Setanta wrote: Just as you have done since you first attempted to jump me in this thread, you're attempting once again to jerk my chain through the use of tendentious langauge.
"jump" you in this thread? This is what I said, Set. Focus:
OCCOM BILL wrote:You might want to step back a little, Set: Tico's numbers were widely reported before the announced numbers that you're providing there were known by a lot of news agencies. NOW, I think your numbers are all much lower than the actual commitments because every nation is upping its allocation as the enormity of this horror continues to grow.
Nothing but a respectful suggestion there, Setanta. Anyone who starts reading this discussion from the beginning will clearly see it was you who attacked style first, you who started calling names first, you who attacked persons instead of posts first... I pointed it out before simply because it's true. You picked a fight with Tico, then Lash, then me, all before anyone wrote a single offensive word to you. You showed up looking for a fight and got it. All this "poor Bill", "Big mean Setanta" nonsense is just Setanta flattering Setanta. If you had a real point, you wouldn't have to out word me 20 to 1 to make it.
I have mad respect for your ability to write and recite history, but you've proven that those don't necessarily help in debate. Despite having the superior skills, you're frequently shown to be on the wrong side of right. This is one of those times. :wink: Concern yourself not at all with my feelings, Set, I'm not nearly as impressed you're you as you are. You picked a fight with Tico, then you picked one with Lash and then you picked one with me. You're 0 and 3 in my book, Edgar's comment not withstanding... which for the record troubles me more than everything you've written combined.
dlowan wrote: Yes - Bill - I agree it is an attack on BUSH POLICY IN IRAQ. An attack which, as I said, I commented on as being true not just of the US.
I do not agree that it is an attack re the tsunami - but I can see why you think so,
I think you might have missed the part where I said "nothing wrong with either thread". If one is less respectful of the Tsunami victims, however, as Ms Olga opined, it would have to be the one that falsely dragged people into a typical Bush-bashing session under the false pretense of "On a serious note, regarding the Indonesian disaster". I use it only for comparison. If you read that thread, you'll see I raised no complaint there either.
Above you capped BUSH POLICY IN IRAQ... I assume to lend Set the separation from my "U.S. Policy"... as if there is a difference? Even if there were, it wouldn't matter: Bush-slam=America-slam=French-slam=ANY-Political-slam if you are looking at it from Ms Olga's perspective of respect for the Tsunami victims on a thread auspiciously placed behind a Tsunami title.
dlowan wrote:I did follow a number of your links - but the one I caught - in the confusion of posts within posts all led back to here - which was confusing to say the least.
Maybe I put some in the wrong place?
I've gotten confident enough that I seldom check the paths myself.
dlowan wrote:I am glad we agree that I did not ever do what you said I was doing.
You most certainly did not. Sorry again.
No Bill, that's another one of your lies. Before i ever commented on your "style" (something else you have concocted out of thin air), you were speaking about my failure to "rain down your furious resentment on your political bedfellows," on the very next page you accuse me of perpetuating a double standard, something which you continued to do for pages, without every providing the least evidence of it; a few pages later, you write: "You and your ilk's overly apparent belief that "the Shrub and his unthinking followers" are stupid, bigoted bible-freaks is the reason your loser lost," although i had never characterized the supporters of the Shrub as stupid, or bigoted, and never used the term bible freaks, and as i've already pointed out, Kerry is someone i voted for because he is not Bush, not because i was particularly thrilled by the prospect. You've been ranting about people who bash Bush, and you have done the same with Kerry--guess you must have a double standard in operation. You have been trying to up the ante from the very beginning of my posts in this thread, and then you turn around and condemn me for it. Your hipocricy in these exchanges is stunning. Although your method and delivery, as well as your use of language is pathetic, you nevertheless have been slinging around tendentious and insulting language quite freely, and rushing to accuse me of ad hominems. But i have been attacking your ideas, and your language abilities. You have used terms like idiotic repeatedly, but you want to continue to claim some moral high ground for yourself. You're pathetic.
It took you a long time to get me down to your level in this thread, and i didn't remain there long, because you're not worth it. I haven't attaked you personally, i've laughed to scorn your ludicrous attempt to make me frame my comments in your terms, and belittled your pathetic rhetorical style, but only long after you started slinging snotty sneers at me. Just because i tell you your ideas are nonsense, and you don't express them well, does not mean that i've called you names, or induldged in ad hominem. You've been lieing since your first jumped on my posts, and so i eventually pointed that out, and named you a liar. When you lie, you get called a liar.
I have not once "called you a name" in this thread--so that was a lie.
Calling someone a pathetic liar is not attacking someone personally?
"Rain down furious resentment" is not an ad hominem, Set... it's a description that I thought was accurate, and then apologized for and retracted when you objected. That's hardly indicative of trying to turn up the heat. (should I add liar here?
)
Referring to Tico, Lash and I as "Unthinking followers"
is an ad hominem. You didn't specify which followers or any group of followers so you must mean all followers, which includes Tico, Lash and I. (Does that logic sound familiar?)
Setanta wrote:You've been ranting about people who bash Bush, and you have done the same with Kerry--guess you must have a double standard in operation.
