|
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 |
Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:31 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
I wouldn't ban any of those people.
My point was that, by forum rules, "the world according to rapier" thread was unjust.
Since then, I've stopped reading threads where you show up because it's almost always derailed.
I stopped talking to him, but Joo and I really did accomplish something via PM. He's still here. I'm still here. But there are far fewer redundant threads. They still happen, but it's greatly reduced.
Now there are the Rapier-Bulsajo threads.
I'm not saying leave anyone alone. Have it out. Just PM.
I will try, too. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 Location: Next to a River
|
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Since then, I've stopped reading threads where you show up because it's almost always derailed.
|
Thats not the best thing to do, stop reading someones points. I mean "How else can you learn how to derail an argument"
Just joking
Look, read threads, just don't always respond to them. You never know what you might learn. Heck, I learn't a lot from Gopher about South American politics, even when it wasn't directed at me. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:53 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
Nowhere Man wrote: |
Since then, I've stopped reading threads where you show up because it's almost always derailed. |
I respect what you're saying, but-
IMO you're complaining to the wrong person.
Look at Summer Wine's OP, then look at the very next post- the one by Rapier.
His post has almost nothing to do with Summer Wine's OP except they use the word 'nuclear'.
This thread was derailed before I got here.
Now go look at the LA power thread- again, Rapier attempts to derail the thread.
So if you're complaining about derailing threads, why are you complaining to me?
I know the answer: Because you know Rapier won't listen to you.
Quote: |
I stopped talking to him, but Joo and I really did accomplish something via PM. |
Joo and Rapier are different people. I might disagree with Joo's opinions and conclusions but recognize his capacity for rational thought.
Quote: |
Now there are the Rapier-Bulsajo threads.
|
Here's a suggestion- ignore Rapier.
That way, when I jump in you won't even notice.
Or PM Rapier and try to get him to lay off the crazy juice.
In case you still think the onus is on me, I invite you to leave the Current Events forum for a moment:
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?p=624193&highlight=#624193 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 1:18 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Quote: |
I respect what you're saying, but-
IMO you're complaining to the wrong person. |
Sorry Bul,
The derailment comments were directed at Rapier. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
You know what?
You're right anyway- I'm going to ignore Rapier from now on as I have nothing to learn from him and there is nothing positive to gain by reading his posts.
I've wasted far too much time recently on Rapier and Igoththisguitar, fooling myself by thinking that showing these fools the errors of their ways had any sort of purpose to it, and it was arrogant of me to think that anyone reading this forum needed me to point out exactly what fools they are. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
The fun of baiting such a hapless dink as you wore off weeks ago, I was surprised at how long you stalked me afterwards though.
You're right though, I should really be interracting with more intelligent posters on here- providing therapy to the mentally absent is just too time consuming. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
I think the US ought to invest in "nuke lite" cause otherwise countires will feel that they can hide weapons or terror leaders in underground bunkers. |
What do you mean by "nuke lite"? The US already has tactical warheads. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bulsajo wrote: |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
I think the US ought to invest in "nuke lite" cause otherwise countires will feel that they can hide weapons or terror leaders in underground bunkers. |
What do you mean by "nuke lite"? The US already has tactical warheads. |
Low yeild nuclear weapons ,
This time I will let the enemy do the talking.
Quote: |
The Pentagon has come to a remarkable conclusion with regard to the nuclear weapons: smaller is better. These days the Wizards of Armageddon are palpably anxious to develop a new class of nuclear weapons, the so-called "deep penetrator" warheads. These are relatively low-yield weapons, packing warheads as small as 10 kilotons. Rear Admiral George P. Nanos excitedly refers to this new breed of nukes as "hard target killers". |
Quote: |
These weapons, primarily low-yield single rocket missiles, would mainly be an investment in the Navy's submarine-launched arsenal to give the US the all-important "forward-basing" advantage-which mainly means that the US wouldn't have to worry about the touchy diplomatic issue of launching nuclear bombs over the territory of non-combatants. (Apparently, this good neighbor policy hasn't infected the Bush Star Wars team, which is toiling away on a contraption that would, if it works, knock incoming missiles down and onto the fields of the Poland, Germany and France.)
But Robinson's real passion is for the Category III weapon, the bunker-busting nuke that is designed for the assassination of the leadership of "rogue regime", a not so subtle code word for Iraq, although it really does serve as a stand-in for any troublesome non-nuclear nation. Robinson, in a scenario that perhaps even Edward Teller himself may not have envisioned, wants the Bush administration to publicly change its policy to target heads of state with nuclear bombs. "I believe it will be important to make a part o our declaratory policy that the United States' ultimate intent, should it ever have to unleash a nuclear attack against any aggressor, would be to threaten the survival of the regime leading the state", Robinson writes. "Unless that state's leaders are deterred from the acts we are seeking to deter, our war aims would be single-minded-to destroy that leadership's ability to govern". |
http://www.counterpunch.org/nukelite.html |
|
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
|
|