crap in my inbox
dear string
again i support you on this incident with straw
lets however look at this....
"In the thread on "Drones", I never made great claims of any kind."
sure you did
the distinction b/w straw's and your claim is merely technical
all you are saying it was not direct, an intermediary was used
the end result is the same, is it not?
in your defense, you do present wiki's operation cyclone link. that alone substantiates your assertion. unfortunately you go on to throw some books in straw's face. that after you criticize straw's op-ed pieces as unsuitable source material
you give us books without any indication as to what sources the author uses to make his and your point
if i notice you doing that again, i will make it an issue
such laxity in research, such sloppiness, will not be tolerated in here
i am sure you will agree with me, ja?
superstring01 said:Stop trolling or criticizing my mod style in the WE&P fora. There are other threads for that of which you have obviously availed yourself. Feel free to continue to do so.
I need you to understand completely that:
A) I'm not debating you on any topic in any forum, especially the ones which I moderate. I'm ignoring you, which is my right. I don't think you posses the ability to understand the debate or write in complete sentences. I'm not amused by your annoying gibberish and incoherent rhetoric. I don't think it's cute, I don't think it's a window into some complex way of thinking. I think it's annoying and distracting. While it does not, in any way, violate rules, I still think it's pretty lame and therefore would rather not engage or respond to you. Feel free to return the favor. I won't complain.
B) In the thread on "Drones", I never made great claims of any kind. In fact, I questioned those of others, gave my opinion (which require no support) stated what led me to believe the way I do (which is the polite thing to do), then requested that the extraordinary claims that were made (i.e. Bhutto was assassinated by the CIA, that the USA was actively destabilizing Pakistan) be backed up by verifiable facts. I am not required to prove a negative. If I were, then I could make claims like, "Gustav is a child rapist. . ." and then burden YOU with the task of proving otherwise. It just doesn't work like that.
C) I will not permit you to troll, flame or hijack the threads in the WE&P for your own purposes. Go somewhere else and play if this is too difficult for you to understand.
Thus far you were issued an infraction (by accident, should have been a "warning", which was reversed), had posts deleted, and now have me sending you a PM on what not to do in the WE&P subfora. The next instance of you attempting to hijack a thread or trolling in the WE&P subfora will result in a three day suspension of your account.
The WE&P threads have titles, anything other than the discussion of the named (or appropriately divergent) topic therein will not be permitted.
~String
dear string
again i support you on this incident with straw
lets however look at this....
"In the thread on "Drones", I never made great claims of any kind."
The CIA didn't fund the Mujahideen, the ISI did.
sure you did
the distinction b/w straw's and your claim is merely technical
all you are saying it was not direct, an intermediary was used
the end result is the same, is it not?
in your defense, you do present wiki's operation cyclone link. that alone substantiates your assertion. unfortunately you go on to throw some books in straw's face. that after you criticize straw's op-ed pieces as unsuitable source material
you give us books without any indication as to what sources the author uses to make his and your point
if i notice you doing that again, i will make it an issue
such laxity in research, such sloppiness, will not be tolerated in here
i am sure you will agree with me, ja?