Why couldn't Apache be whipped up from nothing? just because YOU Think it's too hard? RESEARCH INTO STANDARDS, TESTING AND DEBUGGING ARE NOT REQUIRED IN ANY WAY.
So not only is that a weak ass straw man because I never said anything at all about Apache, you are factually wrong.
Meanwhile, proofreading, fact checking, source verification and editing are all neccessary.
So, again, your attempt a flawed comparison which fails badly. You seem to think that because a few OS developers are thorough and professional, that somehow makes that the norm for OS projects, when it's not only not the norm, it's not even neccessary.
If you're going to defend your "point" you need to do more than pretend a preference of a few developers is the norm, and that restating the arguments I've totally refuted somehow makes them valid.
But just to drive it home, if a 17 year old writes a great piece of code, which works perfectly but isn't debugged and hasn't been tested to standards, is there any reason the code can't be used?
You hate it, but the answer is no, it's perfectly fine to use.
Now, if that same 17 year old writes a text that hasn't been factchecked and edited could it be used?
Guy, you've proven you're a lying piece of trash, how fucking stupid are you that you think I'd give a fuck about anything you say in light of that.
Ps reread my previous post until you realize how much of an idiot you are for incorrectly thinking I assumed you a Democrat, instead of correctly thinking I said you were partisan.
If you weren't so fucking stupid you'd avoid using straw man like you did because you'd know the difference.
First, the open source projects you list are great and I support them.
But your analogy sucks. It's just awful.
You're comparing open source SOFTWARE which can be whipped up on the spot by anyone with the skills and has as it's ONLY requirement that it adheres to its license , to a REFERENCE TEXT that has to be current, researched, sourced, proofread, factchecked, and edited, BEFORE IT CAN BE USED.
They have a saying for that, it's called comparing apples to oranges.
Now I honestly have no idea how well OS texts will work, but pretending they're a comparable case to software because they're both OS is laughable and wrong.
I get it now, you're not just ignorant you're a willfully ignorant asshole.
Just because I enjoy making dicks like you feel stupid, that link you didn't click because you knew it proved you wrong leads to John Maynard Keynes. Probably the most important ECONOMIST of the 20th century. He agrees with deficit spending. THAT IS WHY YOU FAULED TO CLICK IT. And you know it.
And your failure to know that Keynes disagrees wth you before you asked me to " find a link to an economist" proves you're too fucking stupid to converse with any further.
I will say that you look like a total fucking boob when you ask for a link to something I've already provided, and you admitted you were too arrogant to click.
I think if your post proves anything it's that you'll lie to save face and lie about who you're voting for and why. Your failure to address my points with anything other than handwaving and "nu uh, REPUBLICANS BAD! I know so!" in the face of evidence that you're wrong demonstrates that.
You're a total lying partisan cunt, and nothing you can say will change that in light of the fact that you openly admitted you wouldn't accept irrefutable proof you were wrong.
Fuck off and die, and stop ruining my fucking country with your stupid partisan garbage.
So, for twenty years then? The whole of political history...
Second, Democrats support social programs (or do you disagree?). They cost money. Republicans support defense spending (it is by far their major budget item). It costs money. Comparing the two is, well to borrow your word "dumb". They are not the same, do not accomplish the same goals, do not have the same benefits and drawbacks, and so saying "Democrats spend more" or vice versa is naive bullshit.
They BOTH spend. A TON. Social Security and Medicare on one side, Defense on the other. Mostly. So why, when it's blatantly obvious that there is a lot of money being spent on bullshit, do so many people engage in partisan dick waving contests?
"Here, here's a link that DEFINITIVELY PROVES your assclowns are spending far more than our beloved champions!HREF="http://www.google.com/search?q=you+are+a+moron&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a">PROOF!"
Blech.
You're going to get fleeced regardless. Instead of debating tax reform, money policy, or something important, we get
And McCain has admitted that the economy isn't his cup of tea, as evidenced by his proposed cuts to the fuel tax. At least Obama knew enough economics to oppose that.
