I have excellent karma as well, but turn the "extra karma" bonus off, as I do not feel any need to climb to a higher visiblility level with a conversation such as this one. I think you've wasted enough of my time - good day.
What "incident"? All I asked you to do was prove that the Littleton Lockheed-Martin plant only produced satellites and/or satellite-launching rockets, thus backing your statement: Michael Moore claimed that a military communications satellite is a fucking weapon of mass destruction. " Have you yet? No. Can I ask the question in any simpler way? No. Put up, or stop wasting our time.
So, unable or unwilling to provide a shred of proof to back your claims, you resort to a simple "take my word for it". This is a rather appallingly apparent condescending message to your readers that you think they are either a) blind; b) stupid or c) you don't care what they think.
Most of us here are slashdotters becase we are thinking people who LIKE to learn something new, even if we're wrong. Some of us, unfortunately, seem concerned with preserving self-esteem more than anything. Oh, and save your karma bonus for something more important than a trollfight.
"Michael Moore claimed that a military communications satellite is a fucking weapon of mass destruction."
You were asked to provide proof for the above phrase. The link you provided - an essay whose criticism could go no deeper than the circumstantial - made no mention of satellites, nor did it echo in any way your claim (other than your obvious dislike for MM).
Does the Littleton Lockheed-Martin facility produce ONLY satellite-launching rockets - or sattelites? If this were true, your claim would have weight. Yet the link you provided does nothing to support this claim. What are we to think - that we will read the entire article and, because of it, just "accept" your rather grandiose original claim? It's only normal that seeming refusal (or incapability) of providing real proof for your claim, in continuing to reply in an attempted tone condescending, would become insulting to those you answer to.
You have either to get off your ass and do some research (and yes, this is your job) or drop the thread. Your debating skills leave much to be desired, as all they seem to generate is ire. The goal of the same, perhaps?
"Michael Moore claimed that a military communications satellite is a fucking weapon of mass destruction."
"...but you affirmed that he said satellites were WMD's. This was plain wrong and you know it. Trying to change the subject won't work - put up (proof to your original claims) or shut up."
... it's okay to defend a hopeless cause when you can prove that you're right instead of just making vague pseudo-authorative insinutations. Go home already.
"Michael Moore claimed that a military communications satellite is a fucking weapon of mass destruction."/><br/> <i>"...but you affirmed that he said satellites were WMD's. This was plain wrong and you know it. Trying to change the subject won't work - put up (proof to your original claims) or shut up."<i/><br/><br/>... it's okay to defend a hopeless cause when you can prove that you're <i>right</i>. Go home already.
Oh, vey. So those who question your weak reasoning must be both blind AND stupid - or you must think we are. Remain content with your own self-delusion then.
Apologies, but you had no argument to begin with, nor were you able to provide a shred of evidence backing your claims. Just what are you trying to 'defend', exactly?
...and posts like the above are a great way to publish an apologetic nothing at all. Oh, vey, he didn't take the time to tell the whole story, and he "left out" the (weak) "essential details" we cherrypicked to support our attempt at discreditation - without actually disproving any fact. So all you hear from those who don't like Moore's exposure MUST be telling the truth. What do they want, anyways?
...but you affirmed that he said satellites were WMD's. This was plain wrong and you know it. Trying to change the subject won't work - put up (proof to your original claims) or shut up.
I think that's your interpretation more than anything, and your post does nothing to validate the earlier WMD claims - and you are still unable to cite any specific source or phrase, nor show us any of Moore's "mistruths" - it's your argument that is weak more than anything : ) Enough trolling for today, hey?
Don't be silly. Critisising one's tone is not diproving the veracity of what he says. Show us where Moore was "wrong" - or where others have - and provide sources, please.
??? Where or whenever did he say that? That "satellites are weapons of mass distruction"? And the "confrontation"? Google turns up nothing obvious. Sources please.
Agreed that falsehoods are not justifiable because of the flavour they come inm but there are no "falsehoods" in anthing Moore has ever done, no matter how badly he presents it, and none have been able to prove otherwise. So I really don't understand the point of your argumenting - and bad taste is not a reason for distrust if the word spoken is proven truth.
...other people's opinions of his work (and the above about amount to nothing but character studies/assasinations) do not discount the factual consistency of his work: it has always stood up to scrutiny, and Moore even guarantees the veracity of all he states. "Educate yourself" indeed.
One minor difference - Moore dramatazises/beautifies/highlights/exaggerates the truth. The Bush administration does the same to lies to make them look as truths.
I would agree that Moore's "overkill" style (drama is too dramatic, music, etc, to make sure we 'get it') may seem condescending (voir: 'hokey') to the more intelligent of us, but this may be his trying to reach as broad a base as possible. But criticise the message, not the tone of the messenger.
Apple's updates to already-installed OS (and even apple software) are free within the same version, and only add functionality witing the software itself - there no added "program widgets" with Apple's upgrades.
If you want additional software, it is only normal that you have to pay an additional price. What is not normal is paying for fixes and functionality (security) that shouldn't have been needed in the first place.
rather, you should count "real losses" as ($NUMBEROFPIRATEDCOPIES x ($PRODUCTION/OVERHEAD/DELIVERYCOSTS ÷ $TOTALNUMBEROFCOPIESMADE(SOLD&PIRATED)). Otherwise you'll still be counting "losses" as "profits that COULD have been made".
Slashdot Mirror
I have excellent karma as well, but turn the "extra karma" bonus off, as I do not feel any need to climb to a higher visiblility level with a conversation such as this one. I think you've wasted enough of my time - good day.
...and you're using your Karma bonus (+1) for every post in this thread. Go figure?
