Trump, be a leader, not a blamer.

@Setanta,

Some of my past students were really really smart (and accomplished). What separates Ollie from those (and my doubts of his claims) is that the really smart are able to cobble arguments to support their positions from many stands of reference.
Ollie has only two arguments, an insistence that "no one can find anything wrong in what he says" or "Im so smart ---that alone should impress you"

People have routinely eviscerated his points with really great counter information. All he usually does is try to push back by denial but his denials are worrisome in they very rarely carry something scholarly. My kids in school, the more gifted and very gifted could cobble together arguments from all kinds of analyses and sources. If anyone would argue that "I have an IQ of 175 ", the other kids would say "IS that all?"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Some of my past students were really really smart (and accomplished). What separates Ollie from those (and my doubts of his claims) is that the really smart are able to cobble arguments to support their positions from many stands of reference.

You cannot provide any examples of me ever failing to support my arguments.

farmerman wrote:

Ollie has only two arguments, an insistence that "no one can find anything wrong in what he says"

You shouldn't be so dishonest. The only time I respond by saying that "you can't point out any errors in my posts" is when you avoid challenging what I say and instead make a vague claim about unspecified errors.

Since you lack the ability to address my actual arguments, you always resort to vague claims about unspecified errors. Therefore you always get the appropriate response.

Your inability to challenge my arguments is your intellectual failing, not mine. And likewise, your misrepresentation of my posts is your dishonesty, not mine.

farmerman wrote:

or "Im so smart ---that alone should impress you"

I've never said that my IQ alone should impress anyone. The only time I talk about my IQ is when you misrepresent my IQ, and the only thing I do is set the record straight.

If you don't want to hear about the fact that I'm smarter than you are, all you have to do is stop changing the subject to my intelligence.

farmerman wrote:

People have routinely eviscerated his points with really great counter information.

No they haven't. If they had, you could back up your claim by providing examples of such evisceration.

See what I mean by you resorting to vague claims of unspecified errors. You do this because you lack the intelligence to address my actual claims.

farmerman wrote:

All he usually does is try to push back by denial but his denials are worrisome in they very rarely carry something scholarly.

That's because you never try to address my actual arguments. All you do is make vague claims of unspecified errors.

If you want me to address a real challenge to my arguments, you'll have to provide such a challenge. And you aren't capable of doing that.

farmerman wrote:

My kids in school, the more gifted and very gifted could cobble together arguments from all kinds of analyses and sources.

I do this too. You just ignore those arguments because you are not capable of addressing them.

1 Reply

Of course, we have no good reason to believe his claims. Then there's the problem that so-called IQ does not measure intelligence. It simply measures familiarity with the dominant culture and scholastic practices. Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon, who devised a mental scale, were seeking a means to identify the abnormal children in the classroom, so that they could receive a special course of instruction. The mental scale they extrapolated from testing was never intended to measure intelligence, rather, it was intended to measure the extent to which children were able to function in a scholastic environment. Lewis Terman, like Binet, was a psychologist, and taught at Stanford University, and he wished to identify developmental or intellectual deficiencies. It was a German psychologist who called it "intelligence quotient." That joker would use Binet's test to measure a child's ability by comparing their "scholastic age" (from the test) with their chronological age. Terman refined that by multiplying the resultant quotient by 100.

So, in fact, the test was never intended to measure intelligence per se, but rather to measure scholastic performance against the arbitrary scale of the test. Whether in France, Germany or the United States, the purpose was to identify children who performed below the required standards of whatever scholastic environment they were in. Terman's Stanford-Binet Intelligence Quotient test came out in 1916. This was just in time for that racist puke Woodrow Wilson to mandate its use in military recruiting. Blacks who came from poor homes, and the typically substandard scholastic institutions available to them, did not do well on these tests, especially as they were not steeped in the dominant culture. (Terman and a colleague were to significantly revise the test twenty years later, in the hope of removing the cultural bias. Critics of the test and its use have, for almost a century, been unimpressed with such efforts.)

Based on the tests, it was determined (surprise, surprise) that blacks were unfit to be commissioned officers. Furthermore, probably on Wilson's orders, they were to be excluded from combat. The French army had suffered a wide-spread mutiny just months after the United States entered the war, and they were only too happy to take American "colored" regiments, especially the professional and experienced regiments such as the 23rd and 24th Infantry regiments. The 369th Infantry Regiment, raised in Harlem, served in the French lines, and was highly decorated by the French government.

Abuses of the dubious claims of such tests to measure intelligence have not ended. Even if Oralloy's IQ test score were 170--which I don't believe given that the test has a 180 point scale--it would simply be a measure of how he placed on an arbitrary scale, as compared to other students, at the time he was tested.

