Setanta wrote:How about deploring the lack of a link from both? The British government, the White House, an alleged memo from Miss Plame to her supervisor, an otherwise unspecified op-ed piece attributed to Wilson (without a mention of the newspaper), an otherwise unspecified Senate Intelligence Committee report?--these are citations of primary sources? The Butler Commission and the Washington post are as close as Bernard's copy and paste job comes. C.I.'s post have more specific references to a quote of Bush and reports of organizations on specific topics.
Nevertheless, i'd be willing to settle for both of them being required to provide links. At all events, i complained at Bernard for posting an unattributed screed in response to what i had posted. If i did not complain about C.I. having failed to provide links, it is worth noting that C.I. was not responding to my posts, nor addressing me.
Yes, a deplorable lack of links from both. I'm not alone in having requested c.i. post links to the articles he posts, and he refuses to do so. I usually ignore those posts.
Sticking. Needles. In my. Eyeballs.
Awww, I can't ignore ya, Tico; I respect your opinions far too much for that.
Didn't mean to yell, just wondering what the big deal was - if one doesn't know the history of the story, it comes off as one-sided.
Cycloptichorn
Sorry, FD; I won't detrack the thread any longer.
Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter wrote:Isn't it strange that Ticomaya interferes with a discussion between BD and I, ...
I was actually responding to Set, and not interfering in any discussion you were engaged in, c.i.
Quote:... but doesn't like it when Cyclo interferes in his and Roxxxanne's?
I could care less whether Cyclops "interferes" in a discussion I'm having, but if he's going to offer a suggestion to me, he cannot complain when I tender one to him.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Awww, I can't ignore ya, Tico; I respect your opinions far too much for that.
Didn't mean to yell, just wondering what the big deal was - if one doesn't know the history of the story, it comes off as one-sided.
Cycloptichorn
Okay ... but certainly not one-sided. I generally tend to ignore Roxxxxanne's frequent barbs toward me, but will engage her on occasion. Plus, yesterday Roxxxanne was particularly rude toward the family member of a particular poster on this site. Torched me a bit, truth be told.
Yeah, I think Bush lies before breakfast.
Sorry FD ................................................................ carry on.
My aplogies, Ticomaya, for the misunderstanding. My problem is jumping in first by only reading the most recent post without the background.
DrewDad wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:parados wrote:When did the US support the use of water boarding in a previous war Brandon?
In your opinion has the prisoner abuse that has actually occurred in this war been worse than the prisoner abuse in past wars? Is the abuse that has actually happened to the prisoners been unusual in some way?
Nice deflection. Care to answer the question?
Well, it's not as though you often answer my questions, however:
Quote:WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon's release of memos Tuesday will show that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld never approved a controversial interrogation technique called "water boarding," according to a source who Monday had told CNN the opposite.
The senior defense official who provided the original information to CNN now says Rumsfeld only approved "mild, noninjurious physical contact" with a high-level al Qaeda detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and specifically did not approve a request to use water boarding.
The tactic involves strapping a prisoner down and immersing him in water and making the subject feel as though he is drowning.
The memos to and from Rumsfeld are expected to be released later Tuesday, and will show that while the water boarding technique was on a list of requested aggressive tactics, Rumsfeld did not approve it, officials say....
CNN
cicerone imposter wrote:My aplogies, Ticomaya, for the misunderstanding. My problem is jumping in first by only reading the most recent post without the background.
It seems that too many do that.
FreeDuck wrote:You know, I've changed my mind about torture. I think it should be legal now so that I can torture . . . and Set until they swear to quit the goddamned bickering.
Whip me ! ! !
Beat me ! ! !
Make me write bad checks ! ! !
You make me so hot, Ducky ! ! !
Montana wrote:Yeah, I think Bush lies before breakfast.
Three impossible lies before breakfast... and believes them.
cicerone imposter wrote:My aplogies, Ticomaya, for the misunderstanding. My problem is jumping in first by only reading the most recent post without the background.
No worries, c.i. ... cheers.
Setanta wrote:You make me so hot, Ducky ! ! !
So, the old hot coals in your gym socks trick is working! Confess! Admit that you like wallowing in the mud with trolls! Say it. SAY IT!
You are so friggin' hot, freeduck.
Geez, get a room guys.......
this is a room of sorts...
Ticomaya- I can replicate many posts made by Mr. Imposter and Mr. Setanta which do not give links. What is the rule on giving links? I know that Mr. Setanta( I have read some of his fascinating and erudite History lessons on the History thread) can go on and on and on and on, naming Roman Emperors, making allusions to Medieval Practices and commenting on eighteenth century economics without giving any link.
I know why. He has all of that material in his head. He has mastered the material and needs not give a link.
I, of course, fall far behind his sweeping and comprehensive knowledge. but is it not possible for me to have memorized and internalized material as he has?
Again, I will repeat what I said before. When everyone gives links, I will also.
