So Liberals...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I am not even gpoing to try to retend to be an expert regarding this whole sordid topic.  It seems to me, if I recall a miltary history calss in my distant past, that far greater than 165 tons of incendiery bombs were used by the allied bomber fleets.  he number of 165 tons I believecpomes from he bombing missions in March folliwng those of the 13th through 15th of February.  If my recollection is correct, than Kurt Gpedl is wrong, kind of.  It would appear he is understating the use of bombs on Deresden during that (in retrospect) ill advised raid.

 

Flame away, again, I am not presenting myself as any kind of expert, just someone who hopes something like this episode never has to be repeated in my lifetime.

748496[/snapback]

 

I'm not going to flame you. You're actually right - even more, you actually understand what you don't know, which puts you on a much higher plane of self-awareness than KurtGoebbels.

[Cheeseburger in Paradise]

The bombing or this thread?

748518[/snapback]

 

Both, but I am pretty sure we will see this thread, in some form, repeated a number of times on PPP.

[Cheeseburger in Paradise]

I am not even gpoing to try to retend to be an expert regarding this whole sordid topic.  It seems to me, if I recall a miltary history calss in my distant past, that far greater than 165 tons of incendiery bombs were used by the allied bomber fleets.  he number of 165 tons I believecpomes from he bombing missions in March folliwng those of the 13th through 15th of February.  If my recollection is correct, than Kurt Gpedl is wrong, kind of.  It would appear he is understating the use of bombs on Deresden during that (in retrospect) ill advised raid.

 

Flame away, again, I am not presenting myself as any kind of expert, just someone who hopes something like this episode never has to be repeated in my lifetime.

748496[/snapback]

 

My apologies there are more typo's in that post than you would find in several of F-FS's / Pyrite Gal's. I'll try to do better next time. Talk about lack of attention to detail!

[KurtGodel77]

Actually, no it doesn't. I have to side with the monkey on this one. You are trying to use the result to determine the intent. Look up historical revisionism (or negationism). Things does not work that way. They never have and never will.

What makes you qualified to determine discrepancies between stated purpose and intended purpose? Your opinion of what you want the purpose to be in this situation?

748397[/snapback]

Thanks for posting your views in a logical way, without resorting to personal attacks. In general, I've found that people's actions speak more clearly and honestly about their underlying intentions than their words do. This is especially true when their self-interest is at odds with honest communication.

 

In this case, there are obvious reasons why the Allied governments wouldn't want to come out and say they intended to kill a bunch of German civilians. However, I've read propaganda produced by Allied governments telling the German people they are collectively guilty for the crimes the Nazis committed. Collective punishment is a natural extension of this line of reasoning; and certainly played a role in the Allied decision to engage in extermination bombings.

[KurtGodel77]

I am not even gpoing to try to retend to be an expert regarding this whole sordid topic.  It seems to me, if I recall a miltary history calss in my distant past, that far greater than 165 tons of incendiery bombs were used by the allied bomber fleets.  he number of 165 tons I believecpomes from he bombing missions in March folliwng those of the 13th through 15th of February.  If my recollection is correct, than Kurt Gpedl is wrong, kind of.  It would appear he is understating the use of bombs on Deresden during that (in retrospect) ill advised raid.

 

Flame away, again, I am not presenting myself as any kind of expert, just someone who hopes something like this episode never has to be repeated in my lifetime.

You may be right about this. I got the 165 tons figure from Wikipedia. The authors of that article seemed eager to downplay the significance of the Dresden bombing; and using a low figure for the incendiary boming tonnage would certainly play into that.

[erynthered]

I got $20 its Buff65? Any takers?

[Alaska Darin]

You may be right about this.  I got the 165 tons figure from Wikipedia. 

748633[/snapback]

[KurtGodel77]

And yet...you did.    I explained it quite clearly: you're confusing the biological and sociological definitions of "race".  Maybe I used too many big words, so let's try this: "Race" can mean more than one thing.  It depends on the context.  You don't even know what context you're using it in.