It is also useful to keep in mind that he has claimed in a recent post that it would be "logical" for him to lie if he were caught in an error. My little dog consistently displayed a better grasp of logic than Oralloy does.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Of course, we have no good reason to believe his claims.

Your continual failure to successfully challenge any of my arguments should be a clue.

Setanta wrote:

Then there's the problem that so-called IQ does not measure intelligence.

That is incorrect. There are plenty of IQ tests that measure intelligence.

Setanta wrote:

it would simply be a measure of how he placed on an arbitrary scale, as compared to other students, at the time he was tested.

My placement on the scale is that in a random population of ten million people, I would be the smartest out of that group of ten million.

Setanta wrote:

It is also useful to keep in mind that he has claimed in a recent post that it would be "logical" for him to lie if he were caught in an error.

You cannot provide any examples of me saying any such thing.

Setanta wrote:

My little dog consistently displayed a better grasp of logic than Oralloy does.

You cannot provide any examples of an error in my logic.

0 Replies

My apologies--you admitted to a propensity to make errors, not to lie.

Quote:

Your logic is a complete failure too. Even if you had been capable of providing an example of something untrue in my posts, if I believed it, that would make it an error not a lie.

I have consistently shown errors you have made. You simply are unwilling to acknowledge them. This is a perfect example:

Quote:

Between 13-15 February 1945, over a thousand heavy bombers of the Royal Air Force and the U.S. 8th Air Force struck the city of Dresden in eastern Germany. On the night of 13 February, the British bombers created a firestorm which engulfed the city's center. The 8th Air Force's B-17s, sent to Dresden to bomb its rail yards, attacked over the next two days. The two waves of American bombers restarted fires throughout the city and added to the destruction.

(Emphasis added)

In the original thread, you claimed that the USAAF had not firebombed the city. You acknowledged that the RAF had done so, but with your witless adherence to a belief that the United States can do no wrong, you refused to admit that the USAAF had used incendiary bombs. When I provided evidence that the 8th USAAF had indeed used incendiaries, you began telling the revisionist lie that you hadn't said that they had not used incendiaries, simply that they merely bombed the railyards. CI provided pre-raid photos which showed both that the railyards were right next to the city center, and that there were petroleum storage tanks there. As the quoted material above, from the United States Air Force shows, that 8th USAAF did in fact cause a fire storm in Dresden.

I have not the least doubt that you will now produce a string of denials and lies. You are pathetic.

1 Reply

His inability to produce arguments of a scholarly nture are what I find extremely interesting.
Everything he stated to me in response to my last post were really more "nyah nyah" than rel information.

I dont worry about him, hes the top guy in his world. I live in a different plane of existence than he. I expect results not home brewed opinions regarding oneself.

1 Reply

Hey guys. I just took an intrenet IQ test and scored a 173. Does that mean I can claim to be the smartest guy o a2k? Never mind, even a dummy like me knows internet IQ tests are bullshyt. Have a good day all.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

My apologies--you admitted to a propensity to make errors, not to lie.

Apology accepted.

Setanta wrote:

I have consistently shown errors you have made.

Wrongly claiming that a correct statement is in error is not actually showing an error.

Setanta wrote:

You simply are unwilling to acknowledge them.

I always acknowledge it when I make an error.

Setanta wrote:

This is a perfect example:

Quote:
Between 13-15 February 1945, over a thousand heavy bombers of the Royal Air Force and the U.S. 8th Air Force struck the city of Dresden in eastern Germany. On the night of 13 February, the British bombers created a firestorm which engulfed the city's center. The 8th Air Force's B-17s, sent to Dresden to bomb its rail yards, attacked over the next two days. The two waves of American bombers restarted fires throughout the city and added to the destruction.
(Emphasis added)

Nothing in that quote contradicts my statement that US bombers did not start any firestorm in Dresden or anywhere else in Germany.

Setanta wrote:

In the original thread, you claimed that the USAAF had not firebombed the city.

I never said anything about "firebombing".

I'm not even sure what you mean by the word "firebombing", so I'm unsure if I agree or disagree with a claim that US bombers did so.

The only thing I said was that US bombers had nothing to do with any firestorm in Dresden or elsewhere in Germany.

Setanta wrote:

You acknowledged that the RAF had done so, but with your witless adherence to a belief that the United States can do no wrong, you refused to admit that the USAAF had used incendiary bombs.

I openly acknowledged the use of incendiaries at Dresden by US bombers.

Setanta wrote:

When I provided evidence that the 8th USAAF had indeed used incendiaries, you began telling the revisionist lie that you hadn't said that they had not used incendiaries,

The truth is not a lie. I never said that US bombers didn't use incendiaries in Dresden. Therefore it is correct for me to state that I never said such a thing.

Setanta wrote:

simply that they merely bombed the railyards.

