I was misled

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

See, Bill, this is not the first time Mark and I have discussed this
issue, and it always comes down the same way.

Mark hems and haws about his views, throws down the PC version, then
comes back at some point and gives away the real game. Just like in
this thread.

Heh heh heh. I didn't have to change my position at all

Of course you didn't. I'm sure this issue will come up again when you
"slip up" next time.
--
Jonesy

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

[snip]


Mark wrote:
Y'know, this may come as news to Jonesy, but I have some bad news for
him. I don't think he knows what "news" means... (I suggest
www.dictionary.com for a starting place...

LMAO!

See? After all this ****ing and moaning and whining about it, you go
and prove my point for me.

Precious.

So you HAVE figured out what "news" means (and doesn't mean). Don't
worry - not everyone learns the easy stuff the first few tries.

I guess, then, my real problem is with gutless folks who just can't
admit how they feel in the first damn place.

Well at least you've gotten the first point down it seems.

Had it in mind all along. Like I said elsewhere, this issue will come
up again...

Grow some stones and come back and talk about your mealy-mouthed
defense of the Shrub's Torture Machine. Look up the Sermon on the
Mount first, but be careful your head doesn't explode from cognitive
dissonance. Read the whole thing, not just the parts that happen to
agree with your political hero's stance on issues.

Show me where I "defended" the torture.

Go back up the thread and respond there. Copy-paste-quote is not
necessary.

It was a mistake on almost
every level

Hey, we agree. So why even bother trying to make apologies for doing
it?

- but there's been NO (none, nada, zilch) connection back
to the White House

If you consider the SecDef to be part of "the White House," then that
is not entirely true. If you consider only GWB to be "the White
House," then the connection may or may not exist.

so calling it "Shrub's Torture Machine" is wild
conjecture on your part.

Surely, being an avid practitioner, even you can recognize hyperbole
when you see it.

If Rummy ordered it, OK'ed it, knew about it but looked the other way,
then it's up to Shrub to give him the heave-ho. If that's all the
case, and Rummy stays on, then that's an implicit "okey-dokey" on
torture.

--
Jonesy

"S o r n i" wrote in message .. .
Jonesy wrote:
"S o r n i" wrote in message
.. .
Jonesy wrote:

Or maybe I'll call someone out and then cower in a cafe when THEY
actually have the stones to show up.

Wow, again. You call *me* mean-spirited, then throw this in my face?

But...but...you posted BRAGGING about it! And I never said a single word.

It was not meant to be taken that way, but I cannot control how anyone
wishes to spin it. It was an honest account of events, as promised.
Integrity is telling the truth even if it makes you look bad. I'm
saddened that it's not the norm, but I won't compromise for you or
anyone else.

Still, arguing against ad hominem by using ad hominem is not the
epitome of a "class act." One could even say it's "mean-spirited",
right?

On top of that, it is a complete non sequitur. You know, has nothing
to do with anything in this thread. You're a real class act, Bill.

Ah, but it does, because in your reply a few posts down to Mark you mention
his "stones" (or supposed lack thereof). Mean, nasty, choose your own term
for it; I've seldom seen Mark resort to personal attacks.

Then you haven't read them carefully. If you don't see the derisive
tone, then you are just reading it with a rose-colored monitor.

If you don't like my posts, or me personally, or whatever, use your
newsreader in an appropriate manner.

I liked you a lot better when you were friendly and funny.

Like I said, who gives a ****? Nobody forces you to read my drivel,
do they?

Lately you've
been caustic, full of yourself, and WAY too long-winded.

Again, your lack of control is not my problem. In any case, you
complaining about anyone else's USENET posting content is highly
ironic, Mr. Low Signal:Noise.

(But that's just
me; maybe everyone else enjoys your lengthy diatribes on every subject under
the sun.)

LOL. My self-important drivel is easily avoided.

When I was a kid, I was called "contrary"; my mother even said I'd argue
with Jesus Christ Himself. Guess they shamed it out of me, but I just don't
like long, drawn-out arguments any more.

Fine - I'm sure I'll change my posting style *just for you.* Or, you
can learn your newsreader functions. Or how to operate a mouse.

That's why I usually keep it to
"double entendres and puns" -- short and sweet beats mind-numbingly long and
sour (again, just IMO)...

And your opinion is meaningful in what way, again?

Bill "promise to let Mark defend himself from now on, though" S.

A sensible thing. As is avoiding political discussions in cycling
newsgroups.

Ah, ****.
--
Jonesy

Jonesy wrote:
"S o r n i" wrote in message
.. .
Jonesy wrote:
"S o r n i" wrote in message
.. .
Jonesy wrote:

Or maybe I'll call someone out and then cower in a cafe when THEY
actually have the stones to show up.

Wow, again. You call *me* mean-spirited, then throw this in my
face?

But...but...you posted BRAGGING about it! And I never said a single
word.

It was not meant to be taken that way, but I cannot control how anyone
wishes to spin it. It was an honest account of events, as promised.
Integrity is telling the truth even if it makes you look bad. I'm
saddened that it's not the norm, but I won't compromise for you or
anyone else.

