jbg Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 Yes and no....there are many examples of it not "working" for some of those nations. When it didn't, it was changed or "dispensed" with. The way it was in Yemen? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
sharkman Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 What's needed is a sense of proportion. Brigette hurt nothing except a pompous ceremony. Harper, on the other hand, has done immeasurable damage to our institutions and our country. Who is the real villain here? This incident and above quote are a perfect snapshot of the left's mindset as a result of the Harper majority win. Fear of illogical outcomes. Harper's gonna ruin the country. In fact, he alreay has! Head for the hills, run for your lives! Good grief. The left has no argument or data, only fear. And that is why Harper won in the first place. Quote
Dave_ON Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 The left has no argument or data, only fear. And that is why Harper won in the first place. Not entirely accurate, there are plenty of good arguments and data on "the left". The problem as present is the vote split. The LPC are believed to be a "left" party even though they arguably haven't been thus since the Trudeau era. So many lump the NDP and LPC together. This generated many vote splits like we saw in Ontario which worked to the CPC's advantage. In many cases there were very close calls, my own riding was a few hundred votes. Many ridings were closer than that. Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
g_bambino Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) What's needed is a sense of proportion. Brigette hurt nothing except a pompous ceremony. Harper, on the other hand, has done immeasurable damage to our institutions and our country. Forgive me if I'm pointing to the obvious, but isn't deriding the Throne Speech as "pompous" an undermining of one of the very institutions you claim need protection? The Throne Speech is one of those regular but infrequent meetings of all three parts of parliament. Calling that "pompous", which seems like code for "pointless" and "irrelevant", comes across like a dismissal of parliament itself. [c/e] Edited June 9, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
bloodyminded Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 Soldiers in Afghanistan don't have a particularly dangerous job? What's the percentage of deaths to the percentage of soldiers who have served there? I understand such a remark gets people a little hot--I can sympathize, actually. But no, the fact is that the job is not incredibly dangerous, as warfighting has become (correctly, in my view) increasingly less dangerous over the decades. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
CPCFTW Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) What's the percentage of deaths to the percentage of soldiers who have served there? I understand such a remark gets people a little hot--I can sympathize, actually. But no, the fact is that the job is not incredibly dangerous, as warfighting has become (correctly, in my view) increasingly less dangerous over the decades. Figures released by DND in January 2011 show that the total number of Canadian soldiers injured and wounded in more than nine years of war reached 1,859 by the end of December 2010.[173] 1,244 of these are listed as NBI (Non battle injuries) and 615 of these are listed as WIA (wounded in action). The number of Canadian Forces' fatalities resulting from Canadian military activities in Afghanistan is the largest for any single Canadian military mission since the Korean War between 1950 and 1953. A total of 156 Canadian Forces personnel have been killed in the war since 2002. Canada has suffered the third-highest absolute number of deaths of any nation among the foreign military participants, and the highest casualties per capita of all coalition members since the beginning of the war. More than 6,000 Canadian Forces members and discharged veterans who are receiving physical or psychiatric disability benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada have either served in Afghanistan or have a disability that has been related to their service in Afghanistan, the department says. Roughly 25, 000 Canadian Forces personnel have been deployed to Afghanistan at least once each since 2002. True, it's much more brave to be a senate page and hold up a sign a few weeks before your employment ends. Edited June 9, 2011 by CPCFTW Quote
Guest American Woman Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 What's the percentage of deaths to the percentage of soldiers who have served there? I understand such a remark gets people a little hot--I can sympathize, actually. But no, the fact is that the job is not incredibly dangerous, as warfighting has become (correctly, in my view) increasingly less dangerous over the decades. What is the percentage of job related deaths compared to the percentage of other job related deaths? What's the percentage of job related PTSS and resulting suicides through the years compared to other job related PTSS and resulting suicides? What about injuries? What other job has resulted in the same percentage of head injuries, paralysis, loss of limbs, etc? That's what you need to be looking at. That's what will tell you how 'dangerous' it is. Quote
