Now that is truly a fine example of what I call stupid logic. Fermenting + grains = beer?
It would be if it was brewed instead of distilled. Try brewed + grain, not fermented + grain. Beer is brewed; whisky (and whiskey) is distilled. Look it up.
When was the last time you ran over a bird in the road with your car? Drive at 'em as fast as you like. They see you coming and by the time you get there, they've moved.
Except of course that I had no "jesus was never alive theory." Yet no matter how many times I stated that in plain English you couldn't understand it. I asked for empirical evidence of his existence and you provided none. Instead you trotted out a bunch of tired fallacious rationalist arguments. And you never restated anything I said. You created straw man arguments. That is why I stopped discussion, you simply don't understand the basic concepts of empiricism, rationalism and logic.
Still, the most ignorant position you took had nothing to do with philosophy. It was when you actually argued that the Bill of Rights had 27 amendments. That shocked me. I didn't think anyone who knew the name Bill of Rights could be so ignorant of its history. Frankly, when I jokingly corrected you I assumed it was a mistake born of haste. It never occurred to me you might actually think all the amendments of the Constitution were part of the Bill of Rights. I've never met anyone that ignorant of US history.
What really cracks me up is your obsession with the last word. I have only replied ot the last several posts out of curiosity. I was wondering just how important the last word was to you. Apparently very important. Well, knock yourself out. Post one more pointless self-congratulatory, syntactically deficient, asinine rant and you win!
It means I stopped trying ot explain extremely basic logical concepts to you when it became apparent that you were not intelligent enough to understand them. That point came somewhere between a paragraph with no English sentences and another where you failed to understand that your "point" was an obvious begging the question fallacy any high school student would reject. Lucky for you I was honest enough to say so. Most people probably just laugh at you behind your back.
Actually, my time is too valuable to waste it talkng to you. You simply aren't capable of making a valid argument. Frankly, you have trouble just putting together a coherent sentence. On the other hand you are a pompous blowhard, so you've got that going for you.
I totally understood your position despite the opacity with which you stated it (barring that one paragraph that did not qualify as English). It was just entirely based on specious arguments and fallacious logic. Also, you repeatedly lied in service of your straw man argument that I claimed Jesus never existed. I made no such claim. The only bright spot was when you asserted that it served my purposes as a Jew to believe Jesus never existed ( Another fallacious argument. You should consider taking a logic class). Quite the contrary, I sincerely wish there were significant emprical evidence of his existence, especially of the crucifixion story. Because then I could say with confidence that my ancestors killed your god.
Lucky for me, you compensate for your logical failings with verbosity. You are not only stupid, ignorant and pompous, you are amazingly tedious.
I am going to stop wasting my time with your because all you do is jump from logical phallacy to logical phallacy. It is boring. I'll go find someone less stupid and ignorant to talk to (someone who desn't think "christian apologist" is an insult for fuck's sake). Note that this is not an ad hominem fallacy as I did not attribute the incorrectness of your arguments to your stupidity. You stupidity and ignorance merely prevent you from understanding their weakness.
Jesus wouldn't be the name recorded in these documents, that is more or less a translation of a common name or title from that period of time. We also know that the original hebrew name was different then the greek name wich is translated once again into english to get Jesus. We do know that there were many people who would have had the sane name or title and these people would/could have lived in the same area as Jesus is supposed to have.
Useful only in the kind of fanciful rationalism that is necessary to maintain religious dogma. No emprical value.
Rome has recorded the christians as they were called 60 years after Rome claims the movment started and attempted to prosecute them for thier belief. Obviously someone started a movment, gained followers, iritated the governing powers to the point they mounted a campain against him,iritated the Jews, started a storie that was incorperated into other religions and recieved a title christianity.
That would be an importan point if I were disputing any of it. As it stands it has nothing to do with your inability to produce evidence of the person Jesus.
The people mentioned in the gospels have recorded some one named Jesus who did exist and participated in some activities with them.
Even though some people claim the gospels were writen after the reletive time (at least the translation form greek writings we know to exist), evidence shows that what we currently read are copies because the the formentioned acts of Nero. The gospels say nothign about the destruction Nero does but Jesus forseen it mentioned it in his teaching before his death. This indecates that the gospels were actualy writen or passed oraly before Nero's actions or that it is one hell of a conspiracy.
So these stories, written centuries after Nero's death prove Jesus's existence because they describe him predicting Nero's persecution of Christians? Shocking.
