Skip to main content

View Diary: Marines block Internet sites (234 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Blah (none)
    BLAH blah blah blah BLAH.

    A person's statement is considered evidence in a court of law. Your blathering is testimony that you don't know what you're talking about. Your use of uppercaps is evidence you're an idiot.

    Good day to you.

    What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable.

    by Carnacki on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 05:04:40 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  No, it's NOT (none)
      A person's comment that HE thinks certain sites were banned because of their contents are ONLY evidence of his opinion.

      His comments are NOT evidence that those sites WERE banned because of their content.

      And THAT'S what I said - that his assertions were NOT evidence that what he asserted is actually what happened.

      And I understand that this knocks YOUR boat out of the water.

      But it does not change the facts.

      His assertions are not evidence that sites were blocked based on their political leanings.

      His assertions are evidence that he believes that they were blocked for that reason. But it's not proof that they were.

      And if YOU were not so close to this, I believe that you likely would admit this too - that someone's testimony about what they THINK was the cause of something is NOT evidence that it is ACTUALLY the cause of anything.

      It COULD be that these sites WERE blocked because of their political leanings. Or it COULD be that the military's statement that these sites were blocked because of concerns about bandwidth, security and preventing wasting time while on duty are true.

      This person's comments are NOT evidence that their assertions are true.

      And apparently when YOU are confronted with refutation of YOUR points, you make personal attacks. Attacking me because I capitalize words is a personal attack, and has nothing to do with my argument, and is out of place on a site like this. And is a sad thing to see happen here.

      ...but not your own facts.

      by slouise217 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 01:34:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  slouise217 (none)
        Really? Because I saw you attacking someone the other night rather rudely and you had no trouble with being insulting. As someone else pointed out your comments lacked grace and civility. So I find it ironic that you find it "sad" to happen here.

        And you hardly refuted either my point or the Marines. You seem to think your OPINION refutes those points. It does not. Statements are admitted into evidence constantly in court rooms. The Marine is there and you are not. Yet you seem to believe you know better than the Marine does.

        What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable.

        by Carnacki on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 07:55:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are not being accurate (none)
          When you say that I insulted someone else the other night.

          I called a troll a 'dunce' after he clearly ignored clear evidence to continue to argue a debunked point.

          That's the ONLY time I have insulted anyone on this site.

          I know that statements are admitted into court all the time.

          However statements such as this Marine made are NOT evidence of the truth of what he says - but are simply evidence of his opinion about what the facts are.

          I understand this, after several years of law school and several years in a courtroom and a couple of decades in a classroom.

          And it IS sad that you continue to defend your mistaken impression of what evidence is.

          If you know a lawyer, go ahead, ask them....

          Ask them if an employee's statements about what motivated an employer to behave in a certain way, and motivated that employer to set certain standards is proof that those are, in fact, the reasons that the employer instituted those standards sans documentation that buttresses those assertions.

          Ask if the employee's opinion about what happened is evidence that can be admitted in court to prove that their opinion is factual.

          Even give them this specific example.

          But before you do that, here's an online link that can help you decide if you want to do this.

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

          Look at rule 602, 701 and 702. What these rules say is that without personal knowledge of why things have happened, and without the witness who is testifying being an expert, their statements are only their opinion, and not evidence of facts.

          Because you really don't want to do this. You're wrong. The Marine's testimony is NOT evidence.

          ...but not your own facts.

          by slouise217 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:33:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  slouise217 (none)
            You're ignoring the policy statement given to the Marine that went into effect on Feb. 1.

            What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable.

            by Carnacki on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:52:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What policy statement? (none)
              The one the Marine SAYS blocks sites because of their content?

              And you posted a copy of this policy statement?

              And the Marine QUOTED from the policy statement?

              Of course not.

              The POLICY statement comment is this Marine's opinion about WHAT it means.

              In fact Marine headquarters said that their policy was NOT to block sites based upon content.

              As I have said about 6 times, but YOUR personal prejudices blind you to, the individual Marine's comments are NOT proof of anything.

              And you are making yourself look even sadder and sadder with your ongoing personal attacks.

              As was explained to you by other posters, Wonkette and OTHER similar sites were NOT blocked because of their political stances held, but because of OTHER standard filters that many businesses and the government use.

              Yet YOU are unwilling to admit your error here.

              And that is what is clear. And sad.

              ...but not your own facts.

              by slouise217 on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:44:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  BTW (none)
            Is ricin a WMD? LOL.

            What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable.

            by Carnacki on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 09:57:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Are quarters? (none)
              They're made with nickel, and nickel is a toxic metal, and metals are chemicals, and chemicals are WMDs.