Which is just, well, wrong. It's totally wrong. I see this, and it makes me want to scream. It makes me wonder if people genuinely expect the President to know everything about everything, and then it makes me wonder if people are so thick, so arrogant, as to assume that a difference in political opinion is equivalent to ignorance.
I promise you, McCain has a bevy of advisers who are smarter than you, who have helped him shape his policy, and you make the assumption that because they have different priorities, they are fools, or ignorant.
See that guy. He was an advocate of deficit spending. He knew more about it than you. But you presume that his difference of opinion makes him a "fool". And that's enough to make you vote for Obama.
But you know what? That's your right. You're entitled to allow whatever you desire to sway your decision. That's America.
Silly me, I thought your stupid comment about "I didn't think we had H1-B's in 1900." was an irrelevant smokescreen to avoid admitting you're wrong about immigrant labor.
"PS, I told you I don't care, and you posted a reply anyway, in all seriousness, that is a very strong indicator of mental illness."
You clearly have difficulty with reading comprehension.
"Exactly. Or, as those of us from civilised parts of the world refer to the condition, losers."
Seeing as there is no "normal", this comment just illustrates how stupid you are, so I fixed it to make it reflect reality.
"Seriously, though, see a shrink. You obviously have anger issues, or you wouldn't feel the need to verbally abuse strangers in response to mild criticism of your belief system."
I don't. See one yourself, that way you won't feel the need to in psychological counseling when you don't even know what the fuck you're running your dicksucker about.
In case you're wondering, this has nothing to do with my beleif system. I'm right, your opinion on that means fuck all. YOU think this is about beliefs, when in reality, you're too fucking stupid to realize what it is about.
YOU said something stupid and demonstrably wrong. Then you attempted to support your stupidity.
I despise stupidity (hence, my distaste for you and your "ideas") and squash it at every turn. If you were stupid, yet somehow managed to be right about SOMETHING (don't fret, it WILL eventually happen) I would STILL hammer you, because I HATE stupidity, especially your kind of stupidity.
"Whatever. Pot, kettle, black."
HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU? I told YOU I don't give a fuck about your opinion, and you posted. WHERE DID YOU TELL ME ANYTHING THAT WOULD MAKE YOUR COMMENT RELEVANT AND NOT RETARDED?
Oh, right, you didn't. So I guess the answer is VERY FUCKING STUPID. See, you say "Pot, kettle, black." when I do something I say YOU shouldn't do.
"That's certain"
Fixed that for you to, once again, make it reflect reality.
"If I'm distressing you, I suggest you don't bother replying, or at least refrain from saying anything I'm going to feel compelled to refute.:-)"
I'd be interested in finally seeing you "refute" something, you've completely failed this far.
And as to "distressing" me, no guy, you're light entertainment. Every time you reply and demonstrate you're a moron (which is every time thus far) I smile a little inside that I won you so totally that you have to reply even though you're too stupid to make a valid argument.
"Just because *you* might not need welfare doesn't mean it's not required by society."
No, that I need it has nothing to do with the fact that it's not needed, it wouldn't be needed even if I needed it.
"Jesus christ I'm amazed someone has to spell it out to you, but then you seem like an American Republican, so I guess I shouldn't be that shocked."
Yes, and you're a proven moron, so none of us are shocked that you're too stupid to see an alternative to a system that was broken when it was implemented, is still broken, and will always be broken.
"Though I bet you're going to tell me you're a Libertarian, which you think is something different from republican."
By "you" you mean "the dictionary" right? Or are you incapable of reading the definition of a word that large?
"Insanity: you have it."
Funny, it seems like it's YOU is is saying "do them same thing (with some stupid, ineffective little tweaks) and hope it does something different" which seems to be the popular definition of insanity these days.
Welfare isn't necessary. Calling people names becasue your political bent means you support a shitty program that will never work will NEVER change that welfare is a joke, and so are your "points" and "views" on this subject.
PS, the only reason you think your ideas aren't totally moronic is because you're fucking stoned all the time. Your inevitable response to my post (because you can't help replying when you've been proven wrong) won't change THAT either.
