Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (41495)	12/23/2001 10:43:58 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Nevertheless, "Solon's" insistent propagandizing against his country demands response. Canada has never nuked anyone. And I don't recall Solon ever dissing his country. Perhaps the health care, but then, everyone disses that. He has always shown a certain fondness for the US, as well. You must be confusing him with someone else. AJ can be somewhat tough on Canada at times, although hardly to the point of propagandizing against it, IMO. Karen

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (41495)	12/23/2001 2:06:01 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Solon's" insistent propagandizing against his country demands response. "Solon's" research methodology Could be roughly stated as: (1) Start with open (i.e., uninformed) mind. (2) Determine desired conclusion. (3) Seek evidence with supports conclusion, ignoring all contrary facts (4) Publish conclusion, using objective language such as, "barbequeing children." No wonder, you are not getting it! You simply are not trying! How do you start an "argument" with FOUR false premises?!! Then you continue with..."In the interest of truth..."! You gotta be kidding! When I like at your "premises", it becomes clear to me that you are only being childish and trying to get "even". I am truly beginning to pity you. The links I supplied made it clear that it shortened the war by an insignificant period of time (which you have again pointed out), and that they would have surrendered anyway. But the essence of my point, as you know, was the targeting of civilians in such a gruesome manner. I have already indicated that any debate which relates to this requires different parameters than the particular date the war ended. Whether they continued the relative safety of incendiary bombing for a week or two, or whether they tried out new weapons...the war was over. The thorough postmortem makes it clear that surrender was imminent. I am utterly perplexed as to why you struggle to obfuscate this clear and factual report. And I question what it is you are defending. It can only be your silly ego, for having started you off on the wrong foot. You are beginning to look and sound like somebody who has been dragged backwards through a knothole...twice.