VisorCentral.com - One Year On

Pages (24): « First ... « 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- One Year On (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=26965)

Posted by jhappel on 10-22-2002 07:34 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak: No, they stated they had operational nuclear weapons.

I would like to see one authoprtative citation for that. What they admitted to is a program to build/obtain materials to assemble nuclear weapons. You might want to read this article on NewScientist.com

But please provide proof of your statement and I will gladly accept it.

__________________
Jonathan

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 07:38 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
Actually he wasn't assuming anything incorrectly.

Well, regardless of whether _she_ was, you obviously are.

quote:
From M-W.com:
Agnostic: of, relating to, the beliefs of agnostics

Do you believe everything you read in books?

quote:
Clearly there are beliefs involved in being an agnostic.

Chief among them is that it is practically impossible to know whether or not there is a God.

quote:
Don't always assume people are disagreeing with you.

I didn't assume Kelley was disagreeing with me.

quote:
Often we are not.

Don't assume that Kelley doesn't know how to read my posts a bit better than you do.

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-22-2002 07:40 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Regardless, you had the right response.

Every once in a while, I get something right.

Posted by jhappel on 10-22-2002 07:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by DingoFish: If you firmly believe that our nation is so purely evil towards the love of money, then I wonder why you would stay in this country at all.

This statement is almost too laughable to respond to. I challenge you to find one statement I made where I said anything at all about this country pursuing Shrub's policies. I said that it was his administration . Fortunately I can tell the difference between this country and its administration even if you seem not to be able to. Also where is the acknowledgement of the freedoms we have here (swiftly leaving us due to the Patriot Acts and other rulings of Dubya's administration) that would allow me to criticize our country and still remain here. It is my patriotic duty to criticize our government and even our country when I feel it warranted. The whole concept of "Love Or Leave It" (which your statement seems to echo) has been consigned to the trash heap where it belongs.

__________________
Jonathan

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 07:51 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by jhappel
I would like to see one authoprtative citation for that. What they admitted to is a program to build/obtain materials to assemble nuclear weapons. You might want to read this article on NewScientist.com

But please provide proof of your statement and I will gladly accept it.

It's not proof, but this seems to be a well thought-out article...
http://www.msnbc.com/news/824035.asp

Posted by Yorick on 10-22-2002 08:00 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by DingoFish
Do you think that the US government and Pres. Bush and his top aides are actually so evil as to risk US lives and kill thousands of Iraqi for profits in the oil business?

Not evil. Greedy. They want that MidEast pipeline. It has to get to the sea somehow.

quote:
Originally posted by DingoFish
If you firmly believe that our nation is so purely evil towards the love of money, then I wonder why you would stay in this country at all.

Some of the freedoms guaranteed the general public by the Constitution of this country give us the ability to select and question our government. Anyone who blindly accepts everything their government says or does is missing the big picture or is perhaps a little too trusting.

quote:
Originally posted by DingoFish
Why diplomacy for North Korea, but not for Iraq? Short answer because we are ten years into diplomacy with Iraq, and just starting wit N Korea. For ten years Iraq has told the UN to f*ck off. This isn't "all of a sudden" or just becasue there are elections coming up.

I seem to recall a little thing called a "war" that went on against North Korea around fifty years ago or so. They haven't exactly been trustworthy since.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-22-2002 08:02 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Do you believe everything you read in books?

Everything? No. But when it comes to language we all need a common understanding of what words mean. If I think a "cow" is actually a fish you think a "cow" is actually a car, then we're going to have problems. As such I yield to dictionaries on matters of definitions. I don't harbor illusions that I have the power to redefine words.

Posted by Yorick on 10-22-2002 08:03 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Do you believe everything you read in books?

he didn't see it in a book. He read it online. therefore it just *has* to be true.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by jhappel on 10-22-2002 08:05 PM:

quote:
It's not proof, but this seems to be a well thought-out article...

Thanx for the link Toby. It is a very interesting article. However, you are right - it is not proof at all, only a belief and an assumption. As it says in the article "It operated a small nuclear reactor years ago, primarily during the first Bush administration. It is believed to have produced enough plutonium and reprocessed enough of the resulting spent fuel to actually build one or two bombs. Since acquiring the fissile material is far harder than assembling the other components for a simple bomb, North Korea should probably be assumed to possess one or two nuclear weapons. ".

Hardly something one would want to rely upon.

__________________
Jonathan

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 08:11 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
Everything? No. But when it comes to language we all need a common understanding of what words mean.

