TealVeal

Still refusing to answer a simple question, why?

Koyaanisqatsi

leonarde's motto: "If that information is inaccurate, fine."

leonarde

1) There's a delicious irony in the fact that Koy, who some year ago distorted the views of an archaeologist named Meacham by, among other methods, inserting words and ideas into genuine quotations from Meacham, has decided to highlight my own alleged indifference to accuracy.

2) For anyone interested in the above I catch Koy at it here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...&pagenumber=12
(That is: page 12 of a very long thread)

3) Subsequently in another thread in which I was NOT a participant, I read Koy's assurances that Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky was a non-theist. Nothing, of course, could be further from the historical record. Eventually I took him to task for that.


4) For the record (and the last time): I was for military intervention for YEARS before these Niger forgeries existed; there's a mountain of evidence which indicated that Iraq continued its WMD programs for YEARS after it forswore them in 1991; Iraq thwarted UNSCOM's inspection work to such an extent that Richard Butler reluctantly withdrew UNSCOM from Iraq in 1998; Iraq refused to cooperate with the US on terrorism and continued to supply safehaven to Abu Nidal, his organization and a few other such organizations; the economic sanctions had proved of little good in changing Iraq's behavior and EVEN those sanctions were eroding under international pressure. Therefore I see the Niger forgeries as a footnote to history: an INTERESTING footnote but a footnote nevertheless.

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi

You lying sack of anthrax! At no point in that thread did I insert anything at all into "genuine quotations from Meacham!" I quoted him directly, word for word!

You didn't "catch" me at anything and I encourage all to read that entire thread to see just how disingenuous you're being. Meacham had stated:

Your own evidence stated that there were "at least 30 blood flows" in the head and that several clots had the "characteristics of either venous or arterial blood." I extracted this information and factored in the blood flow from the wrists and feet of a crucified man and raised the point that a man being crucified with at least 34 arterial wounds would mean the person most probably died of blood loss.

It was my argument based in part on your evidence.

Were there actually 34 arterial wounds? Who knows? Certainly not your own source, who raised the possibility that the head wounds could be either venous or arterial.

I also, subsequently, retracted my use of the "arterial" from my argument when it was shown--contrary to what your own source had raised--that the head wounds were most probably not "arterial" due to the nature of the veins in the head.

Nothing was added to any of Meacham's quotes. I based my argument, erroneously, on what your own source had raised as a possibility.

And you're still wrong about that, IMO, regardless of what any "historical record" you claim to be in possession of. All one has to do is actually read his works to see quite clearly that Dostoevsky was an atheist, IMO. What my opinion and/or deconstruction of Dostoesvky, however, has to do with any of this escapes me.

Now, pot. If you're done calling the kettle black, HOW ABOUT YOU ADDRESS ALL MY GODDAMNED ARGUMENTS WORD-FOR-WORD instead of resorting to this rank libel evasion!?

Nobody gives a shit about your "record." Address the arguments point-by-point or shut the hell up.

leonarde

Partial post:If 8 to 10 months down the road, you still can't admit to being wrong about Dostoevsky's religious beliefs, something very easy to check up on, there's little chance you will admit to any other mistakes/distortions/half-truths in any thread, on any subject matter. And, as I already noted, this makes your 'quest for accuracy' on the Niger forged documents ironic indeed.

Cheers!

hezekiah jones

Wow, I think I could drive a Kenworth through that fallacy.

You were wrong about Dostoevsky therefore you're wrong about the Niger docs?

Desperate?

leonarde

What "Fallacy'?????

I said nothing of the sort.
Haven't you been reading this thread?????? I referred to the documents as "forgeries". Repeatedly. Even in the post immediately before yours, Hezekiah. So in what way am I saying Koy is "wrong about the Niger docs"????

I merely observed that:

1) they constitute a tiny fraction of the intelligence evidence on Iraq's WMD programs having continued for years beyond 1991. Therefore they are in no way dispositive on those programs.

2) if Koy can't admit being wrong about Dostoevsky (something of no real consequence for a 21st Century American) it is likely a constitutional trait of Koy's (ie something that turns up again and again).

Cheers!

hezekiah jones

What? You said if he won't admit to being wrong about something completely unrelated to this topic, it's unlikely he'll admit to being wrong about this one, or any one, for that matter. And you found this "ironic."

But none of that addresses whether anybody was wrong or right about anything to begin with. So it's a fallacy with a non sequitur filling, or maybe wrapping.

Anyway, Koy, of all people, doesn't need me to defend him. Carry on men!

leonarde

hezekiah jones

"If 8 to 10 months down the road, you still can't admit to being wrong about Dostoevsky's religious beliefs, something very easy to check up on, there's little chance you will admit to any other mistakes/distortions/half-truths in any thread, on any subject matter."

Don't roll your eyes at me, you little devil.