Saddam Dead

[Ray]

This kinda off topic, but I read another post you put up Tom about a tradition of coal being brought to you by your neighbors. I'd like to know what it's all about, made me curious. If that's cool with you of course.

[Tom]

Yeah, we were pretty surprised about that one too, but sure enough at 0040hrs on January 1st our neighbours turned up bearing gifts of 2 lumps of coal for the fire and a christmas pudding baked in a pie and we sat up till past 3am drinking and teasing the dog.

[Ray]

Were they drinking before they brought the coal? What kind of dog do you have? (Sorry about asking personal questions, I've been to alot of Europe but never Scotland)

[Evil Weasel]

Two examples of you taking my comments out of text.

1. this is my COMPLETE statement.

I would have no remorse if that guy were to have broken in my house while I was at home (I was out of town visiting family in Mississippi) and I severely hurt him or her or them. They had no second thoughts about depriving me of my belonging, so I would not feel bad about hurting them. I am not violent in any way, but if you don't care about my well being and care less if you hurt me, I have the same feeling toward that person as well.

This is your quote of the above statement.

Someone broke into my house…I would have no remorse if that guy were to have broken in my house while I was at home …and I severely hurt him …I am not violent in any way

That isn't out of context?

No.

Context
1. Discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation
2. The set of facts or circumstances that surround a situation or event

"You failed to put the exact words"

Context is not the "exact words". Context is the meaning of the sentence. It is superfluous, not disingenuous, when quoting someone (for which I have used the internationally recognised format) to quote every passage verbatim. I have not changed the meaning of any statement. There is not point in in repeating pointless remarks about your location, or the intent of a burglar, this last part is something that everyone will be aware of without stating it time and time again.

"[you] make my statement totally different than the quote of that statement you used. Out of context. I only said that I would cause bodily harm to someone IF I had a good reason, stealing from me."

As I have previously stated the definition of violence is not whether or not you believe you have sufficient provocation, but whether or not you commit violent acts. The only possible exception to this is in defence of your own or someone else's life. Declaring that you would cause physical harm to another person who was not threatening to cause physical harm to you is a statement of violent intent. You have then added other clauses to your original statement to try to change the meaning while trying to imply that you had made them earlier and that I had ignored them for my own purposes. Although I have corrected your spelling in some places.


2. “I'm just tired of hearing people just bitching to get attention and have no intelligent arguments that they can support.”

That was made toward conspiracy theorists, NOT YOU.

Here is the complete statement that will show that it has nothing to do with your argument, it's only about how conspiracy theorists usually have no facts to go with their allegations. At what point did I mention you not being able to support your arguments?

I know and you know King Kong wasn't real. Don't bring up childish things in real discussion, it's insulting to my intelligence, and it's like you are talking to me as if I were a child. My example was that conspiracy theorist in general have theories that they can't support with a shred of evidence. None. So that's why I think that there are going to be people out around the world who are going to say it didn't happen. I'm just tired of hearing people just bitching to get attention and have no intelligent arguments that they can support.

"Here is the complete statement that will show that it has nothing to do with your argument..."

"I know and you know King Kong wasn't real. Don't bring up childish things in real discussion, it's insulting to my intelligence, and it's like you are talking to me as if I were a child."

If you would like to explain to me how you aren't taking my comments out of [con]text, please do.

I think it is the part where you're making a reply to me and write "you" that makes me think you were referring to me.

[Ray]

You are right. I would commit a violent act. But that doesn't make a violent person. I'm sure you have committed a violent act in your life at some point. Does that make you a violent person? No. Unless you continually commit those acts. Which I haven't and never would. Unless like you said they were trying to hurt me or someone else, and in my opinion, abuse my privacy in a criminal form.

You cannot possibly say it's a bad thing to protect my home, my property and myself. Remember that these people are criminals and don't care what happens to you or anyone else. I don't know what he would have done if I were home at the time, but I'm not gonna let him have the first opportunity, of doing anything like shooting me. I'm not reactive, I'm proactive. Most, if not all people, that I know would do exactly the same. No one is perfect, and saying that I would commit a violent act in response to another person wanting to steal from me doesn't make me a violent person. At all. I was only saying that if they invaded my home for the purpose of stealing from me I would respond with the most force I possibly could, or as I've said before so you don't say I'm changing my tune, hurting him severely. I am repeating this over and over because you don't seem to understand. You are telling me I am wrong for wanting to defend myself, my property and my well being. What exactly is wrong with that? Am I going to hunt this person down and hurt them? No. But am I at the same time not going to do ANYTHING? No. Though it would do me no good to chase them down, I would get into trouble for committing a crime, which I'm not big on doing. It's up to the police to catch this person, or persons.

Or maybe you aren't telling my I'm wrong. Maybe you are saying that I'm a hypocrite. But that's true of every single living person.

And I can understand your thinking I was talking about you in the paragraph about King Kong. But if your grasp of the English language is as good as I think it is, you would see I switched 'gears' and started a new thought mid paragraph. Let me show you how I did this, so as not to confuse you and I'm not trying to berate or otherwise insult you.

This is the beginning.

I know and you know King Kong wasn't real. Don't bring up childish things in real discussion, it's insulting to my intelligence, and it's like you are talking to me as if I were a child.

Here I am responding to you. In the next part of the paragraph I start immediately talking about conspiracy theorists. Which is what the whole thing was about. The talk of things that maybe are or are not true. Like King Kong.