The conspiracy continues because islam makes mention to Jesus in the Q'uoran, the hindu religion is even in on it. This is especialy evident with Krishna and the claims that christianity came from the hindu belifes. Jewish doctrin make mention and it was widley accepted that Jesus existed but his importance is downplayed. John the baptist actualy baptised Jesus acording to Mandaeism religion. Jesus' importance is again downplayed. Rome was is a big conspirator too when they lay claim to the dates of the christian movement and the destruction of thier temples
More of your favorite argumentum ad numerum/appeal to authority fallacy. The number of people who believe it has no relevence to its truth. And I assure you there is nothing in Jewish "doctrine" about jesus. Anyway, what you describe is called syncretism. Religions tend to absorb each other's mythology. You forgot to include Voodoo, Santaria and Mecumba (assuming you don't consider them Christian sects).
The claims of jesus never existing as a person is a reletive new idea in that it dates back only a couple of centuries. What else happened at this time? Thories of evolution and the "scientific" comunity disputing creationism. Anti religious sediment amung people claiming to be too smart to belive in that witchcraft. You know were i'm, going with this.
Precisely!!! The age of empiricism! Western man shedding the dark shackles of superstition. Have you listened to me at all? All I asked for was empirical evidence, because I am an empiricist.
The only oxymoronic thing about this is you insisting that this is evidence he didn't exist.
It is one thing for you not to be able to understand me, but you should at least be able to read your own statements. The following statement is prima facia oxymoronic. Either they they were discarded or they exist. Maybe you just don't understand tense.
Most of the documents about Jesus were discarded early by the church when they
No, it isn't oxymoronic. It was just a st atment as to why there are little documents surounding him that survived. It is well recorded that these documents were hidden and/or destroyed at this time.It doesn't prove he existed but it does give a counter to why the claim that "there isn't any documents" doesn't hold much water.
It isn't even evidence he existed. It is merely an excuse for lack of evidence. You statement was oxymoronic because you said they were destroyed but that didn't mean they don't exist.
Unfortunatly it is relevent. And it wasn't a century later. Close but not exact. It is still within the life span of people who would have been alive and his recordings reflected that.
Yet those people who met him and were still alive did not feel moved to record it themselves. Nice.
It would prove you need to show jesus didn't exist ( your agenda) and it would prove i need to show he did exist (my agenda) Except that i'm not going to follow that agenda. You either except the proof as shown or ignore it and pick faults at it just like christians sometime try with evolution verses vreation. It isn't worth it to me to try and change your mind on this either.
Obviously I don't need to prove Jesus didn't exist. In the first place you can't prove a negative. The burden of proof rests entirely on you. And you have failed miserably. Nothing you have cited even qualifies as compelling evidence, much less proof.
And the guy who built a house(s) never existed because no surviving documents exist.
That example is a begging the question fallacy.
Nero burned Rome and blamed the christians around AD 66 and start a purge of all christians and related articles.
Other than the writings of Tacitus, who was a small child at the time, there is little evidence Nero burned Rome. He certainly blamed the Christians, although I fail to see what that had to do with anything. I never said there weren't Christians. I said there was no evidence of a real live Jesus.
Acts shows us letter from paul who was verry alive in the days of jesus, a reletive of his.
Good point. Paul actually met Jesus! Or rather he met him in an hallucination he had after Jesus's alleged death. Never actually met him in person. This is possibly the most ridiculous "evidence" you have yet proposed.
There is enough evidence that normal people would consider it historicaly acurate. Alas, we have people claiming we never made it to the moon(it was all a hollywood show), JFK was shot by three shooters, Elvis is alive, Hitler is living in south america and has a gay jewish boyfriend, former President Bill Clinton was actualy a robot sent by aliens who wanted to distract us from Thier real agenda (anal probing the dumbest people they could find). It doesn't take much to make some things belivable to some. I'm not surprised at all to hear this.
Nice false analogy. Goes well with your argumentum ad numerum fallacy.
The meare presence of the words christian apoligist takes away any objective meaning to the article let alone explains why he would intentionaly misconstrue what he was talking about.
I forgot to mention, "Christian Apologists" is not a derogatory term. It is in fact the technical term for theologians who specialize in the systematic defense of Christianity. The field is called Christian Apologetics. The first use of this Greek term (apologia) in reference to Christianity is in the Koine book of Paul, Acts 26:2.
