!@#$% Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 You can stick to your finger pointing politics and johnny-come-fashionably-lately derived positions but until you offer solutions or insight I'm gonna classify it as the babbling about socio-inequality from some middle class white punk (fat) chick at the mall. dude, come the fuck on. in several posts above, i outlined what i thought would be positive, concrete steps that both sides could take to avert further violence. now you are just picking out singular statements and railing against that, without consideration of context..these are Posts, not Statements.. what i say can easily be read and reviewed for complete and utter dissection. at least say my suggestions are bogus. don't claim that we are all dancing around conclusions because we are too enamored ofd the current fashionable international conflict. you are reducing some of us to one dimensional versions of ourselves, even when we have carefully outlined arguments and come back to elucidate and define those positions. your final statements are just patronizing and condescending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Originally posted by !@#$% you are reducing some of us to one dimensional versions of ourselves, even when we have carefully outlined arguments and come back to elucidate and define those positions. your final statements are just patronizing and condescending You're correct but I thought I took care to remove you and Tesseract from that broad accusation... I was responding to Tearz exclusively with all that... basically an attack based upon a previous attack, much like the current Israeli situation... The point is, I'm arguing with him because he argued with me... I'm arguing with the rest of you because you have made me think a little and, agree or not, or think it's all bullshit, that is what originally moved me to respond... I'm sorry if you think others were caught in the crossfire but I think he tried to reduce me to a one dimensional person and further, impugn my opinions on a historical basis ("like you always do")... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_El Mamerro Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Well, thanks for the links and words, but I'm still unsatisfied as to the quote. It seems to me that some of you (and I apologize if this is an illogical assumption) who responded about it tend to believe that it was probably said not because of actual documented evidence, but because Sharon's and Israel's actions would lead one to believe he would say such a thing. As I read somewhere, "It doesn't really matter if he actually said or not, it was definitely what was on his mind anyways". I have a serious problem with this type of logic, especially when it deals with reporting. That kind of quote is exacty what would get a person with relatively little knowledge of a situation (me) riled up and jumping on one side without really analyzing and studying said situation. Thankfully I gave it the benefit of the doubt and went on a search, but I bet a large number of young people, a good majority even, wouldn't do the same. I don't see much of a difference between this and what the Bush administration did with the Iraq spin (note the word "technical"). So far I am leaning towards the quote being fabricated, not because of its abscence from Pro-Israel media... Tesser, you said I wouldn't see it there for obvious reasons, but I think it WOULD be there... being discredited over and over. I lean to fabrication because there is simply no evidence being brought forward of this actually being documented by anyone other than the Palestine Chronicle. Why isn't there a full transcript of this interview somewhere? Details are pornography, but if you don't have your car parts measured to thousandths of an inch, the whole thing won't fit together well. When it comes to this kind of world issue, I will continue to be very rigorous of the details of the information I gather, especially those that are obvious appeals to emotion. This particular situation is riddled with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanity Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 mams, you could try emailing (or better yet, calling) whereever you read that to see if they'd tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TEARZ Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Originally posted by Smart You're correct but I thought I took care to remove you and Tesseract from that broad accusation... I was responding to Tearz exclusively with all that... nice of you to clarify that your patronizing and condescending comments were reserved solely for me. unfortunately for you, most of the members involved in this conversation are intelligent and understand that they were aimed at them in some way regardless of your "clarification." beyond that, and more importantly, they know that you came into this thread with a patronizing tone and a supercilious attitude. that, coupled with the fact that you refused to back up some of your more incendiary claims is why i "attacked" you in the first place. and yes, i did link it with your penchant for avoiding the more incisive criticisms that others often offer you. i thought it was apropo given the context. i'd rather not get into it, but i can cite references without the need "for a whole additional thread." i was just calling it like i see it man, it wasn't anything personal. i wasn't trying to reduce you, i was being honest and direct in calling you on what i thought and still think is some bullshit. i think it's bullshit that you came into