Silly me, I thought your stupid comment about "I didn't think we had H1-B's in 1900." was an irrelevant smokescreen to avoid admitting you're wrong about immigrant labor.
"That seems disingenuous, since in Andaya v. Citizens Mortgage Corporation, Judge Hochberg recently saw first-hand how a US employer got away with paying an H-1B computer engineer as little as $15,000 to do a job with a 'prevailing wage rate' of $41,000. In that case, Hochberg ruled against Filipino H-1B visa holder Almira Andaya, arguing that 'nonpayment of wages as listed on the H-1B visa petition... does not raise a substantial question of federal law."
Nothing disingenuous about it, it's just another example where someone with an uninformed lay opinion (YOU article submitter) doesn't understand the difference between a matter of fact and a matter of law.
Do yourself a favor and avoid discussing things you're clearly ignorant of.
"I would ask, "Do they think we're that stupid", but alas, many folks are willing to ignore facts observed by their own eyes if a credible TV person states something different.:-("
Then you say
"Could've been people. Just stating what I thought I saw. Certainly eyewitness evidence is not to be relied upon."
"..and eventually, this kind of deficit spending will bankrupt the media."
So, all those television productions that have been done for the last 60 years have been bankrupting the media?
Or did you just post your opinion before you realized that this is just one more television show, and it's no different from soap operas or sitcoms or any other produced entertainment?
"If things continue to trend this way, the media will eventually find it far easier to simply fabricate all the news. "
Please explain how you get from an activity that has been occurring for 60 years (television production) to "the media will eventually find it far easier to simply fabricate all the news". Since this activity is neither new nor covert, please explain how you arrived at your poorly thought out conclusion?
"I mean seriously, if they're not going to have 100% journalistic integrity, why have any at all?"
Ok, this is too much. THEY TOLD US IT WAS CG DURING THE BROADCAST. But you complained to whore karma before you knew that didn't you? MOre importantly, when you watch a soap opera, WHY THE FUCK AREN'T YOU COMPLAINING THAT IT'S FAKE?
Because it's entertainment that you know is produced for effect. Yet somehow, you've convinced yourself that the opening ceremonies aren't ceremonial displays done for entertainment purposes, and then complained about it.
"To me, the reasoning behind the faked display is no consolation or excuse -- it seems hard to swallow that NBC was unaware of this televised deception. I'm glad that it was good-naturedly "revealed" this weekend (according to that Telegraph article), but it's disheartening that such a large crowd can watch (in person, and around the world) such a display and have no reason to realize they've been duped."
So the safety of the spectators is "no excuse"? You'd prefer they endanger the spectators for no reason other than to satisfy your sense of propriety?
What WOULD be a good excuse guy?
As to your "I can't believe NBC was unaware..." line, you're right, they DID know. And they TOLD US repeatedly during the broadcast.
Is it possible to mod an article submission "offtopic"?
That listed, you know, something that actually discussed the situation in an academic, non-biased manner and specifically listed an incident.
So, nothing like the "source" you supplied that " has been criticized by a number of pro-Israel organisations. The following are amongst them: The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, a pro-Israel American media monitor based in Boston, as "virulently anti-Israel,"[2] as "bitterly anti-Zionist" and "the most conspiratorially-minded of the anti-Israel forces" by the Middle East Quarterly,[3] as "a journal known for its strong anti-Israel bias" by Honest Reporting,[4] and as "an anti-Israel publication that frequently serves as an apologist for Muslim American groups advocating anti-Semitism and support for terrorism" by the Anti-Defamation League.[5] Canada's National Post has also described the magazine as "anti-Israel,"[6] the Jewish Virtual Library has stated that the "WRMEA publishes many articles that are considered to be anti-Israel and anti-Zionist",[7] the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles notes that critics view it as "guilty of frequent factual distortions" and "an unrelenting polemic against Israel",[8] and Jonathan Tobin, executive editor of The Jewish Exponent has described the publication as "the guidebook to the Arabist lobby in the United States" that "specializes in defaming Israel."[9]
It has featured many articles by members of and supporting the organization If Americans Knew."
