Flame on.
Dec 10, 2007 by OCSteveComments
Dec 10, 2007, 00:57:20 DaveC wrote:
Steve, you're a pussy and too nice to the pinko liberals. They'll never give you back the love. One day you'll turn on them like Farrah Fawcett in "The Burning Bed".
Not that I imagine you looking like Farrah Fawcett.
Dec 10, 2007, 01:19:29 OCSteve wrote:
Trying to draw fire? ;)
Dec 10, 2007, 01:21:30 marbel wrote:
Improve your English vocabulary and feed the hungry on http://www.freerice.com/
I don't get higher than 43 voc. points, but my (British) husband managed 50. We have provided the UN with quite a bit of rice though.
Dec 10, 2007, 01:36:05 DaveC wrote:
Only doing as I was told, sir. I believe I was responding to a direct order.
Dec 10, 2007, 01:51:45 Jesurgislac wrote:
OCSteve, you lumpish doghearted clack-dish, you are a wickedly petty barbarian and a catatonic, dull-witted cause of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Also, you are roguish onion-eyed clotpole!
DaveC, on the other hand... *scrapes shoes*
Dec 10, 2007, 02:01:33 OCSteve wrote:
Marbel: Wow those words get harder really quick. 300 grains. Not quite a meal.
Dec 10, 2007, 02:02:50 OCSteve wrote:
Speaking of vocabulary I admit I had to look up clotpole. ;)
Dec 10, 2007, 02:13:09 Jesurgislac wrote:
Speaking of vocabulary, I have to admit I have no idea what "clotpole" means, except that it's a damn good Shakespearean insult. ;-)
Dec 10, 2007, 02:15:33 Jesurgislac wrote:
*looks it up*
Ah, the Elizabethan equivalent of calling someone, er, a Cheney-head. ;-)
Dec 10, 2007, 02:35:03 Jesurgislac wrote:
Marbel, I find it fairly easy to get up to 45, but think I would have to go on for a longer stretch at a time to make 50. Congrats to your husband.
Dec 10, 2007, 04:43:02 Turbulence wrote:
Thanks for the thread OCS. Do you really think the oped writers are correct?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that when generals started screaming, I was mostly interested because I thought there were many, many Americans who would never listen to common sense from someone like me, but would listen to a general. Based on what I've read in histories of the Iraq war, American generals haven't exactly blown me away with their clear strategic thinking.
Dec 10, 2007, 05:19:03 marbel wrote:
Tnxs from the spouse Jes; he says his comfortzone is at 46 or so but the hungry world profited from his ambitions to get to 50 ;). I felt pretty pleased (and lucky) with the getting to 43, my comfort-zone is a lot lower...
I'm finally getting some free time for online procastinationing; December 5th is a bigger and more demanding holiday in the Netherlands than X-mas is. But to get in the proper christmasmood I found a nice little story:
http://www.itsawonderfulint...
Dec 10, 2007, 05:24:32 OCSteve wrote:
Turb: “Do you really think the oped writers are correct?”
I really don’t know – I really do go back and forth on this every day, depending on the news.
One the one hand, as I noted, I *do* think that the folks that gave Bastiste’s opinion so much weight when he was slamming Rumsfeld and Bush should seriously consider his opinion now.
OTOH, I was so wrong on this whole thing from the beginning that I have no reason to think that anyone should give a rat’s ass what I think now.
As I noted to Jes at ObWi, I’m probably grasping at any straw that makes it all seem even slightly less bad. At one level I realize that is just trying to cover some of the guilt I feel about this whole clusterfuck.
Dec 10, 2007, 05:52:25 Turbulence wrote:
OCSteve,
I just don't understand how anyone can find the oped persuasive. I'm not saying that they're wrong; I'm just saying that they assert lots of controversial things without any evidence at all.
I mean, if I was a general and I told you that the only way to deal with Iraq was to nuke the whole country, because, well, just because, would you believe me? Not even on some days?
Dec 10, 2007, 05:56:42 OCSteve wrote:
They exaggerate for sure. That’s kind of been the whole problem all along so I do see your point.
Dec 10, 2007, 05:58:35 Turbulence wrote:
I don't see this as exaggeration though! There is zero evidence for things that they claim to be true. The difference between zero and "a whole lot" isn't an exaggeration; is it? Well maybe it is...
Dec 10, 2007, 07:09:27 OCSteve wrote:
Turb: “There is zero evidence for things that they claim to be true.”
Well, I don’t agree with “zero evidence”…
“First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option.“
This is an exaggeration IMO but not without a grain of truth. “Islamic extremism” *is* worldwide, global in nature, and ruthless. How to deal with it is the biggest question I think.
“Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight…. cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis”
I think this is mostly right. It could become much worse of a nightmare. Easily. We broke it…
“Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success”
Debatable to be sure. As I already noted possibly just wishful thinking on my part.
“Fourth, our strategy in fighting the Long War must address Iran.”
Diplomatically I hope. That seems sure now. I won’t be following those carriers so closely anymore.
“Fifth, our military capabilities need to match our national strategy. Our military is stretched thin and will be hard-pressed to maintain its current cycle of deployments. At this critical juncture, we cannot afford to be weak. Numbers and capacity matter.”
Well, our military is screwed. No argument there. Can we afford to be weak? I think not but we can afford to pull back and lick our wounds and rebuild for a few years short of any actual existential threat.
So it’s really not zero IMO. They do exaggerate… But still, if he was a “go to” guy before, shouldn’t those who cited him be willing to seriously consider his opinion now?
Dec 10, 2007, 07:30:34 Turbulence wrote:
"This is an exaggeration IMO but not without a grain of truth. “Islamic extremism” *is* worldwide, global in nature, and ruthless. How to deal with it is the biggest question I think."
That's not true. There are islamic extremists around the world, but there is no coordinated islamic extremism movement. For the most part, these extremists believe different things and are fighting very different local conflicts. People fighting in Chechnya have very little in common with people fighting in Egypt. Most of them have no interest in the US EXCEPT insofar as the US has an interest in them: egyptian Islamists are pissed at us because we prop up the murderous secular dictator that has been killing them and stifling democratic movements that would bring them to power.
The analysis I just presented isn't rocket science. I don't expect most Americans to be able to do it themselves, but I do expect generals who spend lots of time thinking about foreign affairs to be able to do it. The fact that these generals either cannot think in these terms or can but choose to lie makes them not credible in my book.
