WilliamK

Merry Christmas to you too, 2smart.

Ah, so you do recognize that Paul's use of "fitness" in this context refers to the ability to pass on one's genes, despite your attempt to imply that he had confused it with the ability to do chin ups. But, once you got past that and addressed his actual meaning, you did make a couple of good points. It is possible that one or more genetic factors could influence one's likelihood to sign up for military service. It actually seems rather likely to me. And, as you also pointed out, there are other factors (ex: attractiveness to/opportunities for mating) that call into question the assumption that military service reduces the odds of passing on one's genes. I'm sure there are specific battles/wars in which it was an overwhelmingly negative factor, but it would take some actual research to determine whether it is in this case, or in general. His post was actually very intelligent. He simply doubts that there's any significant genetic influence for signing up for military service. Absent actual data, this is no more unreasonable than the opposite assumption, so long as certainty is not claimed.

I've noticed. But I'm not going to play the sock puppet speculation game.

And just how much good would that military operation have done if not for a leadership with the vision and drive to create a democracy, and a populace that was unified in its support for that vision rather than being divided against itself? Dynamite is a powerful tool that, when used intelligently and benevolently, can do very constructive and beneficial work. But it does not logically follow that you can just indiscriminately throw it at every problem and expect the results to be positive.

Double question marks preceded by a space? Pretending that what are obviously typos are an indication of low intelligence or poor education? I hope that you are lying about ever having been a teacher.

It's obvious from Strife's original post that he understood what the original poster meant, but was just commenting (in a rather good natured and friendly way) on the mildly humorous literal interpretation of the subject line. I suspect that you are not so severely dim witted that you couldn't recognize that. But you just couldn't resist taking a pot-shot at Strife, no matter how much dishonesty was required to do it. So determined to paint him in an unfavorable light at every turn that you can't let a friendly post slip by without putting some kind of ugly spin on it. Way to demonstrate that fine Christian morality that makes you feel so superior to the atheist Strife.

It rather looks to me like Iran's nuclear intentions have not abated in the absence of Hussein.

Since that appears to be your euphemism for telling the truth, I'll take it as a complement. Thanks.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. This is a great time and place to be alive. Thanks to everyone who has helped to make it that way. May you all have a great day, and a great weekend. No matter who you spend it with, what you're thankful for, or who you're thankful to.

In case you haven't noticed, no one here is criticizing our invasion of Afghanistan, our deposing of the Taliban, or going after Bin Laden and friends. Those things are a genuine response to 9/11. Those things have some hope of actually addressing that problem, and doing some good. Those things were not unprovoked, unjustified, or misdirected. Those things do not bring shame upon our country. But the war in Iraq is something else entirely. Its causes are not related to 9/11, though its peddlers have abused that fear and anger to gain support. It is you, liar and false patriot, who demeans the memory of those lost on 9/11 by trying to use their loss to support the unjustified and disastrous mess in Iraq. It is you who is disgusting.

Iraq didn't attack us, doofus. 71878[/snapback] Yeah, right. Next thing you know, you kool-aid drinking defeatocrats will be telling us that the Chinese didn't attack Pearl Harbor.

Really, Guest. Paul's analogy was completely dependent on that being wrong. He was using it as an example of something that was so blatantly and obviously wrong that no one reading could be so profoundly stupid as to have any difficulty recognizing its wrongness or the purpose of the analogy. It seems that he overestimated at least one reader.

That's more than "merely." Ah yes, I did miss that. I'll agree then that "It would be stupid to conclude that Paszkiewicz didn't say something he said he said merely because it didn't occur on the tape." Well, I'll partially agree anyway. I will call it "erroneous" rather than "stupid". But I have to ask: Who has reached that conclusion? Here's what you had replied to: At no point does Guest claim that the absence of something on tape ("merely" or otherwise) would prove that something wasn't said. It's not even clear that there are any missing statements at all. He could just as easily have been referring to something that was there, but different from the way Paszkiewicz described it. Good idea.

Somebody apparently forgot that LaClair didn't exhaustively tape every single thing Paszkiewicz uttered. It would be stupid to conclude that Paszkiewicz didn't say something he said he said merely because it didn't occur on the tape. 69859[/snapback] Not necessarily. It depends on whether he specified when he said it, and whether that time was during one of the recordings. If he claimed to have said something in the course of a specific exchange, and that entire exchange is recorded, then it would be possible to falsify his claim. Guest may not have been referring to something like that. But if it's reasonable to give Paszkiewicz an out based on the possibility that his claim might be unfalsifiable (and so long as it's a tentative out, I'd have to agree), is it not also reasonable to cut Guest some tentative slack on the possibility that he might be referring to something that is falsifiable? I'm quite willing to grant that your having missed this possibility is most likely just a matter of having spoken before thinking through the permutations. Just a simple mistake, not stupidity. Don't you think it might have been a bit premature to presume stupidity on the part of those who failed to reach the same (and as it turns out, incorrect) conclusion as you?

That would require some basic decency. It could happen. But don't hold your breath.

Hard to say. http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

"My students"? Are you trying to imply that this post is by a KHS teacher? Nice try, Guest. But I'm not convinced.

Of course. What these folks don't like about "the way he did it" is that it was effective.

Since you are the one flinging nasty accusations, how about you back it up. There's no reason any sane person would demand he prove his innocence when you've presented not a single piece of evidence, nor identified a single witness, nor revealed how you came by this information, nor even who it is who's doing the accusing.

You must be an optimist.

It's not that Patriot et. al can't understand, but that they intend not to.

Ah, dude... I'm no financial expert myself, but I do know that share price all by itself doesn't tell you what a company is worth, or how well it is performing. To know what it's worth, you'd have to also consider how many shares there are, not just what each one costs. The result (shares * price) is called market capitalization, or sometimes "market cap" for short. A company with 1 million shares at 100$ per share would have the same market cap as one with 10 million shares at 10$. But, though it tells you more than share price alone, a single snapshot of market cap alone would still not tell you about a company's performance. For that, you have to look at trends, (the trend in share price being one). And to do it right, you have to consider other data like P/E ratio, and harder to quantify information like acquisitions, investment in R&D, sustainability of the business plan, impact of cultural and political trends, etc. It's horrendously complex and inexact. Sort of like weather forecasting.

No. That's just his cover. This is his real occupation: http://www.pureimagination.co.uk/captainca...hooey/index.htm

Perhaps they're afraid that he might tell the plain, unembellished truth about them.

We've seen your hatefulness here before. And we've also seen him handle it with remarkable grace. Your opinion caries no weight here, because you've already revealed your character.