I'm way too lazy to go retrieve it, but you were laughing at the other guy
(the one who had the balls to show up and meet you). I, for one, had no
idea of any "promise" to report anything; just don't follow your sagas that
closely.

Judging by the tone you used, I highly doubt you were expecting the reaction
you got (sort of like Tom with his $5 freewheel removal), but again if
you'll recall I never commented at all (until finally provoked, at least in
my mind).

Still, arguing against ad hominem by using ad hominem is not the
epitome of a "class act." One could even say it's "mean-spirited",
right?

First of all, I never claimed to be a class act, but you're right. I was
offended at your abusive tone (toward others and me) lately, and finally
lashed out. I've never liked bullies, and that's how you've been acting
IMO. Sorry.

On top of that, it is a complete non sequitur. You know, has
nothing to do with anything in this thread. You're a real class
act, Bill.

Ah, but it does, because in your reply a few posts down to Mark you
mention his "stones" (or supposed lack thereof). Mean, nasty,
choose your own term for it; I've seldom seen Mark resort to
personal attacks.

Then you haven't read them carefully. If you don't see the derisive
tone, then you are just reading it with a rose-colored monitor.

I've read Mark's posts plenty. While he can flame with the best of them, I
don't recall him EVER resorting to name-calling or personal attacks (FIRST,
at least). You, on the other hand, don't seem content with merely arguing;
you like to insult people (a lot).

If you don't like my posts, or me personally, or whatever, use your
newsreader in an appropriate manner.

I liked you a lot better when you were friendly and funny.

Like I said, who gives a ****? Nobody forces you to read my drivel,
do they?

Lately you've
been caustic, full of yourself, and WAY too long-winded.

Again, your lack of control is not my problem. In any case, you
complaining about anyone else's USENET posting content is highly
ironic, Mr. Low Signal:Noise.

(But that's just
me; maybe everyone else enjoys your lengthy diatribes on every
subject under the sun.)

LOL. My self-important drivel is easily avoided.

When I was a kid, I was called "contrary"; my mother even said I'd
argue with Jesus Christ Himself. Guess they shamed it out of me,
but I just don't like long, drawn-out arguments any more.

Fine - I'm sure I'll change my posting style *just for you.* Or, you
can learn your newsreader functions. Or how to operate a mouse.

Who said anything about YOU?!? Keep on posting however the hell you want.
Other than this thread with Mark, I seldom read the long back & forths (like
you and Dan V. or the current Zaumen and JustThisGuy) because they're so
damned boring. (Like this one is to others, I'm sure!)

That's why I usually keep it to
"double entendres and puns" -- short and sweet beats mind-numbingly
long and sour (again, just IMO)...

And your opinion is meaningful in what way, again?

So why are you kickin' so much then?

Bill "promise to let Mark defend himself from now on, though" S.

A sensible thing. As is avoiding political discussions in cycling
newsgroups.

Now you tell me.

Ah, ****.

Indeed.

Bill "bowing out now; go ahead and get in your last word(sssssssssss " S.

(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote ...

Show me where I "defended" the torture.

Go back up the thread and respond there. Copy-paste-quote is not
necessary.

Translation: I can't come up with a quote.

It was a mistake on almost
every level

Hey, we agree. So why even bother trying to make apologies for doing
it?

Heh heh heh. See above.

- but there's been NO (none, nada, zilch) connection back
to the White House

If you consider the SecDef to be part of "the White House," then that
is not entirely true. If you consider only GWB to be "the White
House," then the connection may or may not exist.

OK then, show me a credible link to the SecDef and we'll go from there
(you seem to be striking out a lot - let's see how you do on this
one).

so calling it "Shrub's Torture Machine" is wild
conjecture on your part.

Surely, being an avid practitioner, even you can recognize hyperbole
when you see it.

If Rummy ordered it, OK'ed it, knew about it but looked the other way,
then it's up to Shrub to give him the heave-ho. If that's all the
case, and Rummy stays on, then that's an implicit "okey-dokey" on
torture.

Like I said, come up with a credible source tying it back to Rumsfield
and we can talk about it. Without that, you're just spreading another
whacko conspiracy theory (that is, everyone in the administration is
an idiot, but they know everything that every one of their millions of
employees is doing every minute of the day).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote ...

Show me where I "defended" the torture.

Go back up the thread and respond there. Copy-paste-quote is not
necessary.

Translation: I can't come up with a quote.

"I figure they were put up to it by an intel puke. Hope they at least
got the info they needed. Maybe that's how we got Saddam, who knows?"

Of course, for the rest of your post, you state that it's wrong.
Which way is it:

1.) The ends justify the means, or,

2.) Morality is absolute.

It was a mistake on almost
every level

Hey, we agree. So why even bother trying to make apologies for doing
it?

Heh heh heh. See above.

Who's laughing now?