"“Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight…. cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis”
I think this is mostly right. It could become much worse of a nightmare. Easily. We broke it…"
There are two distinct ideas here: 1. that Iraq is central to the non-existent global conflict I described above and 2. that Iraq will drop into a humanitarian crisis if we leave.
I've already dealt with 1. As for 2, Iraq is already in a humanitarian crisis. We should not commit to staying indefinitely just because things MAY get worse if we leave. We like to pretend that just because American soldiers are living and dying in Iraq that they must be making some huge difference and that difference must justify their sacrifice. There's really not much reason to believe that; just because we send all these soldiers to suffer and die doesn't imbue their actions with power to change the dynamics.
Leaving does not mean becoming completely helpless. We convinced the most powerful arab country to kiss and hug Israel after a series of brutal wars, and to continue their loving embrace for decades. How? By throwing a rather tiny amount of cash at them, every year. No invasion needed. No soldiers needed. Are you seriously saying that George Bush is much much dumber than Jimmy Carter?
Dec 10, 2007, 07:48:16 Turbulence wrote:
"“Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success”
Debatable to be sure. As I already noted possibly just wishful thinking on my part."
This is not debatable. Petraeus himself has said repeatedly that the goal of the surge is political reconciliation. That has not happened. In fact, we've regressed. Arming and paying off the sunni insurgents has seriously weakened the central government and helped convince the Sunnis that they don't have to really compromise or negotiate. We've made the central government a weaker state with less control on the use of force.
Judged by Petraeus' standards, the surge is a failure.
"“Fourth, our strategy in fighting the Long War must address Iran.”
Diplomatically I hope. That seems sure now. I won’t be following those carriers so closely anymore."
You and me both. I really don't understand how Iran fits into a "Long War". Can you explain it to me? Iran is AQ's enemy. After 9/11, the Iranian people held huge candlelit vigils for Americans and the Iranian government offered the US government their intelligence on AQ.
How on Earth can it be a good idea to conflate AQ and Iran? Shouldn't we be trying to drive a wedge between them rather than trying to drive them together by insisting that they're the same thing?
"“Fifth, our military capabilities need to match our national strategy. Our military is stretched thin and will be hard-pressed to maintain its current cycle of deployments. At this critical juncture, we cannot afford to be weak. Numbers and capacity matter.”
Well, our military is screwed. No argument there. Can we afford to be weak? I think not but we can afford to pull back and lick our wounds and rebuild for a few years short of any actual existential threat."
What the heck do you mean by "weak"? The US spends more on its military than all other nations on earth put together. The majority of the top dozen military spenders after us are our allies. How much money should we spend on defense? Twice as much as the rest of the world combined? Four times as much? Twenty times as much? Please, give me a number because, apparently, the current military budget is far too small.
This is what I find really galling. You and the generals want me to pay a 40% federal income tax rate. The generals don't bother to say anything about "we also need to eliminate wasteful cold war weapons programs that have no utility in the Long War" so I can only assume that we get to replace all that equipment destroying in Iraq and Afghanistan, add a 100,000 more soldiers, give the army its FCS wet dream, AND pay for more SDI crap that will never work and has no point, buy the Air Force all the F-22s and F-35s it wants, give the navy a few more SeaWolves (at $1 billion, such a deal!) and the DDX destroyers, and God only knows what other programs I'm forgetting. Because, through the power of magic, military spending doesn't cost real money. Whoohoo!
We're not weak. This is ridiculous.
"So it’s really not zero IMO. They do exaggerate… But still, if he was a “go to” guy before, shouldn’t those who cited him be willing to seriously consider his opinion now?"
I only cited him because I figured that most Americans wouldn't listen to me no matter how correct I was while they would take a general's words as gospel. And when I say most Americans, I'm especially talking about media folk and congressmen. Those people, as a class, were shocked to hear a military leader back the democrats.
I didn't need him to know that Iraq was fscked though or that Bush and Rumsfeld were idiots. Some of the stuff he said was useful in convincing other people but that was it. Since I always thought his comments were only valuable as a symbol for people too blinkered to understand reason, I don't feel compelled to agree with his every word.
Dec 10, 2007, 15:39:52 dr ngo wrote:
I got up to level 50 four times, crapped out every time. I'd like to blame this on the fact that it's 2:30 AM, but the fact is it took a lot of lucky guesses to get as high as I did.
Dec 10, 2007, 19:29:38 Jesurgislac wrote:
OCSteve: <I>“Islamic extremism” *is* worldwide, global in nature, and ruthless. </I>
So is Christian extremism. And it's <I>much</I> better funded and far more aggressive. Christian extremists in the White House <I>right now</I> have started a war that has killed a million people: all the Republican candidates for 2008 are making a big play for the Christian extremist vote, if they're not Christian extremists themselves.
<I>How to deal with it is the biggest question I think.</I>
It <I>is</I> a big question. Cease to support Christian extremists as politicians - or any politician who plays for the Christian extremist vote. That would be a start.
<I>I think this is mostly right. It could become much worse of a nightmare. Easily. We broke it…</I>
...and are continuing to smash it.
dr ngo: <I>I got up to level 50 four times, crapped out every time. </I>
I find that once I reach level 45, I get to the point where I'm guessing at least once out of 4 times, and after that, the higher it gets, the more often I'm guessing. I don't know how long I'd have to go on before I got to level 50, but I never have yet.
Dec 10, 2007, 21:54:33 OCSteve wrote:
Turb: “You and the generals want me to pay a 40% federal income tax rate.”
Why, no. I don’t want you or anyone to pay more than say about 20%.
Look, I don’t think that we’re really in much disagreement here. I’m for withdrawing our forces from Iraq ASAP and I won’t support any more military action that’s not in direct defense. I think that Iran is a problem but needs to be handled diplomatically. I’ll always be for maintaining a strong military so on that we disagree.
Jes: “Cease to support Christian extremists as politicians - or any politician who plays for the Christian extremist vote. That would be a start.”
Done.
Dec 10, 2007, 22:15:20 OCSteve wrote:
Turb: Just to note, I do also agree with you to some extent on weapons systems. But the problem there is not the military as much as it is Congress. The military has crap foisted on them all the time that they did not ask for and don’t want. It’s all about the pork. It starts with something as simple as a sidearm (ask any grunt if they prefer the Beretta over the old .45 ACP M-1911) and goes all the way up to billion dollar systems.
http://seattletimes.nwsourc...