Most of the documents about Jesus were discarded early by the church when they started portraying him as the son of God and not another prophit. This doesn't mean they don't exist or that jesus didn't exist.
Again, oxymoronic. If they were discarded they don't exist and you can't use them as evidence of his existence.
There is a record of Jesus getting crusified that was kept by the romans. Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus and the christian in A.D. 93 when doing a historical documentation on the jewish faith. We take alot of what we know about the romans from his writings. If he is a lier then it is likley most all our history is incorect. Granted it was writen after jesus' time but the author would have been alive and able to talk to people who witnessed it first hand.
This is of no value. Someone writing a century later and 1400 miles away is completely irelevent. There are no contemporaneous accounts of the existence of Jesus.
Another reference to Jesus' existance is in the Talmud. This reference was at the times of Jesus' existance and delt directly with his "changing of the religions" or breaking jewish laws. It is very hostile towards him and documented his trial, convition and punishment. It is even hostile towards his mother. I could go on and on but I don't wish to prove his existance. This is an argument that will go round and round. Outside strict roman governing, we realy don't have much mor eof anythign to go on about these times.
This is simply not true. There is nothing in the Talmud that a reasonable Hebrew reading historian could construe as mentioning Jesus (I happen to be a Jew and a history major).
If the same standards of proof were applied, it wouldn't be possible to believe any histroy around this time.
No competent historian would apply any other standard. And we know for sure lots of historical figures from that era and location existed because it was documented by their peers. For instance, from contemporaneous accounts we have a great deal of information on the life of Herod Antipus. It just doesn't include anything about Jesus or Saint John.
The first ten amendments to the constitution are considered the Bill or Rights. Amendments added to the constitution are added to the bill or rights. They are listed seperatly from the constitution and not reworked into them. This is why it is just as corect to say amendments to the constitution or call the entire colection of 27 amendments the bill of rights. Even though your spliting somethign here, It doesn't change the meaning of what was writen.
This is a ridiculous and oxymoronic statement. The Bill of Rights refers to the ten ammendements to the constitution passed and ratified in 1791. By definition it is inextensible. Take a look at the Library of Congress web site. They very clearly label the Bill of Rights and ammendements 11-27 separately and even have seperate links to them.
Of course this doesn't change the meaning of "what was written" (nice passive voice). I was just having fun. You should work on your sense of humor.
For jesus to have existed, This is something I am not going to set out and prove. This wasn't my intention at all. We do know jesus existed by the same ways we know george washington actualy existed. His importance in history has preserved this for us. For instance, we have government records showing he was actualy placed on a cross and punished.
The first is a specious argument. We know George Washington existed, not because of his impact on history, but because there are numerous accounts of his existence written during his lifetime. He left legal documents, an estate (complete with chattel) and heirs (his stepchildren). The second point is certainly news to me. Where are these governement records? I would love to see them or at least reasonable documentation of their existence. All sources I have seen say there are no extant mentions of Jesus until 33CE. Maybe this site will be more palatable to you than the atheists.org page.
I recently had to corect one of my nieces' teachers at school who instisted that there was only 26 amendments in the bill of rights. Evidently the 27th wasn't a concern because it was added in 1992 and she recieved her degree in '85.
Actually, you are both wrong. There are ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. There are twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.:-)
A Man walking along a road in the countryside comes across a shepherd and a huge flock of sheep. Tells the shepherd, "I will bet you $100 against one of your sheep that I can tell you the exact number in this flock." The shepherd thinks it over; it's a big flock so he takes the bet. "973," says the man. The shepherd is astonished, because that is exactly right. Says "OK, I'm a man of my word, take an animal." Man picks one up and begins to walk away.
"Wait," cries the shepherd, "Let me have a chance to get even. Double or nothing that I can guess your exact occupation." Man says sure. "You are an economist for a government think tank," says the shepherd. "Amazing!" responds the man, "You are exactly right! But tell me, how did you deduce that?"
"Well," says the shepherd, "put down my dog and I will tell you."
Huh. Well, I'll buy your argument if you'll tell me how you get to the top of the screen in an instant. I can't, as far as I know -- it's further to roll the mouse to the top than it is to the top of a window, barring the single exception where the window is at the top anyway (in which case it takes just as long.) [. ..] So -- how do you get right to the top of the display with less moves than it takes to get to the top of a window that is, for instance, showing its title bar at the bottom third of the display?
