're going to argue what you know will be an unpopular opinion, you should be careful of your facts, express yourself clearly, and take it in stride when people oppose you. And if you choose to use inflammatory metaphors or similes, then don't whine about the outrage--there's a place for that kind of tactic, but none at all for whining at the very predictable reactions of others.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Tatsukaze spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Stalin killed 5 million of his own people, and we allied with him in WWII.
We didn't ally with him during WWII. He was off doing his own thing against the Germans. We shared some information and helped each other out from time to time, but they were never a member of the Allies. It was more of a, "The enemy of my enemy isn't quite my enemy at the moment" type of thing that didn't come into anything. We were at no point in time officially allied with them. In fact, we were actively spying on them all throughout the war. After Germany was defeated Russia did officially declared war on Japan to help us out, but it was just a political move and they didn't see any actual fighting.
And hell, if Patton hadn't died Russia might be an American colony by now! 
He wanted to invade Russia the instant World War II was over, and had a lot of support back home.
quote:
Tatsukaze was listening to Cher while typing:
Stalin killed 5 million of his own people, and we allied with him in WWII.So why is Saddam so bad?
That was a marriage of convenience, so to speak. Had not the Red Army absorbed so much of the Nazi fury, things might well have gone another way.
You'll also notice, though, that Stalin became our worst enemy as soon as WWII was over.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Frog said this about your mom:
After Germany was defeated Russia did officially declared war on Japan to help us out, but it was just a political move and they didn't see any actual fighting.
Two days after Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima, in fact.
Isn't that conveeeeeeenieeent.
Basicly it was to say "Look what we have. Now stay the fuck in your little corner of the world and don't cause trouble"
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent T. E. Bloodsage said:Now, since you seem to see disparate concepts such as thinking and feeling as interchangeable, it's no wonder your argument comes across as muddled and emotional. Further, if you claim to know the distinction, but are too lazy or imprecise to use the correct words to express yourself, is it any wonder no one understands what the hell you are trying to say?
When arguing, precise language is de rigueur.
But thank you, anyway, for the moments of levity as I sit here in the desert working my ass off away from my family and friends. I've got no qualms at all about taking Saddam down if the President decides to do so, and I can pretty much guarantee I've looked into this situation more deeply than you have.
So, to repay the levity with which you've gifted me, I offer this advice:
When you're going to argue what you know will be an unpopular opinion, you should be careful of your facts, express yourself clearly, and take it in stride when people oppose you. And if you choose to use inflammatory metaphors or similes, then don't whine about the outrage--there's a place for that kind of tactic, but none at all for whining at the very predictable reactions of others.
Why is it that you detest answering points individually when multiple points are made?
and this post is so riddled with personal attacks I didn't even finish reading it.
You get a lot of leeway from people on this board because you make yourself out to be some kind of authority on anything and everything by ridiculing the character of others whose opinions differ from yours. The validation of your arguments usually amounts to several posts of "Whoa guess he TOLD YOU!" Fuck that, why should I put any credence in what you say just because you called me an idiot and attack my character? Oh no Mr. mean old bloodsage called me an idiot, my opinions must be invalid.
I'm not going to hold back from stating my opinions just because one person who happens to be good at spouting abusive drivel doesn't like them.
Allow me to crack open a thesaurus.com for you:
quote:
Entry: feel
Function: verb
Definition: believe
Synonyms: assume, be convinced, conclude, conjecture, consider, credit, deduce, deem, esteem, gather, guess, hold, infer, intuit, judge, know, presume, repute, sense, suppose, surmise, suspect, think
Antonyms: challenge, disbelieve, doubt, question, mistrust
Concept: belief/theory
And a dictionary.com on the word synonym:
quote:
syn·o·nym ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sn-nm)
n.
A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.
A word or an expression that serves as a figurative or symbolic substitute for another.
Biology. A scientific name of an organism or of a taxonomic group that has been superseded by another name at the same rank.
[ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: Kermitov ]
There ya go.
quote:
Kermitov had this to say about Punky Brewster:
You get a lot of leeway from people on this board because you make yourself out to be some kind of authority on anything and everything by ridiculing the character of others whose opinions differ from yours. The validation of your arguments usually amounts to several posts of "Whoa guess he TOLD YOU!" Fuck that, why should I put any credence in what you say just because you called me an idiot and attack my character? Oh no Mr. mean old bloodsage called me an idiot, my opinions must be invalid.
Actually, we generally agree with Bloodsage because he's usually right. I remember one time when Bloodsage was wrong, though, and EVERYONE jumped all over him for it (I can't remember what the topic was or anything, so I wouldn't know what to look for to find it). That's proof that we don't always just agree with Bloodsage because we're scared of him or something. We agree with him because he's usually right.
Sorry, but this argument is invalid.
Unless there's a clear difference of opinion, I'll usually side with my friends.
I can tear down opponents as well, and honestly, I find myself more venemous than Bloodsage most of the times.