In other words, and because you can't see through your bias, your "source" is full of shit.
"Look at the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki or Hiroshima or the firebombings of Germany or the V2 attacks on London. Those were all attacks on civilians that were legitimate military strikes."
No, you disingenuous ass, those were military targets that had civilian casualties.
There is a difference between intentionally attacking civilians and attacking military targets that have civilian spill over.
Ignoring the difference like you are, or pretending one thing is the other like you have, merely illustrates your bias and ignorance, not any point about terrorism being indefinable.
"Seriously, if your grammar's this bad, it weakens any arguments you make, in my opinion."
Because uselessly pointing out "grammar mistakes" (which are actually mostly "spelling" mistakes) is so much more effective at demonstrating you have something to say worth hearing...
"Really, stop pandering to emotion by using "women and children" when people, humans or just "innocents" or "civilian bystanders" would work."
That's only true when they don;t actually target women and children, and since they do, your post is just you pandering to people who are sympathetic to terrorists who kill women and children because they also happen to be enemies of the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Europeans view our higher education system as the best in the world, mostly, I think, because it is.
Why would you think I wouldn't want to hear you admit that AC?
Go ahead, tell me what you think Europeans think about our higher system, which has repeatedly been rated highest in the world.
Then tell me how much you hate it, and how much you wish it weren't true.
Why couldn't Apache be whipped up from nothing? just because YOU Think it's too hard? RESEARCH INTO STANDARDS, TESTING AND DEBUGGING ARE NOT REQUIRED IN ANY WAY.
So not only is that a weak ass straw man because I never said anything at all about Apache, you are factually wrong.
Meanwhile, proofreading, fact checking, source verification and editing are all neccessary.
So, again, your attempt a flawed comparison which fails badly. You seem to think that because a few OS developers are thorough and professional, that somehow makes that the norm for OS projects, when it's not only not the norm, it's not even neccessary.
If you're going to defend your "point" you need to do more than pretend a preference of a few developers is the norm, and that restating the arguments I've totally refuted somehow makes them valid.
But just to drive it home, if a 17 year old writes a great piece of code, which works perfectly but isn't debugged and hasn't been tested to standards, is there any reason the code can't be used?
You hate it, but the answer is no, it's perfectly fine to use.
Now, if that same 17 year old writes a text that hasn't been factchecked and edited could it be used?
For toilet paper maybe, but not for a class.
Guy, you've proven you're a lying piece of trash, how fucking stupid are you that you think I'd give a fuck about anything you say in light of that.
Ps reread my previous post until you realize how much of an idiot you are for incorrectly thinking I assumed you a Democrat, instead of correctly thinking I said you were partisan.
If you weren't so fucking stupid you'd avoid using straw man like you did because you'd know the difference.
Of course, no textbooks is just one reason that Europe has the finest system of higher education in the world.
What's that? They don't? Oh...
Well I guess the policies of a less successful system are ok too...
First, the open source projects you list are great and I support them.
But your analogy sucks. It's just awful.
You're comparing open source SOFTWARE which can be whipped up on the spot by anyone with the skills and has as it's ONLY requirement that it adheres to its license , to a REFERENCE TEXT that has to be current, researched, sourced, proofread, factchecked, and edited, BEFORE IT CAN BE USED.
They have a saying for that, it's called comparing apples to oranges.
Now I honestly have no idea how well OS texts will work, but pretending they're a comparable case to software because they're both OS is laughable and wrong.
I get it now, you're not just ignorant you're a willfully ignorant asshole.
Just because I enjoy making dicks like you feel stupid, that link you didn't click because you knew it proved you wrong leads to John Maynard Keynes. Probably the most important ECONOMIST of the 20th century. He agrees with deficit spending. THAT IS WHY YOU FAULED TO CLICK IT. And you know it.
And your failure to know that Keynes disagrees wth you before you asked me to " find a link to an economist" proves you're too fucking stupid to converse with any further.
I will say that you look like a total fucking boob when you ask for a link to something I've already provided, and you admitted you were too arrogant to click.