bloodyminded Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 Wow i'd never talk about my wife like that. Anyhow, immigrant Asian/South Asian women from over seas are very, VERY bad in bed. People with real experience know. That's his wife you're talking about. And then you have the effrontery to lecture us about "morals"! Awesome. Oh well, I'm sure you'll end up as a statistic in due time. Don't we all. Liberals lack morals. That is what makes a Liberal a Liberal. It's really true. Some consider the fundamental thing that makes a Liberal is the definition of 'without moral'. Yes, some do think this way; they're called "political fanatics," and they lack imagination and an understanding of their fellow people. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Moonlight Graham Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 We should encourage anarchy? That's what you're suggesting. Imagine if pages did this all the time, jumping in to interrupt question period, perhaps, or to interrupt members talking on bills. Imagine if the messengers and security people joined in. This girl didn't interrupt anything. The Speech from the Throne continued without interruption. People are saying this was "contempt of Parliament", yet i don't see where standing quietly in the middle of the floor holding a piece of paper does anything of the sort that would break the specific rules that constitute contempt of Parliament. I would argue that an MP's yelling over another MP and interrupting each other during Question Period and otherwise is far more disrupting to the proceedings of Parliament than what that page did. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 What's the percentage of deaths to the percentage of soldiers who have served there? Actual percentages are relatively low for any occupation except for suicide bombers. Certain MOS's have a higher rate of mortality than the general military or "soldiers", so they should be compared in like fashion to specific occupations such as civilain loggers, truck drivers, or pilots. I understand such a remark gets people a little hot--I can sympathize, actually. But no, the fact is that the job is not incredibly dangerous, as warfighting has become (correctly, in my view) increasingly less dangerous over the decades. Again, it depends on the military specialty (MOS), op tempo, deployment, physical requirements, working conditions, etc. Logging is very dangerous, but we don't usually drape a logger's casket with a flag or intern them in a military cemetery specifically reserved for such recognition and the expectation to die for one's country. Bravery in this context has the element of personal sacrifice including death as part of the job description. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) Actual percentages are relatively low for any occupation except for suicide bombers. Certain MOS's have a higher rate of mortality than the general military or "soldiers", so they should be compared in like fashion to specific occupations such as civilain loggers, truck drivers, or pilots. Again, it depends on the military specialty (MOS), op tempo, deployment, physical requirements, working conditions, etc. Logging is very dangerous, but we don't usually drape a logger's casket with a flag or intern them in a military cemetery specifically reserved for such recognition and the expectation to die for one's country. Bravery in this context has the element of personal sacrifice including death as part of the job description. You're right, of course, it's a crucial point which I overlooked in the heat of debate. I have in fact made a similar argument about police work; it's not that it's statistically more dangerous than other jobs; it isn't. It's the matter of the job description demanding putting oneself in certain difficult and compromising positions...which I believe really means something. Edited June 10, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Guest American Woman Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 It's not that it's statistically more dangerous than other jobs; it isn't. So show me the statistics for job related deaths and injuries for bankers and computer programmers and news paper editors and doctors and nurses and graphic designers and accountants and any other number of jobs out there. Seriously. I'd like to see some proof that it isn't statistically more dangerous than other jobs. Show me that those in war, ie: those engaged in "warfighting," are not in any more of a dangerous situation than any other job. I know one thing for sure - if what you are saying is true, then I can't understand the anger that so many have regarding politicians sending the young off to die and be injured and be changed emotionally for life in wars that they voted on while they sit safely at home. I can't see why a big deal was made of the ban against photographing the flag draped coffins being sent back home. I can't understand why anyone would have more concern for their child's well-being when they are going off to war than they would if their child were going off to work at McDonald's. I also can't understand why you would feel the need to refute the idea that "warfighting" is more dangerous than any other job as you don't refute the reference to Brigette being the bravest person in Canada. Quote