the thread like you did and avoided direct challenges and comments, sometimes by focusing on one sentence of the author and not their point. i think that others probably see it as that too. it's not "crossfire" or an "attack" or all these other violent metaphors. it's debate dude. unlike the fatpunkgirlmall comment. what the fuck? perplexingly, my political beliefs weren't even espoused in this thread in the slightest, let alone the bullshit johnny-come-lately ones you ascribed to me. again, bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Mamerro, when i say Detail is pornography i dont mean the christian believe and dont invastigate quote. What i mean is that i dont have to be a mechanic to know how a car works, but i have to be a mechanic to make it, or fix it. Your reply buffles me a bit cause i dont see where its going. Information is available or suspiciously unavailable to all. I, personally, have formed an opinion on Sharon based on the facts i can get my hands on throughout a gazillion of sources. I concider my obligation to be able to valuate and combine the data in order to reach a conclusion. I see Sharon demonstrating his beliefs and ways everyday lately, and its fully compatible with the quote you're reffering to. If he really said it or not is something i cant vouch for, reason i'm not using it to prove a point. however it makes small difference to me. What i'm trying to say, is that each one spends his energy and interest in the way he sees fit, and is judged by how valid his final opinion is. If that piece of info doesnt cut it, you just move and find other info you can rely on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by TEARZ Originally posted by Smart ...you refused to back up some of your more incendiary claims is why i "attacked" you in the first place. and yes, i did link it with your penchant for avoiding the more incisive criticisms that others often offer you....i wasn't trying to reduce you, i was being honest and direct in calling you on what i thought and still think is some bullshit. i think it's bullshit that you came into the thread like you did and avoided direct challenges and comments, sometimes by focusing on one sentence of the author and not their point. i think that others probably see it as that too. what is more 'one dimmensional' than replying to every single argument with the same set of irrelivent tactics, designed to avoid any notion of substance and rely solely on smoke and mirrors and the illusion of some monopoly of truth? i cant think of one argument ive witnessed or participated in, where smart actually backed up a single substantial claim he made with anything relivent. he uses insults and outlandish comments in place of facts and or common sense. a perfect example is his (100% irrelivent) comment about "...when Seeking told me I couldn't quit an argument (That was the one where he insisted that the US truck bombed to Pentagon to heighten the outrage on 9/11)..." now, i never 'insisted' anything, other than the fact that the damage done to the pentagon, did not in any way shape or form support the idea that a jumbo jet crashed into it, then COMPLETELY DISINTIGRATED. further more, what my contention was, has absolutely nothing to do with his ability, or inability to concede anything. this is known as deflection; trying to switch the focus to something else, in an attempt to avoid the attention. this is what he does, he makes it seem like whoever he is 'arguing' with is so ignorant that their perspective does not even warrant a counter argument. which i really cant understand, because he isnt stupid, he knows plenty of facts, he just seems to be completely unable to formulate them in any kind of rational, intelligent manner. it winds up coming across as nothing but bitter, jaded, and overall, insecure. i would never claim i'm always right, but if i say i believe something, i will always give thurough backing. my 'facts' might prove me wrong, but atleast they prove i wasnt just talking out my fucking ass. i know me saying all this risks sparking some sort of big 'seeking vs. smart' super-mod battle, where i get misquoted and smart makes more shit up, but whatever. i couldnt agree with you more TEARZ, and have made these exact same 'criticisms' for over 3 years now. oh, and in adition to that, fuck israel. seeks/if the glove doesnt fit, you must aquite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanity Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 ya'll are acting like a buncha 14 year old hoes... who cares how someone argues? just dont respond to them :idea: a response must be earned.. with that being said... egypt just released all of their prisoners in honor of the 30th aniversery(sp?) or the isreali conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Fuck that, If Smart was around on Tearz last reply, i bet they'd reach the balance spot after a few more 'attacks'. I've seen us all exagerate and trying to distract others in our struggle to maintain our position. Its the only way to keep things going, and discuss the stuff that interest us all in a 'vivid' way. It cant get more boring than personal and out of subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hottnickels Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 <- aka !@#$% Smart, On the Scandalous Thread.... This isn't a discussion aimed at truth... that's why I, the 'moderate' who has taken a decidedly middle of the road approach catches so much hate. !