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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (9276)	1/8/2002 3:50:17 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

It could also be that Feb 1945 was prime tourist season for the Germans and consequently they were touring the cathedrals and museums in Dresden; which would explain why the city was swollen with civilians. That is quite a different statement from "The allies intentionally tried to lure civilians into Dresden so they bomb the s*t out of them." Can't you tell what unadulterated sarcasm is?....Feb 1945 is prime tourist season in Germany?...there was a dog-gamn war going on with the Soviets movies west and the other Allies moving east..and the Germans are touring the museums and cathedrals? It's no wonder that you're a conservative, you fit right in with the conservative base. And I await the specific names of sources that support that claim.* Right after hell freezes over. This little Dresden leaflet item is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. I've paid enough penalties for your ineptitude at even forming a question. And I've provided an order of magnitude [notionally] more information with sources than you have. You want to stay ignorant, fine. I'm certainly not here to provide you with an education. And what have you shown me supporting the statement the Reagan bankrupted the Soviets with SDI? Care to show there was no buildup? Or that the Soviet economy was on the brink of collapse when Reagan took office as you previously claimed? It's supposed to be your proof that there was a buildup or some other form of expenditure. I don't have to prove that your unsubstantiated claim is false. But, nice guy that I am, I've offered up some items that I thought you were already aware of....nuclear forces and the ABM system....I even went so far as to point you towards a CIA declassified document at the National Archives, an economic analysis of the Soviet Union 1978-1979. Was it possible for you to e-mail the National Archives in Greenbelt to get the exact title and obtain the document? No, that was too hard for Lazarus. Plus you threw in that even if the CIA supported my position it wasn't a credible source anyway because they didn't predict the collapse of the Soviet Union [P.S. Neither did NSA....or maybe you thought that I never heard of NSA or the NRO]. And I await the specific names of sources that support that claim. No expansion of the Soviet ABM system. That is simply stupid, jttmab. OF COURSE the Soviets were not themselves going to violate the ABM treaty when they were trying to persuade the US to stick to it. I don't know whether it's "stupid" or not, it depends on whether or not you believe that the Soviets abide by international treaties. What I have said is that I've seen nothing in the classified or unclassified literature that indicates that there was an expansion of the ABM system [or the nuclear forces]. How about a synopsis of your case of the dominance of the US in technical and economic innovation? I notice that the request for a synopis of your case is completely unanswered. I think that's correct, it's an empty case. Would you care to demonstrate European dominance? Or dominance by anyone else? No, numb nuts. What I've said is that I know of no comprehensive way of doing that. With the global exchange of information and people among countries and companies, it's not a feasible task. So...do you ask me now to prove that it's not feasibily provable? You seem to like the position that you can make any claim that you want, without any substantiation, and make it incumbent on me to disprove it or to prove something else is true. I'm doing you a favor by pointing out the major conflicts in reality with what your claims are. You insist on proofs? Screw it. I'll retract all of my helpfull observations, you prove what you're claiming. And you say breaking that Nobel data into ten year blocks shows US decline recently. There is such a thing as statistical fluctuation. Noise. You know that. Why is the 10 year segmentation noise, but a 25 year segmentation not-noise? Frankly, I've already said that the Nobel Prize in Physics is such an insignificant sample of the body of people and technical innovation [which seems to be a pretty damn obvious statement] that it's worthless as a generalized proxy. In other words, your proxy is noise. And it's not incumbent on me to prove that it is noise; it's incumbent on you to prove that it's a valid proxy....and I don't think there's any way in hell that you can. But if you want to try, go for it. You would more than likely pull multiple PhDs out of it, if you're successfull. jttmab