Are you deliberately being blockheaded, or does it just come naturally to you? The definitions of race I found were clearly biological definitions. When using the term race, I've always intended it in its biological sense. I see no justification for you bringing the sociological definition of race into this discussion at all. That definition lacks relevance, and has served to confuse the discussion.

  Unreal.  I am a published physicist.  I already described how Schroeder - who is a theologian who has published nothing in physics in his entire career - was factually incorrect.

You don't get it, do you? Your original contention was that if you and Schroeder were to disagree about physics, we should assume you're right, because you've published papers. This, despite the fact Schroeder has a PhD in physics from MIT! Your failure to acknowledge that others may also have the right to participate in the discussion is one of the many reasons I've concluded you're about as arrogant as they come.

 

Suppose you were to engage Schroeder in an intelligent debate regarding his theory and your objections to it. Maybe he'd argue that your objections would disappear if the observer came into the picture a fraction of a second after the Big Bang began. Or perhaps he'd find some other way to intelligently respond to these objections. You have not, as far as I know, read his book; nor have you mentioned sending him these objections of yours in an effort to get him to respond. That's fine, but you haven't earned the right to act as though there's zero possibility of his having an intelligent refutation.

Ah, irony.  Your ideology blinds you to facts.  You wouldn't even know one if it bit you in the ass.

One fact which has been biting me on the behind--repeatedly, I might add--is that you're intolerant, egotistical, and unwilling to have real discussions. You've often told me my view of something is incorrect, without articulating the alternative view you embrace. On the one hand this is prudent--if you put your own views out there I'd be able to expose them to the same level of scrutiny you subject my views to. On the other hand, it's very inconsiderate of the other people who may be reading this thread. They perhaps want to know not just that your stance differs from mine, they want to know in what you actually believe. Moreover, it does make it hard to move the discussion forward when your only response to anything I write is, "You don't know what you're talking about; you're an idiot."

 

Perhaps you have zero interest in moving the discussion forward, and that's fine. But the others reading this thread are getting increasingly annoyed with the direction things have taken, and rightly so. It's time to start doing something differently.

[Alaska Darin]

But the others reading this thread are getting increasingly annoyed with the direction things have taken, and rightly so.

748681[/snapback]

Would that be your minions? I can tell you, from the PMs I've been getting, that no one is annoyed with the direction. Quite the opposite. They're genuinely enjoying watching you flounder, all the while quoting Wikipedia as if it was written at the right hand of the Supreme Being.

[X. Benedict]

Would that be your minions?  I can tell you, from the PMs I've been getting, that no one is annoyed with the direction.  Quite the opposite.  They're genuinely enjoying watching you flounder, all the while quoting Wikipedia as if it was written at the right hand of the Supreme Being.

748988[/snapback]

More properly referred to as the Wikideity.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

More properly referred to as the Wikideity.

749013[/snapback]

 

 

1 In the beginning The Wikideity created the internet.

 

2 And the internet was without content, and void; and darkness was upon the face web browsers. And the Spirit of Al Gore moved within the tubes.

 

3 And The Wikideity said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 

4 And The Wikideity saw the light, that it was good: and The Wikideity divided the light from the darkness.

 

5 And The Wikideity called the light Wikipedia, and the darkness he called Google...

[Chilly]

1 In the beginning The Wikideity created the internet.

 

2 And the internet was without content, and void; and darkness was upon the face web browsers. And the Spirit of Al Gore moved within the tubes.

 

3 And The Wikideity said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 

4 And The Wikideity saw the light, that it was good: and The Wikideity divided the light from the darkness.

 

5 And The Wikideity called the light Wikipedia, and the darkness he called Google...

749133[/snapback]

 

So, is Wikideity really just an Al Gore alias? Or did the Wikidiety send his son, Al Gore, down unto the Earth to suffer for our internet tresspasses?

[X. Benedict]

1 In the beginning The Wikideity created the internet.

Or was that "internets", the great thing about the WikiDeity is that our Lord can be revised by any worshipper.

 

 

2 And the internet was without content, and void; and darkness was upon the face web browsers. And the Spirit of Al Gore moved within the tubes.

