RE: Restoring the draft

RE: Restoring the draft (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/25/2007 11:52:42 PM)
i know...maybe we should send over all our telemarketers, door-to-door salesmen and TV evangelist...we might actually change the course of this...what are they calling it? police action? agressive diplomacy?

Vendaval -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/26/2007 12:04:38 AM)
When this war started I knew that eventually the possibility of the Draft would come around again.

MsBearlee -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/26/2007 8:54:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 First of all you are lying, it is not an editorial, it is in the US news section, not opinion. Second, you are lying the sources are represented ....the Navy Officer Qualification Test & the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test ...Both were 22 when they took it. 3rd you are confused about what a source is for news, and surprise you lied about what she said, What you call the third source (actually Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware) was not a source for the information in the story. She examined the study and "called it a creditable analysis" You know ThompsonX, I would post the earlier thread in which I noted a coward edited his posts when caught in a lie....But the Pathetic Coward edited them....you can pretend it never happened if you want to, you were involved in that thread and remember....or maybe your brain doesn't work properly and you can't....No loss to me #1) Someone CAN be mistaken...and not lie, boy. I can see you are seriously mistaken; but I would not call you a liar. #2) Before you call someone either mistaken OR a liar, you should check your sources. You see, quoting a page from the Campaign section of a newspaper clearly titled "Political Points" ...is, in fact, quoting an EDITORIAL. The man wrote an paper declaring his OPINION; which is, after all, what an EDITORIAL is...you see. #3) Things like: "...George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry. " followed with: "That, at least, is the conclusion of Steve Sailer, a conservative columnist at the Web magazine " ...should have been a clue that this is OPINION. #4) For someone to state: something is "a creditable analysis " is not proof of fact; it is yet more OPINION. #5) Clues that suggest OPINION include such words and statements as: "...probably had a higher IQ..." "...estimated... [from one person's score]... that...[another person's score is]..." "They are not formal I.Q. tests, but Mr. Sailer [a *columnist] says* ... " '...again suggests that ..." See kiddo... all that stuff MEANS *opinion! #6) You are confused again, or do not understand what 'source' means. If you were going to actually provide a source to the OPINIONS in this article...you needed to at least provide the ANALYSIS done by Mr. Sailer...the COLUMINST who created the paper Mr. Tierney (yet another columinist) refered to in the EDITORIAL to which you linked us. Hence: the fact that these men both took a particular test is not a SOURCE for this article (though, if that was relevant...to provide it AS source would be to provide military records with the results of said tests...(as thompsonx has done time and time again)). So...to sum things up, you linked us to an opinion* written by by a political columnist who discussed a conclusion (read opinion) written by yet another columnist who apparently extrapolated some test results to come up with yet more suggestions which he concluded supported his statements. (In that the term 'extrapolated' was used so many times in the article, you might want to look up the word). b

thompsonx -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/26/2007 10:52:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 "luckydog: I can see why it only took you thirty seconds to find this. It is from the editroial page of the New York times where one author cites another author who cites an unpresented source. Which in turn is commented on by yet a third source saying that the conclusions may (or may not be valid) TYFSASAKM thompson " Aww thompson your funny. First of all you are lying, it is not an editorial, it is in the US news section, not opinion. You seem to have a penchant for calling people liars when your make believe evidence is found to be wanting. Second, you are lying the sources are represented ....the Navy Officer Qualification Test & the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test ...Both were 22 when they took it. Perhaps you should go back and reread the article? It appears that you have misunderstood what it actually says. 3rd you are confused about what a source is for news, and surprise you lied about what she said, What you call the third source (actually Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware) was not a source for the information in the story. She examined the study and "called it a creditable analysis" Ms. Gottfredson is offering her opinion not fact...perhaps you might enlighten us as to just what Ms. Gotfredson does for the University of Delaware. You know ThompsonX, I would post the earlier thread in which I noted a coward edited his posts when caught in a lie....But the Pathetic Coward edited them....you can pretend it never happened if you want to, you were involved in that thread and remember....or maybe your brain doesn't work properly and you can't....No loss to me It seems it is a loss to you since you constantly bring it up. You also constantly fail to bring any evidence to support your ranting and name calling, but then "christians" of your ilk are like that.

luckydog1 -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/26/2007 11:02:55 AM)
No Ms bearlee, the author of the News story, wote about the results of a study... that is a reporting of facts, with sourcing. That is a news story. Not an editorial....Guess your confused. Yes a named credentialed expert gave an expert opinion as part of the story, that expert opinion being that the study was"a creditable analysis" . "to provide it AS source would be to provide military records with the results of said tests...(as thompsonx has done time and time again)). " Now that is just funny, thompson has provided no results on this (seldom on anything), not even once, much less time and time again. That is simply a lie on your part MS bearlee. The source of the Data was indeed identified I guess since you are calling me kiddo, I will call you Old hag. Old Hag this article (not editorial) was in the news section, not the opinion section. That means the NYTIMES stands behind it as true, unless you can show the retraction/correction... It is a news story, and it is not an editorial, nor a letter to the editor. The news staff of the NY Times stands behind the story. Feel free to disprove it (if you can), but you just look silly pretending it is not a news story. You can bet your ass, if the numbers were false Kerry would have corrected it. Infact kerrys campaing manager (in the article) does not dispute the findings....Not even Kerry says this is fake, but you do for some reason...funny Oh well Thompson needs someone to try to rescue him.