The answer is Fitt's Law: The time to acquire a target is a function of the distance to and size of the target. The top of display menu bar is infinitely tall. You can't overshoot it. No matter how fast and far you move your mouse, the curser stops on the menu. The only improvement would be to place the target in the corner of the screen where you can't overshoot it lateraly either. OpenStep used to do this.
When you maximize a Windows window the menu targets do not extend all the way to the top of the screen, so they do not behave like Mac menus, are not infinitely tall and are just as hard to acuire as they are in any other window position.
One of my most hated Windows features used to be the way minimized windows behaved in the taskbar. Their target did not extend all the way to the bottom of the screen! Hence you could overshoot them. This was an unforgivable waste of valuable edge real estate. Thankfully they have fixed this.
Not only that, they're only up about 30% in speed since the January of *last* year. Seems Dr. Moore has forsaken poor Apple.
Moore's Law does not make predictions about "speed," whatever you mean by that. It says,
"The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year. Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years."
you are wrong about gil amelio. the reforms you talk about almost destroyed apple. amelio initiated the third party licensing of the macintosh operating system which did not create new customers but simply took them from apple computer.
No, that happened under Michael Spindler in 1994. Amelio became CEO in 1996. One thing he did do was renegotiate the license agreements so that they were at least profitable.
under amelio, apple computer became slow in releasing new hardware and they wasted massive r&d resources trying to make a next generation operating system (aka copland).
Again, you are thinking of Spindler. Amelio killed Copeland and lifted the useful technologies for inclusion in OS 8. He replaced Copeland with OpenStep/OS X.
he wasted time entertaining the makers of BeOS only to find out that no software publisher was willing to port software into an untested operating system which was not even compatible with existing files.
Actually he invited Microsoft, Sun, Be and Next to submit proposals for the new OS. Next won by a wide margin. But the most important contribution Amelio made at Apple was hiring Super-CFO Fred Anderson away from ADP. Anderson's transformation of Apple's financials was nothing short of miraculous.
Apple's most recent losing year was 2001. They had a couple good years before that. Before that, they were consistent dogs.
That link doesn't really support your statement. It only shows two years of losses before 2001, primarily because it only goes back to 1996. I can't find the results for 1990-1995. My memory is that they were almost all losers. However, from 1976 to 1989 apple made a profit every year, (suffering one losing quarter in 1985). So if we assume 1990-95 were all losses (which I think is incorrect), then Apple has made money twenty out of the last twenty-seven years, including its first thirteen and six out of the last seven.
In 1989, Apple netted $454 million on $5.284 billion in sales. That year Microsoft netted $170.5 million on $803.5 million in sales.
As far as management, Apple has sacked three CEO's since 1990 (Scully, Spindler and Amelio) and there is nobody left from the 1990 team.
Except that they do not carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. They use civilians as shields and cover, or just blow them up to make some kind of sick statement.
I don't understand. To my knowledge these were combatants captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, not car bombers caught attacking civilian targets. You'll have to be more specific in your allegations. Otherwise your argument is weak. The ICRC says that they qualify as POWs under the Geneva accords. More importantly, under the Geneva accords, a party to conflict can't unilaterally declare combatants illegal. Combatant status disputes are settled by international tribunal. Geneva specifically protected informal combatants in response to Germany's wartime policy of torture, execution and collective punishment for "terrorism" (which is what they called guerrilla warfare).
Again, you make a great deal of the criminality of the guerrilla fish swimming in the civilian water (to paraphrase Mao). This is the reality of asymmetric warfare. It is what allows the weak to resist the strong. It is what allowed Jews and Poles to resist the Germans (who fully intended to exterminate them all). As Larbi Ben M'Hidi told a reporter shortly before French paratroopers murdered him in his cell,"Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets."
Not wearing a uniform does not automatically make you an unlawful combatant. In the first place, the Geneva Conventions do not mention uniforms. The Third Convention mentions "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance." More importantly, citizens have a right to defend their country, regardless of their military status or appearance. Article four, section A of the Third Geneva Convention specifically defines such resistors as lawful combatants,
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Regardless, I find your position on guerrilla warfare shockingly simplistic. You are saying that the Jewish, Polish, Russian etc. partisans who resisted the Nazi attempt to eradicate their entire ethnicities were "the basest of all war criminals." On behalf of all my dead partisan relatives, I am offended. Furthermore, I don't see how either of us could know enough about the individual prisoners at Guantanamo to determine the propriety of their legal status. And lastly, even if every single prisoner is not a legal combatant entitled to POW status, that does not mean they are devoid of rights under the Conventions. The Fourth Convention states that they are entitled to "humane treatment" and in the case of criminal allegations, a "fair trial."