I think if your post proves anything it's that you'll lie to save face and lie about who you're voting for and why. Your failure to address my points with anything other than handwaving and "nu uh, REPUBLICANS BAD! I know so!" in the face of evidence that you're wrong demonstrates that.
You're a total lying partisan cunt, and nothing you can say will change that in light of the fact that you openly admitted you wouldn't accept irrefutable proof you were wrong.
Fuck off and die, and stop ruining my fucking country with your stupid partisan garbage.
"The Republicans have, ever since Reagan"
So, for twenty years then? The whole of political history...
Second, Democrats support social programs (or do you disagree?). They cost money. Republicans support defense spending (it is by far their major budget item). It costs money. Comparing the two is, well to borrow your word "dumb". They are not the same, do not accomplish the same goals, do not have the same benefits and drawbacks, and so saying "Democrats spend more" or vice versa is naive bullshit.
They BOTH spend. A TON. Social Security and Medicare on one side, Defense on the other. Mostly. So why, when it's blatantly obvious that there is a lot of money being spent on bullshit, do so many people engage in partisan dick waving contests?
"Here, here's a link that DEFINITIVELY PROVES your assclowns are spending far more than our beloved champions!HREF="http://www.google.com/search?q=you+are+a+moron&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a">PROOF!"
Blech.
You're going to get fleeced regardless. Instead of debating tax reform, money policy, or something important, we get
Which is just, well, wrong. It's totally wrong. I see this, and it makes me want to scream. It makes me wonder if people genuinely expect the President to know everything about everything, and then it makes me wonder if people are so thick, so arrogant, as to assume that a difference in political opinion is equivalent to ignorance.
I promise you, McCain has a bevy of advisers who are smarter than you, who have helped him shape his policy, and you make the assumption that because they have different priorities, they are fools, or ignorant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
See that guy. He was an advocate of deficit spending. He knew more about it than you. But you presume that his difference of opinion makes him a "fool". And that's enough to make you vote for Obama.
But you know what? That's your right. You're entitled to allow whatever you desire to sway your decision. That's America.
And I'm allowed to say it sucks.
Silly me, I thought your stupid comment about "I didn't think we had H1-B's in 1900." was an irrelevant smokescreen to avoid admitting you're wrong about immigrant labor.
Oh wait, it is and you STILL are? I see...
"PS, I told you I don't care, and you posted a reply anyway, in all seriousness, that is a very strong indicator of mental illness."
You clearly have difficulty with reading comprehension.
"Exactly. Or, as those of us from civilised parts of the world refer to the condition, losers."
Seeing as there is no "normal", this comment just illustrates how stupid you are, so I fixed it to make it reflect reality.
"Seriously, though, see a shrink. You obviously have anger issues, or you wouldn't feel the need to verbally abuse strangers in response to mild criticism of your belief system."
I don't. See one yourself, that way you won't feel the need to in psychological counseling when you don't even know what the fuck you're running your dicksucker about.
In case you're wondering, this has nothing to do with my beleif system. I'm right, your opinion on that means fuck all. YOU think this is about beliefs, when in reality, you're too fucking stupid to realize what it is about.
YOU said something stupid and demonstrably wrong. Then you attempted to support your stupidity.
I despise stupidity (hence, my distaste for you and your "ideas") and squash it at every turn. If you were stupid, yet somehow managed to be right about SOMETHING (don't fret, it WILL eventually happen) I would STILL hammer you, because I HATE stupidity, especially your kind of stupidity.
"Whatever. Pot, kettle, black."
HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU? I told YOU I don't give a fuck about your opinion, and you posted. WHERE DID YOU TELL ME ANYTHING THAT WOULD MAKE YOUR COMMENT RELEVANT AND NOT RETARDED?
Oh, right, you didn't. So I guess the answer is VERY FUCKING STUPID. See, you say "Pot, kettle, black." when I do something I say YOU shouldn't do.
"That's certain"
Fixed that for you to, once again, make it reflect reality.