Are you having fun? You only left ONE link in the entire thread - "source-s"?s
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.a
What "incident"? All I asked you to do was prove that the Littleton Lockheed-Martin plant only produced satellites and/or satellite-launching rockets, thus backing your statement: Michael Moore claimed that a military communications satellite is a fucking weapon of mass destruction. " Have you yet? No. Can I ask the question in any simpler way? No. Put up, or stop wasting our time.
So, unable or unwilling to provide a shred of proof to back your claims, you resort to a simple "take my word for it". This is a rather appallingly apparent condescending message to your readers that you think they are either a) blind; b) stupid or c) you don't care what they think.
Most of us here are slashdotters becase we are thinking people who LIKE to learn something new, even if we're wrong. Some of us, unfortunately, seem concerned with preserving self-esteem more than anything. Oh, and save your karma bonus for something more important than a trollfight.
"Michael Moore claimed that a military communications satellite is a fucking weapon of mass destruction."
You were asked to provide proof for the above phrase. The link you provided - an essay whose criticism could go no deeper than the circumstantial - made no mention of satellites, nor did it echo in any way your claim (other than your obvious dislike for MM).
Does the Littleton Lockheed-Martin facility produce ONLY satellite-launching rockets - or sattelites? If this were true, your claim would have weight. Yet the link you provided does nothing to support this claim. What are we to think - that we will read the entire article and, because of it, just "accept" your rather grandiose original claim? It's only normal that seeming refusal (or incapability) of providing real proof for your claim, in continuing to reply in an attempted tone condescending, would become insulting to those you answer to.
You have either to get off your ass and do some research (and yes, this is your job) or drop the thread. Your debating skills leave much to be desired, as all they seem to generate is ire. The goal of the same, perhaps?
"Michael Moore claimed that a military communications satellite is a fucking weapon of mass destruction."
... it's okay to defend a hopeless cause when you can prove that you're right instead of just making vague pseudo-authorative insinutations. Go home already.
"...but you affirmed that he said satellites were WMD's. This was plain wrong and you know it. Trying to change the subject won't work - put up (proof to your original claims) or shut up."
"Michael Moore claimed that a military communications satellite is a fucking weapon of mass destruction."/><br /> /><br /> ... it's okay to defend a hopeless cause when you can prove that you're <i>right</i>. Go home already.
<i>"...but you affirmed that he said satellites were WMD's. This was plain wrong and you know it. Trying to change the subject won't work - put up (proof to your original claims) or shut up."<i/><br
Oh, vey. So those who question your weak reasoning must be both blind AND stupid - or you must think we are. Remain content with your own self-delusion then.
Apologies, but you had no argument to begin with, nor were you able to provide a shred of evidence backing your claims. Just what are you trying to 'defend', exactly?
Give US a break. "Any reasonable person" ? "one who would believe the half-baked conclusions of an apologetic troll".
No, that's "faaabulusssssss". Enunciation, bitch.
Thanks for the link!
...and posts like the above are a great way to publish an apologetic nothing at all. Oh, vey, he didn't take the time to tell the whole story, and he "left out" the (weak) "essential details" we cherrypicked to support our attempt at discreditation - without actually disproving any fact. So all you hear from those who don't like Moore's exposure MUST be telling the truth. What do they want, anyways?
Get a life, lemming.
...but you affirmed that he said satellites were WMD's. This was plain wrong and you know it. Trying to change the subject won't work - put up (proof to your original claims) or shut up.
I think that's your interpretation more than anything, and your post does nothing to validate the earlier WMD claims - and you are still unable to cite any specific source or phrase, nor show us any of Moore's "mistruths" - it's your argument that is weak more than anything : ) Enough trolling for today, hey?
Don't be silly. Critisising one's tone is not diproving the veracity of what he says. Show us where Moore was "wrong" - or where others have - and provide sources, please.
??? Where or whenever did he say that? That "satellites are weapons of mass distruction"? And the "confrontation"? Google turns up nothing obvious. Sources please.
Agreed that falsehoods are not justifiable because of the flavour they come inm but there are no "falsehoods" in anthing Moore has ever done, no matter how badly he presents it, and none have been able to prove otherwise. So I really don't understand the point of your argumenting - and bad taste is not a reason for distrust if the word spoken is proven truth.
...other people's opinions of his work (and the above about amount to nothing but character studies/assasinations) do not discount the factual consistency of his work: it has always stood up to scrutiny, and Moore even guarantees the veracity of all he states. "Educate yourself" indeed.
One minor difference - Moore dramatazises/beautifies/highlights/exaggerates the truth. The Bush administration does the same to lies to make them look as truths.
I would agree that Moore's "overkill" style (drama is too dramatic, music, etc, to make sure we 'get it') may seem condescending (voir: 'hokey') to the more intelligent of us, but this may be his trying to reach as broad a base as possible. But criticise the message, not the tone of the messenger.
...and the fact that wombat feces are good for the skin does not mean that the sun is getting warmer.
Um... George W. Bush is still in office?
Apple's updates to already-installed OS (and even apple software) are free within the same version, and only add functionality witing the software itself - there no added "program widgets" with Apple's upgrades.
If you want additional software, it is only normal that you have to pay an additional price. What is not normal is paying for fixes and functionality (security) that shouldn't have been needed in the first place.
rather, you should count "real losses" as ($NUMBEROFPIRATEDCOPIES x ($PRODUCTION/OVERHEAD/DELIVERYCOSTS ÷ $TOTALNUMBEROFCOPIESMADE(SOLD&PIRATED)). Otherwise you'll still be counting "losses" as "profits that COULD have been made".
...all the no-extra-overhead money we could be making! It's serious!