On Apr 24, 5:12 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "JimmyMac" <jimmyma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:2244788b-9303-43e8-8948-5be499fb8147@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 7:29 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> [...]
> >> I have stated that I would rather have been in the military for 2
years
> >> during wartime than 4 years during peacetime. I have also stated that
a
> >> professional all-volunteer military is a hundred times better than a
> >> conscripted military. What do you take issue with?
>
> > Since you asked, What ... your inability to stay focused and your
> > unwillingness to address issues raised. For instance this reply like
> > most has nothing to to with the issued raised immediately above ...
> > specifically:
>
> > 1. That those that wanted to be in the military were not prevented
> > from enlisting during time of a conscripted military making for a
> > hybrid military of both draftees and volunteers.
> > 2. That you volunteered during a time when the draft was still active
> > and by your own admission and were an adult who know what he was in
> > for and consequently, you have no reason to ***** about the military
> > tradition that you chose to become part of.
>
> My statement above was what this thread was all about initially. You are
the
> one who wanders off course because you are unable to distinguish between
> statements that matter and those that don't. You are unable to make
> discriminations. All things are equal with you.
Faile to do so again. Thanks for mking my point. iYour statement
above was not what this thread was all about. It started out with
Harry Brogan indicating that he had painted his Bob trailer and
characteristically you diverted the conversation into a political
topic of your liking by objecting to the color scheme, stating ... You
should have painted it red, white and blue in memory of all those
MIA's from the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
Your "All things are equal" remark is so perplexing as to incite
hysterical laughter precisely because the assertion originates from
you ... an well-established myopic "visionary". Wander of course you
say? I reply to your questions and comments (even some of you
diversionary tangents) whereas you deliberately fail to do so even
when I repeatedly point out that you have failed to respond with
obvious intent to undermine any possibility of dialog when you are
uncomfortable with the direction it has taken, employing diversion in
an effort to unen***ber yourself from issues raised.
> We are both into monologues. No dialogue is possible. You want to debate
and
> all I want to do is state my opinions. It is a take it or leave it
> proposition as far as I am concerned.
Debate is dialogue. "Take it or leave it" opinion" is monologue.
Thanks for making my point.
> Tom Sherman learned this many years
> ago. I have no more interest in debating him than he does me. Take the
cue
> why don't you!
Now why do you suppose that is? Well, because Tom undoubtedly
realizes that you are, as you have indicate in the past, all about
opinion (monologue) and refuse to debate an issue (engage in
dialogue). What are you afraid of other than being made out to be
wrong? In a recent post, Tom indicated that you are wrong about most
things. He's right of course.
> >> Well, when someone talks about murder and me in the same sentence, I
> >> notify
> >> the police. We have very good police detectives here and they take
their
> >> jobs seriously.
>
> > In the interest of fair play, I presume that you presented this thread
> > in evidence in its entirety. Undoubtedly the police will easily
> > recognize that which has escaped your poor powers of perception ...
> > that is, unlike you, they will be able to discern the difference
> > between an actual threat (assault) and the introduction of a
> > hypothetical scenario for the sake of argument to prove a point. That
> > begs the question, do you consider your many threats of others with
> > you trusty shotgun as something which should have been re****ted to the
> > police?
>
> Google is preserving everything so there is no need to involve the
police
> anymore than they need to be involved.
> [...]
>
> >> I am here merely to state my opinions and do not give a rat's ass
about
> >> debate.
>
> > Just as well, because your debating skills are virtually non-existent.
>
> No one will debate you because you are so tiresome.
You won't because you would find yourself disadvantage by ineptitude.
Regurgitation of your time-worn opinions is a poor substitute for
argument. Rpetitious monologue does not constitute dialogue. You are
tedium in the extreme. I guess you forgot that Tom Sherman, one whom
you hold in high regard (when you aren't insulting him that is), and I
had quite a debate going sometime back.
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