$17.65 million for boats the Navy has no use for.
$6 million for equipment the Army had already rejected as flawed.
$2 million for T-shirts that can’t be used due to their polyester content causing worse burns.
“People who benefit from earmarks generally give money to those who deliver them: Of the nearly 500 companies identified as getting 2007 defense earmarks, 78 percent had employees or political action committees who made campaign contributions to Congress in the past six years.
Though individual contributions are limited by law, people at companies that received defense earmarks gave lawmakers more than $47 million.
The 2,700 earmarks Congress put in the 2007 military spending bill cost $11.8 billion. The Pentagon didn't ask for the money in its budget and, because its budget is capped by law, cuts had to be made to find room for the favors.”
Don’t blame the military for this – it’s our totally corrupt system and corrupt Congress critters on both sides of the aisle.
Dec 10, 2007, 22:22:35 Slartibartfast wrote:
If Bush is going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan out of any _religious_ motivations, he hasn't publicly shared that, as far as I've seen.
Dec 10, 2007, 22:25:21 Slartibartfast wrote:
That aside, I can't tell if, today, Bush is an actual religious extremist, or if he's just faking it to peddle influence. Anyone want to make a call on this?
Dec 10, 2007, 22:35:26 Turbulence wrote:
OCSteve,
Military overspending is not just a congressional problem: the brass play a huge role. Sure, the DOD screwed up and blew $2 million on T-shirts. Yawn. But all of the big ticket items I've listed are not being foisted on anyone. The Air Force really wants both F-22s and F-35s. The Navy wants its DDX boats and new submarines. The Army really really wants FCS and replacement of all the lost/damaged/decayed equipment (can't fault them there - its only fair). That adds up.
We spent $650 billion on the military last year, and, apparently, that's not enough for the generals you cited. So again, please tell me how much will be enough? Or tell me that that you think they're last point is wrong or metaphorical or something. Because I can't find a plain reading that doesn't add up to many many billions of dollars of increased military spending with no offsets whatsoever.
You're 20% number isn't right. You can't be for large military spending increases and for lower taxes and for no offsets all at the same time. The laws of addition are stacked against you. Something has to give. Which is why I asked you above about what the numbers should be. If you want my tax rate to be 20%, then you have to stand up and call the generals out by saying something like "of course they're totally wrong on point #5 because the US should not be increasing its military spending after the Iraq war is done".
Thanks for sticking around and answering questions by the way. I'm sure its not easy.
Dec 10, 2007, 22:48:29 Jesurgislac wrote:
Slarti: <I>Bush is an actual religious extremist, or if he's just faking it to peddle influence.</I>
Not really relevant. I don't actually care whether he <I>believes</I> the extremist version of Christianity that he has put in power or not: but he certainly, consistently, behaves as if he does: from cutting funding for family planning clinics/safe sex organisations to fomenting war in the Middle East.
OCSteve: <I>Done.</I>
Next step: support free and fair elections in the US so that the extremist Christians currently in power aren't able to move on to the next administration and continue as before. The US is currently run by the most dangerous extremist religionists on Earth, and we'd really like you guys to be <I>able</I> to vote them out.
Dec 10, 2007, 22:49:34 Slartibartfast wrote:
"The Air Force really wants both F-22s and F-35s."
Yes, they really do. But that's not quite an accurate description; it's probably more accurate to say that the Air Force wants F-22s and F-35s, and the Navy and Marines want F-35s.
The whole fighter and ground attack fleet is pretty old, Turbulence. F-15s have been flying for three and a half decades, now, and if you've been paying attention of late, you'll have noticed that F-15s have been grounded a couple of times in recent months due to airframe fatigue damge. F-16s are nearly as long in the tooth. F-18s have been in production for a quarter of a century. The Air Force really needs new aircraft.
F-22s have been in engineering development for two decades. It's not as if someone just got a burning itch to go buy a new air superiority fighter.
Yes, certainly, we could just go recreate the F-15 assembly line, and fire up the F-16 line. It's not a matter of if we need new aircraft, though, it's a matter of what new aircraft we procure.
Dec 10, 2007, 22:50:12 Slartibartfast wrote:
"to fomenting war in the Middle East"
A religious war? Cite, please. If no cite, then irrelevant.
Dec 10, 2007, 22:53:24 Turbulence wrote:
FWIW, I don't think Bush is a religious extremist; I don't know if he actually believes in his religion at all or if its just a show for the rubes, but religious extremism is clearly not his problem. His problem is some combination of being insane and being really stupid.
Dec 11, 2007, 00:23:42 OCSteve wrote:
Turb: “So again, please tell me how much will be enough? Or tell me that that you think they're last point is wrong or metaphorical or something.”
Sorry – I wasn’t clear enough. I think it’s enough now, I don’t think we need to increase military spending. I think we need to spend the money more responsibly. If we cut out all the pork and all the waste I think it’s covered.
There are 2,700 earmarks totally $11.8 billion in the 2007 military spending bill. This is not for things DOD asked for. That is *35* F-22 Raptors (based on the current number to be purchased). Again, DOD did not screw up and blow $2 million on bad T-shirts – Rep. David Wu of Oregon *directed* the Marines to procure the shirts from an Oregon company. Yes $2M is a drop in the bucket; it’s just an example of the problem. But $11.8B – now you’re talking real money. That would be my challenge to the Generals. Go on the record stating that the pork must go and the money we allocate for the military must be spent responsibly.
And as the Iraq war winds down, once equipment has been replaced, we should be able to decrease military spending by a fair amount.
Dec 11, 2007, 02:35:48 nous wrote:
Might as well weigh in on things here myself. I certainly cited Bastiste’s opinions approvingly in the past, but not solely because of his authority and expertise, and in this case I think that his biases are showing.
The situation in Iraq has been less volatile of late (he says, carefully passive in his construction). I think that the doctrinal shifts that Petraeus initiated probably have something to do with this, but I'm not convinced that this is a turning point so much as I'm relieved to see that our less aggressive stance in-country seems to have reduced tensions between us and the locals. All this "surge" business is pure spin. This has not been about stepping up so much as it has been about shifting to a less overtly martial profile. My read is that we have managed to reduce some of the excess violence coming as a response to our own overreactions. This is something that Brigadier Nigel Alwyn-Foster noted back in 2005 (see his article at:
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/...
