'..because you "jump" to conclusions' </office space> - Page 2

Gavin_86 · 10-28-2004, 04:16 AM

> All I could envision while reading that was Danoz yelling it
> all out Excel-hyperspeed-style while gesticulating in a
> random and wild manor.
> It may be weird, but it sure was funny.

<center>

</center>

anything like that? because that's the mental imagery i had going, but i'm no artist so it's hard to get across.

<center>I'm just a Paranoid Android watching through my superb crystal viewing glass

.::http://gavin.panicus.orgGavin.Panicus.org</a> ::.</center>

C:Serverxampphtdocszopharoldwwwthrea...mentsdanoz.gif

Lobster Cowboy · 10-28-2004, 04:35 AM

> Yes! I foresaw this exact post when I heard president Bush
> say this.

Danoz · 10-28-2004, 04:38 AM

But all of them are meaningless efforts to completely avoid what I've said (It's okay, I know the argument kicked your assses). So, if nobody will actually address what I've stated, I declare VICTOR in the name of DANOZ <img src=smilies/thumb.gif>.

Oh, come on. Somebody challenge what I said without a movie caption or an MSPaint image. Or can't you?

http://www.georgewbush.com/

</a>

icenine0 · 10-28-2004, 04:45 AM

Oh jesus, reading that while imagining Excel speaking it... <img src=smilies/laff.gif>

The more often you fail, the sweeter the taste of success!

Lenophis · 10-28-2004, 04:57 AM

All right, try this on for size:

2001, Bush: "Iraq has WMD, and is a threat to the US." No "intent," Bush blatently said Saddam and Co. had them. 2004, everyone later learns (to little surprise for some) that Iraq had nothing in terms of WMD. As your (Danoz) claim, Bush stated his case based on current intelligence. Didn't double check the facts, just charged blindly on what little he had.

Last week, a supposed weapons cache was apparently in x spot. Nothing there. Ok, Kerry drops a lame attack ad, which more or less backfired. Ok, well here's the thing. He dropped the ad at the time, based on the intelligence and evidence he had gathered. Didn't really double check or get the facts straight.

Now, before the recent spring of threads, I told myself I was going to more or less avoid the backroom altogether, because the posts are becoming more stupid. I've seen some really stupid shit before, mostly from my brother, but the collective intelligence of posts in this thread and the backroom in general have steadily declined. (Nobody is excluded from this either.)

Danoz, after reading your most recent plea, you wanted an intelligent reply, so how did I do?

--Edit--
Didn't mean to single this thread out with declining intelligence...

<a href=http://disch.zophar.net><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png border=0>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy.</a>Edited by Lenophis on 10/28/04 01:12 AM.

Danoz · 10-28-2004, 05:12 AM

All right, try this on for size:

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

2001, Bush: "Iraq has WMD, and is a threat to the US." No "intent," Bush blatently said Saddam and Co. had them. 2004, everyone later learns (to little surprise for some) that Iraq had nothing in terms of WMD. As your (Danoz) claim, Bush stated his case based on current intelligence. Didn't double check the facts, just charged blindly on what little he had.

<hr></blockquote>
I'm fighting to understand how you would have expected him to "double check the facts". You wanted the president to go to Iraq? What more can you expect a government to reply on than the intelligence he's given? Not only that, but the intelligence of other nations and previous administrations-- not to mention the motives of Saddam himself (to make it appear as if he had them).

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

Last week, a supposed weapons cache was apparently in x spot. Nothing there. Ok, Kerry drops a lame attack ad, which more or less backfired. Ok, well here's the thing. He dropped the ad at the time, based on the intelligence and evidence he had gathered. Didn't really double check or get the facts straight.

<hr></blockquote>
Right, but you totally skipped the most prevalent point in my argument. There's a fundamental difference between bias News Media projections and Government intelligence. What intelligence and evidence other than a wild claim? I don't think you can even begin to compare the two sources.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

Now, before the recent spring of threads, I told myself I was going to more or less avoid the backroom altogether, because the posts are becoming more stupid. I've seen some really stupid shit before, mostly from my brother, but the collective intelligence of posts in this thread have steadily declined. (Nobody is excluded from this either.)

<hr></blockquote>
Why would you avoid the backroom? It's so... backroomish.
<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

Danoz, after reading your most recent plea, you wanted an intelligent reply, so how did I do?

<hr></blockquote>
I liked it, let's continue it

.

http://www.georgewbush.com/

</a>

SpaceTiger · 10-28-2004, 06:15 AM

> So, if nobody will actually address what I've
> stated, I declare VICTOR in the name of DANOZ .

I hope Victor's posts are more interesting.

Danoz · 10-28-2004, 06:57 AM

> I hope Victor's posts are more interesting.

Another clever addition to the list. Seriously though... what are your thoughts on this issue? I'm interested.

http://www.georgewbush.com/

</a>

SpaceTiger · 10-28-2004, 07:06 AM

> Another clever addition to the list. Seriously though...
> what are your thoughts on this issue? I'm interested.

Drop me a link to the stories you're referring to in your post and I'll be happy to.

Lenophis · 10-28-2004, 07:25 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

I'm fighting to understand how you would have expected him to "double check the facts". You wanted the president to go to Iraq? What more can you expect a government to reply on than the intelligence he's given? Not only that, but the intelligence of other nations and previous administrations-- not to mention the motives of Saddam himself (to make it appear as if he had them).

<hr></blockquote>
Well checking for all of the facts would've taken too long, that's a fact and a promise. He charged in blindly...or...he went in too quickly. Lemme ask you something, let's say you are pretty sure some ass is guilty of x crime, but, no solid/concrete evidence. Only motive and presumption. For fun, let's say he's a jackass lawyer. Ok, so jackass laywer is practically taunting you this "you can't touch me" attitude. You want to take him down, so what do you do?

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

Right, but you totally skipped the most prevalent point in my argument. There's a fundamental difference between bias News Media projections and Government intelligence. What intelligence and evidence other than a wild claim? I don't think you can even begin to compare the two sources.

<hr></blockquote>
For the most part, news is generated on intelligence. The intelligence is usually CIA, FBI, or some other very credible source. For this particular instance, I do not know who or what broke the story. Once I heard about it, there was already fallout about Kerry being an idiot.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

Why would you avoid the backroom? It's so... backroomish.

<hr></blockquote>
Many stupid posts by intelligent people trying to fit their own egos.

<a href=http://disch.zophar.net><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png border=0>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy.</a>