@#$% is practiacally married to her beliefs and so are most of the others posting in here. If we were truly focused on truth we would accept that both sides are wrong, both sides inhumane. THEN, and this is the part that always gets skipped aound here, we would give PROPS to the 'right thinkers' (I mean correct, not conservative) on both sides. We would echo and amplify their beliefs and strategies. The sad fact is that both sides still want war. Further, my argument isn't that the issue doesn't matter, it's that you (collectively) are AGAIN arguing about the scab and cause of the wound instead of treating the infection as it currently exists. you rolled up in our cia thread and decided to judge our discussion. not participating in said discussion, but deciding what we were talking about, and then say that we weren't doing it right. i see responses from several people that include ideas about the future. and i know i can see many sides in an argument. after all, i'm willing to admit to having plenty of doubts about that sharon quote after more thought (i don't judge a person on the basis of one quote anyway) exactly what are you going for here smart? should i throw my hands up and say fuck it..i don't know what's up, there's no point in intelligent commentary on 12oz?! and several times you were careful to ensure i wasn't offended. (and i'm not) ..even though i am surely included in the word 'collectively' you say later i was carefully excluded.. ..but this is interesting. why have i garnered special attention? it's damn funny now that i've met a few 12ozers in person, and there's this history there of learning so much about a person's personality before you ever meet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Re: <- aka !@#$% Originally posted by hottnickels exactly what are you going for here smart? world domination... what else is there? If I was more often wrong about the opinions I choose to express, and more inflexible about admitting my own misjudgement I would probably be more offended by the sludge you are trying to throw at me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hottnickels Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 what fucking sludge?! i am incredulous. fuggit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanity Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 closed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by hottnickels what fucking sludge?! i believe that line was directed towards me, not you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-hetero Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 I'm really interested in this subject and thus far from my readings I'm feeling like Sharon is a fuckwit. But I'm definately not educated on the subject. Some suggested readings would be nice. Books please. Big ones. Not one sided, if that's even possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by Smart Well, again I'm afraid I've mortally offended !@#$% though perhaps she seperates spirited debate from personal politics but, so few do... i'm still not offended, but obviously you are. editing posts... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 !@#$%... no, don't. I'm not... I thought we settled that right after it happened... I wish you would get AIM, or last we talked about it you had just downloaded it but maybe it was at work and didn't function or something, I forget, anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by !@#$% editing posts... :rolleyes: dont forget 'deleting them and hoping no one saw it' :rolleyes: !@#$, what was the book you were talking about? i promise, this is the last time i'll ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 :tongue: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by seeking dont forget 'deleting them and hoping no one saw it' :rolleyes: !@#$, what was the book you were talking about? i promise, this is the last time i'll ask. actually, I eleted that hoping only you had seen it... the 10 views after I posted before another post insured that it was a probable event and I felt satisfied... are you just trying to provoke me? If you need me to, I can repeat myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 wait, I just figured out who hotnick's is but... still not offended... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 trying to provoke you? to do what, make up more ficticious quotes and talk in circles without ever actually saying anything? no, thats ok, thats what the 'search' function is for; so people dont have to post the same shit twice. just as with the last time we had this 'discussion', you brought me into it out of nowhere, not the other way around. had you not insulted me, when i had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with any of this, i wouldn't have bothered. but since tearz was calling you out, and you felt it necessary to talk about me anyway, i figured id lend my support to his claim. seeks/in my casino, there is always someone watching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TEARZ Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 hottnickels is !@#$%. she said that. there's no trickery involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by TEARZ hottnickels is !