In fact, the only movie that he directed that was a huge success on it's own merit* was A New Hope.. and even Lucas himself admitted it was a near disaster.. and that he had brought in some brilliant editors (Paul Hirsch and Richard Chew) that saved the movie.
You are forgetting about American Graffiti. That said, this perspective is interesting because I once heard Spielberg say that Lucas was a genius editor (a position arguably supported by THX1138) and that in fact he had helped Spielberg out a lot in his early years. I guess he was good enough to see when his own efforts weren't working out. He gave Hirsch and Chew editor credits, but not himself. The IMDB lists him as an uncredited editor.
IIRC, in linguistics they call this the he/she conundrum. My memory (college was a long time ago) is that experiments have shown that it is easier to derive number than sex from context. Hence english speakng people tend to use "they" as a sex ambiguous singular pronoun. At one point (18th century?) the British Parliament passed a law against it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sake is not wine. It is made from grain and brewed. By law and common sense that makes it beer in the US.
Except of course that I had no "jesus was never alive theory." Yet no matter how many times I stated that in plain English you couldn't understand it. I asked for empirical evidence of his existence and you provided none. Instead you trotted out a bunch of tired fallacious rationalist arguments. And you never restated anything I said. You created straw man arguments. That is why I stopped discussion, you simply don't understand the basic concepts of empiricism, rationalism and logic.
Still, the most ignorant position you took had nothing to do with philosophy. It was when you actually argued that the Bill of Rights had 27 amendments. That shocked me. I didn't think anyone who knew the name Bill of Rights could be so ignorant of its history. Frankly, when I jokingly corrected you I assumed it was a mistake born of haste. It never occurred to me you might actually think all the amendments of the Constitution were part of the Bill of Rights. I've never met anyone that ignorant of US history.
What really cracks me up is your obsession with the last word. I have only replied ot the last several posts out of curiosity. I was wondering just how important the last word was to you. Apparently very important. Well, knock yourself out. Post one more pointless self-congratulatory, syntactically deficient, asinine rant and you win!
It means I stopped trying ot explain extremely basic logical concepts to you when it became apparent that you were not intelligent enough to understand them. That point came somewhere between a paragraph with no English sentences and another where you failed to understand that your "point" was an obvious begging the question fallacy any high school student would reject. Lucky for you I was honest enough to say so. Most people probably just laugh at you behind your back.
Actually, my time is too valuable to waste it talkng to you. You simply aren't capable of making a valid argument. Frankly, you have trouble just putting together a coherent sentence. On the other hand you are a pompous blowhard, so you've got that going for you.
I didn't read your post and there fore have no comment on it other than to say it sure looks long. Appropriate really: argumentum ad nauseum.
I totally understood your position despite the opacity with which you stated it (barring that one paragraph that did not qualify as English). It was just entirely based on specious arguments and fallacious logic. Also, you repeatedly lied in service of your straw man argument that I claimed Jesus never existed. I made no such claim. The only bright spot was when you asserted that it served my purposes as a Jew to believe Jesus never existed ( Another fallacious argument. You should consider taking a logic class). Quite the contrary, I sincerely wish there were significant emprical evidence of his existence, especially of the crucifixion story. Because then I could say with confidence that my ancestors killed your god.
Lucky for me, you compensate for your logical failings with verbosity. You are not only stupid, ignorant and pompous, you are amazingly tedious.
Actually, Zeppelins were not blimps. They were dirigables.
I am going to stop wasting my time with your because all you do is jump from logical phallacy to logical phallacy. It is boring. I'll go find someone less stupid and ignorant to talk to (someone who desn't think "christian apologist" is an insult for fuck's sake). Note that this is not an ad hominem fallacy as I did not attribute the incorrectness of your arguments to your stupidity. You stupidity and ignorance merely prevent you from understanding their weakness.
Useful only in the kind of fanciful rationalism that is necessary to maintain religious dogma. No emprical value.
That would be an importan point if I were disputing any of it. As it stands it has nothing to do with your inability to produce evidence of the person Jesus.
