'War on Terror'

[odeon]

He certainly isn't. I simply happened to read that little tidbit earlier today.

Still, I'd rather trust Henry Kissinger than Jonathan.

Great !!! so you know what an "Origin fallicy"" is then right ??

Nope. Care to enlighten me?

[Scrapheap]

He certainly isn't. I simply happened to read that little tidbit earlier today.

Still, I'd rather trust Henry Kissinger than Jonathan.

Great !!! so you know what an "Origin fallicy"" is then right ??

Nope. Care to enlighten me?

It's the notion that the person who's saying something causes the statement to be true ot false. In courtrooms, it's called "credibility". In reality, it's a bad reasoning technique. Courts allow it in the name of expediency.

Either Jonathan79's statements are true or false based on thier own merits. Not because he's the one saying them.

[McGiver]

dammit, all out of popcorn.

this thing may have just gotten interesting.

[Calandale]

He certainly isn't. I simply happened to read that little tidbit earlier today.

Still, I'd rather trust Henry Kissinger than Jonathan.

Great !!! so you know what an "Origin fallicy"" is then right ??

Nope. Care to enlighten me?

It's the notion that the person who's saying something causes the statement to be true ot false. In courtrooms, it's called "credibility". In reality, it's a bad reasoning technique. Courts allow it in the name of expediency.

Either Jonathan79's statements are true or false based on thier own merits. Not because he's the one saying them.

Sure. But someone like Kissinger has more information available (presumably). Some of which may not be shared. 'Course, may have more reason to distort that information too, but credibility is an important judgement factor. Without it, one would have to be an absolute expert in all fields to make any decisions. Persuasive arguments can usually be made for anything, especially if one is willing to lie.

[odeon]

He certainly isn't. I simply happened to read that little tidbit earlier today.

Still, I'd rather trust Henry Kissinger than Jonathan.

Great !!! so you know what an "Origin fallicy"" is then right ??

Nope. Care to enlighten me?

It's the notion that the person who's saying something causes the statement to be true ot false. In courtrooms, it's called "credibility". In reality, it's a bad reasoning technique. Courts allow it in the name of expediency.

Either Jonathan79's statements are true or false based on thier own merits. Not because he's the one saying them.

You're right, of course. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Ole Henry K just happened to comment at an (in-)appropriate moment.

[jonathan79]

It's interesting how you've gone from "a large amount of dictatorships" to "two more", Jonathan. I haven't ignored your responses; you have.

I'll quote your post from a few days back. Your original trip to la la land is highlighted:

The greater threat of terrorism is not so much a growing of idealogy.  But, their ability to acquire new technology which was impossible to acquire before (have you seen the new jumbo jet?  I can just picture the watering mouths of the next generation of hijackers), with the ever-increasing ability of countries to go nuclear, and the advances of science and biological warfare in government programs.  This is what we must stop.  This is also something that will take years to accomplish, as in order to stop this threat we must overthrow a large amount of dictatorships in order to acheive democratic stability throughout the world.

It was only after your failure to try to prove, or even acknowledge, the above, that I started hinting that you, in fact, are a moron.

As an interesting aside, Henry Kissinger seems to agree with me on how the US cannot win the war in Iraq. Apparently, he's in Japan, accepting some kind of honorary title, and reiterated his views on the Iraq war for the gathered journalists.

Okay, I posted that, I don't know what I was thinking.  I was probably trying to hype up the danger that we face, as replacing only dicatatorships with the ability to produce WMD is the only type of actions that would help the war on terror. 

Also, there's no way that this mis-statement was the reason for calling me a moron.  You would have hit me with this long ago was that the case. 

That's one screw up for me, care to explain all of yours that I have pointed out?  You are like the team who is losing 42-0 then celebrates a touchdown like they won the superbowl. 

 

[odeon]

That post alone doesn't make you a moron, no. It merely makes you clueless. Your inability to remember or stand for what you've posted made you one. Pwned, again. You like the pain, don't you?

[McGiver]

word of advice:
never give odeon a false sense of security.
when wrong, never admit it.

[McGiver]

concede nothing.

[McGiver]

deny til you die.

[odeon]

It's not a false sense. Kid's target practice, that's all.

[McGiver]

you get the picture.

[jonathan79]

That post alone doesn't make you a moron, no. It merely makes you clueless. Your inability to remember or stand for what you've posted made you one. Pwned, again. You like the pain, don't you?

You are like the team who is losing 42-0 then celebrates a touchdown like they won the superbowl. 

[jonathan79]

word of advice:
never give odeon a false sense of security.
when wrong, never admit it.

Perhaps.  But, I will not blatantly lie about a post that I have produced.

"false sense of security"

A perfect explanation.

 

[odeon]

That post alone doesn't make you a moron, no. It merely makes you clueless. Your inability to remember or stand for what you've posted made you one. Pwned, again. You like the pain, don't you?

You are like the team who is losing 42-0 then celebrates a touchdown like they won the superbowl. 

And you really like to repeat yourself. Good for you. Eventually, you'll be able to remember most of what you post. Not that it's necessarily a good thing, considering the contents. I bet you meet a lot of new people every day.