herfacechair
Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
|
Alumbrado: It does when one is pointing out the sequence of letters...
You could also point it out as L D O. But, you were not pointing out a sequence, you said:
“And I’ll bet your 8 year old brother can spell ‘L.D.O.' as well.” - Alumbrado.
It is not spelled ‘L.D.O.”, it is spelled ‘LDO’.
Alumbrado: LDO is not an acronym.
LDO is an acronym. An acronym consists of the first letters of a word sequence. In this case, ‘LDO’ from ‘Limited Duty Officer’.
Alumbrado: And while one might be an LDO, a CWO, or even a CO, there is no such rank anywhere in the United States Military as a Mustang Officer,
Where, in my posts, do I say that I held the rank of “mustang”?
And you accuse me of moving goal posts and taking things out of context. 
I referred to myself as a “mustang” officer, I DID NOT say that I HELD the “RANK” of “mustang”. I would have used my actual rank if I were talking about my rank.
Alumbrado: nor is the slang term for an enlisted person completing a commissioning program (a 'mustanger') accorded an offical rank designation,
WRONG.
First, Where, in my posts, do I say that “mustang” was an official term, or accorded an official rank designation?
Out of context straw men anybody?
There is a slang term for an officer that spent time in the enlisted ranks prior to getting a commission, and that slang term is “mustang”. NOTE: It is a slang term. You are not going to find that term in any official document or books talking about ranks.
But that does not dismiss the fact that the mustang term is used by many in the military - and by many vets - to describe prior enlisted officers.
Alumbrado: so don't wrench your arm out of your socket patting yourself on the back over your expertise in military customs and courtesies...(you did get that class didn't you?).
Where, in my posts, do I claim expertise in military customs and courtesies?
Second, how you spell ‘LDO’ is not quite something that falls under many discussions on military customs and courtesies.
Third, I just pointed out to you the fact that ‘LDO’ is not spelled ‘L.D.O.’ That is NOT someone patting themselves in the back, just their pointing out an error.
Alumbrado: ...(you did get that class didn't you?)
Yes, it talked about things like this:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/9283/page4.html
You know, when to render a salute, render honors, etc.
Did not quite find anything there about CWO’s, LDO’s, or mustangs.
Alumbrado: I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you are not Joe McCarthy, so your statement is irrelevant to his being right or wrong
NEGATIVE. Whether I am Joe McCarthy or not is beside the point on whether he was right or wrong about communists being in areas, locations, and organizations that he suspected they were in.
Your saying that my point is not relevant because I am not Joe McCarthy himself is as ridiculous as saying that since I was not Galileo, my statement whether he was right or wrong about whether the sun went around the world or not is irrelevant.
And you accuse ME of moving goalposts and taking things out of context.
The point communicated by the statement that I addressed, as well as my rebuttal, dealt with the existence of communism in locations we did not suspect them to be in so…
AGAIN, since you did not answer my question:
WHERE, in my statement about McCarthy, do I say that he was right about INDIVIDUAL people?
Alumbrado: about the individual people that had their lives disrupted by what is commonly known as McCarthyism.
NEWSFLASH: This is not about the individual lives disrupted by McCarthyism. Nor is this about the individual people that he did point out.
It is about the reality of whether we had communists in areas, locations, and organizations or not. The statement that I addressed placed “communists” in quotation marks, casting doubt on the idea that there were communists in the areas, organizations, or locations that McCarthy pointed out.
My response pointed out otherwise.
Alumbrado: Now how many of those people were shown to be spies by the Venona cables? And how many of the Soviet spies actually in place were caught by McCarthy's activities? That might be worth discussing, and yet you will not do so.
Might? It WAS NOT worth discussing because the statement that I addressed and my reply to it had nothing to do whether the individual people that were pointed out as communists where in fact communists or not.
Note: He was active in McCarthy’s hunt for “communists”.
That implies that THERE WERE NO communists. Both the American History classes that I took in 8th and 11th grade also casted doubt on the idea that communists were deeply imbedded in the areas, locations, and organizations that McCarthy suspected they were in…
That there were no communists and that McCarthy was just “red baiting”.
THAT was the theme of the statement that I was addressing, and the theme of my replies rebutted that using the fact the Venona cables confirmed that THERE WERE communists deeply embedded in areas, locations, and organizations we did not suspect them to be at.
THAT’s why I did not go off topic and talk about the individual people that he pointed out, because THAT was not the theme of the statement that I rebutted.
Alumbrado: Prima facie proof of your inability to conduct discourse without resorting to logical fallacies...
So what you are saying here is that my decision to take on a large number of liberal posters and debate with them by responding to them in batch is “proof” of my inability to conduct discourse without resorting to logical fallacies?
ROTFLMFAO!
No, that is not proof of my ability - or ‘lack’ thereof - to conduct discourse without resorting to logical “fallacies”.
Now, what I said - that you decided to cut out - that gave an explanation that would have removed the need for the remainder of your comment:
“ I could stay on here and address your posts as you guys post them, but I would be here forever. By waiting for your posts to all come in, then debating them once a day, I would not wear myself down. This would allow me to carry the debate perpetually - or until other posters decide not to post on the thread anymore.” - herfacechair:
This is not prima facie “proof” of my “inability” to conduct discourse without resorting to logical “fallacies”
It is proof that I could carry on an orderly debate where I address everybody that addresses me - or made a statement that I disagreed with - and continue to address everybody without getting bogged down with just one or two posters while letting the other rebuttals go unchallenged.