So these stories, written centuries after Nero's death prove Jesus's existence because they describe him predicting Nero's persecution of Christians? Shocking.
More of your favorite argumentum ad numerum/appeal to authority fallacy. The number of people who believe it has no relevence to its truth. And I assure you there is nothing in Jewish "doctrine" about jesus. Anyway, what you describe is called syncretism. Religions tend to absorb each other's mythology. You forgot to include Voodoo, Santaria and Mecumba (assuming you don't consider them Christian sects).
Precisely!!! The age of empiricism! Western man shedding the dark shackles of superstition. Have you listened to me at all? All I asked for was empirical evidence, because I am an empiricist.
It is one thing for you not to be able to understand me, but you should at least be able to read your own statements. The following statement is prima facia oxymoronic. Either they they were discarded or they exist. Maybe you just don't understand tense.
Of course this doesn't change the meaning of "what was written" (nice passive voice). I was just having fun. You should work on your sense of humor. The first is a specious argument. We know George Washington existed, not because of his impact on history, but because there are numerous accounts of his existence written during his lifetime. He left legal documents, an estate (complete with chattel) and heirs (his stepchildren). The second point is certainly news to me. Where are these governement records? I would love to see them or at least reasonable documentation of their existence. All sources I have seen say there are no extant mentions of Jesus until 33CE. Maybe this site will be more palatable to you than the atheists.org page.
Actually, you are both wrong. There are ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. There are twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.
A Man walking along a road in the countryside comes across a shepherd and a huge flock of sheep. Tells the shepherd, "I will bet you $100 against one of your sheep that I can tell you the exact number in this flock." The shepherd thinks it over; it's a big flock so he takes the bet. "973," says the man. The shepherd is astonished, because that is exactly right. Says "OK, I'm a man of my word, take an animal." Man picks one up and begins to walk away.
"Wait," cries the shepherd, "Let me have a chance to get even. Double or nothing that I can guess your exact occupation." Man says sure. "You are an economist for a government think tank," says the shepherd. "Amazing!" responds the man, "You are exactly right! But tell me, how did you deduce that?"
"Well," says the shepherd, "put down my dog and I will tell you."
When you maximize a Windows window the menu targets do not extend all the way to the top of the screen, so they do not behave like Mac menus, are not infinitely tall and are just as hard to acuire as they are in any other window position.
One of my most hated Windows features used to be the way minimized windows behaved in the taskbar. Their target did not extend all the way to the bottom of the screen! Hence you could overshoot them. This was an unforgivable waste of valuable edge real estate. Thankfully they have fixed this.
In 1989, Apple netted $454 million on $5.284 billion in sales. That year Microsoft netted $170.5 million on $803.5 million in sales.
As far as management, Apple has sacked three CEO's since 1990 (Scully, Spindler and Amelio) and there is nobody left from the 1990 team.
Again, you make a great deal of the criminality of the guerrilla fish swimming in the civilian water (to paraphrase Mao). This is the reality of asymmetric warfare. It is what allows the weak to resist the strong. It is what allowed Jews and Poles to resist the Germans (who fully intended to exterminate them all). As Larbi Ben M'Hidi told a reporter shortly before French paratroopers murdered him in his cell,"Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets."
Not wearing a uniform does not automatically make you an unlawful combatant. In the first place, the Geneva Conventions do not mention uniforms. The Third Convention mentions "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance." More importantly, citizens have a right to defend their country, regardless of their military status or appearance. Article four, section A of the Third Geneva Convention specifically defines such resistors as lawful combatants,
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Regardless, I find your position on guerrilla warfare shockingly simplistic. You are saying that the Jewish, Polish, Russian etc. partisans who resisted the Nazi attempt to eradicate their entire ethnicities were "the basest of all war criminals." On behalf of all my dead partisan relatives, I am offended. Furthermore, I don't see how either of us could know enough about the individual prisoners at Guantanamo to determine the propriety of their legal status. And lastly, even if every single prisoner is not a legal combatant entitled to POW status, that does not mean they are devoid of rights under the Conventions. The Fourth Convention states that they are entitled to "humane treatment" and in the case of criminal allegations, a "fair trial."
IIRC, in linguistics they call this the he/she conundrum. My memory (college was a long time ago) is that experiments have shown that it is easier to derive number than sex from context. Hence english speakng people tend to use "they" as a sex ambiguous singular pronoun. At one point (18th century?) the British Parliament passed a law against it.