My example was that conspiracy theorist in general have theories that they can't support with a shred of evidence. None. So that's why I think that there are going to be people out around the world who are going to say it didn't happen. I'm just tired of hearing people just bitching to get attention and have no intelligent arguments that they can support.

One with a good grasp of english, like yourself, would see that in this case the supporting sentences of the first one contradict each other. Very true. But most people would also see that the people that I say are bitching are the ones around the world who going to say it didn't happen, I may have worded it wrong. But my thoughts flow from the first sentence. You can see how I responded to you and then explained further why I thought my point had meaning. Which is the last sentence about the conspiracy thoerists, NOT YOU.

I'm getting a headache talking about this. You sound like a person that argues the semantics and totally pointless things in life. You and everyone on here knows exactly what I meant in those posts. Will you quit drowning me with pseudo-intellectual talk and semantics please. This whole argument is very very stupid.

[Evil Weasel]

"You are right. I would commit a violent act. But that doesn't make a violent person. I'm sure you have committed a violent act in your life at some point. Does that make you a violent person?"

I would say that if I ever started a physical fight then it would make me a violent person. On the other hand I don't precede statements about my lack of a violent nature with a declaration to cause harm to someone.

You cannot possibly say it's a bad thing to protect my home...

I never said that it was a bad thing to protect your home, family, dog, favourite video tapes or any other possession. You are retrospectively changing the content and context to defend yourself and your nonsensical and contradictory statements.

"And I can understand your thinking I was talking about you in the paragraph about King Kong. But if your grasp of the English language is as good as I think it is, you would see I switched 'gears' and started a new thought mid paragraph..."

Maybe my grasp of English is too good. For me , and everyone else that uses English with anything approaching a some part of correctness, a paragraph is a subdivision of text intended to separate ideas. You cannot start a new thought "mid-paragraph" or in your example mid-sentence.

"...You sound like a person that argues the semantics and totally pointless things in life. You and everyone on here knows exactly what I meant in those posts. Will you quit drowning me with pseudo-intellectual talk and semantics please. This whole argument is very very stupid."

And here you do what you done in every other post in this thread. You try to argue a series of points. These points are ridiculous, self-contradictory and indefensible. As such you are unable to make a coherent argument. When that this becomes obvious instead of modifying your ideas in anyway you conclude that the failure of your argument is caused by devious others who are trying to trick you by using the proper meanings of words. Has it occurred to you that this may not be a trick at all, but instead it happens because your arguments are wrong.

[Ignis Fatuus]

I never imagined this thread would grow to such lenght
I think there are many different planes to this event (most of them not related to motor racing - but I can find at least the oil fields that were already mentioned here) and most of our comments are not so contradictory as would seem...

When US government (plus its allies) wanted to go to war (and they wanted that badly, as their actions suggest), I didn't like it and disagreed, because I already saw that will lead to a situation we have now. There two things that US et alii can do now - stay and be criticised for creating this situation or back off and cause something even worse in the region...
Other thing is the way media inform us about the "war against terrorism" and the way they made "terrorism" most popular word in their vocabulary, making just more tension, creating more fear and pointing at "them" being responsible for it.

If terrorism means to create fear, they do a very good job themselves. As good as with "bird flu", BSE...

I tried a link Manchild put here and found out I am so used to seeing death and suffering on photos, TV, everywhere, that it didn't bring out any emotions. So much to say for our peaceful, pacifistic society. This is what scares me...

[Ray]

Whatever bro. You are the most annoying person I've even talked to on the internet. I'm tired of talking to you. You are a drain of patience. It's like beating my head against a wall trying to explain to you exactly what I meant without you telling me just how bad my English is, or how I could be wrong in telling or elaborating on what I meant, or completely wrong in my arguments. I know what I meant, I think I used plain enough English to convey my points so that everyone could understand me. So good day to you, and I will not respond to any rebuttal you present.

[Ray]

Ignis, you hit the nail on the head about the way the US conducts itself.

[Evil Weasel]

Whatever bro. You are the most annoying person I've even talked to on the internet. I'm tired of talking to you. You are a drain of patience. It's like beating my head against a wall trying to explain to you exactly what I meant without you telling me just how bad my English is, or how I could be wrong in telling or elaborating on what I meant, or completely wrong in my arguments. I know what I meant, I think I used plain enough English to convey my points so that everyone could understand me. So good day to you, and I will not respond to any rebuttal you present.

What a great response, considering I've only replied to your statements and your specific questions to me.

Not a real surprise that your final defence is an insult. Very worthy of you.

[Tom]

You two, stop arguing, it's getting really tiresome.

Ray: She's a Golden Labrador with a tounge as long as her tail, and we'd all had a bit before our friends came round, I don't mind you asking questions, its nice you're taking an interest.

[allan]

kindergarden

[Ray]

I figured they knocked back a few brewskis before they came over. I was asking about the dog because I was also wondering if you live in a country type setting. I was betting that you didn't have a small dog. I'm really more curious of what kind of terrain Scotland is made up of. That may sound like an elementary school question, I know I can find the info on the internet, but I'm curious as to what area you live in and what kind of terrain is there. What's the weather usually like? It looks to be a beautiful place. I'd love to visit Scotland, I've been to alot of Europe and South East Asia, but never there.

[Ray]

We did get a little out of hand huh?

[G-Rock]

Hey Ray, why don't you just ask him his phone # instead of beating around the bush? Then maybe this "tension" will settle.