              QED

              "This machine kills fascists"--words on Woody Guthrie's guitar

              by Old Left Good Left on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 10:19:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Old Left Good Left (none)
                I just read that diary. Funny stuff.

                What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable.

                by Carnacki on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 10:28:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, ricin is a WMD (none)
              That's why the US Government sent their WMD specialists to Austin to collect the samples to test at Fort Detrick in Maryland.

              Because it IS a WMD.

              I did not make the rules up that determine what is a WMD.

              WMD experts did.

              Biological and Chemical weapons experts did.

              And they say that ricin is a WMD. One of many. It is a biological WMD. Just like Anthrax or Sarin gas.

              Yet again, all YOU do is make YOUR argument look weak by making personal attacks.

              Here's a link that describes ricin as a WMD that the military's team that worries about chemical and biological WMD's had to deal with in Washington, DC a couple of years ago. http://www.dcmilitary.com/...

              Here's a PDF from a document by the Rand Corporation dealing with responses to WMD attacks by terrorists that describes ricin as a WMD. http://www.rand.org/...

              Or this site, the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, which, in the very first sentence of their 'about us' page, says they fight the spread of WMD's. http://cns.miis.edu/...

              Or this one - note that at the top of the page, the Header is "Weapons of Mass Destruction", and the story is about research being done at Ft Detrick in Maryland. http://www.globalsecurity.org/...

              Or maybe THIS will convince you. "The FBI sent a team of experts on weapons of mass destruction Saturday to collect samples of a powder found in a University of Texas dormitory that were preliminarily identified as the deadly poison ricin." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/... The FBI sent their WMD experts, but somehow it's NOT a WMD? Hmmm, that's curious. One would think that they would NOT send their WMD experts if it was NOT a WMD.

              Ricin is a WMD. That's why WMD experts call it a WMD. That's why the FBI sent their WMD experts to pick UP the suspected ricin.

              And you do not help YOURSELF by arguing this point when there is so much EVIDENCE contrary to your assertion.

              Yet again people make personal attacks such as this when they cannot debate the facts. You could not argue against the facts that myself and others presented contrary to your assertions in this diary, and so you bring up OTHER non-relevant points.

              There's tons of proof that ricin is a WMD. There's NO proof that it's not. And continuing to argue that it IS NOT a WMD simply shows that you are making personal attacks.

              ...but not your own facts.

              by slouise217 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 12:14:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, for chrissake (none)
                "There's tons of proof that ricin is a WMD. There's NO proof that it's not. And continuing to argue that it IS NOT a WMD simply shows that you are making personal attacks."

                For whatever reason, you refuse to acknowledge the basic logic that although ricin may be used as a WMD, that does not make ricin a WMD in every instance of its occurrence.

                And disagreeing with your patently false statement means one is making a personal attack--merely because you disagree?  That's stupid.

                It is hard to believe your claims to be a debate teacher and lawyer when your logic is full of such gaping holes.

                "This machine kills fascists"--words on Woody Guthrie's guitar

                by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 12:27:47 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ricin is a WMD (none)
                  And NO, I have never asserted or even implied that disagreeing with my statements is equivalent to a personal attack.

                  Yet YOUR implication that I DID do that IS a personal attack.

                  I never said, nor implied, nor made any statements that could be reasonably interpreted to mean that simple disagreement with my statements would be a personal attack.

                  It is YOUR logic that has demonstrated flaw after flaw after flaw.

                  The fact that people who have disagreed with me in the past have made personal attacks does not mean that the reason I claim they made personal attacks is because they disagreed with me.

                  All ya gotta do is read - go look up what an ad hominem attack is - there are 3 kinds, along with about 50 other logical fallacies that can diminish the power of one's debating aptitude.

                  One of my colleagues posted a pre-test online for his students, and I just found the link to it. http://www.santarosa.edu/...

                  Question #32: Ad hominem attacks are always fallacious.

                  FALSE: THEY USUALLY ARE, BUT SOMETIMES, AS IN A COURT CASE, THE CREDIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL CAN BE LEGITIMATELY SCRUTINIZED.

                  ...but not your own facts.

                  by slouise217 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:57:14 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Are you really this stupid? (none)
                    QUOTING from YOU:

                    "continuing to argue that it IS NOT a WMD simply shows that you are making personal attacks"  (EMPHASIS in ORIGINAL)

                    In other words, disagreeing with the substance of your remarks is an ad hominem attack.