@#$%. she said that. there's no trickery involved. and I missed that, sorry I was out having a life... I didn't suggest trickery was afoot and Seeking, I didn't try to insult you but... maybe you can clarify... What I'm getting is that, when I referenced the argument you claimed "I couldn't quit", when that happened it wasn't an insult... or was it when I said you hate Jews, because you seem to be pretty vocal about that on your own... so, ANYWAY, you just came in here to argue with me about me insulting you when you could have just have easily taken me off block and told me all this shit on AIM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 dude, are you fucking drunk? you mentioning that i claimed you couldnt quit an argument wasn't an insult, but you completely making up something i never said and injecting it into a converstion, over two years later, that had absolutely, positively, nothing to do with anything and was posted with no other possible intention than to attempt to 'clown' me, for god knows what reason, since my only post in this thread stated i didnt have time to post in the thread certainly was. and now because i am 'very vocal' about my disdain for A COUNTRY that i feel is basically one large terrorist state, now that means that i hate jews? hahaha, this is seriously a new level of ignorance, even for you! do you not see that your every word is just further proving what tearz and i are claiming? that instead of ever backing up a single claim you make, you just fucking make shit up and spit insults?! and why didnt i unblock you, if i felt like insulting you? i dont know, why the fuck did you insult me in the first place? really bro, your a fucking joke. just stop. seeks/bedtime for hypocricy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 the alleged sharon quote: first of all, mams, i'm glad this was brought up, sort of..becuz i have wrestled with it too. but instead of trying to prove one single quote that seemed sensational and malicious, i looked at dude as a whole..peep sharon's oeuvre. i do not know the 'source' for this quote, but an aquintance(sp982u9?) mentioned that chomsky had referred to it somewhere. i can't confirm where this referral was published or heard since this person is out of contact and i cannot remember even if the book or situation was mentioned, but i took this person's opinion as a respectable one. it would also be difficult to source chomsky's reference since the man has spoken about the middle east in a retarded amount of instances. now, if it was referred to by chomsky, is that good enough? not 100% since you'd still be taking somebodies word without actually being in the room with sharon and the general yourself. this type of thinking can be mapped over practically every piece of news you'll read and the stamina to pursue and be rigorous about these things is a pretty rare thing if you're not chomsky, said, parenti or the handful of others that are considered rigorous. the only thing you can really do then, when it comes to these guys, is look at what they've laid out, and look at them as individuals. you can do this sort of shit with practically every published news article on any volatile political, environmental, or racial issue. at what point do you consider the shit you read is or isn't worth its salt? the quote is extreme, and its unfortunate that it doesn't seem that anyone has done their homework on this quote, including me i suppose. its also unfortunate that ariel sharon is an extreme piece of slime who is responsible for massive carnage of innocent people. any minor forays into the type of character sharon is should leave you with some sort of comfortable stick to measure the alleged quote. even if it is a complete fabrication, which it may very well be, it conveys the basic tenet of sharon's conduct over that last few decades. bottom line though is you can never be 100%. so whats the next best thing? phone 'em up? pretty fucking impossible to ever tell what is PR/propaganda and what isn't when you start thinking this way. admittedly, either way its kind of a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by seeking completely making up something i never said and injecting it into a converstion, over two years later, that had absolutely, positively, nothing to do with anything and was posted with no other possible intention than to attempt to 'clown' me, for god knows what reason, since my only post in this thread stated i didnt have time to post in the thread certainly was. dude you said it... so maybe you're a ******* ****... how's that for an insult? I got no time to include you in ANY fantasy life of mine. I'm sorry you're so uncomfortable with the positions you previously embraced. Why dont we give this over to Browner and Mammerro and people who want to be part of that argument... as I said before, we have numerous private avenues to settle this, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 oh wait, so now you're trying to have an intelligent 'argument'? you're the one that interupted the damn argument in the first place, insulting every single one of them for even discussing it. you are seriously fucking insane. how can i hate jews, when you're the revisionist? other avenues? im proceeding with the avenue you CHOSE in the first place. dont be salty now cause every word makes you look like a bigger fucking jackass. please go get drunk and walk in front of a fucking bus or something, jesus christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 yeah, please keep playing the drunk card because that's getting you big points... insulting all of THEM? I think they disagreed but I think you're the one insulted around here. Yeah, other avenues, as I said I didn't set out to insult yiou, just mentioned your previous actions to clarify a point... you got on my dick here when I just put you in as a sideliner... whatever, let's have our biz in the streets, keep calling me drunk, I'll keep calling you stupid... get stomach cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 ok, you win. have fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.