It took a shift in leadership to get the ROE changed to reduce our role in provoking aggression. As such, this may not indicate any progress beyond removing one additive feedback loop. I could be wrong, but this is how I see it.
Beyond this, I think Bastiste's current analysis misses the point entirely because all it really does is ask that the military be left to do the job it has always done and which it does well. I'm unconvinced because I don't think that any of our military branches are set up for the sort of mission we face in Iraq. Iraq is not a military problem. Our troops cannot solve a crisis of Iraqi sovereignty.
The rest of what Bastiste says is just boilerplate for the brass. We may "need" new weapons systems in order to maintain our current levels of military preparedness, but most of this will have little effect on the situation in Iraq, where basic supplies and personnel are far more important. The one has little to do with the other.
Can't blame a guy for trying, though.
Dec 11, 2007, 03:44:17 Ugh wrote:
More and more, the idea of disbanding the United States Army looks better and better to me.
Dec 11, 2007, 04:40:45 Turbulence wrote:
"I don't think that any of our military branches are set up for the sort of mission we face in Iraq. Iraq is not a military problem. Our troops cannot solve a crisis of Iraqi sovereignty."
What?! But don't you know that the Troops (TM) have magical fairy dust that allows them to solve all problems! Why, any American soldier is perfectly capable of performing brain surgery better than any civilian neurosurgeon. There's no limit to what the US military can do! Everyone knows that.
Dec 11, 2007, 05:31:14 nous wrote:
Turbulence -- I don't think that the Support the Troops crowd *really* believes this line so much as they continually talk this line out of fear of allowing another Vietnam-like defeat (PR, morale, psychological) on their watch.
If the troops are winning militarily, then we can't let them down by admitting that we never had a chance at the political goals (despite this being the conclusion of both Bush 1 and Clinton - after the hash he made of the Kurdish situation). That would be a breach of faith.
We keep the troops there so that they can feel better about their own service and not start to resent all the buddies who got blown up for a cause that was lost almost from the get go.
Dec 11, 2007, 06:36:24 DaveC wrote:
- Why, any American soldier is perfectly capable of performing brain surgery better than any civilian neurosurgeon. -
You may think this is silly, but I think that Captains and Majors in the Army and the Marines do a far better job of foreign service than most diplomats.
- I don't actually care whether he - believes - the extremist version of Christianity that he has put in power or not: but he certainly, consistently, behaves as if he does -
Bush is a Methodist. I don't believe in having to go along with the Nicean creed, but that doesn't make him an extremist. What Methodist extremists have you seen lately? (HRC - Methodist, not extremist.) Extremists don't abide the religious slackers. For instance, I'd say Nixon was a slacker Quaker, and Jes is more of an extremist Quaker, not accepting of the less righteous, for whatever that is worth. I'm all for "Eid-only" Muslims, "Christmas-and-Easter" Christians, and all that.
Ho-Ho-Ho!!!
Wait, That's PAGAN!
Dec 11, 2007, 07:07:46 Turbulence wrote:
DaveC, do you have any evidence for your belief that army and marine corps officers outperform most diplomats at diplomatic work?
Would you care to speculate on why this might be the case? Do you think the military spends a lot more time than the state dept training their staff? Or do you think that admission to the Captain/Major ranks is stricter than foreign service admission?
Dec 11, 2007, 07:21:31 OCSteve wrote:
“Why, any American soldier is perfectly capable of performing brain surgery better than any civilian neurosurgeon.”
Well, not *any*. Just the ones trained as brain surgeons. And it’s more a matter of different than better – or first maybe. Just as with other wars, techniques developed in the war zone will end up being used to save lives and improve outcomes in your local trauma center or ER.
All right, I know you were snarkin’ there. But I don’t know of any people who actually believe that our forces are meant to be or are trained to be an occupying force. They’re trained to kill people and blow shit up and they are very very good at that. But now they’re street cops and justice of the peace and ambassador at large… And they are doing the best they can at that.
But I don’t actually know anyone who resembles your caricature of a military supporter.
Dec 11, 2007, 07:28:20 Turbulence wrote:
OCSteve,
You just said that our forces aren't trained to be an occupying force. Most people in this country have no idea what the US Army trains for, or why, or even what "training to be an occupying force" means and how it differs from more...kinetic approaches.
Sure, lots of people do know the answers to all those questions, and awareness of the military's limitations has certainly been bolstered by the war. Even so, for most people, the military really is just the crystallized distillation of American Awesomeness. Do you really think that if you went door to door in 2002 and asked your neighbors, that even 30% of them would be able to tell you what the Army trains for and how that differs from the requirements of a long term occupation? Do you really believe that?
Dec 11, 2007, 07:29:34 Turbulence wrote:
Just to be clear, I'm sure that no one in this country actually believes that any PFC could perform brain surgery. But I do believe that lots of people are convinced that there is no foreign policy problem that the military cannot solve.
Dec 11, 2007, 08:25:21 OCSteve wrote:
Turb: “Do you really think that if you went door to door in 2002 and asked your neighbors, that even 30% of them would be able to tell you what the Army trains for and how that differs from the requirements of a long term occupation?”
30%? No way. I don’t have a source or desire to research it, but I’d guess that the number of people who actually know someone in the military is a single digit. The number has dwindled every year since we changed to an all volunteer military. The number who actually know someone in the Army or Marines is even smaller of course.
I’ll take your point on that. But by this point I do think that most people understand that our military is badly broken.
Dec 11, 2007, 08:27:43 Jesurgislac wrote:
Slarti: <I>
A religious war? Cite, please.</I>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/c...">Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power</a>
I really don't want to give the site a direct link, but after you've read Monbiot, click on the RaptureReady link.
Dec 11, 2007, 13:53:29 Slartibartfast wrote:
Ah, George Monbiot, font of all that is factual. Good show. Quoth Monbiot:
"when Bush asked Ariel Sharon to pull his tanks out of Jenin in 2002, he received 100,000 angry emails from Christian fundamentalists, and never mentioned the matter again."
After, therefore _because of_. Genius, that Monbiot.
"click on the RaptureReady link"
Ok, now what? Somehow the redirect to whitehouse.gov must have failed.
Now I'm not confused as to whether Bush is actually religious or just faking, but am now confused as to whether Bush is an actual Texan.
Dec 11, 2007, 16:07:03 Jesurgislac wrote:
<I>Ah, George Monbiot, font of all that is factual.</I>
I think I'm supposed to read a sarcastic tone into that, but, Slarti - you're the one who has spent the last seven years closing your eyes to all the evidence available to you that the Florida election was rigged, in a thoroughly racist manner.