dre Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 What is the percentage of job related deaths compared to the percentage of other job related deaths? What's the percentage of job related PTSS and resulting suicides through the years compared to other job related PTSS and resulting suicides? What about injuries? What other job has resulted in the same percentage of head injuries, paralysis, loss of limbs, etc? That's what you need to be looking at. That's what will tell you how 'dangerous' it is. Yup... Thats pretty much right. The thing is most of the people constantly trot out this slogan and hop in line to idolize the governments security apparatus dont look at any of these things. What other job has resulted in the same percentage of head injuries, paralysis, loss of limbs, etc? It would take some real work to figure that out. The most dangerous jobs in terms of fatalities are usually loggers and fishermen. But even that doesnt paint a whole picture because within those jobs there are various diferent subsets where the level of danger is a lot diference... just like there is in the armed forces... or the police. My point though is nobody knows what these stats are... worshipping soldiers or the police or firefighters is almost boilerplate. Its like a religion sorta. And even daring to question this bit of conventional wisdom will normally result in open hostility. I just find the phenomenon fascinating and I can see how usefull this is for the government, and that its clearly something they try to cultivate. Case in point... Police and sheriff's patrol officersFatalities per 100k: 21.8 VS Refuse and recyclable material collectorsFatalities per 100k: 22.8 Collecting trash and recycling is more dangerous in terms of workplace deaths than being a cop! But trash collectors are not regarded as being brave and society is ambivalent about their deaths. No. 1: Fishers and related fishing workersFatalities per 100k: 111.8 Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
RNG Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 Yup... Thats pretty much right. The thing is most of the people constantly trot out this slogan and hop in line to idolize the governments security apparatus dont look at any of these things. It would take some real work to figure that out. The most dangerous jobs in terms of fatalities are usually loggers and fishermen. But even that doesnt paint a whole picture because within those jobs there are various diferent subsets where the level of danger is a lot diference... just like there is in the armed forces... or the police. My point though is nobody knows what these stats are... worshipping soldiers or the police or firefighters is almost boilerplate. Its like a religion sorta. And even daring to question this bit of conventional wisdom will normally result in open hostility. I just find the phenomenon fascinating and I can see how usefull this is for the government, and that its clearly something they try to cultivate. Case in point... VS Collecting trash and recycling is more dangerous in terms of workplace deaths than being a cop! But trash collectors are not regarded as being brave and society is ambivalent about their deaths. I tried a short google search and couldn't find it, but about 15 years ago there was a report on the number of MD's who became drug addicted and also the number who committed suicide. Scary numbers indeed. Not putting down soldiers, cops or firemen, I admire them lots, but there are various forms of danger. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
dre Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 I tried a short google search and couldn't find it, but about 15 years ago there was a report on the number of MD's who became drug addicted and also the number who committed suicide. Scary numbers indeed. Not putting down soldiers, cops or firemen, I admire them lots, but there are various forms of danger. Im not putting them down either. Even in the comparison that I posted being a cop is still a very dangerous job. Theres some dangerous jobs in the armed forces as well... being in the infantry during some wars is clearly dangerous as hell. Still... its an interesting piece of conventional wisdom. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest American Woman Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 Yup... Thats pretty much right. The thing is most of the people constantly trot out this slogan and hop in line to idolize the governments security apparatus dont look at any of these things. Recognizing the dangers and the statistics regarding deaths and injuries vs other jobs is hardly "idolizing" them, and that you would portray it as such speaks of you and where you are coming from. But since I brought it up, obviously I do look at those things. It would take some real work to figure that out. I'm sure it would. Yet people speak out without doing the work. The most dangerous jobs in terms of fatalities are usually loggers and fishermen. I already knew that. That's two jobs out of countless jobs and the claim was made regarding all jobs. So I'd like to know how statistics regarding job related deaths and injuries compare to all jobs; ie: jobs in general, not just two other jobs out of a huge number of jobs. But even that doesnt paint a whole picture because within those jobs there are various diferent subsets where the level of danger is a lot diference... just like there is in the armed forces... or the police. Again, I understand that. But I'm responding to a post that specifically mentioned "warfighting," so I'd like proof regarding the claims made in that regard. My point though is nobody knows what these stats are... worshipping soldiers or the police or firefighters is almost boilerplate. Again with the "worshiping." And again, that speaks of you. And while no one knows what the stats are, I'd say most normal people rightfully have more concern over the safety of their child serving in war than their child working at Burger King. Its like a religion sorta. Says you. And again, that speaks of you. And even daring to question this bit of conventional wisdom will normally result in open hostility. "Questioning it" and claiming