|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
What is native or are you just looking to insult someone. |
He (EFLT) is just looking to insult someone, but notice how he hasn't returned to back up the assertions he has made (and insulted people in the process of making them).
He's been posting on other threads, just not here...
ditto for RS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EFLT, I just read what you wrote about me in that other thread and so naturally came back here expecting a response only to discover that you are still pretending this thread doesn't exist.
Sad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
I guess you don't read what you write either. 
You offered an opinion that the headline of the thread was correct. You made your argument based on that one sentence in the article. |
No, what I did was point out the simple fact that you were either lying, dissembling, or just not smart enough to understand basic English. I still have not offered an opinion. That you can't understand that simply proves my point about your lack of comprehnsion skills.
You are trying to present assumptions you have made as fact of what I have intended. Stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
EFLT, I just read what you wrote about me in that other thread and so naturally came back here expecting a response only to discover that you are still pretending this thread doesn't exist.
Sad. |
Bulsa, you're acting like an infant. I don't give a shit about discussing the Arab/Israeli conflict. But you insist - what, because you are god, you twit? - I must??
You still can't sort out that Bush's choice of rhetorical style is fully independent of any given issue? I don't really believe you are that stupid, but maybe you should stop while you're ahead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
What about you, RS?
You have the balls to ridicule a typo I've made, do you have the balls to defend your reasoning behind your naming of this thread?
Or are you just going to wait and hope that maybe, somehow, EFTL is able to cover your ass and do your work for you? |
1. There was no intentional or perceived (by me) ridicule on my part as I hope you realize by now.
2. This particular example of my headline writing is quite justifiably open to criticism along with criticism of the journalist himself in this particular case.
| Bucheon Bum wrote: |
Well there is no evidence in the article that indicates the generals mentioned terrorist groups. That is the only line in the entire article that mentions terrorists.
Poor journalism perhaps? |
3. I am very lazy and ALWAYS hope that someone will cover my ass and do my work for me in these political debates. I am a musician and would much rather spend my time working on/playing music. Odd as it may sound, I view posting my contrary opinions as a religious obligation that I would much rather shirk than do if it didn't bother my conscience. As it is, I only do the minimum that I can get away with without feeling guilty.
And so, I always wish that that progressive genius of a debater, ersatzprofessor, would return to serve the cause of humanism so brilliantly. (I know him well enough to realize that he always serves such causes in one venue or another. Just not in this venue currently.)
If I don't p i s s off haters and bigots on a regular basis (seriously, I am NOT referring to you, bulsajo), I don't feel like I doing my religious duty.
Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RSR wrote: |
| Odd as it may sound, I view posting my contrary opinions as a religious obligation that I would much rather shirk than do if it didn't bother my conscience. |
And surely you do this donning the fabled Helm of Mambrino... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| RSR wrote: |
| Odd as it may sound, I view posting my contrary opinions as a religious obligation that I would much rather shirk than do if it didn't bother my conscience. |
And surely you do this donning the fabled Helm of Mambrino... |
Actually, I have more confidence in seat belts than barbers' basins, thanks just the same.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
EFLT, I just read what you wrote about me in that other thread and so naturally came back here expecting a response only to discover that you are still pretending this thread doesn't exist.
Sad. |
Bulsa, you're acting like an infant. I don't give a *beep* about discussing the Arab/Israeli conflict. But you insist - what, because you are god, you twit? - I must??
You still can't sort out that Bush's choice of rhetorical style is fully independent of any given issue? I don't really believe you are that stupid, but maybe you should stop while you're ahead. |
Deflecting yet again, no surprise there.
Holding you accountable to the BS you post here is hardly acting infantile, although it's more or less futile since you obviously are not capable of defending your position on this thread, or any other here for that matter.
All I have been doing in this thread is asking you to prove your assertations on which you have based your insults towards Bucheon Bum and myself, which you have failed to do so at every turn.
Now that is a clear case of you acting like an infant:
You're content to throw out insults and then deflect away from any substantiation when called on your BS.