So, you know: your determined ignorance of anything that upsets your comfortable view of the world is just one unendearing thing about you. You don't want to know, and so you close your eyes and say it never happened.
Dec 11, 2007, 16:11:19 Jesurgislac wrote:
OCSteve: <I>but I’d guess that the number of people who actually know someone in the military is a single digit. </I>
Depends which income group you ask in. In your income group, single digit is probably right: in lower income groups, probably much, much higher. Joining the army in the US has, from all accounts, become something people on a low income do because - among other things - it's one route to decent health care such as a person on a low income would have if living in any other developed country but the US.
That has become ironic since the Bush administration started a war without bothering to increase the resources available to fund healthcare for wounded and disabled soldiers.
Dec 11, 2007, 20:47:10 Slartibartfast wrote:
"I think I'm supposed to read a sarcastic tone into that, but, Slarti - you're the one who has spent the last seven years closing your eyes to all the evidence available to you that the Florida election was rigged, in a thoroughly racist manner."
Do I really have to point out to you, once again, how the USCCR report contradicts this thesis?
Not as if it has anything at all to do with your point, but hey: I guess shiny things can be a distraction, when convenient.
Dec 11, 2007, 20:54:15 Slartibartfast wrote:
"Joining the army in the US has, from all accounts"
You could go by accounts, or go by data.
If you've got data, please share.
http://www.heritage.org/Res...
Dec 11, 2007, 21:00:07 Jesurgislac wrote:
Do I really have to point out to you, once again, how the USCCR reported that many voters, especially African-Americans, were denied their right to vote? <a href="http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/v...">Chapter 2</a>?
Did you carefully not read that bit? Evidently so...
Dec 11, 2007, 21:12:02 Jesurgislac wrote:
<I>You could go by accounts, or go by data.,</I>
Thanks for finding the data to substantiate the accounts, Slarti: from that table, 80.3% of recruits come from households where the median income is less than $52K annually. I see you got your table from the right-wing thinktank the Heritage foundation, whose interpretation of this information is... let us say, somewhat skewed? (The table's kind of skewed as well!)
I note that a family of four, living in New Jersey, with an income of $57K annually, <a href="http://povertynewsblog.blog...">cannot afford health insurance for their children</a>.
So, Slarti: go by what the Heritage Foundation wants you to believe: or go by data: or go by what actual soldiers actually say? You seem to prefer the first to either of the last.
Dec 11, 2007, 21:20:11 Slartibartfast wrote:
Nice use of passive voice in defending your non sequitur. There's got to be a special award for that sort of thing.
"from that table, 80.3% of recruits come from households where the median income is less than $52K annually"
Eh? In 2003, the percentage was 77.8%. In 2004, the percentage was 77.3%. In 2005, the percentage was 77.2%. In any event, the percentage of the US population whose income is less than $52k annually is 79.8%, so that set of data basically shows that recruits are slightly more wealthy than the average American, and come from all quintiles in proportion, not disproportionately.
If you don't like where the data came from, you can always supply your own. Or, you could fall back on "accounts".
Dec 11, 2007, 21:21:48 Slartibartfast wrote:
In fact, since you seem so connected with what soldiers say, you could point me to the source of that.
Data: always a good thing. Sometimes, even better than secondhand "accounts".
Dec 11, 2007, 21:38:32 Jesurgislac wrote:
<I>so that set of data basically shows that recruits are slightly more wealthy than the average American</I>
So, wait: 77.2% of recruits come from households whose income is less than $52K: and the percentage of the US population whose income is less than $52k annually is 79.8%.
And you interpret this to mean that recruits are slightly <I>wealthier</I> than the "average American"? I'm just not seeing where you get that from. At all.
Given that 4 out of 5 recruits come from families on an income which means they may not have been able to afford health insurance for the children, I'd say that my initial thesis - that prior to the Iraq war recruits joined the army for the benefits, which <I>included</I> the health care - is well supported by the data you have provided.
If you want first-hand accounts from soldiers about why they joined the army, suggest you go google for some: from my past and current experience with your ability to ignore evidence that doesn't suit you, you'll pay no attention to any accounts you don't like, but it will save me the trouble of finding you first-hand accounts for you to ignore.
Dec 11, 2007, 21:59:08 Slartibartfast wrote:
If you don't get the part where fewer percentages of recruits come from the lower income brackets, did you get the part where a higher percentage of recruits come from uppermost quintile?
Sure, based on the data, you can't state definitively that more than half of the recruits come from households having higher than median income, but it does tend to underscore that recruits come from representative segments of the American population. It certainly doesn't support "Joining the army in the US has, from all accounts, become something people on a low income do ".
Dec 11, 2007, 22:27:25 Slartibartfast wrote:
"If you want first-hand accounts from soldiers about why they joined the army, suggest you go google for some: from my past and current experience with your ability to ignore evidence that doesn't suit you, you'll pay no attention to any accounts you don't like, but it will save me the trouble of finding you first-hand accounts for you to ignore."
You're confused, Jesurgislac. I am nowhere stating that no soldiers ever joined the armed services because they were too poor and/or unskilled to do a higher-paying job. I am nowhere speculating as to what constitutes anyone's motivation for joining an armed service. I am simply pointing out that your claim, as I quoted it, is not factually supportable.
You can argue that the facts are incorrect, and attempt to contradict them with information from other sources, but to simply argue out of hand that the statistics I referred to are refuted by anecdotal and cherry-picked accounts is sheer innumeracy.
None of the above is to be taken as a claim that the accounts are untrue, just that they don't represent adequate support for your claim.
Dec 11, 2007, 22:36:02 Slartibartfast wrote:
To clarify: "cherry-picked" because you're sampling what you seek, rather than randomly from the entire population. Given how many people who are or have been in the armed services, I have no doubt that you can find just as many stories _that you're looking for_ as you have time to read.
Dec 11, 2007, 22:48:03 OCSteve wrote:
Jes: I’ve heard a lot of reasons why people join the military. Certainly in some cases it’s for economic reasons (in my own case I never would have been able to afford college otherwise). But I have never, not even once, heard of someone joining up for health care.
That’s not to say it never happened, but it’s got to be way at the bottom of the list. It’s just not one of the factors you consider, especially as a young person.
This is pretty old (94) – but its peacetime when economic factors play a larger role (IMO).