But maybe I'm delusional
quote:
Taeldian had this to say about John Romero:
Actually, we generally agree with Bloodsage because he's usually right. I remember one time when Bloodsage was wrong, though, and EVERYONE jumped all over him for it (I can't remember what the topic was or anything, so I wouldn't know what to look for to find it). That's proof that we don't always just agree with Bloodsage because we're scared of him or something. We agree with him because he's usually right.Sorry, but this argument is invalid.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Taeldian:
Actually, we generally agree with Bloodsage because he's usually right. I remember one time when Bloodsage was wrong, though, and EVERYONE jumped all over him for it (I can't remember what the topic was or anything, so I wouldn't know what to look for to find it). That's proof that we don't always just agree with Bloodsage because we're scared of him or something. We agree with him because he's usually right.Sorry, but this argument is invalid.
Sorry, but it's not. If you agree with him then that's fine. I've found lots of occasions where I agree with him too. What I said is that he loves to belittle people who disagree with him until they just give up trying to debate in a civil manner.
Ever try reasoning with someone who is already throwing punches?
Strength respects strength. If you're not strong enough to take on someone's style of argument that they clearly won't change, go argue with someone else.
Weiner
We agree with Sage because Sage knows his shit.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
As I pointed out.
If you can't hang with being called silly in the course of having your arguments demolished, I suggest you start doing more homework prior to trotting your opinions out in public.
Further, in response to your lame attempt at citing lexicographical authority, I have to point out that the "synonyms" you quote from the thesaurus do not all mean exactly the same thing.
Yes, some people do use "feel" and "think" interchangeably, earning the horrible practice a place in the thesaurus, just as "ain't" has its spot in the dictionary, along with many other incorrect usages.
My point, however, which you have chosen to ignore, is that argument requires precise language. Read what I say, for crying out loud, and you might not look so ridiculous next time. 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Lyinar Ka`Bael thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
I think it was the PS2/X-Box debate and Sage stereotyped some. And yes, people did jump on him, but it all got sorted out in the end.We agree with Sage because Sage knows his shit.
Folks will also notice that I publicly acknowledge when I make a mistake, and publicly apologize when I flame someone undeservedly.
Each of which has happened once or twice. 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Now on the other hand, we have the fact that I consider the idea of this war primarily being for the furthering of democracy in Iraq laughable. I'm sure it plays a part, but the main interests seem to be political and economical to me. Re-election, the War on Terrorism, the oil fields... Iraq is quite a perfect target in those regards, when you do consider the fact that USA imports 10 million barrels of oil per day, and that presidents are usually re-elected during wartime.
If I could be sure that the reform of Iraq after the war WOULD be a successful implementation of a democratic governement, then I would throw my support behind it. But as far as I know, Afghanistan hasn't exactly been a ground of reconstruction, but rather under the heel of the local warlords instead of the Talibans now. (I'm not completely sure on this as it came from a rather biased source though.)
I'm not really violently opposed to the war either, but it's hard to throw your full support behind a war of freedom fought by a country that has close bonds with for example, Turkey. [ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: Zaza ]
quote:
T. E. Bloodsage said this about your mom:
Not to beat this dead horse too much, Kermy, but there are a lot of things you are ignoring--like the majority of my posts.As I pointed out.
If you can't hang with being called silly in the course of having your arguments demolished, I suggest you start doing more homework prior to trotting your opinions out in public.
Further, in response to your lame attempt at citing lexicographical authority, I have to point out that the "synonyms" you quote from the thesaurus do not all mean exactly the same thing.
Yes, some people do use "feel" and "think" interchangeably, earning the horrible practice a place in the thesaurus, just as "ain't" has its spot in the dictionary, along with many other incorrect usages.
My point, however, which you have chosen to ignore, is that argument requires precise language. Read what I say, for crying out loud, and you might not look so ridiculous next time.
Being called silly really doesn't bother me, at least not as much as being called wrong bothers you.
I'll work on using more precise language around you. Even though in the context that I used the word feel it actually does mean the same thing as think. Also, I find it funny that you detest answering individual points and yet you'll spend plenty of time invalidating an opinion based on one word.
You should take an anger management course in the meantime.
=
see see, I'm telling you, Suddam is Mr. Wilson from the '93 movie of dennis the Mennace, this whole war is over the fact that Dennis broke Bushs window and Wilson won't pay for it!!
So you've become a psychologist in your spare time, as well as a medium, Kermitov? Other than your psychic powers, how is it you divine whether or not I'm angry? Without the medical training, how can you be so sure anger management is the cure?
You just haven't been paying that much attention around here, have you?
Hate to break it to you, but you have zero capability to make me angry. You're just an anonymous set of 'trons on the internet, who can't seem to grasp the point that it's a good idea to have a clue on a subject prior to posting ridiculous and inflammatory statements. You're mildly annoying, perhaps, but that's about it.
I hope it doesn't disappoint you too badly if I'm neither losing sleep over you nor even thinking about you except in the brief periods it takes to reply here.