"If I'm distressing you, I suggest you don't bother replying, or at least refrain from saying anything I'm going to feel compelled to refute. :-)"
I'd be interested in finally seeing you "refute" something, you've completely failed this far.
And as to "distressing" me, no guy, you're light entertainment. Every time you reply and demonstrate you're a moron (which is every time thus far) I smile a little inside that I won you so totally that you have to reply even though you're too stupid to make a valid argument.
I win.
"It isn't right, but it is what it is:)"
I agree, you are a moron.
"Just because *you* might not need welfare doesn't mean it's not required by society."
No, that I need it has nothing to do with the fact that it's not needed, it wouldn't be needed even if I needed it.
"Jesus christ I'm amazed someone has to spell it out to you, but then you seem like an American Republican, so I guess I shouldn't be that shocked."
Yes, and you're a proven moron, so none of us are shocked that you're too stupid to see an alternative to a system that was broken when it was implemented, is still broken, and will always be broken.
"Though I bet you're going to tell me you're a Libertarian, which you think is something different from republican."
By "you" you mean "the dictionary" right? Or are you incapable of reading the definition of a word that large?
"Insanity: you have it."
Funny, it seems like it's YOU is is saying "do them same thing (with some stupid, ineffective little tweaks) and hope it does something different" which seems to be the popular definition of insanity these days.
Welfare isn't necessary. Calling people names becasue your political bent means you support a shitty program that will never work will NEVER change that welfare is a joke, and so are your "points" and "views" on this subject.
PS, the only reason you think your ideas aren't totally moronic is because you're fucking stoned all the time. Your inevitable response to my post (because you can't help replying when you've been proven wrong) won't change THAT either.
Silly me, I thought your stupid comment about "I didn't think we had H1-B's in 1900." was an irrelevant smokescreen to avoid admitting you're wrong about immigrant labor.
Oh wait, it is and you are? I see...
"How can anyone be sooo stupid as to..." run their idiot mouths before bothering to look up the judge they're running their idiot mouths about?
I agree, so why did you do it?
"That seems disingenuous, since in Andaya v. Citizens Mortgage Corporation, Judge Hochberg recently saw first-hand how a US employer got away with paying an H-1B computer engineer as little as $15,000 to do a job with a 'prevailing wage rate' of $41,000. In that case, Hochberg ruled against Filipino H-1B visa holder Almira Andaya, arguing that 'nonpayment of wages as listed on the H-1B visa petition ... does not raise a substantial question of federal law."
Nothing disingenuous about it, it's just another example where someone with an uninformed lay opinion (YOU article submitter) doesn't understand the difference between a matter of fact and a matter of law.
Do yourself a favor and avoid discussing things you're clearly ignorant of.
First you say
"I would ask, "Do they think we're that stupid", but alas, many folks are willing to ignore facts observed by their own eyes if a credible TV person states something different. :-("
Then you say
"Could've been people. Just stating what I thought I saw. Certainly eyewitness evidence is not to be relied upon."
"..and eventually, this kind of deficit spending will bankrupt the media."
So, all those television productions that have been done for the last 60 years have been bankrupting the media?
Or did you just post your opinion before you realized that this is just one more television show, and it's no different from soap operas or sitcoms or any other produced entertainment?
"If things continue to trend this way, the media will eventually find it far easier to simply fabricate all the news. "
Please explain how you get from an activity that has been occurring for 60 years (television production) to "the media will eventually find it far easier to simply fabricate all the news". Since this activity is neither new nor covert, please explain how you arrived at your poorly thought out conclusion?
"I mean seriously, if they're not going to have 100% journalistic integrity, why have any at all?"
Ok, this is too much. THEY TOLD US IT WAS CG DURING THE BROADCAST. But you complained to whore karma before you knew that didn't you? MOre importantly, when you watch a soap opera, WHY THE FUCK AREN'T YOU COMPLAINING THAT IT'S FAKE?
Because it's entertainment that you know is produced for effect. Yet somehow, you've convinced yourself that the opening ceremonies aren't ceremonial displays done for entertainment purposes, and then complained about it.
And sounded sill doing so.
