or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Is it just Americans
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is it just Americans - Page 10

post #136 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by whomewhat
How did I know you were Canadian? You see what happens, I simply mention the possibility of a thread and you go off. When terrorists attack Canada, an they will, let's see who you come crying to for help. If Canada did not have its mutual defense pact with the US you would not have the money to fund all of those programs you love to tout, neither would any of the other G7 nations. It was and always has been the US that has funded YOUR defense so that you did not have to. Your post proves all anyone needs to know about Canada. As to education and/or intellect? You really are out of your league so better to quit believing you are superior. I wonder how old you are? My guess is early to mid twenties? It shows.
Buddy, you are wrong, once again. Early to mid twenties? Wrong. Come crying to you? Wrong. Out of my league? Don't even start. If you knew my IQ, you'd call me a liar, then go sit in the corner and weep. I hate having to bring that up, but I will not have my intelligence questioned by someone like you. I'm 34. I was having more intelligent discussions at 14 (and I'm not talking about debating, my time on scholastic quiz teams, or Model United Nations, but rather with everyday people.) When 9/11 hapened, Canadians piled into Greyhound Buses and went down to help right away. Cops, Doctors, Nurses, civilians. They sacrificed their time to go and help their fellow man. But you knew that, because you're no idiot. Now, if we were attacked, would you guys do the same? Think of Katrina before you answer, genius. You mentioned Canadians, and asked why they are cowards. You haven't addressed why you think they are, or any of the points I made. You ignored them, and suggested that I was immature and not as smart as you. Again, you don't really discuss anything, you just lash out. This makes you an intellect? Is that the typical American behaviour Vanity was wondering about? We don't need you to defend us...get it through your head. If we were the kind of country to make enemies, we'd arm ourselves better. You have spouted a lot of crap, and repeated it. Say something intelligent, make some sense, or give it up. Save it for your NRA buddies.
post #137 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeSica
If you knew my IQ, you'd call me a liar . . .

You mentioned Canadians, and asked why they are cowards. You haven't addressed why you think they are, or any of the points I made.

We don't need you to defend us...get it through your head. If we were the kind of country to make enemies, we'd arm ourselves better.

You're dead wrong. I do know your IQ as it is evidenced throughout your post. Why would I call someone with the IQ of a monkey a liar? Trust me, I believe you.

I never asked why Canadians were cowards. Read what I wrote genius. I asked how would some of you react if I were to start a thread asking why Canadians were cowards. I could have just as easily hypothesized that they were lacking intelligence, but I randomly chose cowardice. Did I strike a nerve?

You proved my entire point and yet, somehow, it went right passed your self-proclaimed superior intelligence. You did not like even the mere suggestion that I would start such a thread, raise such a question, so much so that you lost all sense of reality and missed what was right in front of you. How does it feel? You have already answered that with your ranting.

Finally, it is neither intelligence or education that are the desired end result or even necessarily a means to the end . . . it is wisdom. When you have that you will have something worthy and virtuous.
post #138 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by whomewhat
You're dead wrong. I do know your IQ as it is evidenced throughout your post. Why would I call someone with the IQ of a monkey a liar? Trust me, I believe you. I never asked why Canadians were cowards. Read what I wrote genius. I asked how would some of you react if I were to start a thread asking why Canadians were cowards. I could have just as easily hypothesized that they were lacking intelligence, but I randomly chose cowardice. Did I strike a nerve? You proved my entire point and yet, somehow, it went right passed your self-proclaimed superior intelligence. You did not like even the mere suggestion that I would start such a thread, raise such a question, so much so that you lost all sense of reality and missed what was right in front of you. How does it feel? You have already answered that with your ranting. Finally, it is neither intelligence or education that are the desired end result or even necessarily a means to the end . . . it is wisdom. When you have that you will have something worthy and virtuous.
Ok, now you're being silly. IQ of a monkey? Maybe in the US 10 year old kids with a monkey's IQ get conscripted into a gifted program, but not here. As for wisdom, I am constantly told I'm wise beyond my years, and I do strive to learn more everyday. I can mix with the over educated, politicians, artists, and your every day "working class" wthout ever being out of my element or condescending. Is it wise to attack people and ignore the issues? Is it virtuous? Are you what passes for intelligent in America? I know you're not, because I've met some smart Americans, both here, and in my travels there. You can read, though, so you're one up on 30 million other Americans. You still haven't answered any points I made or questions I asked. Seeing as my posts lack any intelligence or sophistication, you should be having a field day with them. Shred 'em up, buddy. Have at 'em. I am not mad about the Canadian thing. If you're talking in the hypothetical, you should watch your choice of words. Vanity had a reason for asking if Americans were rude...he was encountering rudeness on a daily basis. Hence the thread. Your hypothetical thread, given it's context, implied you might think Canadians are cowards (and the French.) If you think getting old makes one wise, you're wrong again. Stupid people get old,too.
post #139 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeSica
Man, you are either ignorant or ill informed. Guess that's because you guys don't have as high a rate of University enrollment and graduation as Canada does.