You had a couple of choices when replying to me. You, as the saying goes, chose poorly. Feel free to step back and discuss the issues, perhaps even addressing any one of the many substantive objections I raised countering your uninformed drivel, and you might fare better in the future.
Continuing to pile useless whining on top of your baseless arguing, however, does you no good at all. 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Due process has nothing to do with international relations, as I said. Had you stayed awake in civics, or understood the least bit about the concepts you're so quick to wave around in defense of a mass-murdering tyrant, you'd be better prepared for these discussions.Why ignore the fact that Blix, as pro-Iraqi a scumsucking a useless liar as there ever was, even said was in violation of 1441?
Yes, under the terms of 1441, the Iraqis must prove that they have complied with the earlier resolutions and the terms of the cease-fire by disarming. We do not have to prove that they are breaking them, though the evidence is abundantly clear, and they have already "discovered" things they "forgot" to disclose during their "full disclosure."
This was a side note:
quote:
You use the word "feel" a lot. Perhaps if you based more of your opinions around words like "think" and "informed," you'd fare better.
Concentrate more on the topic and less on the side-note.
The fact that his argument comes off as venomous doesn't change the fact that he has an argument. Argue the points he makes, not his method.
quote:
From the book of Iron Parcelan, chapter 3, verse 16:
Gydyon vs. Bloodsage would split the earth asunder.On the one hand, Bloodsage is nigh unbeatable.
On the other, everyone likes Gydyon.
So, I must say, in the battle of Gydyon vs. Bloodsage, there are no winners.
Everybody loses
But boy, what a blaze of glory on the way down!
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
quote:
Taeldian impressed everyone with:
This is the topic:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why ignore the fact that Blix, as pro-Iraqi a scumsucking a useless liar as there ever was, even said was in violation of 1441?Yes, under the terms of 1441, the Iraqis must prove that they have complied with the earlier resolutions and the terms of the cease-fire by disarming. We do not have to prove that they are breaking them, though the evidence is abundantly clear, and they have already "discovered" things they "forgot" to disclose during their "full disclosure."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Concentrate more on the topic and less on the side-note.
The fact that his argument comes off as venomous doesn't change the fact that he has an argument. Argue the points he makes, not his method.
Oh is that what his point was?
Yeah it makes perfect sense but since that was only like 1/8 of his total posting and the rest was abusive bullshit about how I sleep in class (Sure but that's not the point) and don't think before I post (actually I do), don't have any common sense (plenty of common sense here, don't see what that has to do with international politics), have obviously not paid attention (Well hey after the third page of insults...), rely on my feelings too much (ok so this was based on poor reading comprehension on your part), have "failed to inform my statements with the least bit of research" (fuck you), am defending a murderous tyrant (fuck you again only this time with something barbed jagged and rusty, am I making myself clear enough for you?), need some sort of crutch (my leg's not broken...), haven't looked into the issue as deeply as you have (why, because I don't read the same stuff you do and I don't agree with you?), should "start doing my homework prior to trotting my opinions out in public." (rrrright, like aerodynamics has anything to do with this... ), have had my arguments demolished (I still don't see where), made a lame attempt at citing lexicographical authority (Well you were, and still are obviously lacking in comprehension), have chosen to ignore your point (actually I couldn't even tell what your point was other than the things I quote now), "chose poorly" (because I disagree with you right?), spout uninformed drivel (which isn't nearly as fun as spouting abusive drivel), continue to pile useless whining on top of my baseless arguing (wish the same could be said for abusive drivel).
I lost it in the noise.
And I still take issue with the fact that everyone is telling *me* to argue points when he sits around and argues methods and character all fucking day and might add a single point in there between all the nitpicking of my language, research, upbringing, etc.
And yes, Bloodsage, you need to take an anger management class. It doesn't matter if you're not angry all the time and don't lose sleep. You can't handle someone disagreeing with you and you can't simply state a point without resorting to what amounts to mental violence.
Parcelan said something about "Strength respects Strength" as a reason why I should result to browbeating tactics but sorry, this is as personal as I get because I don't see the person who must resort to these tactics as having a strong opinion anyway.
Example: http://forums.evercrest.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=041270 [ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: Kegwen ]
Primarily I find that this may be because of all the people I've heard argue vs. the war, not one brings up a VALID point. [ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: OtakuPenguin ]
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Kegwen said:
Am I the only one that has noticed that anti-war peoplealwaysare quick to resort to whining about being a victim of someone else's arguing techniques instead of addressing the point?Example: http://forums.evercrest.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=041270
being anti-war has fuck all to do with it.
quote:
Kermitov had this to say about Knight Rider:
being anti-war has fuck all to do with it.
Maybe not, but that's where one sees such behavior most often as of late.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Kermitov:
being anti-war has fuck all to do with it.
So you admit even if you were pro-war you would still be a sausage?
[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: Iron Parcelan ]
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Iron Parcelan was all like:
So you admit even if you were pro-war you would still be a sausage?
I am pro-war just not every war.
This war has very little justification so far.
