What is An American?

[Anathema]

Emp, please read Edrics post. There's nothing scary in it ;)

[zamboe]

I fail to see where is wrong to quote someone else remarks and use it in a signature.

Taking out of context ? , not always.

People are smart enough to realize if it was taken out to context or not. Most of the time 3-5 words are pretty much enough to explain something.

What's more is that when the majority of people/readers have understood one particular remark in the very same way, it's obviously because the poster was trying to make that exact point, not most of the people can be wrong at the very same time.

[emprworm]

I fail to see where is wrong to quote someone else remarks and use it in a signature.

Taking out of context ? , not always.

People are smart enough to realize if it was taken out to context or not. Most of the time 3-5 words are pretty much enough to explain something.

What's more is that when the majority of people/readers have understood one particular remark in the very same way, it's obviously because the poster was trying to make that exact point, not most of the people can be wrong at the very same time.

it depends on your audience. the comment was made in reference to civillians knowing the quality/merits of government intelligence to justify war in iraq. Civililians do not own reconnaisance satellites (that I know of) and have no clue what they are talking about when they say "there is no evidence" because they do not know. that was the context of the remark, but when you speak to an audience who's primary disposition is hostility, they will find things like that and snip them out. The "majority" in this case are all people who hate Bush and/or dislike me, and do not support the war in Iraq. It is no wonder they would all "agree" as to what it meant.

Even though I clarified the remark, I guess that means nothing.

it is not wrong to make fun of someone in your sig and mis-represent what they say. It is childish, though, but not wrong.

[zamboe]

I fail to see where is wrong to quote someone else remarks and use it in a signature.

Taking out of context ? , not always.

People are smart enough to realize if it was taken out to context or not. Most of the time 3-5 words are pretty much enough to explain something.

What's more is that when the majority of people/readers have understood one particular remark in the very same way, it's obviously because the poster was trying to make that exact point, not most of the people can be wrong at the very same time.

it depends on your audience. the comment was made in reference to civillians knowing the quality/merits of government intelligence to justify war in iraq. Civililians do not own reconnaisance satellites (that I know of) and have no clue what they are talking about when they say "there is no evidence" because they do not know. that was the context of the remark, but when you speak to an audience who's primary disposition is hostility, they will find things like that and snip them out. The "majority" in this case are all people who hate Bush and/or dislike me, and do not support the war in Iraq. It is no wonder they would all "agree" as to what it meant.

Even though I clarified the remark, I guess that means nothing.

it is not wrong to make fun of someone in your sig and mis-represent what they say. It is childish, though, but not wrong.

I was not taking any special remark you posted, I was trying to make a more generalized point.

However, since you are taking that special remark, several posters if I remember correctly including Nyarlathotep, Nema Fakei, myself and others felt somehow insulted for that, I don't think we were wrong in understanding it, you wrote something that was insulting. Probably you didn't mean to, but you did it. I'd hope an inmediately clarification (without any request) and an apologize for that. In my opinion you made a mistake by writing something you didn't exactly mean, instead of waiting for a request of clarification, you should have taken the initiative and clarify it and apologize for that.

Childish ? I don't agree.

It just show an opinion of how other people see you, it might look childish to you but not to everybody else.

[Nyarlathotep]

it depends on your audience. the comment was made in reference to civillians knowing the quality/merits of government intelligence to justify war in iraq. Civililians do not own reconnaisance satellites (that I know of) and have no clue what they are talking about when they say "there is no evidence" because they do not know. that was the context of the remark, but when you speak to an audience who's primary disposition is hostility, they will find things like that and snip them out. The "majority" in this case are all people who hate Bush and/or dislike me, and do not support the war in Iraq. It is no wonder they would all "agree" as to what it meant.

Even though I clarified the remark, I guess that means nothing.

it is not wrong to make fun of someone in your sig and mis-represent what they say. It is childish, though, but not wrong.

Uhm, the part about Majority, aren't you just there refering that people who hate Bush or dislike you are ignorant ? I appologize immidiately if that isn't what you meant. However, some people may read it like that.

[emprworm]

Uhm, the part about Majority, aren't you just there refering that people who hate Bush or dislike you are ignorant ? I appologize immidiately if that isn't what you meant. However, some people may read it like that.

no problem, let me clarify what I meant. The entire meaning and purpose of the statement (which some people mis-interpreted- I am not always clear in what I say) means that civillians do not generally have access to intelligence information. This is in the hands of governments. The civillian population in general knows nothing of Iraq intelligence except what is released to the biased media. Majority means everyone- all civillian, whether pro or anti-iraq.

[Anathema]

I see, and the media is biased the moment it doesn't kiss Bush ass. The media is supposed to criticise governments.

And since Bush isn't showing any evidence of Iraqi nukes, the evidence must be overwelming ::)

[emprworm]

I see, and the media is biased the moment it doesn't kiss Bush ass. The media is supposed to criticise governments.