So you guys dropped the bomb to save American military lives (your number is a tad exaggerated; hundreds of thousands?), but at what civilian cost? How many innocent Japanese suffered?

From Stimson's "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb" [2]. Here I repeat the gist. The Japanese military forces, all counted, were about five million strong. The Japanese showed no intention of complete surrender, which was a central point of US policy toward Japan. The Japanese were using every means at their disposal - suicide attacks with aircraft and fighting literally to the death. It was estimated that over a million US casualties would occur if America invaded Japan, and extrapolating from past encounters, Japanese casualties would be higher still. [2, p.101-102. See also 3, 4, and the End Note *]

The ethical nature of the decision to use the bomb again comes down to the question of whether it was necessary for the United States to invade Japan if Japan did not surrender unconditionally. Before pursuing this question I must note that another important issue is whether or not there were other means to ensure a Japanese surrender. Reading Stimson makes this seem doubtful. As Stimson notes [2, p.105], more Japanese were killed in the American air-raids over Tokyo, than in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. It was not the
death toll, but the psychological impact which was the key in assuring Japanese surrender. As Compton notes: [2, p.106]

"It was not one atomic bomb or two which brought surrender, it was the experience of what an atomic bomb will actually do to a community, plus the dread of many more, that was effective."

Why was the invasion of Japan so important to America, or more specifically, to Truman? One of the primary answers to that question, I feel, can be summarized in Truman's own words, as quoted by Henry Kissinger. In 1961 Kissinger (then a junior professor at Harvard) asked Truman which foreign policy decision he most wanted to be remembered by. Truman's response is instructive: "We completely defeated our enemies and made them surrender ... And then we helped them to recover, to become democratic, and to rejoin the community of nations. Only America could have done that." [5, p.425]

J. Samuel Walker, in his historiographical work "The Decision to use the Bomb" [3], cites evidence that the figure 'over a million US casualties' quoted by Stimson was inflated -- and notes it has been suggested they may even have been fabricated by Truman to assuage his guilt. More recent work has determined that this is not such a clear matter, and in fact these numbers may not have been unrealistic. As documented in "Casualty Projections for the Invasion of Japan" [4], estimates of 1 million casualties were not uncommon, and the estimates of Operation Olympia and Operation Downfall (The Invasion of Japan consisted of these two) changed weekly as new intelligence arrived.

Furthermore, while there most certainly were reports saying that a projected number of 500,000 America deaths were "gross overestimates", there were also reports that viewed such a number as a "gross underestimate". To quote D. M. Giangreco [4]:

"Researchers look at the forest of documents created over fifty years ago and almost immediately become lost during their hunt for extreme comments and inconsistencies. The fundamental truth, however, was that the Army and War Department manpower policy of 1945--- in all its aspects--- was established in such a way that the Army could sustain an average of 100,000 casualties per month from November 1945 through the fall of 1946 and still retain relatively fully manned and combat-effective units through its use of new Selective Service inductees and reassigned soldiers from demobilized units. That casualties would be massive was so basic an understanding, that it was functionally a "self-evident truth" held by decision makers at virtually all levels. Little or no paper discussion was required or conducted within the Army, and events beyond its purview rendered an invasion unnecessary."

Sources

[1] Michael Waltzer. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations. Basic Books, 1977. p. 263-268

[2] Henry Stimson. "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb." Harpers
Vol 194 No. 1161 (Feb 1947) p. 97-107

[3] J.S. Walker, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb." Diplomatic History 14 (1990) 97-114.

[4] D. M. Giangreco, "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" in Journal of Military History, 61 (July 1997): 521-82. Online at http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/invade.htm [5] Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy Simon & Schuster 1994
post #140 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeSica
Man, you are either ignorant or ill informed. Guess that's because you guys don't have as high a rate of University enrollment and graduation as Canada does.