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/...
“Eight frequently mentioned motivations underlying the recruits' enlistment decision were identified: Historical Interest, Self Improvement, Job/Skill Training, Money for Education, Floundering, Time Out, Get Away/Escape, and No Other Jobs Prospects. Other influential factors included the desire for job security, benefits, travel, challenge, meeting new people, and serving the country.”
A little newer: 2003, a couple weeks after the start of the war. A NG unit from *Harlem*, one of the more economically disadvantaged areas in the entire country.
http://www.newyorkbeacon.co...
“Lt. Patrick Williams, a platoon leader and a graduate of Wilberforce University with a major in computer science.”
I can assure you that with that degree in 2003 civilian Patrick Williams could have afforded health insurance, even for his 9 (!) kids.
“Acquiring training, getting an education and travel were mentioned most as reasons for joining the military. “Being in the Army has given me an opportunity to meet other people and get some skills,” noted Richards, a native of Antigua. She said she had experienced no discrimination and no abuse during her two and half years in the unit. *However, she had taken a cut in pay from her regular job since being activated.*”
Taking a *pay cut* is not an unusual story with the Reserve/NG. And in the Reserve/NG you are not eligible for family or even individual health care benefits unless you are activated.
Now health insurance is a component of job/economic prospects. And *some* people’s reason for joining up is purely economic. But $$ rates pretty low as a deciding factor when you are almost guaranteed to be sent to a war zone, especially during a time of low unemployment and general economic prosperity. Economic factors have a lot more weight during peacetime IMO.
Personally, I’d rather be uninsured risking that I might someday need major medical care I could not afford than sign up to go to war - greatly increasing the risk that I might need major medical care but secure in the knowledge it would be paid for…
Dec 11, 2007, 23:03:24 Jesurgislac wrote:
<I>did you get the part where a higher percentage of recruits come from uppermost quintile?</I>
Given that they define "uppermost quintile" as 52K-200K a year, and that if you put all the recruits from 0-52K a year together they do <I>not</I> constitute a "lower percentage" than all the recruits from 52K-200K (far the reverse, Slarti) I think you very badly need to read <I>How To Lie With Statistics</I>. Unless of course you'd <I>rather</I> be lied to.
OCSteve: <I>Jes: I’ve heard a lot of reasons why people join the military. Certainly in some cases it’s for economic reasons (in my own case I never would have been able to afford college otherwise). But I have never, not even once, heard of someone joining up for health care.</I>
Fair enough. I have heard multiple soldiers' stories who say they join up <I>for the benefits</I>, and that those benefits included access to better health care than they could have got had they stayed civilians.
Prior to 2001, too, people who joined up did not expect to go to war, or if they did, knew their risk of actually becoming a casualty was low - sure, they knew in theory they might, but in practice, no. What I was talking about was - sorry if that was not clear - people's motivations for joining up before the Iraq war sent recruitment figures through the floor (and, thinking about it, of course before 9/11 gave an additional motivation: although you've made clear you disagree, it's human to want to fight back when your country is attacked, and no one knew Bush planned to use the US army not to fight back but for an aggressive war).
Dec 12, 2007, 00:16:54 Slartibartfast wrote:
"Given that they define "uppermost quintile" as 52K-200K a year, and that if you put all the recruits from 0-52K a year together they do <I>not</I> constitute a "lower percentage" than all the recruits from 52K-200K (far the reverse, Slarti) "
This makes no sense at all, J. I invite you to self-proofread, and rephrase as necessary so that it says something that makes some sense.
Dec 12, 2007, 00:47:47 Turbulence wrote:
Jes,
Here's a bit of context that might help understand some of these numbers and that might not be obvious to someone who doesn't live in the US. New Jersey has a very high cost of living; health insurance in NJ is more costly than in other parts of the country and purchasing power is generally lower than for other parts of the country. I know this because I used to live in NJ.
Also, the military population in the US is not drawn uniformly from around the country; its distribution skews towards the south where cost of living is lower. Consequently, inferences about soldier's ability to get healthcare before enlistment based on mean incomes and healthcare costs in NJ are likely to be...very wrong.
Phil Carter referenced an NYT article recently that touched on changing demographics in the military at http://www.intel-dump.com/p...
I've seen papers that had a lot more information, but this is all I could come up with quickly.
Dec 12, 2007, 00:52:40 John Thullen wrote:
Whether or not folks sign up for the Armed Forces to access healthcare............
..... it strikes me that when you consider the possibility of getting killed or maimed, this would be like jumping out of a plane to retrieve the parachute you left in the car.
..... or maybe like having yourself cremated today while alive to avoid escalating funeral expenses in the future.
...... or maybe like losing a million dollars in the stock market to get the $37,431.41 deduction on your taxes, or like deciding to die today to avoid higher estate (DEATH*%$?!) TAXES#@%"!
in 2010.
...wait, people do those last two, their salivary glands being strictly governed, if you'll pardon the French, by incentives and disincentives.
Never mind.
Dec 12, 2007, 01:32:59 nous wrote:
I'm happy to see that everyone is having so much fun with the Heritage Foundation study. I think the geographical data in it is useful, but the economical data much less so. If you look over their methodology you'll see that they didn't actually have any data on recruits' economic backgrounds at all, only their addresses:
"The Department of Defense (DOD) does not track family income data for recruits, and there are no individual income data for enlistees. Military service is the first full-time job for most of them. We approximate each recruit’s household income by using the median household income of his or her hometown ZIP code."
http://www.heritage.org/Res...
(They later go on to say that they actually use ZCTAs from census data) So the data already assumes that the recruit is representative of the median for his or her home. I find this assumption problematic, especially when they turn around and use this assumption to argue **how average our troops are**.
You can continue arguing over whether or not $57K is upper or lower income if it makes you happy. (You could be arguing in your spare time.) I'm just pointing out that the study can't even claim that the recruits come from a family that makes $57k, only that they live in an area where the median household makes that much.
Dec 12, 2007, 03:18:34 Jesurgislac wrote:
<I>This makes no sense at all, J. </I>
I realise that, Slarti, but you can blame the Heritage Foundation for that: I'm just going by how <I>they</I> defined the income ranges for their quintiles. (You did look at the figures in the left-hand column, didn't you, and spot how the HF skewed them? If not, you <I>really need</I> to read <I>How To Lie With Statistics</I>.)