You are a spin doctor of monsterous proportions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
EFLT, I just read what you wrote about me in that other thread and so naturally came back here expecting a response only to discover that you are still pretending this thread doesn't exist.
Sad. |
Bulsa, you're acting like an infant. I don't give a *beep* about discussing the Arab/Israeli conflict. But you insist - what, because you are god, you twit? - I must??
You still can't sort out that Bush's choice of rhetorical style is fully independent of any given issue? I don't really believe you are that stupid, but maybe you should stop while you're ahead. |
Deflecting yet again, no surprise there.
Holding you accountable to the BS you post here is hardly acting infantile, although it's more or less futile since you obviously are not capable of defending your position on this thread, or any other here for that matter.
All I have been doing in this thread is asking you to prove your assertations on which you have based your insults towards Bucheon Bum and myself, which you have failed to do so at every turn.
Now that is a clear case of you acting like an infant:
You're content to throw out insults and then deflect away from any substantiation when called on your BS.
You are a spin doctor of monsterous proportions. |
What assertions? That you have refused to discuss with me the issue of the effect of the rhetorical style of the president? That you have continually taken comments I have made about his rhetorical STYLE and portrayed them as statements about his rhetorical CONTENT?
Or is it that you have insulted me out of your ignorance regarding the points above?
Nice cross-hijacking.
Grow up.
These are serious times for serious people. You ar not showing yourself to be interested in the issues. Let me know when you are. Until then....
"Go away, boy, ya bore me." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
You've forgotten what it is you said, haven't you?
Must be the senility kicking in, old man.
Go back and re-read the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's drop the name calling, here's the question you refuse to answer:
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
It is obvious from the language and intent of the article that the generals were counseling both. |
Really?
Well, I'm going to have to ask you to back up that statement with examples because I think that's a complete crock... [which] portions of the article have led you to believe that the generals are counselling the Bush Admin to open direct negotiations with terrorist organizations- please provide examples. |
When I say examples, I mean- can you find anything else besides
"In a telephone news conference Thursday morning, the former security officials took particular aim at the Bush Administration's policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists or with states that support them"
which, as huffdaddy has already pointed out, makes my case as equally well as yours.
I can cite numerous examples from the article to back up my postion- would you like me to list them?
The thing is- you have insulted me and Bucheon Bum and our reading comprehension based on this point, but refuse to put your money where you mouth is, which makes your insults and attacks ad homiem ones, which- based on the charges and insults you have flung around in other threads at myself and as well as others- makes you hypocritical in the extreme.
The distinction I am making is betweeen terrorist organizations and recognized nation-states, and you apparently (and remarkably) cannot see any difference between the two. There is a difference, and the difference is important in terms of this article. I
t is baffling to me that you refuse to acknolwedge this because of what appears to be a stubborn need not to 'lose face'. The alternative would be that you don't undertand the difference, which I would find hard to believe.
So, instead of continuing to insult to me and avoiding the question,
I again ask you-
what examples of "the language and the intent of the article" lead you to believe the Generals in question are counselling Bush to open direct talks with terrorists (as opposed to nation-states)?
If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then I think you owe Bucheon Bum and myself an apology (that would be the mature way to handle this, BTW). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Bulsajo"]Let's drop the name calling, here's the question you refuse to answer:
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
It is obvious from the language and intent of the article that the generals were counseling both. |
Really? |
Yes, really. You are, bizzarrely trying to claim that sentence doesn't mean what it means. How many times it occurs in teh article is irrelevant. That is all that need be said about it. Fact is, both you tried to state that comment did't even exist in your first responses. You were wrong. I said so. That is all. But, you weren't content with that simple observation. You tried to draw broader onclusions of my intent, meaning, views, etc., that were not in any way connected to my cmment. I posted that you were wrong solely to point that out: you were wrong.