So you guys dropped the bomb to save American military lives (your number is a tad exaggerated; hundreds of thousands?), but at what civilian cost? How many innocent Japanese suffered?

From Stimson's "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb" [2]. Here I repeat the gist. The Japanese military forces, all counted, were about five million strong. The Japanese showed no intention of complete surrender, which was a central point of US policy toward Japan. The Japanese were using every means at their disposal - suicide attacks with aircraft and fighting literally to the death. It was estimated that over a million US casualties would occur if America invaded Japan, and extrapolating from past encounters, Japanese casualties would be higher still. [2, p.101-102. See also 3, 4, and the End Note *]

The ethical nature of the decision to use the bomb again comes down to the question of whether it was necessary for the United States to invade Japan if Japan did not surrender unconditionally. Before pursuing this question I must note that another important issue is whether or not there were other means to ensure a Japanese surrender. Reading Stimson makes this seem doubtful. As Stimson notes [2, p.105], more Japanese were killed in the American air-raids over Tokyo, than in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. It was not the
death toll, but the psychological impact which was the key in assuring Japanese surrender. As Compton notes: [2, p.106]

"It was not one atomic bomb or two which brought surrender, it was the experience of what an atomic bomb will actually do to a community, plus the dread of many more, that was effective."

Why was the invasion of Japan so important to America, or more specifically, to Truman? One of the primary answers to that question, I feel, can be summarized in Truman's own words, as quoted by Henry Kissinger. In 1961 Kissinger (then a junior professor at Harvard) asked Truman which foreign policy decision he most wanted to be remembered by. Truman's response is instructive: "We completely defeated our enemies and made them surrender ... And then we helped them to recover, to become democratic, and to rejoin the community of nations. Only America could have done that." [5, p.425]

J. Samuel Walker, in his historiographical work "The Decision to use the Bomb" [3], cites evidence that the figure 'over a million US casualties' quoted by Stimson was inflated -- and notes it has been suggested they may even have been fabricated by Truman to assuage his guilt. More recent work has determined that this is not such a clear matter, and in fact these numbers may not have been unrealistic. As documented in "Casualty Projections for the Invasion of Japan" [4], estimates of 1 million casualties were not uncommon, and the estimates of Operation Olympia and Operation Downfall (The Invasion of Japan consisted of these two) changed weekly as new intelligence arrived.

Furthermore, while there most certainly were reports saying that a projected number of 500,000 America deaths were "gross overestimates", there were also reports that viewed such a number as a "gross underestimate". To quote D. M. Giangreco [4]:

"Researchers look at the forest of documents created over fifty years ago and almost immediately become lost during their hunt for extreme comments and inconsistencies. The fundamental truth, however, was that the Army and War Department manpower policy of 1945--- in all its aspects--- was established in such a way that the Army could sustain an average of 100,000 casualties per month from November 1945 through the fall of 1946 and still retain relatively fully manned and combat-effective units through its use of new Selective Service inductees and reassigned soldiers from demobilized units. That casualties would be massive was so basic an understanding, that it was functionally a "self-evident truth" held by decision makers at virtually all levels. Little or no paper discussion was required or conducted within the Army, and events beyond its purview rendered an invasion unnecessary."

Sources

[1] Michael Waltzer. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations. Basic Books, 1977. p. 263-268

[2] Henry Stimson. "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb." Harpers
Vol 194 No. 1161 (Feb 1947) p. 97-107

[3] J.S. Walker, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb." Diplomatic History 14 (1990) 97-114.

[4] D. M. Giangreco, "Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications" in Journal of Military History, 61 (July 1997): 521-82. Online at http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/invade.htm [5] Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy Simon & Schuster 1994
post #141 of 165
Ok, so figures vary as to how many lives would be lost, and America wanted to win at all costs.

Remember, Germany was out of the picture. Japan was on it's heels. If I were part of the American Military leadership, I would have sought some diatribe about ending things, and enlisted the allies help if invading Japan was neccessary.

You must realise, after the first bomb, the Emporer was considering surrender, but without occupation, without an ending of the imperial tradition, and a few other things. Meanwhile, the Russians attacked, and broke the neutrality agreement. Hirohito got pissed, and stopped any discussions for peaceful surrender. The first bomb, and it's 150 000 in civilian casualties, would have probably done it if not for the aforementioned events. Still, invasion by an allied force might have been an option.

You guys helped out in Europe, so why couldn't Europe help out in return. (and yes, I know they had just been through hell, and had been fighting longer than you guys, but I think Japan would have seen the futility in taking on the world when they were already losing to just the US.)