that warfighting is no more dangerous than other jobs are two very different things, as are asking for statistics to prove the claim and "open hostility." All the drama you are attaching to it again speaks of you. I just find the phenomenon fascinating and I can see how usefull this is for the government, and that its clearly something they try to cultivate. I find your reference to "worship" and "idolizing" and "religion" and "hostility," ie: the spin that you are putting on it, fascinating. Collecting trash and recycling is more dangerous in terms of workplace deaths than being a cop! But trash collectors are not regarded as being brave and society is ambivalent about their deaths. Wow. Two more jobs out of countless jobs that are more dangerous than being a cop. But again, my post was in response to "warfighting," so really it has nothing to do with my post that you quoted and are responding to. Furthermore, you responded only with fatality statistics. I brought up injuries such as head injuries, loss of limbs, paralysis, and emotional distress also. "Danger" doesn't refer only to "deaths." As for why people feel more for the deaths of soldiers and cops than trash collectors, it's because cops and soldiers and firefighters put their lives on the line to help keep us safe. Who would you feel more emotionally about - someone who died in the line of duty keeping your child safe or someone who died in the line of duty emptying your child's trash can? Or someone who died catching a fish that you don't even eat? There's a reason why people feel more strongly about the deaths of those who serve to protect us. It's appreciation for what they do. Quote
WWWTT Posted June 9, 2011 Author Report Posted June 9, 2011 Oh well, I'm sure you'll end up as a statistic in due time. A few weeks ago I filled out a census form so technically I am a stat according to stats Canada.Or at the very least I helped provide stats Canada fulfill an important function. Did you not fill out your form? If you have intentionally failed to do so then I believe you have committed an offence punishable by law. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
cybercoma Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) Her behaviour was inexcusable but her professors must be happy LOL What she is saying is anyone who voted for Harper or his party should not have their say, she's trying to disenfranchise 6 million people. she's also advocating with her "arab spring" unelected left wing overthrow of our elected government. No she's not. Stephen Harper's Conservatives got 5.8 million votes and got 38% of the seat share. Jack Layton's New Democrats got 4.5 million votes and got 18% of the seat share. She's not advocating that Harper's party should not have their say. She clearly believes his policies are dangerous, but the point is that Harper's Conservative have more than double the seat share with only about a million or so votes more than the New Democrats. Harper has a clear majority government with only a million or so more votes than the opposition in a country that has over 30 million people. No amount of spin-doctoring will convince me that this is a fair representation of the political will of the people. The combined number of votes for the Liberals and NDP is 7.3 million votes. Yeah. I know. They're different parties. That's not the point. The Conservatives have a CLEAR MAJORITY in the House when 2 out of the 4 opposing parties in the House hold 2 million votes more than the Conservatives. Think about that for a minute. Two million more people voted for the Liberals and NDP combined. Yet, when you add up their seats, they actually hold 29 fewer seats than the Conservatives. I get how the system works, so you don't need to explain FPTP. If you consider that people vote for the party that they want to govern the country, then only a million more people picked the Conservatives over the official opposition. That earned them a staggering 63 more seats. If we hypothetically consider electoral districts to be divided into areas encompassing roughly 100,000 constituents, in theory a fair number of additional seats for the Conservatives would be roughly 10 more. They have 60 more. All of the facts point to the glaringly obvious conclusion that our electoral system is broken. It's not that Conservatives should not have a say, but it's clear from the results that they have a say far beyond what Canadians as individuals voted for. This is not only a problem with Harper as Prime Minister, but it's a problem with ANYONE as a Prime Minister on that kind of mandate. It would be equally unfair to the Conservatives if they were on the other side. Edited June 9, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
cybercoma Posted June 9, 2011 Report Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) This girl didn't interrupt anything. The Speech from the Throne continued without interruption. People are saying this was "contempt of Parliament", yet i don't see where standing quietly in the middle of the floor holding a piece of paper does anything of the sort that would break the specific rules that constitute contempt of Parliament. I would argue that an MP's yelling over another MP and interrupting each other during Question Period and otherwise is far more disrupting to the proceedings of Parliament than what that page did. Not to mention the Harper Government was actually found in contempt of Parliament. Dangerous thing having a government that refuses to answer to Parliament. I would think that conservatives would be particularly sensitive to this matter. Edited June 9, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