 

Every religion needs a prophet

 

3 And The Wikideity said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 

4 And The Wikideity saw the light, that it was good: and The Wikideity divided the light from the darkness.

 

5 And The Wikideity called the light Wikipedia, and the darkness he called Google...

749133[/snapback]

Google is the Anti-Wiki

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Or was that "internets", the great thing about the WikiDeity is that our Lord can be revised by any worshipper.

Every religion needs a prophet

Google is the Anti-Wiki

749207[/snapback]

 

And although the internet was created over a period of decades...if you misuse relativity and ignore all other disciplines of physics, one can prove that the Wikideity actually created the internet in six days...

[GG]

And although the internet was created over a period of decades...if you misuse relativity and ignore all other disciplines of physics, one can prove that the Wikideity actually created the internet in six days...

749231[/snapback]

 

Then who created the pipes? Methuzelah Stevens?

[KurtGodel77]

Would that be your minions?  I can tell you, from the PMs I've been getting, that no one is annoyed with the direction.  Quite the opposite.  They're genuinely enjoying watching you flounder, all the while quoting Wikipedia as if it was written at the right hand of the Supreme Being.

748988[/snapback]

You really sounded more mature than usual, at least up until you mentioned Wikipedia. You'd have been better off keeping your statements vague, and acting as if I'd done something far more foolish than looking up a couple of figures from Wikipedia.

 

In our discussion, CTM made the following observations:

- The Soviets didn't engage in genocide against the Germans

- FDR's Dresden bombing was a legitimate military operation

- A book which describes the intersection between physics and Genesis is fundamentally mistaken

 

I can easily imagine there are those who would welcome a defense of FDR and Stalin, while opposing a monotheistic work. These people are perhaps the ones who sent you those PMs. However, I noticed a few comments on this thread itself expressing annoyance at the direction the conversation had taken. I felt it would have been a more productive discussion had CTM spent less time calling me names, and more time articulating his point of view. Moreover, it wouldn't have hurt had CTM shown occassional flashes of--not of humility, because that's asking too much--but at least of something other than complete arrogance. This is especially true regarding topics about which he knows little, such as FDR's warm feelings toward Soviet communism.

[Alaska Darin]

You really sounded more mature than usual, at least up until you mentioned Wikipedia.  You'd have been better off keeping your statements vague, and acting as if I'd done something far more foolish than looking up a couple of figures from Wikipedia. 

 

In our discussion, CTM made the following observations:

- The Soviets didn't engage in genocide against the Germans

- FDR's Dresden bombing was a legitimate military operation

- A book which describes the intersection between physics and Genesis is fundamentally mistaken

 

I can easily imagine there are those who would welcome a defense of FDR and Stalin, while opposing a monotheistic work.  These people are perhaps the ones who sent you those PMs.  However, I noticed a few comments on this thread itself expressing annoyance at the direction the conversation had taken.  I felt it would have been a more productive discussion had CTM spent less time calling me names, and more time articulating his point of view.  Moreover, it wouldn't have hurt had CTM shown occassional flashes of--not of humility, because that's asking too much--but at least of something other than complete arrogance.  This is especially true regarding topics about which he knows little, such as FDR's warm feelings toward Soviet communism.

750576[/snapback]

Keep trying.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

In our discussion, CTM made the following observations:

- The Soviets didn't engage in genocide against the Germans

- FDR's Dresden bombing was a legitimate military operation

- A book which describes the intersection between physics and Genesis is fundamentally mistaken

750576[/snapback]

 

You forgot my statements to the effect that human races are not subspecies. And I was correct with all of them.

 

And it wasn't "FDR's" Dresden bombing, you fool. Jesus Christ, you can't even get that simple fact straight, and you think you know something about it.

[Cheeseburger in Paradise]

Keep trying. 

750596[/snapback]

Typical, well thought-out, AD response. Don't strain yourself with your critical thinking big guy.

[Alaska Darin]

Typical, well thought-out, AD response.  Don't strain yourself with your critical thinking big guy.

750648[/snapback]

Goebbels got exactly the response he deserves - as will you. Thanks for playing, hippy.