Look up the words connotation and denotation.

quote:
If I think a "cow" is actually a fish you think a "cow" is actually a car, then we're going to have problems.

If we're talking about whales and I say 'cow' and you try to milk it because you saw it in the dictionary, _you're_ going to have some problems.

quote:
As such I yield to dictionaries on matters of definitions.

You really should take them with a grain of salt.

quote:
I don't harbor illusions that I have the power to redefine words.

Words in the dictionary aren't there because they created the words. They're there because that's how the word was used at a single snapshot in time. Word usage changes and evolves, and dictionaries don't always keep up or fully capture the nuances (or sometimes capture nuances which may not exist).

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 08:13 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
he didn't see it in a book. He read it online. therefore it just *has* to be true.

I'll send the bill for my monitor to you, sir. C/O Charlie Brown @ Pumpkin Patch should work, I assume?

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 08:14 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by jhappel
Thanx for the link Toby. It is a very interesting article. However, you are right - it is not proof at all, only a belief and an assumption. As it says in the article "It operated a small nuclear reactor years ago, primarily during the first Bush administration. It is believed to have produced enough plutonium and reprocessed enough of the resulting spent fuel to actually build one or two bombs. Since acquiring the fissile material is far harder than assembling the other components for a simple bomb, North Korea should probably be assumed to possess one or two nuclear weapons. ".

Hardly something one would want to rely upon.

*sniff* It touches my heart to see such healthy skepticism. *sniff*

Oh wait, I don't have a heart. Never mind. As you were.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-22-2002 08:22 PM:

Yawn. This thread is getting old. Should we make a run for the inane ramblings thread?

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-22-2002 08:27 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Look up the words connotation and denotation.[B]If we're talking about whales and I say 'cow' and you try to milk it because you saw it in the dictionary, _you're_ going to have some problems.[B]You really should take them with a grain of salt.[B]Words in the dictionary aren't there because they created the words. They're there because that's how the word was used at a single snapshot in time. Word usage changes and evolves, and dictionaries don't always keep up or fully capture the nuances (or sometimes capture nuances which may not exist).

I don't understand why this must become an issue. I was pointing out that there are multiple ways to define "agnostic" and one is referring to a set of beliefs. You made a mistake. We all do. Big deal. Don't feel like you have to defend it. I was merely pointing out that two logical people could interpret the passage differently.

Ladies and gentlemen, the thread that just won't die! :-D

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 08:43 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
I don't understand why this must become an issue.

Me either. Why did you mention it? It wasn't directed at you.

quote:
I was pointing out that there are multiple ways to define "agnostic" and one is referring to a set of beliefs.

And I was pointing out that only one of them was relevant in context (i.e. someone who does not believe in God because they don't consider his existence provable in a practical sense).

quote:
You made a mistake.

No, I didn't.

quote:
We all do.

Yes, we do, and yet in this case, it wasn't what you thought it was.

quote:
Big deal. Don't feel like you have to defend it.

I wasn't defending anything.

quote:
I was merely pointing out that two logical people could interpret the passage differently.

And only one seemed to read it properly, though.

quote:
Ladies and gentlemen, the thread that just won't die! :-D

Well, perhaps if you took a step back and realized that Kelley and I didn't need your 'help', it would.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-22-2002 08:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Well, perhaps if you took a step back and realized that Kelley and I didn't need your 'help', it would.

I'm sorry. As you recognize, I was only trying to help.

Posted by Toby on 10-22-2002 08:58 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
I'm sorry. As you recognize, I was only trying to help.

Now there's an actual apology, and accepted. For future reference, the agnostic comment was what is referred to as a play on words and was done for humorous effect. Connotatively theists believe, atheists disbelieve, and agnostics don't commit either way. It's really an oxymoron to speak of the beliefs of agnostics.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-22-2002 09:02 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Now there's an actual apology, and accepted.

I can only assure you all my apologies in life are actual.

I spend so much time on them why waste more with fake ones?

Posted by John Nowak on 10-22-2002 11:12 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yardie
Or maybe the U.S is just afraid to pick on a country that can give it some competition.

That would be why we were such good friends with the Soviet Union, yes.

Posted by John Nowak on 10-22-2002 11:20 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by jhappel

But please provide proof of your statement and I will gladly accept it.

My apologies; I screwed up royally.

In any event, Iraq is not North Korea. North Korea might be making a genuine attempt to approach the rest of the world; it might explain the recent admissions coming out of that country. Iraq is almost certainly not.

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:46 AM.

Pages (24): « First ... « 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page