Your insistence of "ownage" tells the whole story.... I haven't observed such juvenille behavior since babysitting a friend's kids playing Nintendo. Sort of reminds me of the following little dog's concept of "ownage"
Uh, yes, you were wrong. Your statement as quoted was proven to be woefully inaccurate. I was not "confused" in the slightest, and your asserting as such is pure cowardice, Z. I'm trying to keep things civil, and now you, having been utterly demonstrated to be wrong, turn to ad hominem. "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -Socrates This is the last time I'm going to do this, because I tire of your antics and growing animosity: Your statement, using the phrase "At ALL," clearly is not supported by Clarke's article, in which he is IN AGREEMENT with many of my points. Any reasonable person, having read your "AT ALL" statement, would also conclude that you were incorrect. Unfortunately for Clarke, and your agenda, he completely fails to mention the capture of the 2002 Bali resort Al Qaeda bomber via the program, or the arrest of the Brooklyn resident who was laundering funds for Al Qaeda. These clearly show that the program was successful at some level. You, or Clarke, are free to debate the level of success, but the arrests are irrefutable proof that the program did what it was designed to do - capture terrorists by tracking their financial transactions. Clarke's total omission of these arrests, which completely contradict his assertion that the terrorists, in your own words, "were not damaged due to the ineffectiveness" of the program, is disingenuous to say the least. See above. As for "the main point," your statement did not differentiate your perceived "salient" or "main" points. No, you said Clarke's article does not agree with my "take" "AT ALL," which is a sweeping statement that is inclusive of "ALL" points, "salient," "relevant," "main" or not. Again, feel free to rephrase your statement and insert "salient, "relevant," "main point" or whatever other clauses you choose, and I'll be happy to debate you on those, provided you are able to rein in your animosity for having been proven wrong. If you choose to continue this discussion, please do not continue with ad hominem, and try to keep things civil.
Juvenille behaviour... indeed, Z. Indeed OWNED YET AGAIN!!! Oh my God Z. <img src=http://boortz.com/images/funny/redneck_pics_jet_bike.jpg> <img src=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/Norsemanspray.jpg> <img src=http://www.forumspile.com/Owned/Owned-Vaccination.jpg> <img src=http://www.forumspile.com/Owned/Owned-BabyScribble.jpg> <img src=http://www.forumspile.com/Owned/Owned-BadHair.jpg> <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=1119765>
I am glad you are no longer going to do this, as you apparently keep trying to "win" something, accomplish something, where there is nothing to win nor accomplish. Yes, you were obviously confused at what I wrote, thinking I meant anything but what I have discussed as the salient point, as the current tangent you are going off on is fruitless, and will accomplish nothing as relates to this thread. Please note, that I am not saying who is to blame for your confusion, but from my perspective, you confused very much what I was commenting on. If my further clarification helped you understand the point I was making, that is great, we end up in the same place... p.s. I have zero interest in debating you....
Dear enemy, When we attack, we'll begin with artillery fire and/or air strikes. Wow, big revelation into tactics there. Going after financials is decades old now.
Hi hap You win, clearly. Great job showing Z how he made a mistake in interpretation. It's always nice when we can get a crystal clear example like this one. You are of course correct about his use of the phrase 'at all'. He makes these errors but I have yet to see him own up to even one of them, like a man. You have more patience than I. I've schooled him so many times that I have little interest in taking the time that's necessary to enumerate his mistakes, assertions and obfuscations. And he always does just what he is doing here. He gets his mistake handed to him on a silver platter, proved with direct quotes from his posts, and his response is to simply say 'I reject your argument'. Does he reject it by refuting it? No, he just rejects it by saying 'I reject it' and when the heat gets too high, he says 'I have no interest in debating this with you' (as if what he has been doing is debating and not asserting). Lately, he has begun to make constant reference to anal penetration, which is a separate topic. See my previous posts here for the citations.
More ad hominem. Typical. Anyway, nothing to be confused about. "At all" says everything. I recommend that in the future you refrain from such all-encompassing statements if they are not what you mean. Again, noone is to blame as there was no confusion. Your "further clarification" was anything but, just meaningless attempts to make excuses. Likewise. I prefer that my debate opponents not have to resort to slander and ad hominem when their argument collapses.
Well, there you have it. No need to respond further, nothing at all to say further, is there....yep you said your peace.
It might be decades-old, but it still caught the Bali resort bomber and a financier on American soil. Speed traps and radar guns are old technology, people know they are out there, yet thousands of tickets a day are issued for speeding. Should law enforcement thus stop using radar guns and speed traps because it is "decades old"?
Z, I must say, I am impressed and a bit surprised. I did not think you had it in you to finally admit you were wrong. Congrats, man.