philosophy -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/26/2007 11:12:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 It is a news story, and it is not an editorial, nor a letter to the editor. ....other examples of 'news stories' include, 'Freddy Star ate my Hamster', 'WMD's in Iraq' and 'World War 2 Bomber found on moon'. All these stories included quotes from experts that backed up the claims. Do you believe everything you read in Newspapers? Would that include newspapers with avowed communist tendencies, such as The Morning Star? If not, then you are editorialising by the use of selective belief. Cold hard fact is hard to pin down, reporting cold hard fact is equally tricky. Opinions always seem to intrude, even if the reporter is trying to avoid that. If you have access to primary data then that is a better (though still imperfect due to observer bias) starting point, can you provide those links?

luckydog1 -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/26/2007 11:27:58 AM)
How aobut you give me the info on the WW2 bomber found on the Moon, or are you just making up a silly false story in an attempt to evade. The opinion is clearly identified in the Story. It is expert opinion from a credentialed named expert source. That being the expert opinion of a proffesor of IQ that the analysis refered to in the story is creditable. you seem confused as to what editorialising is, it has nothing to do with selective belief. If you have some reason to doubt the News story lets see it. As I pointed out...kerry did not dispute the cold hard facts of it. At the age of 22 Bush got a higher score on an intelligence test. That is a cold hard fact, not disputed by either Kerry or Bush. What it means could be the subject of an editorial, this is simply a relating of facts, with an expert opinion thrown in, as well as a reaction from the one who got the lower score, and the person with the lower score does not dispute the facts of the story.

MsBearlee -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/26/2007 11:28:46 AM)
Yup, I don't agree with you and suggest you look up the meaning of several words; instead you just call me a liar, too! Nice... Honey...there is not one source cited in the article to which you posted. Some people are mentioned...along with their beliefs, suspicions and opinions relating to the STORY (as you called it...(nice to see you finally get closer to the meaning of EDITORIAL))... but again; opinions are not facts and mentioning other articles is not the same as citing facts. Perhaps the reason Kerry has not disputed the 'findings' is because the 'findings' are (in fact)...OPINION! You need to re-read the story, boy...and make use of a dictionary for the words you do not understand. As for looking silly; to call someone a liar for disagreeing with you IS pretty silly…but I find it funnier to go on and on that a STORY is not an EDITORIAL! My oh my… b

MsBearlee -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/26/2007 11:35:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 It is a news story, and it is not an editorial, nor a letter to the editor. ....other examples of 'news stories' include, 'Freddy Star ate my Hamster', 'WMD's in Iraq' and 'World War 2 Bomber found on moon'. ROFLMAO!!! quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy If you have access to primary data then that is a better (though still imperfect due to observer bias) starting point, can you provide those links? I'm thinking he will not understand the question, P; and he won't use a dictionary. Besides, now you're probably a liar, too! <sigh> b EDITED TO ADD: quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 How aobut you give me the info on the WW2 bomber found on the Moon, or are you just making up a silly false story in an attempt to evade. Well, there ya have it; he can't read!!! quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 The opinion is clearly identified in the Story. ...but he IS getting closer to what an editorial IS! lol b

luckydog1 -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/26/2007 11:40:21 AM)
Come on Old Hag, the scores on the tests are Not opinions, they are fact. Kerry does not dispute them. The NYTimes author got a reaction from the Kerry team, they did not dispute the findings. this is fact. News stories are not editorials, maybe you are not lying, just ignorant. I had assumed you were intelligent enough to grasp the difference between a news story and an editorial, and were lying for some partisan reason. Maybe you are just ignorant. So basically you are telling me that there has never been a news story in all history, they are all just editorials, that just seems stupid to me. But I guess if that is your opinion I can't change it.

MsBearlee -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/26/2007 11:51:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Come on Old Hag, the scores on the tests are Not opinions, they are fact. Kerry does not dispute them. The NYTimes author got a reaction from the Kerry team, they did not dispute the findings. this is fact. … Okay… Shall we try this again? Your STORY (as opposed to some statement of fact) is about the opinions gleaned from some the extrapolation of data regarding the IQ of two people….by a newspaper columnist. What part about ‘this is not FACT’ do you not understand? How many people must tell you, you do not understand the meanings of words and really should go re-read the article you posted and try to figure it out. You have it all wrong; you have seriously misunderstood what is going on here (and there). I recommend you just give up and quit calling people names when you are so obviously in over your head. b EDITED to ask: dog, did you find out about the WW2 bombers on the moon yet? <cracks up>