Don't forget, before the atomic bombs, you guys had heavily fire bombed a few cities, with over 100 000 civilian deaths from just one raid. This, added to the atomic bombs, must give you some idea why Japan feels the act was immoral, and why some in the world question it. It does seem heavy handed.
post #142 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeSica
Ok, now you're being silly. IQ of a monkey? Maybe in the US 10 year old kids with a monkey's IQ get conscripted into a gifted program, but not here. As for wisdom, I am constantly told I'm wise beyond my years, and I do strive to learn more everyday. I can mix with the over educated, politicians, artists, and your every day "working class" wthout ever being out of my element or condescending. Is it wise to attack people and ignore the issues? Is it virtuous?

Are you what passes for intelligent in America? I know you're not, because I've met some smart Americans, both here, and in my travels there. You can read, though, so you're one up on 30 million other Americans.

You still haven't answered any points I made or questions I asked. Seeing as my posts lack any intelligence or sophistication, you should be having a field day with them. Shred 'em up, buddy. Have at 'em.

I am not mad about the Canadian thing. If you're talking in the hypothetical, you should watch your choice of words. Vanity had a reason for asking if Americans were rude...he was encountering rudeness on a daily basis. Hence the thread. Your hypothetical thread, given it's context, implied you might think Canadians are cowards (and the French.)

If you think getting old makes one wise, you're wrong again. Stupid people get old,too.

Do you have any idea how stupid you look?

"Gifted program"? Come on man. I don't care if your IQ is 186. Right now you're acting like a retard.

PS. Not all canadians are like this.
post #143 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violinist
Do you have any idea how stupid you look?

"Gifted program"? Come on man. I don't care if your IQ is 186. Right now you're acting like a retard.

PS. Not all canadians are like this.

You think I enjoy discussing that? Have it printed on a T-shirt? The guy was insulting my intelligence and acting a little belligerent. Even as I typed it, I felt silly... my problem was that I let the guy get to me.

But thanks for chiming in. Whenever I want to know how a "retard" acts, I'll come to you. (What was with the quotes, guy?)
post #144 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeSica
I'm 34. I was having more intelligent discussions at 14 (and I'm not talking about debating, my time on scholastic quiz teams, or Model United Nations, but rather with everyday people.) .

hey, no offense meant, but I had you pegged at 19-20 tops, in a liberal arts college.
post #145 of 165
OK, whomewhat

Quote:
I am fairly certain that I stated: "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President," as the one who poses the threat, or have you not read his rantings about exterminating the Jews and the rest of western civilization. I know it makes you feel better to bring up Iraq as it is the popular means by which to attack Americans these days, but I know what I said and, yes, he is a modern day Hitler.

First off, I apologize, because when I wrote

Quote:
Um, whomewhat, are you seriously comparing the relative threats of early 1900s Germany to modern-day Iraq?

I actually meant to write IRAN. However, the numbing regularity with which everybody pitches around Hitler references is turning my brain to mush (Saddam, Ahmadinejad, Milosevic etc).

Now, here is my problem with that whole line of thinking. It is not that these people aren't evil like Hitler, but rather that they lack comparable power to do something about it. To me it shows a gross lack of historical awareness to compare early 20thC Germany to ANY present day country in the Middle East, Africa, or the Balkans. Do you have even the most remote appreciation for how truly powerful Germany was? This was a nation that had summarily destroyed the supposedly invincible French (or have you forgotten Napoleon?) in the 1870s and brought the Russian colossus to its knees in WWI whilst holding the French and British Empires to a standstill on the Western Front. We are talking the most efficient and dangerous army in the world at the time, not to mention the sole threat to English naval supremacy. On top of this it was an industrial marvel with simply massive iron/steel/chemical capacity as rivaled only by the USA. Why do you think the French have been so determined to make the EU work? To contain Germany, especially a united one.

To suggest that Iran, Iraq, Serbia or __________ (insert other ridiculous analogues here) pose a threat along the lines of Imperial or post-Imperial Germany is farcical.

This, of course, has nothing to do with America's place in the world, but it is such an egregious error, and one that gets so blithely repeated, that I just could not help myself!

OK, now I feel a little better having gotten that off my chest -- perhaps I'll have a drink ...
post #146 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeSica
The guy was insulting my intelligence and acting a little belligerent.

I was insulting YOUR intelligence? I was acting belligerent? Wow, you really are arrogant.