Dave_ON Posted June 10, 2011 Report Posted June 10, 2011 All of the facts point to the glaringly obvious conclusion that our electoral system is broken. It's not that Conservatives should not have a say, but it's clear from the results that they have a say far beyond what Canadians as individuals voted for. This is not only a problem with Harper as Prime Minister, but it's a problem with ANYONE as a Prime Minister on that kind of mandate. It would be equally unfair to the Conservatives if they were on the other side. I get what you're saying but the situation you're describing is a product of a multiparty system. Honestly our system works best with 2 main parties. The phenomenon you're describing is a result of vote splitting. Yes NDP and LPC are different parties, but many consider them similar and will flip flop between them. Honestly we need two strong main parties, and possibly a minor third out there to occasionaly hold the balance of power in a minority situation. That has been the great balance that was maintained for over 100 years in Canada, that is until the PC's collapsed. It took a long time for them to rebuild and in that time, the LPC collapsed due to complacency. Now it's my hope that they will get back on their game sooner rather than later, as this will restore the equilibrium that works best in our system. Honestly I have no desire to go to a PR system. As much as I did not want the CPC's to get a majority, I can live with it, so long as they avoid sticking their noses in social matters. Manage the finances and we'll get on just fine. Having a PR system would put us in a perpetual minority situation, and while minorities have been fine in the past, the past 5 years have been utterly unproductive. The only way you can simply combine the votes of the NDP and LPC is if they become one party, which to me is a smart idea, but it likely won't happen for some time if at all. I simply hope something happens before the CPC falls into the same pattern as the LPC and we're back in the same boat 10 years hence. Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
bloodyminded Posted June 10, 2011 Report Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) So show me the statistics for job related deaths and injuries for bankers and computer programmers and news paper editors and doctors and nurses and graphic designers and accountants and any other number of jobs out there. Seriously. I'd like to see some proof that it isn't statistically more dangerous than other jobs. Show me that those in war, ie: those engaged in "warfighting," are not in any more of a dangerous situation than any other job. You are applying this response to the wrong remarks. I have already conceded that I insufficiently thought my remarks through. You must have read this, because you quote from that post. I thought bc made a really good refutation, and said so. Why is the concession not enough for you? Rather, why are you pretending it never occurred? You're arguing with a phantom of your imagination. And the quote which you here attribute to my remarks on military service wasn't about that at all; it was about police work. That is perfectly clear, which suggests you're scanning posts for points with which to remonstrate. As you said to another poster: Wow. Two more jobs out of countless jobs that are more dangerous than being a cop. But again, my post was in response to "warfighting," so really it has nothing to do with my post that you quoted and are responding to. This applies, with perfect clarity, to yourself. I also can't understand why you would feel the need to refute the idea that "warfighting" is more dangerous than any other job as you don't refute the reference to Brigette being the bravest person in Canada. I saw no need to "refute" anything so preposterous. Edited June 10, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Guest American Woman Posted June 10, 2011 Report Posted June 10, 2011 I thought bc made a really good refutation, and said so. Why is the concession not enough for you? Rather, why are you pretending it never occurred? You're arguing with a phantom of your imagination. Ummmm. I'm "arguing" with the statement you made in the post in which you claim to have made some sort of concession, because you say in that post, and I'll quote it again: it's not that it's statistically more dangerous than other jobs; it isn't. That statement is what I'm refuting, in light of the fact that you specifically also said: the fact is that the job is not incredibly dangerous, as warfighting has become (correctly, in my view) increasingly less dangerous over the decades. So your "concession" makes no sense to me in regards to what I am refuting, in regards to what you had said about "warfighting" - because in your "concession," you still state that it's not statistically more dangerous than other jobs. In other words, I fail to see exactly what it is you have made a concession to in regards to what I was specifically responding to. I saw no need to "refute" anything so preposterous. I see. So you're selective as to which "preposterous" statements you respond to - so you felt no need to point out that Brigette isn't oh-so-brave even though that's what this thread is about - as you felt a need to respond to the idea that those serving in "warfights" aren't as brave as some would believe. That satisfies my curiosity. Quote