Rather, that they did their best to hit the railyards. As I recall, the first wave of US bombers used their Norden bombsight to hit the railyards directly, then subsequent waves were obscured by smoke and had to do their best using radar to guide them in.

Setanta wrote:

CI provided pre-raid photos which showed both that the railyards were right next to the city center, and that there were petroleum storage tanks there.

So?

Did I respond to his post? Since I can't see the relevance now, I question whether I saw the relevance then.

I thought the map was posted by Walter. I remember saving a copy because, while his map was not more detailed than my own, it was a lot nicer looking.

I don't recall replying however. Perhaps I should have thanked him for the nicer-looking map.

Setanta wrote:

As the quoted material above, from the United States Air Force shows, that 8th USAAF did in fact cause a fire storm in Dresden.

The quoted material says nothing of the sort. It merely says that our bombers restarted some fires and increased the damage.

Setanta wrote:

I have not the least doubt that you will now produce a string of denials

It is proper that untrue statements are denied.

Setanta wrote:

and lies.

It should be clear by now that everything that I say is going to be the truth.

Setanta wrote:

You are pathetic.

All I do is post facts. It's not my fault that people don't want facts to be posted.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

His inability to produce arguments of a scholarly nture are what I find extremely interesting.

It is dishonorable of you to falsely characterize my posts this way.

The fact that you lack the capability to address my points does not justify your lack of honesty.

farmerman wrote:

Everything he stated to me in response to my last post were really more "nyah nyah" than rel information.

That's because everything you said to me was more "nyah nyah" than real information. I merely replied to what you posted.

I am not responsible for the fact that you disregard intelligent points and turn everything into "nyah nyah". You are the only one who is responsible for doing that.

farmerman wrote:

I dont worry about him, hes the top guy in his world.

More personal attacks because you lack the intelligence to address substantive arguments.

farmerman wrote:

I live in a different plane of existence than he.

A different plane indeed. You focus on childish name-calling while I focus on facts and logic.

farmerman wrote:

I expect results not home brewed opinions regarding oneself.

You won't get much in the way of results from your avoidance of facts and your childish tantrums.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I always acknowledge it when I make an error.

Setanta wrote:
This is a perfect example:

Quote:
Between 13-15 February 1945, over a thousand heavy bombers of the Royal Air Force and the U.S. 8th Air Force struck the city of Dresden in eastern Germany. On the night of 13 February, the British bombers created a firestorm which engulfed the city's center. The 8th Air Force's B-17s, sent to Dresden to bomb its rail yards, attacked over the next two days. The two waves of American bombers restarted fires throughout the city and added to the destruction.
(Emphasis added)

Nothing in that quote contradicts my statement that US bombers did not start any firestorm in Dresden or anywhere else in Germany.

Setanta wrote:
In the original thread, you claimed that the USAAF had not firebombed the city.

I never said anything about "firebombing".

I'm not even sure what you mean by the word "firebombing", so I'm unsure if I agree or disagree with a claim that US bombers did so.

The only thing I said was that US bombers had nothing to do with any firestorm in Dresden or elsewhere in Germany.

That's just incredible. The United States Air Force's history sites states, unambiguously, that the raids on February 14 & 15, 1945, "re-started" the the fires. Yet you claim that ". . . US bombers had nothing to do with any firestorm in Dresden . . ." It is crap like this that leads me to say that you are delusional.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

It is crap like this that leads me to say that you are delusional.

You have every right to say that. Oralloy has every right to consider the source.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Setanta wrote:
This is a perfect example:

Quote:
Between 13-15 February 1945, over a thousand heavy bombers of the Royal Air Force and the U.S. 8th Air Force struck the city of Dresden in eastern Germany. On the night of 13 February, the British bombers created a firestorm which engulfed the city's center. The 8th Air Force's B-17s, sent to Dresden to bomb its rail yards, attacked over the next two days. The two waves of American bombers restarted fires throughout the city and added to the destruction.
(Emphasis added)

Nothing in that quote contradicts my statement that US bombers did not start any firestorm in Dresden or anywhere else in Germany.

Setanta wrote:
In the original thread, you claimed that the USAAF had not firebombed the city.

I never said anything about "firebombing".

I'm not even sure what you mean by the word "firebombing", so I'm unsure if I agree or disagree with a claim that US bombers did so.

The only thing I said was that US bombers had nothing to do with any firestorm in Dresden or elsewhere in Germany.

Setanta wrote:
You acknowledged that the RAF had done so, but with your witless adherence to a belief that the United States can do no wrong, you refused to admit that the USAAF had used incendiary bombs.

I openly acknowledged the use of incendiaries at Dresden by US bombers.