You attack my country and I defend it. That makes me belligerent. You think I attack your country and go ballistic. What does that make you? Belligerent? A hypocrite? An idiot?

I make factual statements, not opinion or conjecture, and you flat out tell me I am wrong and support your position, not with facts, but with your self-proclaimed superior intelligence and sanctimonious bullshit: "Man, you are either ignorant or ill informed. Guess that's because you guys don't have as high a rate of University enrollment and graduation as Canada does." I then refute your "superior intelligence" with evidence; documented, supported, and sourced. Your response? "Ok, so figures vary as to how many lives would be lost ." No, you were WRONG!

Maybe I was wrong about your age, maybe you are 34, but I do not know many 34 year olds that begin every other sentence with "Dude!"

Now you want to blame your stupidity on the fact that I got under your skin. How is it that a stupid American, as you called me and most other Americans, was able to get under the skin of such a superior intellect like yours in the first place?

You now claim you don't like engaging in this. Sure you do, that is why I was barely finished writing my response and you already chimed in with another one of your diatribes about the superiority of Canadians over Americans. With every post you made my point.

I got to you? Yes, I did, and that was my intention all along. Funny how it is that I was so easily able to provoke one of such superior intelligence.

You challenged me to refute your points, what did you say: "Shred 'em up, buddy. Have at 'em."

I did. You lost. You picked a fight with the wrong guy. Now get over it. (But you can't and won't because guys like you have got to have the last word. Let's see how long it takes you to draft a response this time.)
post #147 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by whomewhat
I was insulting YOUR intelligence? I was acting belligerent? Wow, you really are arrogant.

You attack my country and I defend it. That makes me belligerent. You think I attack your country and go ballistic. What does that make you? Belligerent? A hypocrite? An idiot?

I make factual statements, not opinion or conjecture, and you flat out tell me I am wrong and support your position, not with facts, but with your self-proclaimed superior intelligence and sanctimonious bullshit: "Man, you are either ignorant or ill informed. Guess that's because you guys don't have as high a rate of University enrollment and graduation as Canada does." I then refute your "superior intelligence" with evidence; documented, supported, and sourced. Your response? "Ok, so figures vary as to how many lives would be lost ." No, you were WRONG!


Didn't the resources you posted state that figures varied? How was I wrong? Or were they wrong, and by pointing it out, I was wrong?


Maybe I was wrong about your age, maybe you are 34, but I do not know many 34 year olds that begin every other sentence with "Dude!"

Now you want to blame your stupidity on the fact that I got under your skin. How is it that a stupid American, as you called me and most other Americans, was able to get under the skin of such a superior intellect like yours in the first place?

You now claim you don't like engaging in this. Sure you do, that is why I was barely finished writing my response and you already chimed in with another one of your diatribes about the superiority of Canadians over Americans. With every post you made my point.

I got to you? Yes, I did, and that was my intention all along. Funny how it is that I was so easily able to provoke one of such superior intelligence.

You challenged me to refute your points, what did you say: "Shred 'em up, buddy. Have at 'em."

I did. You lost. You picked a fight with the wrong guy. Now get over it. (But you can't and won't because guys like you have got to have the last word. Let's see how long it takes you to draft a response this time.)

Pickng a fight with the wrong guy? Why? Because you choose what points to address, and what not to? Because you make statements like "stop selling to them (foreign countries) and stop buying from them, without understanding the economic impact it would have on yourself and your fellow Americans? Wat would you do when China stopped selling you cheap goods, and stopped lending you money, not to mention called in your loans? Would you invade, or just nuke them, to spare American lives? (BTW what is the exchange rate on American vs Chinese lives?)

Every sentence starts with Dude? I have been using it a bit too much lately, especially given the fact that I never really used it until last year or so. I like using it in informal posts. It's folksy.


I attack your country? Does having an opinion that differs from yours constitute an attack? You can state "fact", but I can't.

I called you stupid, and most Americans? I thought I said that most Americans are just ignorant of the world around them, and different cultures, or words to that effect. I also made positive remarks about America and Americans, but you ignored those to suit your own end. Look up ignorant...it doesn't mean stupid (though an ignorant person might think so.)

Where did I state Canadians are superior to Americans? Having a higher HDI is just a fact. Having free health care is just a fact. Having a lower rate of violent crime is just a fact. You have a better army, you have a bigger economy,and I believe your per capita (or household, perhaps) foreign debt is higher. Would you argue any of those things.

