Stupidity/Ignorance

[Seismic Anamoly]

Quote:

---

You DO mind then....

---

Did you read what I posted? If you will kindly try again...

Quote:

---

YOU don't have the slightest idea what I mind or don't mind.

---

A Mind Is A Terrible Thing To Waste.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

Huh? What Skud missles? We don't-a got-a no scud missles!

---

Actully, Jon, there wasn't any SCUDS fired on the Kuwaiti camps this time around. It was reported that it was scuds in the news, sure. The reporting some days later about it not being scuds didn't get quite the same attention, even by the media. Can you say "embedded"? .





March 20, U.S. military sources initially described missiles launched by Iraq as "Scuds"-- the U.S. name for a Soviet-made missile used by Iraq during the Gulf War. They exceed the range limits imposed on Iraqi weapons by the 1991 ceasefire agreement.



While some reporters appropriately sourced the Scud reports to military officials, and cautioned their audience about the uncertainty of the identification, others rushed to report claims as facts. NBC's Matt Lauer's report was definitive: "We understand they have fired three missiles. One of those was a Scud missile. It was destroyed by a Patriot missile battery as it headed toward Kuwait."



His colleague Tim Russert was similarly certain, saying, "Because of last night's activity, clearly the Iraqis are now trying to respond with at least one Scud fired at the troops mapped on the border of Kuwait and Iraq." Fellow NBC anchor Brian Williams added, "We learned one Scud had been intercepted, but two missiles had made it to Kuwaiti soil."



On NPR that day, anchor Bob Edwards was equally sure about what happened: "Iraq this morning launched Scud missiles at Kuwait in retaliation for the American strike on Baghdad a few hours earlier." Correspondent Mike Shuster helpfully pointed out that "these Scuds are banned under U.N. Security Council resolutions and have a range of up to 400 miles."



ABC's Ted Koppel, "embedded" with an infantry division, reported matter-of-factly that "there were two Scud missiles that came in. One was intercepted by a patriot missile." ABC anchor Derek McGinty had earlier explained that "there was a Scud attack, one Scud fired from Basra into Kuwait. It was intercepted by an American patriot battery, and apparently knocked out of the sky. There is still no word exactly what was on that Scud, whether or not there might have been any sort of unconventional weaponry onboard."



Fox News Channel's William La Jeunesse was not only asserting that a Scud had been launched, but was drawing conclusions about its significance: "Now, Iraq is not supposed to have Scuds because they have a range of 175 up to 400 miles. The limit by the U.N., of course, is like 95 miles. So, we already know they have something they're not supposed to have."



As the day went on, however, the Pentagon was less definitive about what kind of missile Iraq was using, prompting some journalists to back off the story. Associated Press reported on March 22 that.

"Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the vice director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference that the Iraqis have not fired any Scuds and that U.S. forces searching airfields in the far western desert of Iraq have uncovered no missiles or launchers."



Even so, the next day, columnist Peter Bronson (Cincinnati Enquirer, 3/23/03) was still writing, "The Scuds he swore he did not have were fired at Kuwait, and Iraq was launching lame denials while the craters still smoked." Apparently the corrections of the earlier, incorrect reports had not reached even all of those whose job it is to follow the news.

Quote:

---

They found what they were lookin for: No doubt about it.

---

Agreed. The question is what exactly they were looking for.

Quote:

---

A Mind Is A Terrible Thing To Waste.

---

If you keep this up you'll soon be quoting Schiller .

Quote:

---

does Mr. Thompson share your views?

---

Hahahahaha.

Such anger and hostility.



Why is that, SA?



Because Debbie says you don't mind all these things?

You certainly come off as if you don't.



Maybe we could take them one by one.

1,

Do you mind that GWB went AWOL from the National Guard while other young soldiers gave their lives for their country in real combat??

[Seismic Anamoly]

Quote:

---

Why is that, SA?

---

There is no "anger" and "hostility"; you flatter yourself.



I would like to know, however; since when does asking a question represent "anger"?



What I (and many others) DO "mind" is people who think they know so much that they can tell you what you think, i.e., what you do and don't "mind".



Stupid crap like "so what your saying is...." and "so you DO mind....".



They are the truly ignorant.



So, what if a 6 turned out to be a 9?



I won't "Mind".

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

There is no "anger" and "hostility"; you flatter yourself.

---

Myself? Was the "Mr Thompson" reference aimed at me?

Quote:

---

I would like to know, however; since when does asking a question represent "anger"?

---

Oh, I merely assumed that anger had taken out your common sense. It is clear to me now that I was mistaken and that common sense might be a full time stranger to you. It's definitely so if "Mr. Thompson" is a '27 build semi-automatic.

Quote:

---

What I (and many others) DO "mind" is people who think they know so much that they can tell you what you think, i.e., what you do and don't "mind".

---

Then answer the question and confirm all speculation .

[Seismic Anamoly]

Quote:

---

....answer the question and confirm all speculation.

---

Galmie, there are a number of people on the planet I respect and admire enough to warrant honoring such a request....



You, however...AIN'T one of'em...



Speculate on, little curious one...speculate on.

Quote:

---

...common sense might be a full time stranger to you.

---

Whoooo....Temper, Temper.....

Quote:

---

....if "Mr. Thompson" is a '27 build semi-automatic.

---

WTF??



No, Galmie, it's not a "'27 build"...keep speculating.

[MIKE BURN]

Mr. Anamoly,



let's try it this time, which is actually the last time

I even try it, in a usual European diplomatic way.



Please refrain from making the experience on this board

here, for FEMALES in particular, a bad experience.



Maybe you don't see it this way, but trust in the judgement

of at least a dozen people who e-mailed me personally

about this also... or let's say, a significant number of

people do see it this way and obviously have the feel of

a "bad experience" here.



I am used also to way more positive sides of you.

If you could concentrate more on these.



I am not willing to tolerate this subtle "bad experience

syndrome" as the board owner and administrator here

anymore.



If you would be at my position, you would (probably)

act the same.



Stop being personal and involving real-life issues with/of

people, visiting this board here.



Do this on other boards, in case you need this "kick"

for your own personal agenda.



I repeat: This was my last try to show you, that I try to solve

this 'problem' through patience and understanding.



If you come up with the next real-life issue here,

you'll be banned from here forever and I mean forever.



Basically, I don't want this to happen because I am

a positive mind, believing in fun, entertainment and

minimum requirements of human behaviour and education.

[Seismic Anamoly]

No Problemo...it's Your Board...

[MIKE BURN]

Seismo,



again.. I'm used to way more positive sides of you

and I would lie if I would say I never smiled or

laughed reading one of your more humorous posts.



Knowing from myself how hard it can be sometimes

on boards in the virtual world when it comes to

personal agendas and fighting, I simply don't want

to see it here... or let's say that it goes too far



That we also face somehow complicated times, where

additionally a national aspect comes into all this, is no

bonus in this context. But I think we all grow, me included ,

if we still can get a long as what we were. Simply community

members interested in music and blah-blah and a lot of

entertainment



I would be glad if we all can get along on this basis.

[Seismic Anamoly]

Very well said...let's bury the Hatchet...and just have fun.



Life is way too short not too.



Peace and Be Well.

[questionnaire]

Could I possibly second what Mike Burn has just suggested? I've just arrived here. I like to use these sites to listen to some interesting music and contribute occasionally to political debate, but not like it is on MP3.com and some of the others. If we could express strong critical opinions yet keep it rational and civil and refrain from aggressive personal invective it would make a refreshing change.



Steve H

[debbie mannas]

We're keeping it civil, promise



Welcome!



debbie