"A standard disclaimer of "this televised broadcast contains elements that are computer generated etc etc" would have been appropriate."
THEY SAID IT WAS CG SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE BROADCAST.
"I think it is good for some outrage here."
Ok then, I'm outraged that so many of you are too stupid to educate yourself about a subject before shooting your mouths off.
"NBC censored the crap out of the opening ceremonies. They rearranged it a bit, blocked millions from watching, delayed it by hours"
Not where I live.
Maybe you're just a liar? Wait, no "maybe" necessary.
"To me, the reasoning behind the faked display is no consolation or excuse -- it seems hard to swallow that NBC was unaware of this televised deception. I'm glad that it was good-naturedly "revealed" this weekend (according to that Telegraph article), but it's disheartening that such a large crowd can watch (in person, and around the world) such a display and have no reason to realize they've been duped."
So the safety of the spectators is "no excuse"? You'd prefer they endanger the spectators for no reason other than to satisfy your sense of propriety?
What WOULD be a good excuse guy?
As to your "I can't believe NBC was unaware..." line, you're right, they DID know. And they TOLD US repeatedly during the broadcast.
Is it possible to mod an article submission "offtopic"?
"Hmmm. I've always wondered why the US is so tolerant of bullying, this pretty much explains it."
Yes, you're a milquetoast, useless, pathetic whiny fuck. That does explain why you think you're being "bullied".
"You do realise your attitude would qualify as borderline psychotic in any civilised society?"
No it wouldn't. I have a Master's Degree in behavioral psychology supporting my opinion, you have fuck all supporting yours.
Did you know YOUR behavior irrefutably proves you're a fucking moron?
PS, I told you I don't care, and you posted a reply anyway, in all seriousness, that is a very strong indicator of mental illness.
Modded to +5?
Oh right, it's an idiotic anti-US generalization, that's why.
That listed, you know, something that actually discussed the situation in an academic, non-biased manner and specifically listed an incident.
So, nothing like the "source" you supplied that " has been criticized by a number of pro-Israel organisations. The following are amongst them: The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, a pro-Israel American media monitor based in Boston, as "virulently anti-Israel,"[2] as "bitterly anti-Zionist" and "the most conspiratorially-minded of the anti-Israel forces" by the Middle East Quarterly,[3] as "a journal known for its strong anti-Israel bias" by Honest Reporting,[4] and as "an anti-Israel publication that frequently serves as an apologist for Muslim American groups advocating anti-Semitism and support for terrorism" by the Anti-Defamation League.[5] Canada's National Post has also described the magazine as "anti-Israel,"[6] the Jewish Virtual Library has stated that the "WRMEA publishes many articles that are considered to be anti-Israel and anti-Zionist",[7] the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles notes that critics view it as "guilty of frequent factual distortions" and "an unrelenting polemic against Israel",[8] and Jonathan Tobin, executive editor of The Jewish Exponent has described the publication as "the guidebook to the Arabist lobby in the United States" that "specializes in defaming Israel."[9]
It has featured many articles by members of and supporting the organization If Americans Knew."
In other words, and because you can't see through your bias, your "source" is full of shit.
"Look at the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki or Hiroshima or the firebombings of Germany or the V2 attacks on London. Those were all attacks on civilians that were legitimate military strikes."
No, you disingenuous ass, those were military targets that had civilian casualties.
There is a difference between intentionally attacking civilians and attacking military targets that have civilian spill over.
Ignoring the difference like you are, or pretending one thing is the other like you have, merely illustrates your bias and ignorance, not any point about terrorism being indefinable.
"Seriously, if your grammar's this bad, it weakens any arguments you make, in my opinion."
Because uselessly pointing out "grammar mistakes" (which are actually mostly "spelling" mistakes) is so much more effective at demonstrating you have something to say worth hearing...
"Really, stop pandering to emotion by using "women and children" when people, humans or just "innocents" or "civilian bystanders" would work."
That's only true when they don;t actually target women and children, and since they do, your post is just you pandering to people who are sympathetic to terrorists who kill women and children because they also happen to be enemies of the US.
You sicken me.