Quote from traderNik:
Oh, okay. I didn't think you would admit that. You have been dead wrong so many times here, and your assertions have been exposed as such so many times, and your intellectual dishonesty has been proved so many times, that it's clear at this point that you don't have the self-confidence to admit when you're opponent has a valid point, as I have just done in my debate with hap.
The OWNAGE CONTINUES!!!!! I own you because I am able to concede good points that my opponents make, and you are too fucking pinheaded to do the same.
By the way... you mentioned that the statements and opinions of ET members are worthless. If this is the case, could you give us some guidance as to how we should understand this bizarre bit of information, given below (please pay special attention to the boldface text)?
Profile For ZZZzzzzzzz
Date Registered: 06-14-04
Status:
Total Posts: 12112 (16.19 posts per day)
Uh, yes, you were wrong.Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Uhhh, no. I was not "wrong."
I was not "confused" in the slightest, and your asserting as such is pure cowardice, Z. I'm trying to keep things civil, and now you, having been utterly demonstrated to be wrong, turn to ad hominem.I admit that hapaboy was confused as to the salient point I was making regarding his comments and Clarke's reasons for his OP ED piece, so now he has clarification, and if he thinks he "wins" anything with the clarification, that is his choice.
Unfortunately for Clarke, and your agenda, he completely fails to mention the capture of the 2002 Bali resort Al Qaeda bomber via the program, or the arrest of the Brooklyn resident who was laundering funds for Al Qaeda. These clearly show that the program was successful at some level. You, or Clarke, are free to debate the level of success, but the arrests are irrefutable proof that the program did what it was designed to do - capture terrorists by tracking their financial transactions. Clarke's total omission of these arrests, which completely contradict his assertion that the terrorists, in your own words, "were not damaged due to the ineffectiveness" of the program, is disingenuous to say the least.In my opinion, which continues unabated, hap's agenda was to demonstrate how the NYT actions somehow endangered the efforts to control and confront terrorism.
Clarke's agenda, was to show how rendered moot the point of the opposition to the NYT's article was, as his expert opinion is that the secret spying on financial records was not really a secret to the those terrorists, and as such they were not damaged due to the innefectiveness of the "secret spying."
See above.In arguments like these which are making an overall case, it is the agenda, the main point that matters--the reason for the argument itself, not the facts that a case is built upon. People can agree on certain facts and opinions, but reach very different conclusions, which is the case with the NYT article by Clarke and Hap's position on the impact of the NYT's article.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
...such juvenille behavior ...
Quote from hapaboy:
Uh, yes, you were wrong.
Your statement as quoted was proven to be woefully inaccurate.
I was not "confused" in the slightest, and your asserting as such is pure cowardice, Z. I'm trying to keep things civil, and now you, having been utterly demonstrated to be wrong, turn to ad hominem.
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
-Socrates
This is the last time I'm going to do this, because I tire of your antics and growing animosity:
Your statement, using the phrase "At ALL," clearly is not supported by Clarke's article, in which he is IN AGREEMENT with many of my points.
Any reasonable person, having read your "AT ALL" statement, would also conclude that you were incorrect.
Unfortunately for Clarke, and your agenda, he completely fails to mention the capture of the 2002 Bali resort Al Qaeda bomber via the program, or the arrest of the Brooklyn resident who was laundering funds for Al Qaeda. These clearly show that the program was successful at some level. You, or Clarke, are free to debate the level of success, but the arrests are irrefutable proof that the program did what it was designed to do - capture terrorists by tracking their financial transactions. Clarke's total omission of these arrests, which completely contradict his assertion that the terrorists, in your own words, "were not damaged due to the ineffectiveness" of the program, is disingenuous to say the least.
See above.
As for "the main point," your statement did not differentiate your perceived "salient" or "main" points. No, you said Clarke's article does not agree with my "take" "AT ALL," which is a sweeping statement that is inclusive of "ALL" points, "salient," "relevant," "main" or not.
Again, feel free to rephrase your statement and insert "salient, "relevant," "main point" or whatever other clauses you choose, and I'll be happy to debate you on those, provided you are able to rein in your animosity for having been proven wrong.
If you choose to continue this discussion, please do not continue with ad hominem, and try to keep things civil.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
I am glad you are no longer going to do this, as you apparently keep trying to "win" something, accomplish something, where there is nothing to win nor accomplish.
More ad hominem. Typical.Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Yes, you were obviously confused at what I wrote, thinking I meant anything but what I have discussed as the salient point, as the current tangent you are going off on is fruitless, and will accomplish nothing as relates to this thread.
Again, noone is to blame as there was no confusion. Your "further clarification" was anything but, just meaningless attempts to make excuses.Please note, that I am not saying who is to blame for your confusion, but from my perspective, you confused very much what I was commenting on. If my further clarification helped you understand the point I was making, that is great, we end up in the same place...
Likewise. I prefer that my debate opponents not have to resort to slander and ad hominem when their argument collapses.p.s. I have zero interest in debating you....
Quote from hapaboy:
More ad hominem. Typical.
Anyway, nothing to be confused about. "At all" says everything. I recommend that in the future you refrain from such all-encompassing statements if they are not what you mean.
Again, noone is to blame as there was no confusion. Your "further clarification" was anything but, just meaningless attempts to make excuses.
Likewise. I prefer that my debate opponents not have to resort to slander and ad hominem when their argument collapses.
It might be decades-old, but it still caught the Bali resort bomber and a financier on American soil.Quote from Ricter:
Dear enemy,
When we attack, we'll begin with artillery fire and/or air strikes.
Wow, big revelation into tactics there. Going after financials is decades old now.
Quote from hap:
Your "further clarification" was anything but, just meaningless attempts to make excuses.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Well, there you have it.
No need to respond further, nothing at all to say further, is there.