MsBearlee -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/26/2007 12:15:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 ... So basically you are telling me that there has never been a news story in all history, they are all just editorials, that just seems stupid to me. But I guess if that is your opinion I can't change it. quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Cold hard fact is hard to pin down, reporting cold hard fact is equally tricky. Opinions always seem to intrude, even if the reporter is trying to avoid that. As Philosophy pointed out; anything you read in the paper is a story. Many are backed up by claims of all sorts; but few are backed up with facts. The problem with your argument, and the part that suggests you do not understand what you read, is that in the story you keep talking about, the author uses OPINION to support what he states. I'll say it again; while it may be true both men had different (if similar) IQ tests, this story is about some opinions extrapolated by someone else who saw these tests; nothing more. Hardly newsworthy and so not worth disputing... b

luckydog1 -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/26/2007 12:26:02 PM)
Okay… Shall we try this again? (yes lets) Your STORY (no the NYTimes news story, which they stake their credibilty on as being true as best they know) (as opposed to some statement of fact (A news story is a list of facts. it is a fact that Bush got slightly higer scores. It is a fact that the credentialed expert says the study is creditable)) is about the opinions What opinion is given other than the study was creditable?gleaned from some the extrapolation (no collection of Data, the test scores)of data regarding the IQ of two people….by a newspaper columnist (no by a news journalist, not an editorial collumnist). What opinon was given about the fact that Bush got a slightly higher score? None, It did not say vote for Bush because he got a higher score. It did not advocate or push any sort of opinion. It stated the facts...Bush got a higher score...the test is comparable to IQ according to a credentialed expert...Kerry did not dispute the findings... What part about ‘this is not FACT’ do you not understand? Pretty much all of it, because the facts I listed are not in dispute, feel free to dispute them if you like, you haven't yet. How many people must tell you, you do not understand the meanings of words and really should go re-read the article you posted and try to figure it out. You have it all wrong; you have seriously misunderstood what is going on here (and there). I recommend you just give up and quit calling people names when you are so obviously in over your head. OK lets step back for a moment. Thompson said,"It is from the editroial page of the New York times where one author cites another author who cites an unpresented source." And I called him a liar because it is not from the editorial page. This is an undisputed fact, it is not on the editorial page, it is in the US News section. Perhaps thompson is just not smart enough to figure out what section of the paper he was looking at, and he is not a liar. you could vaily attempt to make the argument that it is an editorial even though it is not in the opinion section. It would be a nonsense argument, but you haven't even attempted it. I also called him a liar because the source of the DATA (the test scores) was presented, it was not an unrepresented source. Again I could be wrong, and he is not lying just stupid and unable to comprehend words in front of him. look at it like this. That the article is not in the editorial section is a fact. Me deducing that he is lying about it is opinion. I think thompson is bright and knew perfectly well what he said was not true. I could be wrong. The real bottom line on this is that Kerry did not dispute the findings or results when asked. Kerry does not dispute the article, I am kind of curious why you (several of you)are. Honestly a couple of points in IQ is meaningless. The NYTimes endorsed Kerry...

luckydog1 -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/26/2007 12:35:52 PM)
As Philosophy pointed out; anything you read in the paper is a story. No, I can read Comics, advertisments, the weather charts, obituaries, horoscopes Many are backed up by claims of all sorts; but few are backed up with facts, (yet this on is in several ways, the numbers are sourced, the credentialed expert is named, and most importantly the principles are consulted for comment, which is included in the article). The problem with your argumentMy argument is simply that Bush got a slighter higher score on an intellignece test, thats a fact. It was widley reported. Kerry does not deny it. I have not given any meaning or used that fact to advance any argument., and the part that suggests you do not understand what you read, is that in the story you keep talking about, the author uses OPINION to support what he states No he uses 3 absolute facts, the test scores the testimony of a named credentialed expert, and the reaction from the Kerry camp. That really is a hard bottom line here...Kerry does not deny it, did you even read the article in question? I'll say it again; while it may be true both men had different (if similar) IQ tests, this story is about some opinions extrapolated by someone else who saw these tests; nothing more. what opinon, it is simply a statement of fact that Bush got a slightly higher score, both men were in the +90th % Hardly newsworthy and so not worth disputing... Then why do you dispute so vehemently?

MsBearlee -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/26/2007 12:36:23 PM)
I don't believe I've ever seen a grown man wiggle so much; wiggle so much OR so adept at calling people names. Well...or splitting hairs, either. You really just are not worth arguing with, b

luckydog1 -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/26/2007 12:41:43 PM)
It wasn't so much an argument as me pointing why you were wrong. Me saying the exact same thing over and over, while you wiggled and said stuff about the Moon and Big caps ROTLMAO.......In fact the article was not on the editorial page, and it wasn't an editorial or opinion piece you started the name calling....

farglebargle -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/26/2007 2:32:14 PM)
quote: no the NYTimes news story, which they stake their credibilty on as being true as best they know The lost their Credibility just reprinting the Bush Administration's propaganda leading up to Iraq. Why bother thinking they can get ANYTHING correct at this point?

Page: << < prev 9 10 11 12 [13]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

8.007813E-02