Dec 12, 2007, 07:36:40 Slartibartfast wrote:
"I realise that, Slarti, but you can blame the Heritage Foundation for that"
If we can blame the Heritage Foundation for you not making sense, we can blame them for practically everything.
Or maybe you were being overly terse in your explanation of what you thought was wrong. In any event, your response _as stated_ didn't address anything I said.
Wierd, me beating on you about specificity, but here we are.
Dec 12, 2007, 07:41:14 Slartibartfast wrote:
<blockquote>If you look over their methodology you'll see that they didn't actually have any data on recruits' economic backgrounds at all, only their addresses</blockquote>
Yes, of course, that's a given. Sometimes, though, some data is better than no data. Even if it's _evil_.
I suppose, though, that we'll soon hear some arguments to the effect that new enlistments strongly tend to occupy the low end of their respective neighborhood income distributions.
In any event, my aim was not to prove that recruits are wealthy, but to provide some data background to the anecdotal claim that recruits represent the lower income brackets more strongly.
Dec 12, 2007, 07:42:32 Jesurgislac wrote:
<I>If we can blame the Heritage Foundation for you not making sense</I>
You can blame the Heritage Foundation for creating a table that makes no sense. I can blame you for not actually <I>looking</I> at the table before you cited it, and blame you again for <I>still</I> not looking at the table, even after I've pointed out to you exactly where to look.
Further than that: *shrug* We're several thousand miles apart. I can't actually <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Res...">print the table out</a>, <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Res...">put it on the table in front of you</a>, and <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Res...">point with my finger</a> to where you should be looking to see what I mean.
Dec 12, 2007, 07:54:09 Slartibartfast wrote:
Or you could just say it, instead of talking around it. All of a sudden, you're reminding me of me.
Dec 12, 2007, 08:02:25 Jesurgislac wrote:
Excellent. Take it as a learning experience, Slarti. Next time someone asks you to clarify, remember how annoying <I>this</I> was.
If I can figure out how to do the textual equivalent of picking up your hand and putting the index finger on the part of the table you don't want to look at, then bending your head down and getting you to focus your eyes on the piece of text right in front of your finger, I will.
But given you cited it, I don't actually have a problem with inviting you to go take another look at it.
Dec 12, 2007, 08:28:38 Slartibartfast wrote:
I believe this is the first time I've been dinged for not reading the mind of a woman who was not my wife.
Props, I think.
Dec 12, 2007, 09:14:41 nous wrote:
Slarti -- "I suppose, though, that we'll soon hear some arguments to the effect that new enlistments strongly tend to occupy the low end of their respective neighborhood income distributions."
I for one would be satisfied with data that actually measures what it claims to be examining. Maybe someone can come up with a way to capture the actual data rather than coming up with an approximation of the data that gives us no way to verify the numbers or to see the range of incomes across the various ZCTAs. And I don't see any discussion of how they came to use this particular method of estimating family income or of what effect that might have upon the numbers or any examples broken out by region or by rural/urban showing how the differences in location might affect the numbers.
Which is not to say that the numbers aren't useful, just that the conclusion is suspect because the data starts off skewed in the direction of the conclusion from the start.
I'd love to see a good longitudinal study of recruit backgrounds. I'm sure there would be a lot of surprises in it. I think the regional data that can be derrived from this study is valuable. I just don't think the economic data is reliable.
Dec 12, 2007, 09:27:37 Slartibartfast wrote:
Which is not to say that the numbers aren't useful, just that the conclusion is suspect because the data starts off skewed in the direction of the conclusion from the start.
I agree that the study doesn't do much to prove the opposite of what Jesurgislac claimed, but I do think it tends to call said claims into question.
Yeah, better data would be...better. Somehow, though, its value as a conversation starter has gone almost entirely unheeded, in some quarters.
Dec 12, 2007, 11:33:17 libjpn wrote:
"I believe this is the first time I've been dinged for not reading the mind of a woman who was not my wife."
I thought you had two daughters? At least for me, it means 3 times the mindreading fun.
Dec 12, 2007, 19:58:04 OCSteve wrote:
On the Heritage Foundation – I’d say they worked with what is available. This 05 GAO report explains the problem (PDF) most of which was already suggested in this thread.
http://www.gao.gov/new.item...
snip------------
Page 88:
The wealthiest and the poorest segments of the applicable U.S.
population are less likely than others to serve in the military. The
wealthiest have other post-high school options such as attending
college, and the poorest are more likely to be ineligible because of
medical, aptitude, or moral disqualifiers.35
• For fiscal year 2004, DOD’s Office of Accession Policy found that
recruits came from areas defined by zip codes whose median incomes
were similar to those of civilian youth in general—about $44,500 for
recruits compared to about $44,300 for civilian youth.36
• DOD used the median household income of the recruits’ and
civilians’ home communities to represent socioeconomic status
because data typically used to identify socioeconomic status are not
collected on recruits. DOD performed the analyses with commercial
marketing industry software that uses data from the U.S. Census
Bureau and other sources to identify the social and economic
characteristics of each U.S. postal zip code.
• DOD also found that the recruits came from communities in which
the median income increased from about $43,000 in fiscal year 2000
to about $44,500 in fiscal year 2004 (all values in constant 2003
dollars). The largest increase, about $2,500, came between fiscal
years 2001 and 2002. Researchers suggested that it represented a
patriotic response to the September 11th terrorist attacks, after
which a larger than usual number of recruits from higher income
households joined the military.
2C. Recruit
Characteristics—
Socioeconomic Status
• While the analyses provide some insight into the socioeconomic status
of the families from which recruits come, the validity of the findings
should be considered relative to concerns that include the following
issues.
• Although the software can create a distribution of estimated income
for the households from which the recruits were drawn, the software
does not provide a comparable distribution showing the percentage
of homes with various levels of income. This limits DOD’s ability to
determine how well households from all socioeconomic levels are
represented by recruits.
• The average income for a community (as represented by a zip code)
may not represent the actual income of the recruit’s household.
• Socioeconomic status is often a measure of something more than
income. For example, it might be a combination of household
income, parents’ educations and occupations, and home ownership.
• If a family with a higher income lives in an area with a higher cost of
living, that family’s socioeconomic status could be less than a family
with less income living in a geographic area with a lower cost of
living.
• DOD’s earlier study of socioeconomic status showed that recruits came
from all socioeconomic levels but were proportionately most likely to
come from the lower three quarters of the distribution of socioeconomic
status.