You PC era people ahve little or no ability, it seems, to take anyting at face value. I said whatI wanted to say. No more, no less, yet you keep insisting I MUST say more. Screw you. Don't tell me what I must think or what I am thinking.
| Quote: |
"In a telephone news conference Thursday morning, the former security officials took particular aim at the Bush Administration's policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists or with states that support them"
which, as huffdaddy has already pointed out, makes my case as equally well as yours. |
This is utterly fallacious.
| Quote: |
| I can cite numerous examples from the article to back up my postion- would you like me to list them? |
Your position that they never said what you, yourself, have quoted above?
| Quote: |
| The thing is- you have insulted me and Bucheon Bum and our reading comprehension based on this point, |
No. First I pointed out the error. Then I was insulted. Then I slapped you upside your silly heads for your asinine behavior.
| Quote: |
| but refuse to put your money where you mouth is, |
I have been consistent: they DID encourage Bush to negotiate. YOU were wrong. Done.
And YOU'RE talking about personal attacks and ad hominems? Kettle. God, you bore me.
| Quote: |
| The distinction I am making is betweeen terrorist organizations and recognized nation-states, |
THEY didn't. Read it again.
| Quote: |
| and you apparently (and remarkably) cannot see any difference between the two. |
If the article had, you'd have a point. The article DIDN'T.
| Quote: |
| t is baffling to me that you refuse to acknolwedge this because of what appears to be a stubborn need not to 'lose face'. |
Face? You really are an arrogant fool. Me? Face? Bwuahahahahahaha!!!!! You have never met me, that is certain.
| Quote: |
| The alternative would be that you don't undertand the difference, which I would find hard to believe. |
You need to reverse that. You are filtering their statements through your agenda. That's what YOU don't see.
| Quote: |
So, instead of continuing to insult to me and avoiding the question,
I again ask you-
what examples of "the language and the intent of the article" lead you to believe the Generals in question are counselling Bush to open direct talks with terrorists (as opposed to nation-states)? |
You quoted it above yourself, for pity's sake.
| Quote: |
| If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then I think you owe Bucheon Bum and myself an apology (that would be the mature way to handle this, BTW). |
You seriously believe you've acted maturely with regard to me?
Blind? Hypocrite? Still on the first level of ethical reasoning? Haven't learned basic logic yet?
I dropped the name calling at least twice before and simply restated the purpose of the thread and was soundly insulted for my efforts. Get over yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The headline says that generals are telling Bush to negotiate with terrorists. The article mentions terrorists ONCE and then talks about negotiating with nation states.
The headline is clearly misleading and it was clearly a troll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
The headline says that generals are telling Bush to negotiate with terrorists. The article mentions terrorists ONCE and then talks about negotiating with nation states.
The headline is clearly misleading and it was clearly a troll. |
Their original stance was that the article did not encourage the president to negotiate with terrorists AT ALL. You were wrong. If they had stated in Their original response, or any time before now, that they had misspoken and REALLY meant the headline was misleading rather than incorrect, all of this would have been avoided. The following sequence can be found on the first page of this thread.
| Quote: |
bucheonbum:
The title of the thread is wrong. The generals are not saying negotiate with terrorists. They are saying negotiate with full-fledged nation states. |
This is a factually incorrect statement.
| Quote: |
Bulsajo
There are no retired generals advocating the Bush Administration negotiate with bin Laden or al-Zawahiri. |
This is a misleading statement in it's own right. The title of the thread didn't mention OBL nor Zawahiri.
EFLtrainer
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Quote:
In a telephone news conference Thursday morning, the former security officials took particular aim at the Bush Administration's policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists or with states that support them. |
Can you two not read? Why make statements that are so completely inaccurate? |
Mine was a factually accurate observation.
| Quote: |
bucheon bum
Well there is no evidence in the article that indicates the generals mentioned terrorist groups. That is the only line in the entire article that mentions terrorists. |
The first sentence is a factually incorrect statement. The second is a bizarrely contradictory one.
So, if our little two-headed monster had simply said, "Oh, damn, you're right. I should have said it was misleading," all these wasted diatribes and insults would have been avoided.
Their egos, I guess, wouldn't allow them to do so. So, you can all step away from the crack now and move on to some other shit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The twists and turns you've taken to try and wriggle off the hook on this a truly remarkable.
TUM's summary is as complete as it is succinct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
