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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abstract who wrote (60480)	1/10/2004 10:20:41 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 65232

"Something seems to be getting lost in the shuffle. I sensed you were grouping me with a bunch of folks who are and were opposed to the Iraq war on all levels." Not at all. I was clear about the category of people I grouped you with. I'll state it again. It's become a circular debate. You are long on opinion, short on facts & credible supporting evidence. You are long on sweeping generalizations & short on specifics..... You, in turn, refuse to reply to my challenges. Now you wish to recycle through the same BS I have already discredited. This is symptomatic of many of the debates I have with folks like you. Change the subject when facts & reality clearly refute your POV. Continue making baseless assertions, sweeping generalizations & offering vague opinions. Avoid backing them up with factual, credible support. Even after issues are thoroughly refuted, recycle them back into the discussion again as though it was a new point with merit. That's the group I placed you firmly in. It's an accurate grouping IMO.

To: abstract who wrote (60480)	1/10/2004 10:34:05 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 65232

"I do not understand why your are aghast at my comment about Weapons of Mass Destruction." I do. It has been thoroughly refuted 9 ways to Sunday already. Here's proof...... Message 19616070 Message 19616730 Message 19625921 Message 19625944 Message 19672126 Message 19672314 Message 19672920 Message 19674172

To: abstract who wrote (60480)	1/10/2004 10:58:16 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

"Let's see if we can focus on what are disagreements are and discuss those disagreements." Good for you. I drew a line in the sand with post # 60450 & reaffirmed it again in post # 60452. Message 19674383 Message 19674943 I'm ready when you are. It must be a two way street however. I'm not interested in a one sided discussion where I am asked to respond to an endless list of sweeping generalities, vague opinions & baseless unsupported assertions. Or where you can pick & choose what you wish to respond to & what to ignore while rarely, if ever, supporting what you say without providing credible supporting evidence. If you have a point, make it. Give some background to it. Frame your point or question with proper scope, not short sound bites. Provide links to credible supporting evidence whenever possible. And let's keep from making several sweeping generalities & assertions covering multiple subjects in one post. It sounds great to your peers, but adds nothing to a real attempt to learn or make informed conclusions that are based in reality.

To: abstract who wrote (60480)	1/11/2004 9:14:06 PM
From: abstract	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 65232

Discussing the case for the Iraq war in an interview with TIME, O'Neill, who sat on the National Security Council, says the focus was on Saddam from the early days of the Administration. He offers the most skeptical view of the case for war ever put forward by a top Administration official. "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," he told TIME. "There were allegations and assertions by people. But I've been around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence." A top Administration official says of the wmd intelligence: "That information was on a need-to-know basis. He wouldn't have been in a position to see it." time.com