And since Bush isn't showing any evidence of Iraqi nukes, the evidence must be overwelming ::)

i think it is better worded: the media is supposed to be able to criticize governments. it does not have to.

[Anathema]

But once it is able too, yet doesn't seize the opportunity to question government decisions when they have the chance, then the media is biased.

[emprworm]

Childish ? I don't agree.

It just show an opinion of how other people see you, it might look childish to you but not to everybody else.

this is an informal forum. we communicate off-the-cuff in here (at least I do, can't speak for other though, but I am assuming its probably true).

Have you ever had clear thoughts in your head that you are expressing in writing that might not come out objectively representing what you were thinking?

I post a lot in this forum. I probably have the largest amount of Text-Per-Post ratio of anyone here. I type fast. very fast. I literally type out what I think ---as i think it.

Now, sometimes I post something that isn't clear to others. The normal cause of action is to ask me to clarify, which I am always happy to do. In this case, it wasn't done- it went right into someone's sig for no other purpose then to poke fun of me. What other purpose is there? I blocked him and he wanted to get me back, that is the only reasonable explanation I can see. When you block someone, you cant see what they post but u can see their sig. So he knows I can read his sig.

Childish? Most definately. It is nothing more than playground name-calling. "Nya-nya-nay you are a poophead".

Or can you please enlighten me otherwise: what mature reason can their be to lift someone's quote out of context even though I clarified it and put it in their sig for the sole purpose to make them look bad? How is this mature behavior?

[zamboe]

Childish? Most definately. It is nothing more than playground name-calling. "Nya-nya-nay you are a poophead".

Or can you please enlighten me otherwise: what mature reason can their be to lift someone's quote out of context even though I clarified it and put it in their sig for the sole purpose to make them look bad? How is this mature behavior?

I wish I had an answer for that. Because there is no.

Maturity and Childish are non objective concepts, therefore it depends on everyone else opinion.

[emprworm]

I wish I had an answer for that. Because there is no.

Maturity and Childish are non objective concepts, therefore it depends on everyone else opinion.

allright i can understand that. I'll reword my statement:

It is my perception that the action is childish and not condusive to civility.

[Dunenewt]

Well, actually it was mainly the Soviets. They were the ones who won the war in Europe, along with some help from the western powers... But let's not get into that... (besides, the USA was the one who won the war in the Pacific)

It wasn't mainly the Soviets - if it wasn't for the British the whole world would be under the control of Nazi Germany

[emprworm]

Hitler did not fall because of "mainly" any particular army. it was "mainly' that he had too many fronts to fight on. it was fully a combined effort for soviets & the west. The US contributed to bringing them down. And I need to mention that the US ended up being the country that rebuilt germany after the other guys went home.

[Dunenewt]

I wasn't arguing with you. What I mean't was if UK agreed to the peace deal that Germany offered we would have stopped giving aid to Russia and the main reason for USA going into war was to help UK. They also had a lot of pro-Germans

[Edric O]

Well, Emprworm, if it means so much to you... I'll change my sig. But be more careful how you say things.

Wait a minute... DAMN IT! The "change profile" button won't work! Grrr... Please tell Emprworm I'll change my sig as soon as I can.

Dunenewt:

if it wasn't for the British the whole world would be under the control of Nazi Germany

Yes, I agree. I only meant that the Soviets took the brunt of the Nazi onslaught. However, without the heroic British resistence that weakened Hitler, they most likely would not have been able to make it. I believe a lot of us owe our freedom to Winston Churchill and the people who supported him.

"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

- Winston Churchill

[Dunenewt]

For that you are coming of my blocked list!

EDIT:Although it was more than resistance

[Edric O]

On the North African front, yes. Montgomery brilliantly defended Egypt and pushed back Rommel into Tunisia. But this was only a secondary front throughout the war. The British home front and the Russian eastern front were the ones that decided the fate of Europe.

Edit: Btw, I'm thinking of writing a short story called "Stalingrad"... you know, the first great Russian victory, battle who marked the turning point of the war. Also one of the most ferocious battles in modern history.

[SurlyPIG]

Emprworm, let me make you an offer of peace. If that pic offends you so much, allow me to edit my post and remove it. (you can't edit posts from locked topics)

Why would you bother? Obviously, you don't like emprworm. And I don't think he cares much for you either. Have you ever agreed on anything?

Then we should talk and settle this problem like adults, not like children hiding in a corner to stop hearing the other side's opinions. You see, I am a pacifist. I believe we can solve this by negotiation.

You see what I mean? In this very post where you ask him to discuss this you say he's a child hiding in a corner. He's already solved this in his own way. His solution was blocking you, and it's obviously working for him. If you aren't satisfied with that, well, tough. It's not up to you. You should have thought about that before making fun of him in your sig.

[emprworm]

ok well i can see this thread has gotten WAAAY off topic over the last 2 pages. its not even remotely what it was supposed to be. Turned into WWII threat on page 2 so ill lock it and we can talk about WWII in another thread.