                    "This machine kills fascists"--words on Woody Guthrie's guitar

                    by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 07:54:30 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, it's NOT the disagreement that makes it one (none)
                      It's the method USED to disagree.

                      It's the implications about ME that have nothing to do with the truth of the point I am making that makes it a personal attack.

                      Like I said, I teach debate.

                      I have examples like this on tests all the time.

                      I am using several of your comments from the ricin thread in the test that I gave today, and I have already graded several papers, and no one has had any problems so far picking out your comments as ad hominem attacks.

                      A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

                      A makes claim B;
                      there is something objectionable about A,
                      therefore claim B is false.

                      You suggest I have NO GOOD reason to make the assertion that I do - you suggest that I am arguing a fact with no basis, when in fact I have provided, in 2 threads, probably 10 differing links to document my assertions that ricin is a WMD. That's a personal attack.

                      And your statement about what I identify as a personal attack and how I identify it? "And disagreeing with your patently false statement means one is making a personal attack--merely because you disagree?  That's stupid."

                      It WOULD be stupid to call something a personal attack simply because someone disagreed with you. But there is no basis for saying that I did that. I have NEVER done that, and would not do it. I honor the truth and respect facts way too much to do that.

                      The fact that you made that assertion when there is no basis for saying so makes it a personal attack. The fact that you assert that I did something stupid, that I did something that is illogical, RATHER than pointing out (or trying to point out, since you could not ACTUALLY point it out in this example, since I did NOT do it) the errors in my actual argument, makes it a personal attack. It was an attack on me rather than an attack on my argument. That makes it a personal attack - and ad hominem attack. In the ricin is a WMD argument above, you would have to point out how each of the examples I provided did not in fact document that ricin is a WMD, and provide links yourself that documented that ricin is not a WMD in order to attack my argument. Instead of attacking my argument, you attacked me. That makes it an ad hominem attack.

                      Really. It does.

                      And, yet again, you can continue to dig your hole like this, and if you continue to do so, I will continue to explain how your arguments do not hold water. I will continue to point out your ad hominem attacks. At this point, all you are doing is piling dirt upon yourself though.

                      ...but not your own facts.

                      by slouise217 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:41:09 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Are you autistic? (none)
                        Quoting slouise217:

                        "It WOULD be stupid to call something a personal attack simply because someone disagreed with you."

                        and

                        "And continuing to argue that it IS NOT a WMD simply shows that you are making personal attacks."

                        To paraphrase the latter quote:  disagreeing with me  is, simply, making a personal attack.

                        Your self-centeredness, perseverative behaviour, lack of social grace, and obsession with minutiae to the exclusion of the big picture makes me wonder--do you have a diagnosis?

                        "This machine kills fascists"--words on Woody Guthrie's guitar

                        by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:53:15 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  slouise (none)
                        You lied. You said you had not attacked anyone except for a troll. I pointed out the attack you made on Old Left Good Left.

                        I pointed out where others saw your comments as making an attack on another kossack.

                        I agree with Old Left. You really need a diagnosis. You should seek help. I feel sorry for you at this point and will not trouble you or respond or even bother to read any thing else you write in this diary. So write as long as you want here. It'll go unread.

                        What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable.

                        by Carnacki on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:01:16 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It's still really sad (none)

                          This is yet again another logical fallacy.

                          I did NOT make personal attacks against him.

                          He self-identified himself as a jackass with his behavior. I pointed that behavior out.

                          Calling a liar a liar is not name calling, as I said.

                          Calling John Wayne Gacy a murderer is not name calling.

                          Calling someone who makes repeated personal attacks, and repeatedly fails to understand how deep a hole they are digging for themselves, even when it is explained to them over and over again, is a jackass.

                          I did NOT simply call anyone a jackass. I explained why he was one, and documented why I said what I said. A personal attack is attacking the person and NOT their message.

                          If you cannot understand the difference between attacking the person and not their message (what that poster did) and attacking their message and coming to conclusions AFTER attacking their message (what I did) then it's likely a good thing for you to stop reading my posts.

                          Feel free.

                          But there's a vast difference between the two.

                          It's a personal attack when one attacks the person and not their message.

                          It's not a personal attack when one attacks the message and then draws conclusions after that.

                          ...but not your own facts.

                          by slouise217 on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 12:51:13 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Old Left Good Left (none)
                  My favorite is when slouise claimed ricin is a WMD because the WMD team from Fort Detrick was used. That's like saying a cat in a tree is a fire because the fire department came to get the tree out. LOL.

                  What object is served by this circle of misery and violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable.

                  by Carnacki on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:18:07 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site