After all the points I made, you can only post about why it was right to drop the bomb? That's it.

By your own examples, the numbers are still in dispute as to how many lives would be lost...your statement of "hundreds of thousands" does not really imply the same as 100 000, or even a couple of hundred thousand.

How does stating a fact about the rate of Canadian enrollment and graduation from University translate into a claim that I have a superior intelligence? Were you not the guy who stated that other countries only criticize America because they are jealous? Jealous of what?

I never claimed to be stupid...to do so would be lying. I let you bait me, yes. Isnt that the common tactic of someone who casn't argue intelligently? That puts me down to your level. You were the one to tell me I was way out of your league as far as intelligence went. Remember?

You do make statements of opinion and conjecture. You stated that when terrorists attck us, we will come running to you. That's your opinion. Since we helped you guys out when terrorists actually did attack, without your having to ask us, why would we even have to ask? Are you saying you guys wouldn't do the same? (And I did give you the benefit of the doubt about knowing how bus loads of Canadians came down to help their neighbours, even though I suspect you had no clue, by the things you write.)

I like arguing with you. It's easy. And I won't be baited anymore, so say what you like. If it takes a guy with the "intelligence of a moneky" to explain to you that Americans didn't defend Europe, they helped repatriate it, then so be it.

With every post, I prove your point.....which is? That the world owes you, and should never, ever disagree with your polictics, criticize you, or excercise free speech?

You basically make the OP's point for him. You take things as an attack, and your answer is to lash out, thinking by beng "louder" you are right.

Do you actually think I am bashing your country? That I hate it? You're the one who seems hateful..of anyone critical of the USA.
post #148 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter
hey, no offense meant, but I had you pegged at 19-20 tops, in a liberal arts college.

Yeah, no offense taken to your veiled insult. What exactly did I ever post that suggested I was 19 or 20? An open Jerusalem? It was an idea put forth on national TV by a 40 yr old man. Would saying the Viet Nam war was wrong make me a Kent State hippy?

Take an honest look at some of the spelling in your posts, GT. What grade of junior high would that suggest to you, as a reader?

And Liberal Arts college? Wtf is that? We're not so polarized up here, that our higher institutions are labeled "commie pinkos only" or "neo con nazi wannabes only" (or blacks only, no Jews allowed, etc. You get my point.)
post #149 of 165
I honestly didn't mean it as an insult - you had written about something being a "generational thing" I am 40. I didn't think that you were 60.

also, the concept of raising something that is basically unworkable, and then when the discussion moves to why I believe it to be unworkable, saying "well, lets not talk about logistics, somebody else will deal with that".

anyway, I appologize, sincirly. frankly, this makes my curious all over again - it seems to me almost impossible to understand how you see the concept of an open city working. and, on the assumption that you are intellegent, and now on the undertanding that you aren't a college sophemore, I am again thrown into confusion. I do not mean that as an insult - I mean that I am convinced that there is something that I simply don't understand behind how you view the concept.

and, you are relativly new here - I niether got a good education nor is english my language, and to top that off, I am dexlexic. so, people usually forgive my spelling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeSica
Yeah, no offense taken to your veiled insult. What exactly did I ever post that suggested I was 19 or 20?
post #150 of 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeSica
I like arguing with you. It's easy. And I won't be baited anymore, so say what you like.

Take an honest look at some of the spelling in your posts, GT. What grade of junior high would that suggest to you, as a reader?

"(But you can't and won't because guys like you have got to have the last word. Let's see how long it takes you to draft a response this time.)"

You're too funny! You have not only responded to me, but you have responded to the others already, too!

And the spelling? Let me just grab a few of yours for you:

Viet Nam = Vietnam

Pickng = picking

casn't = can't or cannot

neighbours = neighbors

moneky = monkey

beng = being

Never a good idea to bring up spelling when you, yourself, cannot spell. Personally, I understand that people make mistakes in posts because they are simply in a hurry. I am not sure I would even call that a spelling error, rather, a simple typo, but you chose to criticize the other member for spelling so . . .

I am sorry, but their is just no way you are 34 years old. Admit it . . you are 19 or 20, as was suggested elsewhere, because do you really want people believing that a 34 year old is this immature?

By the way, a fact is something that is not in dispute or is supported by independent evidence. You have provided no facts relating to anything you have said. That is not to say that some of what you have said may or may not be true, just that you have not provided evidence to support it. I have.

One final thought on your superior intellect:

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could move mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Is it just Americans