- but there's been NO (none, nada, zilch) connection back
to the White House

If you consider the SecDef to be part of "the White House," then that
is not entirely true. If you consider only GWB to be "the White
House," then the connection may or may not exist.

OK then, show me a credible link to the SecDef and we'll go from there
(you seem to be striking out a lot - let's see how you do on this
one).

Above, in the thread, the SecDef is talking to the DOJ about stuff,
and out pops this memo. Smoking gun? No, but it certainly can raise
a few eyebrows amongst those who might question how far our government
might go to extract intel.

I find the DOJ memo credible.

If Rummy ordered it, OK'ed it, knew about it but looked the other way,
then it's up to Shrub to give him the heave-ho. If that's all the
case, and Rummy stays on, then that's an implicit "okey-dokey" on
torture.

Like I said, come up with a credible source tying it back to Rumsfield
and we can talk about it.

I did already, upthread. And here.

Either torture is wrong, no matter what the outcome, or it's OK in
some circumstances.

Pick one.

Then, tell me that it's just not possible that the SecDef or even the
POTUS gave an "OK" to it. Current evidence suggests it goes higher
than just a few folks in-theatre.
--

Jonesy

(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote ...

Show me where I "defended" the torture.

Go back up the thread and respond there. Copy-paste-quote is not
necessary.

Translation: I can't come up with a quote.

"I figure they were put up to it by an intel puke. Hope they at least
got the info they needed. Maybe that's how we got Saddam, who knows?"

Of course, for the rest of your post, you state that it's wrong.
Which way is it:

1.) The ends justify the means, or,

2.) Morality is absolute.

3.) You have preconceived notions OR poor reading comprehension.

I said it was bad on just about every level. Hoping that at least
something GOOD came out of it is QUITE different than justifying it.
If a cyclist is killed at a dangerous intersection, I can certainly
hope that they'll redesign the intersection as a result without
supporting killing cyclists, don't you think?

It was a mistake on almost
every level

Hey, we agree. So why even bother trying to make apologies for doing
it?

Heh heh heh. See above.

Who's laughing now?

Me. Thanks for asking.

- but there's been NO (none, nada, zilch) connection back
to the White House

If you consider the SecDef to be part of "the White House," then that
is not entirely true. If you consider only GWB to be "the White
House," then the connection may or may not exist.

OK then, show me a credible link to the SecDef and we'll go from there
(you seem to be striking out a lot - let's see how you do on this
one).

Above, in the thread, the SecDef is talking to the DOJ about stuff,
and out pops this memo. Smoking gun? No, but it certainly can raise
a few eyebrows amongst those who might question how far our government
might go to extract intel.

OK, so we agree - no proof. Next subject....

I find the DOJ memo credible.

If Rummy ordered it, OK'ed it, knew about it but looked the other way,
then it's up to Shrub to give him the heave-ho. If that's all the
case, and Rummy stays on, then that's an implicit "okey-dokey" on
torture.

Like I said, come up with a credible source tying it back to Rumsfield
and we can talk about it.

I did already, upthread. And here.

You haven't posted squat that backs up your point - there's certainly
nothing in this post (I haven't trimmed it either). C'mon... surely
you can cite the actual memo that serves as the smoking gun... you
couldn't be imagining all this could you?

Either torture is wrong, no matter what the outcome, or it's OK in
some circumstances.

Pick one.

Errrr, it's wrong.

Then, tell me that it's just not possible that the SecDef or even the
POTUS gave an "OK" to it. Current evidence suggests it goes higher
than just a few folks in-theatre.

You'd like to think so, but you don't have a clue. What if I started
suggesting it was your idea? Wouldn't that be the same as trying to
pin it on anyone else without the vaguest hint of any proof?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message


[...]

The torture that has occurred puts the Bush II administration's prior
vehement opposition to the ICC in a new light, does it not?

Bush opposed the International Cricket Council? Geez, 'muricans don't even
play the game!

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Mark Hickey wrote:

...
I said it was bad on just about every level. Hoping that at least
something GOOD came out of it is QUITE different than justifying it.
If a cyclist is killed at a dangerous intersection, I can certainly
hope that they'll redesign the intersection as a result without
supporting killing cyclists, don't you think?...

On this basis some good has come from the US torturing prisoners. The US
had to back down on the renewal of UN Security Council Resolution
1422/1487, which would have exempted participants in UN peacekeeping
missions from investigation and prosecution by the International
Criminal Court (ICC) if they were from a country (such as the US) that
had not ratified the Rome Statute.

The US government can no longer use the argument that all prosecutions
of US personnel by the ICC would be politically motivated, since blatant
violations of international human rights standards have been committed
by US service personnel.

The torture that has occurred puts the Bush II administration's prior
vehement opposition to the ICC in a new light, does it not?

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

"DRS" wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message


[...]

The torture that has occurred puts the Bush II administration's prior
vehement opposition to the ICC in a new light, does it not?

Bush opposed the International Cricket Council? Geez, 'muricans don't even
play the game!

But to be fair, there is something positive to say about cricket...
it's the only game that makes baseball look exciting!

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame