onamissio, you have made me put my foot in my mouth.

Instead of apologising like a man, I will hereby ignore you; and give you a parting shot so that when I see your next post is blocked I can think I'm really clever.

How does that sound?

Real Life:
Sorry, misunderstood you. oops.

Actually the job of the defense wouldn't be that hard. We would just have to insure shadow of a doubt by saying Bush and company believed what they said. Which of course is the case. I'm sorry that you don't know what it means to make a mistake, and we don't even know if they made one because actually the evidence is not as clear cut as you would like to think it is.

As for me switchin...you're the one who posted the article...and I quoted it.

found out who got Bush in trouble with his speech...

oh my g*d!?

what the hell happened to this post, it started off really well with everyone praising and hugging each other about how great it is to be American and now it's turned into a debate about Bush/Blair lying to their respective countries about their reasons for war.

I liked it better when you where all congradulating each other:)

What happened to the positive thinking guys/girls?

And since when in history have leaders (PMs, prez's) ever told the truth? Isn't it part of the job description to be a cronic lier?

--if anyone takes this reply seriously, I'm going to actually sit down and develop a way to strangle someone over the internet, make it open source and everything, it'll be a standalone program to start with and then probably a winamp 3 plugin later on(sorry all you 2 freaks(opps guess that includes me, oh well someone 'll do a port))-- :) :(


---theworm
"the same liberal, hippy bullpoos as always"

Don't make it open source, don't you realize how much money you could make off of something like that?

Someone had to come in and then ruin the uphoria.

As for your strangeling method...good luck. Let me know if you need help.

hmmm, the strangling email... i'm in.

ok tiger... that post you were replying to was directed towards Fickle, who understood and accepted it. (btw thanks for the apology Fickle :)) but once again, i'm game. first of all, please stop with the ad hominem insults. ("I'm sorry you dont know what it means to make a mistake...") I do not want to turn this into another feud like the one you had with spiderbaby. Sure, it would be an effective way to get off in a court of law, and might work in my example. They would have to do more than instill a "shadow of a doubt", though. The legal standard is a "reasonable doubt". To me, "reasonable" is much more substantial than "shadow".

however, in the real world, which is what my example was referring back to, they will not get off so easy. The press is not letting this go, as you can see from the news every day. The White House will have to find a way to make this go away before it becomes a problem in elections.

your lack of arguement in the arena of the article, lying about wmd, ect for the last two posts now will be taken as a concession of victory. i posted the article i found after a two second search on google news. there were portions irrelevant to our discussion, and you insisted on quoting them. seeing as how Blair's situation was not part of the original discussion, and you have focused on it for the last few posts, i assume that you have no more arguements about teh american side of things and therefore claim myself as winner of this arguement.

in response to theworm... its all ShyShy's fault. she told me there was some good discussion in Breaking News, and i started posting in here. :D

what??? sweet, innocent, little ol' me?

you know what you did. :D

here we go tiger....http://www.time.com/time/cartoons/20030711/6.html

eh. mods feel free to delete this... started typing a response in the wrong thread :o

me make everyoen happy! cheese!

http://www.pmq.com/2001spring/im/cheese.jpg

I like cheese

ARRGGGHHHH! Please don't bring Monica Lewinsky into this!!!

Let's remember that innocent until proven guilty is the standard for a criminal conviction, but it need not apply to all things. In a civil lawsuit, a preponderance is evidence is the decisive standard. A preponderance of evidence may well be, in some cases, a reasonable standard to determine (for example) how you vote, or how you might spend your money. I have no idea whether some of the hoffifying things that people are suggesting about Microsoft's TCPA or "Palladium" platform are true, but the implications are so scary
that I've decided to gradually switch to Linux. I don't need proof that Microsoft wants to collect information, spy on me, or allow other people to control the flow of information to my computer. Innocent until proven guilty need not be the standard.

Just looking at all that cheese makes me feel constipated.

Wait a minute... are we talking about impeachment? Never mind.

wow, you're all off topic cause you ignored everybody.

That's funny.

ok tiger... that post you were replying to was directed towards Fickle
Actually that was directed towards everybody reading this thread.

They would have to do more than instill a "shadow of a doubt", though. The legal standard is a "reasonable doubt". To me, "reasonable" is much more substantial than "shadow".
The standard is actually shadow. "I would rather let 100 guilty men go free than convict one innocent man." I know that isn't word for word and for the life of me can't remember who said it. A little help please.

however, in the real world, which is what my example was referring back to, they will not get off so easy. The press is not letting this go, as you can see from the news every day. The White House will have to find a way to make this go away before it becomes a problem in elections.
Actually, to the best of my knowledge, the White House may not be releasing all of what it has found in Iraq. Now, I honestly don't know why, but I trust my sources.

your lack of arguement in the arena of the article, lying about wmd, ect for the last two posts now will be taken as a concession of victory.
Well if you really need to tell yourself you won, go right ahead. It doesn't make it any truer.

i posted the article i found after a two second search on google news. there were portions irrelevant to our discussion, and you insisted on quoting them. seeing as how Blair's situation was not part of the original discussion, and you have focused on it for the last few posts, i assume that you have no more arguements about teh american side of things and therefore claim myself as winner of this arguement.
Well, actually, it had everything to do with this argument. I was proving that everyone involved believed in what they had originally said. And as I said before, telling yourself you one, doesn't mean thats the way it actually is. If that were true, Al Gore would be President *shivers run down my spine at the mere thought of such an event*

Muchas gracias ShyShy. I got a good laugh out of that as I'm sure my dad will.

As for spiderbaby's last post. LOL! My that is about the funniest post I've seen in a long time. Lewinsky? Did someone mention anything about that? Cause sure didn't notice. Oh wait. Some one did mention Lewinsky...it was spiderbaby.

tiger84 - you have forced me to respond in kind with massive amounts of quotes. :)

first, i said this-
fickle responded with this-
and i explained what i had said with this-
Fickle, inturn, responded with this-
does that explain to you how that quote was directed towards Fickle? Sure, every member on the forums was able to read it, but i was not talking to every member on the forums (or you). i was talking to Fickle becasue he thought i was advocating a theory of guilty until proven innocent.

The legal standard is reasonable doubt. Trust me on this one. I dont know who told you that it was "shadow of a doubt", but they were wrong. the legal standard is undoubtledly (and quite famously i might add) reasonable doubt. The quote "i would rather let 100 men..." is a personal opinion, albeit one that we shoud all have. It is not a statement of law, however, as proven by use of the word I.

Please. I very much doubt that you, most likely a teenage male computer user, has "sources". I reject that categorically. Don't say things like that to me if you can't back them up. Everything i have said in this thread is able to be backed up in some way or another. I would implore you to follow the same standard.

You do not have any more arguements about the topic. You could not answer my last post. Therefore you forfeit the arguement. Simple as that. If you want to claim that you did not lose, come up with something to counter my last point.

You say you were proving that everyone believed what they actually said. And you were. Everyone but the people that we were talking about. There were no quotes from any American in your arguements. We were talking about the situation in America. So why do you insist that a quote from Tony Blair must be relevant in defending Bush? The quotes make no reference at all to the situation in America and they simply concern themselves with the (Birtish/Australian) side of things.

I am not going to be reduced to having an arguement over who won. You have not been able to answer my last arguement for several days now. if your next post holds only the same bickering over who won, i will simply not answer it. You can go ahead and have the last word, it doesn't bother me.

sorry about the standoffish tone of this post... its early in the morning for me and i havent woken up completely..... but i think you get the idea.

Actually I do have sources, but if you want to contiune making an ass out of you and me by assuming, go right ahead. I know several people involved directly with the Iraq situation. I know intelligence analysts thank you very much. They know what they're talking about more so than news organizations. It's nice that you are rejecting something categorically that you know nothing about.

And as I said before. Just because you say you won doesn't mean you do. Someone involved in the argument cannot make that determination unless they say, "I give up, you win." I am clearly not saying that. Now don't blame me for reducing this to an argument of who won. I believe that was you.
And the quotes are good for everyone because thats what everyone is saying, US or British.

I could also argue about your lack of evidence. It's quite difficult (although not impossible) to prove a negative. We had this discussion in another thread in GD. So far your only evidence has been that of someone on the outside of the situation.

de nada:D

btw, onamissio, i ONLY told you about what's been going on in Breaking News cause i knew you like debates. so, :p

ok, i'm done argueing, because this is getting nowhere. now, i'm curious. who are these sources? how do you know them? or are they your dad/mom and his/her friends who work at DOD?

:D youve got me there ;)

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...ares061903.asp
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...elligence_dc_6
There, that sums up what I've been arguing nicely.

[EDIT]Found another
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...h_intelligence
[/EDIT]

As for my sources. I will tell you I am related to them. As for how far, that is irrelevent. They do work for the DoD.

right. i didnt read those, this is going nowhere. and your "sources" are better classified as "relatives". They would tell anyone the same things they tell you.

What is your point exactly. Actually, they would tell everyone the same things they tell me. I still don't understand what your point is and why exactly you are trying to discredit my sources. Is it becuase they're closer to the Iraq situation than anything you have. Still trying to tell yourself you won. Why won't you read those articles I posted. Afraid?

:confused:

and the rest of your post is a personal attack, which i refuse to answer. come up with something that isnt offensive, and maybe you'll see persuasion is better than taunting.

ooh!! Ignore!! Ignore!!!
w00t!
This is so much fun!

Tiger, he was talking to me, he wasn't insulting, you insulted him. Stop it. Let's try and be civil when Spiderbaby's not posting so we can lose him in the conversation again. That was neat-o.

Hahaha!

lol

damn, i'm almost out of popcorn! can you all wait a bit so i can get more? :D :p

*whew* thought i was going to have to bring out the paddle again.

It was all good natured taunting. You'll have to forgive me, I'm used to people (that I talk to) being able to pick up on my sarcasm through my tone of voice and sometimes I forget that when I'm speaking in text. I am a very sarcastic person. If I come off as insulting and you didn't do anything to deserve it, I was probably just being my normal, sarcastic self...just for future reference. I shall endeavour to not forget, but it is quite difficult. That whole afraid thing was all in good fun, and I taunt people all the time. But isn't the nature of taunting fun? Oh crap, I'm starting to ramble.

Now I don't mean to be rude, but most of my post was not a personal attack. I really did not understand what your point was.

Jesus Christ, get a life, Fickle! Why don't you just forget about me and go back to stalking Jody Foster or something?

Tiger, being so much older, I can't really criticize you for being immature. If I'd been allowed to storm off I would have cooled off and it would have ended there. Instead, I let Fickle provoke me into extreme rage, and I apologize to you and everyone for being so easy to manipulate. The weird thing is he's still trying to do it.

This is the internet. There is no immediacy of any sort, there are no people sitting in your living room whom you have to respond to right away. There is no one forcing you to sit in front of your computer and make posts while you're all pissed off.

So I suggest the next time you feel really upset by anything you read on the forums, just take about 15 minutes to "storm off" as you put it and calm down.

http://www.angelfire.com/alt/fogster220/lastweek.jpg

lets not go through this again :D

Blow me. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

wow. look at the black on that flame-broiled little post! whoo.

Okay, I've gone back for a while and the conversation ended like three billion years ago.

This is me, requesting lockage.
Plus I'm sick of Spiderbaby flaming everyone light years behind the posts.

bah.
Enjoy.

Blow me nicely.

See, you're not taking my advice.