Setanta wrote:
When I provided evidence that the 8th USAAF had indeed used incendiaries, you began telling the revisionist lie that you hadn't said that they had not used incendiaries,

The truth is not a lie. I never said that US bombers didn't use incendiaries in Dresden. Therefore it is correct for me to state that I never said such a thing.

Setanta wrote:
simply that they merely bombed the railyards.

Rather, that they did their best to hit the railyards. As I recall, the first wave of US bombers used their Norden bombsight to hit the railyards directly, then subsequent waves were obscured by smoke and had to do their best using radar to guide them in.

Setanta wrote:
CI provided pre-raid photos which showed both that the railyards were right next to the city center, and that there were petroleum storage tanks there.

So?

Why are you arguing over whether the Dresden firebombing was RAF, USAF, or both? The point is that the history of catastrophic bombing that occurred during WWII and since serves as a deterrent to open declarations of war.

So those who seek to wage war do so using terrorism and/or other methods/tactics to pursue their interests. It's not that war has ended due to mutually-assured destruction, but that it has changed in an attempt to get away with various kinds of war tactics without drawing retribution to the people the attacking party wants kept safe.

Nowadays, for example, it's more likely that testing is done to find out what the 'red line' is that will trigger certain military responses, and then to attempt to operate in a way that avoids crossing the line, while still achieving tactical objectives.

Or it could also be that if a military response is sought for whatever reason (e.g. to draw military resources to or away from a certain area/conflict), the same red line can be crossed to trigger the desired response, and some control can be gained over the military response of your enemy in that way, i.e. by pulling their strings like a puppet.

That is why Trump's unpredictable wild-card approach to global policy is probably going to be the new norm, i.e. to thwart strategic attempts to manipulate the US military and other resources in ways that exploit them.

1 Reply

Given that the source is the United States Air Force, it ought to be clear, to anyone who is not brain-dead, that that source is preferable to Oralloy's delusional maundering.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

well, its +/- 14 for the stats. So you can be 187 or a measly 159. Dont fret, you can improve .

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That's just incredible. The United States Air Force's history sites states, unambiguously, that the raids on February 14 & 15, 1945, "re-started" the the fires. Yet you claim that ". . . US bombers had nothing to do with any firestorm in Dresden . . ." It is crap like this that leads me to say that you are delusional.

Restarting fires does not make US bombers responsible for the UK's firestorm.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Why are you arguing over whether the Dresden firebombing was RAF, USAF, or both?

What exactly do you mean by the term firebombing?

My argument is that the US had nothing to do with the firestorm that the UK started in Dresden, and that the US in fact did not start any firestorms anywhere in Germany.

The reason why I am arguing this is because it is wrong to falsely accuse the US of something that we did not do.

livinglava wrote:

The point is that the history of catastrophic bombing that occurred during WWII and since serves as a deterrent to open declarations of war.

So those who seek to wage war do so using terrorism and/or other methods/tactics to pursue their interests. It's not that war has ended due to mutually-assured destruction, but that it has changed in an attempt to get away with various kinds of war tactics without drawing retribution to the people the attacking party wants kept safe.

Thermobaric dronestrikes are a great way of responding to terrorists.

It gets 'em nice and toasty.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Given that the source is the United States Air Force, it ought to be clear, to anyone who is not brain-dead, that that source is preferable to Oralloy's delusional maundering.

The fact that no one can provide any examples of untrue statements in my posts shows that your accusations of delusion are untrue.

The Air Force quote does not contradict me in any way. It is entirely consistent with everything that I've said.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

What exactly do you mean by the term firebombing?

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

Slaughterhouse-Five - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Slaughterhouse-Five
The narrator begins the story by describing his connection to the firebombing of Dresden and his reasons for writing Slaughterhouse-Five

Quote:

My argument is that the US had nothing to do with the firestorm that the UK started in Dresden, and that the US in fact did not start any firestorms anywhere in Germany.

My point is that the issue of who exactly is responsible for specific bombing events in history has nothing to do with the contemporary avoidance of traditional overt declarations of war in favor of terrorism and other covert warfare methods/tactics.

In short, you are arguing about who was or wasn't responsible for a particular historical bombing event; but the point is that warfare has changed since the times when people openly declared war with the hope that anything besides mutually assured destruction would be the outcome.

Quote:

The reason why I am arguing this is because it is wrong to falsely accuse the US of something that we did not do.

It's not relevant who did or didn't do it, only that it happened and it (and other historical events) changed the way war is waged and/or not waged.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

It's not relevant who did or didn't do it, only that it happened and it (and other historical events) changed the way war is waged and/or not waged.

I disagree. I think it is important that the US not be falsely accused of doing something that we did not do.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Please provide your source/site proving your claim.

1 Reply

Trump, be a leader, not a blamer.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know