• DOD’s Population Representation in the Military Services: Fiscal
Year 1999 indicated that less than 25 percent of the AC nonpriorservice
recruits in 1999 came from U.S. households that were
classified as being in either the top or bottom quartiles of
socioeconomic levels.
• DOD’s Office of Accession Policy reported that it stopped gathering
socioeconomic status information because of concerns that included
questions about how accurately recruits could report their family’s
income.
snip------------
Basically, even DoD doesn’t know for sure. It makes sense. The recruit likely doesn’t know the actual details of mom and dad’s income. And it would seem a little tacky for DoD to send them a questionnaire:
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith:
Thanks for giving us your son/daughter for the next 6 years. We’ll do our best to return them to you in one piece. In the meantime, would you please provide us with the details of your socioeconomic status?
The demographic seems to be strongly middle class with fewer from the top and bottom but we’re not going to find any real details.
Any other demographic info you might like is here (PDF):
http://www.armyg1.army.mil/...
Anecdotally all this reflects my personal experience but that’s a couple of decades out of date.
Dec 12, 2007, 21:45:25 OCSteve wrote:
OTOH – expect recruitment to rise in 08!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...
"Morgan Stanley has issued a full recession alert for the US economy, warning of a sharp slowdown in business investment and a "perfect storm" for consumers as the housing slump spreads.
Fed chairman Ben Bernanke will be hoping he can keep the US economy from recession
In a report "Recession Coming" released today, the bank's US team said the credit crunch had started to inflict serious damage on US companies.
Dec 12, 2007, 22:31:40 Slartibartfast wrote:
"I thought you had two daughters? At least for me, it means 3 times the mindreading fun."
None of them have reached their teens, yet.
Dec 13, 2007, 12:17:27 libjpn wrote:
Slart, mine are 8 and 3, and I still get dinged that I can't figure out what they are thinking.
Dec 14, 2007, 20:27:09 Jesurgislac wrote:
Slarti: <I>I believe this is the first time I've been dinged for not reading the mind of a woman who was not my wife.</I>
I think I've just lost any impulse to try explaining what I meant more clearly. (Not that it was a very strong impulse before, given that Slarti himself thinks it better to flame people for not reading his mind, and has flamed people for finding this objectionable.)
Dec 14, 2007, 21:58:28 Slartibartfast wrote:
"Not that it was a very strong impulse before"
Not strong enough to be detectable even with cryo-cooled instruments, even.
Look, when someone asks you to explain yourself, and your response is "look at the table", and then your subsequent responses take it as a given that I'm refusing to reexamine the table, I have to suspect that you're either completely uninterested in actually making your point, or unable to.
All of which is why I pretty much dropped it, because I am certainly not going to do your heavy lifting for you. It's not that I'm uninterested in whatever your point happens to be, it's that I can't make it for you. I mean, I could, likely, only you haven't given out any useful clues. At all.
At first I suspected that it was a language issue, but we had some Scots here this week, and I had no trouble at all communicating with them (after the first few moments, I mean, when I struggled to translate what sounded like "Steert" to "Stuart").
Dec 14, 2007, 22:36:59 Jesurgislac wrote:
Slarti: <I>Look, when someone asks you to explain yourself, and your response is "look at the table", and then your subsequent responses take it as a given that I'm refusing to reexamine the table, I have to suspect that you're either completely uninterested in actually making your point, or unable to.</I>
Indeed. And given that this is your <I>standard</I> reaction to other people when they ask you to explain yourself, and that you've been known to flame people for continuing to ask for explanations, I'm wondering if you'll take this as a learning experience?
Probably not, though I'll certainly feel free to quote you back at you next time you do it: you've provided me with plenty of material to do so.
Dec 14, 2007, 23:18:33 Slartibartfast wrote:
I take every experience as a learning experience, but you taking a teaching role here has been nothing but a distraction from the point. _Your_ point, IIRC.
Which, by the way, is still hanging out there unsupported.
But, you know, thanks for the teaching moment. I get it; I really do.
Dec 14, 2007, 23:20:27 Slartibartfast wrote:
And, of course, you're welcome to any retaliatory ammunition that you think you may need. Me, I tend to want to discuss the point at hand rather than take sudden detours into the meta.
Dec 14, 2007, 23:25:26 Jesurgislac wrote:
<I>Me, I tend to want to discuss the point at hand rather than take sudden detours into the meta.</I>
Yet when you make obscure comments and are asked for an explanation, you promptly and routinely take a detour into the meta rather than explain what you meant in order to continue with the discussion at hand.
Dec 14, 2007, 23:46:46 Slartibartfast wrote:
You know, I'll take every single one of your commentaries on my personal behaviors as a given, right now. I'll even apologize for my entire existence as a burden on blog conversation. All this, in exchange for getting back to the point.
You won't get a deal like this anywhere else, so act now!
Dec 16, 2007, 21:58:17 Slartibartfast wrote:
Well, I guess that's one offer that's going to go untaken.
Dec 17, 2007, 03:52:22 Jesurgislac wrote:
What else did you expect?
You offer a meaningless hyperbolic apology - not an apology for previous, specified, annoying behavior, but an apology for "my entire existence as a burden on blog conversation".
You offer to take my commentaries as a "given". Yeah, so what? What does that mean?
Nowhere in this do I see you acknowledging that yes, you did exactly what you now complain about me doing, that it was annoying, and that you regret your behavior and will try not to do it again.
I'm not the only one that's called you on being obscure: I'm not the only one who you've flamed for asking you to explain. Yet you're trying to make this all about me, rather than honestly admitting that you were at fault in the past and will make amends in the future.
So, no. What is the point of trying to discuss anything with you, Slarti, when any breakdown in communication is invariably blamed on the person you are failing to communicate with, and persistent failure in communicate leads to you flaming the person who has failed to understand your obscurities?
(In this instance: sure, I'm willing to admit I was evidently unable to explain what I meant so you could understand it. My fault. Since - as nous pointed out - the table you cited is meaningless anyway, what is the point of going back to it?)
Dec 17, 2007, 05:54:45 Slartibartfast wrote:
Amazing, what some people will do to avoid supporting their point.
This, though, is just base stupidity:
"What is the point of trying to discuss anything with you, Slarti, when any breakdown in communication is invariably blamed on the person you are failing to communicate with"
I think there have been a large number of times that I've taken full responsibility for extending exchanges much longer than necessary due to my failure to communicate fully.