Alumbrado: You again employ argumentem ad hominem by presuming to have a clue as to other posters standing as 'liberals'...the only criteria you can possibly possess is whether or not they agree with your personal opinions, and you've shown that you can't even get that right,
No, that is not using argumentem ad hominems, as there is no presumption as to where many people stand. I have been debating online for almost three years. The pointers of many of the people that I argue with are in line with groups that identify themselves as liberals. For example, the statements about the Iraq war and on whether Bush lied or not. If someone’s lines are similar to that of the other people that I’ve debated with - who identified themselves as liberals - as well as to the lines advanced by liberals in this country, there is a very good chance that they are liberal.
Granted, there are conservatives that criticize the president and the war, but not for the same reasons generally shared by the liberals.
There is no presumption “of having a clue” here about whether someone is a liberal or not. I’ve tracked this thread long before I placed my first post here, as well as tracked many of these threads while remaining as a “lurker”. If you voice the talking line that I’ve seen in forums such as the Democrat Underground, and if your talking points matches those of liberal organizations, talking heads, etc, then chances are real good that you are a liberal.
There are other posters that I have rebutted who are not exactly liberal, which illustrates what I have said before on this thread - that I would rebut posts that I disagree with.
Alumbrado: because you do such a sloppy job of reading what people say
Tell me about it:
“And while one might be an LDO, a CWO, or even a CO, there is no such rank anywhere in the United States Military as a Mustang Officer,” -Alumbrado
“so don't wrench your arm out of your socket patting yourself on the back over your expertise in military customs and courtesies...(you did get that class didn't you?).” -Alumbrado
Again…
Please put your “non” sloppy job of reading of what people say to work and answer these questions:
Where, in my posts, do I say that “mustang” was an official term, or accorded an official rank designation?
Where, in my posts, do I claim expertise in military customs and courtesies?
The reality is that I am not the one that is doing a sloppy job at reading what other people say. The fact of the matter is that others are doing a sloppy job at reading what I say.
Alumbrado: Which was not the point of contention, as made perfectly clear to you in simple and easy to read words...
Negative, what was made “perfectly clear” was someone trying to make this what it was not.
The main issue was the backlash that the Dixie Chicks endured after making their irresponsible statements. Whether that is a drop in sales, people not buying their CDs, people not attending their concerts, not listening to their music, or not listening to the stations that play their music, or what ever additional action was taken, whether one or two of these things did not happen or not, the fact of the matter is that one or more of these things took place after they made their comments. They took a hit after Natelie made her irresponsible statement. That WAS the contention of my side of the argument.
Alumbrado: the point was that their careers had not yet been ruined as a long term consequence. The drop in sales imediately after was not in dispute, its permanence was.
That was YOUR point in response to what you THOUGHT was the main contention.
The drop in sales was ONE of the arguments used to back the fact that they took a hit after Natalie made her infamous statement. Now, your point that sales did not take a hit does not prove wrong the fact that there was a backlash, and failed to address that since people boycotted her CD’s, that was an opportunity cost that was forever last. Take those sales numbers that you tout, and add an additional amount that would have equalled what they would have made had Natalie not make her comment. No matter which way you look at it, they still took a hit! And THAT was the contention of my side of the argument.
Alumbrado: Sloppy reading again,
No, the fact that you are missing the forest for the trees does not “prove” that I have “sloppy” reading. It only shows that you need to pay attention to what you are reading. My follow on comments will demonstrate…
Alumbrado: or more evidence of your fallacious and sophomoric 'tactics'?
Fallacious and sophomoric tactics, such as indicating that someone was referring to “mustangs” as a rank when in fact they were not referring to it as a rank?
Where, in my posts, do I say that “mustang” was an official term, or accorded an official rank designation
You can prove that you don’t have sloppy reading by finding the post where I claimed that “mustang” was a rank.
Hint, you don’t hear someone saying that they are a LT officer.
Alumbrado: In any case, by your own admission, you are not here for any form of discourse,
I stated that I was here to rebut posts that I did not disagree with, and that I actively rebutted posts made by people that have no intentions of agreeing with what I say. I admitted something that many posters would not flat out admit. But there is another reason to why I jumped in here.
I tracked this thread long before I participated.
Now, if the intent was to hold a conversation and have a free exchange of ideas, I did not see that. Matter of fact, a large number of people ganged up on one or two posters that dare stood up against the popular opinion on the thread. What is worse is that what the poster wrote was taken out of context.
You see, by your actions and the actions of many posters on here, I don’t see any attempt to have a free exchange of ideas, or to simply have a discourse. I saw that taking place between like minded posters, or mostly like minded posters.
But when one or two posters came out and wrote a good post criticizing the Dixie Chicks, I did not see any attempt at having a free exchange of ideas. I saw a bunch of posters ganging up on them, with the rest backing those that ganged up on them. I’ve also noticed that one or two decided to not pursue their side of the argument.
So much for “discourse” and free exchange of ideas.
The reality is that we have two sides of the argument, with two opposing groups having no intentions of agreeing with what the other is saying.
Alumbrado: and by your own actions, you are incapable of intellectual honesty, so have fun with your keyboard commando games.
Incapable of intellectual honesty? ROTFLMFAO!
But, the proof is in the pudding, lets put your intellectual honesty to the test shall we?
Where, in my posts, do I say that “mustang” was an official term, or accorded an official rank designation
You can prove your intellectual honesty by finding the post where I claimed that “mustang” was a rank.
But the reality is that contrary to your claims, I do exercise intellectual honesty. I just don’t believe in letting my opponents move the gaol posts on me, or take what I say out of context.
Alumbrado: You are dismissed.
I am not dismissed until I decide to dismiss myself. ***Evil Laugh***
< Message edited by herfacechair -- 7/23/2006 1:57:51 PM >
|
RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread