FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sinergy
Then there is the whole security clearance, classification issue.
I'm very familiar with the "whole security clearance, classification issue". If you signed a Statement before leaving, then perhaps you are already in violation for mentioning what you have.
You seem to be saying some very negative things about the capabilities of a major US military system, and doing so in an open forum, without pre-clearance.
Seems like you are making an implied threat.
I did sign a statement to not disclose classified information I was privy to while I worked there. Please clarify where I violated this agreement in greater detail.
Your comment about making negative statements about the US military reminds me of the Neo-cons ranting about people who were opposed to invading Iraq were "unpatriotic." Feel free to parrot such gibberish, but it simply seems obtuse and obstreperous to me so I am going to simply ignore it.
The rest of your post is simply a reaffirmation of what I wrote about the theater weapons, with a snarky comment at the end where my point is getting fuzzier and fuzzier.
quote:
WHAT "Reagan era military build-up of the missile defense system"?
I have already stated I am not going to post the name of the project I was on in an open internet forum. Perhaps the following link will be of use to you.
www.uky.edu/UGS/centadv/gradprep.htm
Sinergy
Sinergy,
You have posted mostly false and inaccurate information most of this thread, and I think I've been quite restrained in pointing out that most of your "facts" are nothing more than facile justifications for your beliefs.
You've got beliefs, and you go back and make shit up to justify them.
Wasn't it you who said (and falsely claimed it wasn't to me, despite three different indications that it was) in your post 456 :
On the other hand, you have people who publish things on, say, an internet web site expounding endlessly about their personal opinion on a subject. When this position is argued with, many people...
1) Refuse to discuss, refute, provide contradictory information about, points made by other people.
2) Use name calling and other argumentative behaviors to try to demean the other poster, in essence, attacking the messenger and not the message.
3) Single-mindedly insist that their opinion is correct without bothering to provide any empirical evidence to support it,
The post our yours that I quoted at the top, is a perfect example of your debating style.
Sinergy: Seems like you are making an implied threat.
Fact: If you signed a non-disclosure agreement, and your violating it, you are in danger of being charged under the applicable laws. You may feel threatened, but this is simply a fact.
Sinergy: Your comment about making negative statements about the US military reminds me of the Neo-cons ranting about people who were opposed to invading Iraq were "unpatriotic."
Fact: A false logical construct i.e. straw-manning. You use the weasel words "reminds me", yet your import and intent is clear. You intend this as an assault on me - an insult in your world view - without addressing any of my points. In fact, you just make up a position, covertly attribute it to me, and then attack me for supposedly having that position.
Sinergy: Feel free to parrot such gibberish, but it simply seems obtuse and obstreperous to me so I am going to simply ignore it.
Fact: Calling my posts "gibberish" is intended as an insult. So is "obtuse and obstreperous". In reality, since you can't address my points, and since the majority of your facts are false or inaccurate, you have no defense, so you (a) attack me, and (b) decide, from your lofty pedestal of knowledge to "ignore it".
You have no choice, since you have no real interest in a debate or a discussion, and your facts and reasoning are suspect and bankrupt.
Sinergy: The rest of your post is simply a reaffirmation of what I wrote about the theater weapons, with a snarky comment at the end where my point is getting fuzzier and fuzzier.
There is no "reaffirmation" of anything you wrote. You seem to have a problem with confusing "reaffirmation" with "rebuttal" and "correction".
Saying your points were getting "fuzzier and fuzzier" was simply giving you an opportunity to do the "right thing" i.e. admit your mistakes, or to allow you to calmly regroup and restate your points.
Instead, you chose to attack, claim some kind of moral high ground, and continue to represent your false claims as somehow accurate.
Lets look at some of your specific inaccuracies:
1. You specifically denied saying that you wrote your opus on "how to argue on the net" in your post 456 wasn't addressed to me, but in general to the entire thread. Yet:
a. It was "In reply" to me,
b. It quoted one of my previous posts in it's entirety at the head of your post
c. You failed to give any indication that it was addressed to anyone else, or to the thread in general.
2. In your post 510, you give the following "facts":
a. There is a computer system named "WHOPR" at Cheyenne Mountain
b. It was part of a $7 billion dollar upgrade project
c. three years into the upgrade, because of the dissolution of the USSR, the project became a waste of money,
d. despite this, for simply reasons of greed, the "project managers" decided to waste an additional $4 billion dollars and complete the project
All of this sounded like BS to me, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and gave you the opportunity to provide enough information for me to independently verify your "facts" in my post 513, by asking that you provide the name of the project.
Your sole initial response was:
Sinergy: I do have an official name for the project. Thank you for asking. Enjoy your evening.
This is an example of your lack of desire (or inability) to backup any of your "facts". Your own words:
you have people who publish things on, say, an internet web site expounding endlessly about their personal opinion on a subject. When this position is argued with ... Refuse to discuss ... [and] Single-mindedly insist that their opinion is correct without bothering to provide any empirical evidence to support it.
Thanks for giving us an example of what you meant.
Yet, despite your inability or unwillingness to provide any support to your "facts", you again state your opinion in post 520:
So the last 3.5 years were simply, in my opinion, a blithering idiots determination to throw good money after bad.
3. In your post 522, you state the following:
a. Carter was responsible for the SALT treaty that "outlawed" ABM systems,
b. SCUDs aren't ballistic missiles
c. "Our entire missile defense system was useless during the gulf war."
As I pointed out in my post 529, I document and source that your first two "facts" are incorrect, and then document the public history of the early years of our "missile defense system" as it relates to computer upgrades at Cheyenne Mountain in the time frame you are suggesting.
What I showed is that your earlier quoted cost ($7 billion) seemed to be a false inflated figure used to justify your negative comments and stance in relation to both the "missile defense" system, and of the US government, and the capitalistic system. Not to mention, that the most likely project that you are talking about had basically nothing to do with "missile defense" in the sense that you are claiming.
We had no such "missile defense system" during the Gulf War.
Yet, ignoring all of my corrections, and continuing to defend your position based on incorrect and possibily falsified information, you yet again make your claims in post 543:
My point was that for all of the Reagan era military build-up of the missile defense system, when faced with an enemy that had missiles shooting, little of that technology was relevant to the problem at hand.
You seem to have some qualms about your failure to address any of my points however, because you come back in post 546 and state:
I could respond as to which project I was on, but as I was somewhat (unwillingly) a key component due to my expertise about the performance aspects of the systems we were building, I am unwilling to name the particular project as I do not wish to be outed.
Then there is the whole security clearance, classification issue.
So, you are the one who brought up the whole "security clearance" issue, not me (another straw-man on your part).
And, based on all your other sliding around, false facts, and failures to address any issue of substance other than repeating your opinion, this particular defense is reminiscent of the "I'd have to kill you if I told you" game that some men use when falsely claiming "special, secret agent" knowledge to get into a gullible woman's pants.
4. I also refute your facts about a "Reagan era missile buildup" especially as it applies to the Patriot missile system in my post 550:
The first functional missiles were delivered to the Army in December of 1981. Reagan was elected in November of 1981.
This is the point when I say that you are getting "fuzzier and fuzzier", and that, if indeed you can't divulge the name of the project due to security concerns, you may already have a problem with the law.
But let's be candid. The truth is that you are confabulating, making up, and (being generous) confusing a lot of different things - all to make your point.
Since none of your facts pan out, and you aren't able to make any kind of coherent logical argument, you retreat to ... gasp! ... personal attacks and a retreat to "higher moral ground".
Pretty weakly, I think.
FirmKY
edited: spelling and formating.
< Message edited by FirmhandKY -- 12/31/2006 1:11:15 AM >
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|
RE: Failure of the world-wide capitalist system ... kinda. - 
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