I've bashed Bush myself almost as much as I've bashed Kerry. If I rant, it's about Bush-follower-bashing because I voted for the man.
Stating that an assumption or request is idiotic isn't an ad hominem.
Setanta wrote:it is highly amusing to see you refer to me as idiotic twice
I never did this. Never. (should I call you a liar now?)
Setanta wrote:I have not once "called you a name" in this thread--so that was a lie.
Liar is a name, Setanta
(should I call you a liar now?) You call me a liar over a difference in opinion. I haven't called you a liar, even when you lie. And you call me hypocritical?
Your hypocrisy is increasingly evident in your every post.
Oh my God, I come back and you two are still at it?!
I thought that by now Bill might have gotten tired of showing how annoying he can be, and proving Setanta's points over and over again. I guess I underestimated that boy.
[size=7]Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Kicky![/size]
kickycan wrote: Oh my God, I come back and you two are still at it?!
I thought that by now Bill might have gotten tired of showing how annoying he can be, and proving Setanta's points over and over again. I guess I underestimated that boy.
Damn it Set, see what you've done? Kicky's enjoying himself again.
Of course, that's not the only thing that reminds me of
this thread. :wink:
Yeah, you're right, I did say that, and if you read back on that thread, you'll see that it's because the page before that post was kind of like this--you having your ass handed to you in a debate with Setanta!
Thank you Bill, that is hilarious. Guilty as charged!
My father had a daughter loved a thread....
How low can some people go?
Spam lures tsunami donations
Hong Kong
January 2, 2005 - 4:08PM/the AGE
Suspected fraudsters are trying to swindle tsunami relief donations by sending out purported spam fund raising emails, a Hong Kong newspaper reported today.
Relief organisation Oxfam's Hong Kong branch informed local police about the fake e-mails, which call on recipients to deposit donations into a Cyprus bank account and fax the deposit receipts to an office in Spain, Ming Pao Daily News reported.
The unauthorised e-mails describe the relief efforts of Oxfam and other relief groups, the report said.
Oxfam Hong Kong has set up two local bank accounts to receive donations for relief efforts in areas struck by tsunamis after a magnitude 9 quake hit off the coast of Indonesia on December 26.
The waves swept southern Asian coastlines and Africa's east coast, killing more than 127,000.
Police spokesman Edwin Hung said he didn't have immediate information on the case. Oxfam Hong Kong did not immediately return a reporter's call.
- AP
Thats reprehensible of course, msloga. But if you're surprised that scammers, con artists, spammers, and assorted other ne'er-do-wells might sieze the moment, you must not have been payin' attention as the world has been goin' by :wink:
Where ever there's misfortune and misery, there's gonna be those who take advantage of the situation.
Well a pox on them, I say!
(And Hong Kong is so close the sites of the devastation. Call me quaint, but it really surprises me.)
Ticomaya wrote:
So much for the apology!
I apologized that you felt offended for having your errors pointed out but as bad as I may feel about your chagrin it won't magically make you right, and especially not if you persist in defending the equivocation.
Thing is, if you really want to insist you were right then I can live with that so this will likely be the last time I answer the repeated question.
Ticomaya wrote:Again ... HOW did I misread the article I posted?
Ok, I'll do it
again, but this is probably the last time. I have no special interest in convincing you to own up to an error and do not think you are open to the suggestion of error.
Here ya go:
Ticomaya wrote:You do understand that the article I posted wasn't the only one reporting France's monetary contribution as being limited to $135K.
- The article you reference says nothing about France's contribution being "limited" to $135K.
- The article mentions one portion of France's aid (to one nation) and France had provided aid beyond that.
- France's aid was not "being limited to $135K" and the article does not say anything of the sort (despite the creative reading).
If you are sincerely interested in information about France's contributions prior to that the figure you mistook for their contribution to date or information on the US breakdown of aid I can provide it. But if your focus is merely to defend yourself as having been right all along I'll save us some time and let you have the last words on that.
Craven, of all the things you could be correcting people for, this one hardly seems worth the time.
You have Joe Republican claiming the US is now a fascist country on another thread, numerous conspiracy threads to toy with, gay marriage, abortion, so many choice topics and you have chosen France to defend?
McGentrix wrote:Craven, of all the things you could be correcting people for, this one hardly seems worth the time.
I agree, that's why in my post above you can see that I stopped.
Quote:You have Joe Republican claiming the US is now a fascist country on another thread, numerous conspiracy threads to toy with, gay marriage, abortion, so many choice topics and you have chosen France to defend?
I'm not defending France. I'd made a passing comment that Tico's misunderstanding was the issue here, not French stinginess and got caught up answering questions when I should have let it be.
I do agree that it's not worth pursuing and I try my best to avoid such pursuits these days.
As to why I don't challenge the conspiracies I can only plead "good judgement". I arrive at the "it's not worth it" point before even considering a reply.
OCCOM BILL wrote:New camera Craven?
Yup. My first.
No Craven, I'll let you have the last word on this subject.
Craven de Kere wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:New camera Craven?
Yup. My first.
Damn sharp pics! You'll soon be famous.