bloodyminded Posted June 10, 2011 Report Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) Ummmm. I'm "arguing" with the statement you made in the post in which you claim to have made some sort of concession, because you say in that post, and I'll quote it again: it's not that it's statistically more dangerous than other jobs; it isn't. That statement is what I'm refuting, Good lord. Let me break it down for you: Here's my passage from which you conveniently selected the totally out-of-context quote, through careful omission of the first clause in the second sentence: You're right, of course, it's a crucial point which I overlooked in the heat of debate. I have in fact made a similar argument about police work; it's not that it's statistically more dangerous than other jobs What you think, strangely and unaccountably, is my remark about warfighters, is in fact nothing of the kind. The English is straightforward; I cannot imagine how you could miss this: I have in fact made a similar argument about police work; it's not that it's statistically more dangerous than other jobs So what you chose to do is to omit my first clause, and then present the second as if it applied to an earlier point...one which I already conceded was not taking important considerations into account. So your "concession" makes no sense to me in regards to what I am refuting, in regards to what you had said about "warfighting" - because in your "concession," you still state that it's not statistically more dangerous than other jobs. In other words, I fail to see exactly what it is you have made a concession to in regards to what I was specifically responding to. I made the concession to bc's very good point; and it's also, by the way, implicitly a concession to your response. Are you going to tell me, with a straight face, that you don't consider this a concession that I was mistaken: You're right, of course, it's a crucial point which I overlooked in the heat of debate. Seriously? Would you prefer some violent form of self-flaggelation, or maybe a public confessional on Dr. Phil? Explain to me, if you will, why you'd select half a sentence and pretend that it applies to something other than what it obviously does: I have in fact made a similar argument about police work; it's not that it's statistically more dangerous than other jobs See, first, that's not about the military; second, that point too is part of my concession, since I said that comparative statistical deaths of police officers does not tell us everything, does not take the whole matter into account. Same as with the military. That's my point. I see. So you're selective as to which "preposterous" statements you respond to - so you felt no need to point out that Brigette isn't oh-so-brave even though that's what this thread is about - as you felt a need to respond to the idea that those serving in "warfights" aren't as brave as some would believe. That satisfies my curiosity. No it doesn't; it satisfies your mean-spirited little attempts at one upsmanship. I don't think she's brave. So you believe I need to post a long-winded expalantion of this, a la American Woman, or else I have some agenda in omitting it? Get a life. Edited June 10, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Guest American Woman Posted June 10, 2011 Report Posted June 10, 2011 Explain to me, if you will, why you'd select half a sentence and pretend that it applies to something other than what it obviously does: .... Obvious to you, perhaps. To me you were saying that it's not statistically more dangerous but there are other factors making the "bravery" associated with it understandable. Perhaps if you had said in plain English that you were wrong I would have seen your "concession" for what you are now claiming it to be. Perhaps you could also explain why you felt the need to edit your post - the post in question - today when it was oh-so-clear what you were saying to begin with. No it doesn't; it satisfies your mean-spirited little attempts at one upsmanship. I don't think she's brave. So you believe I need to post a long-winded expalantion of this, a la American Woman, or else I have some agenda in omitting it? Get a life. Save the drama for your Mamma - and get over yourself. Seriously. Seems to me you now managed to say it short and sweet and to the point. Quote
bloodyminded Posted June 10, 2011 Report Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) Obvious to you, perhaps. To me you were saying that it's not statistically more dangerous but there are other factors making the "bravery" associated with it understandable. Perhaps if you had said in plain English that you were wrong I would have seen your "concession" for what you are now claiming it to be. Ah...my concession didn't go far enough, and didn't fit prioperly into your determinations! Actually, AW, you didn't even recognize the obvious--that it was a concession--until it was pointed out to you. The writing was clear enough; it's your reading that is at issue. Perhaps you could also explain why you felt the need to edit your post - the post in question - today when it was oh-so-clear what you were saying to begin with. When I notice typos after the fact, I edit them. What awful things do you suppsoe I edited out? After all, when you quoted me, you quoted me word for word from the unedited version. Yes? Yes. So what's the problem, AW? What do you suppose I changed? Save the drama for your Mamma - and get over yourself. Seriously. And you'll note that I don't disingenuously select out of context bits from your post for dishonest purposes. That's your shtick. Seems to me you now managed to say it short and sweet and to the point. Compared to your convoluted and deceptive arguments? Correct. [note: edited for typos...sue me.] Edited June 10, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.