Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

Postby Elvis » Fri May 17, 2013 11:03 pm

Apologies if this has been addressed and I missed it:

seemslikeadream wrote:CBS senior correspondent John Miller, who before joining CBS served in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, broke the handwritten-note story Thursday on CBS This Morning.


This made me go "hmmm" a little bit, and it seemed worth expanding the view on John Miller, with a few highlights:

John Miller was named a senior correspondent for CBS News on Oct. 17, 2011. In this capacity, Miller reports for all CBS News platforms and broadcasts, including "CBS This Morning" and occasionally for "60 Minutes."[4]

Background and personal life

Miller is the son of Lucinda Miller of Manhattan and the late John J. Miller, a syndicated columnist and freelance writer[5] whose range of roles included Hollywood gossip columnist, foreign correspondent, Broadway critic, crime investigator, and political pundit.[6] "My dad wrote seven columns under six different names... Antonio from Rome. Pierre from Paris. Nigel from London," Miller has said. His father was also close friends with Luciano crime family boss Frank Costello, whose wife was Miller's godmother.[6]

In 2002, Miller married Emily Helen Altschul, daughter of banking mogul and Goldman Sachs Group partner Arthur Goodhart Altschul.[5] Miller's brother-in-law, Arthur G. Altschul Jr., worked for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley before becoming chairman of Medicis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.[7]

[snip]

Career

Miller began work as a journalist in 1973 for WNEW, a local television channel located in New York City, New York. From 1985 to 1994, he worked as an investigative journalist for WNBC, also a local television channel located in New York City.

From 1994 to 1995, he served as deputy police commissioner of New York City, where he was the chief spokesman for the NYPD,[8] a move which some of his colleagues considered "going over to the dark side." He was hired at the request of then Commissioner William Bratton.[6]

Miller then worked as an ABC News correspondent from 1995 until January 2002, when he took the post of co-anchor with Barbara Walters of the ABC News program, 20/20.

In January 2003, he left ABC News to rejoin Bratton who by then was at the Los Angeles Police Department. Miller served as the police department's Bureau Chief for the Counter-Terrorism and Criminal Intelligence Bureau,[8] which included the Major Crimes Division, and the Emergency Services Division and the Special Investigations Section (SIS). While there, Miller launched the Archangel Critical Asset Assessment Management System (ACAMS), which has been adopted by other cities and states for ongoing risk-assessment of potential terrorist targets. Miller was also one of the original designers of the Los Angeles Joint Regional Intelligence Center (JRIC), which combines intelligence and analysis for the LAPD, LA Sheriff, and the FBI.

In September 2005, Miller became the Assistant Director for Public Affairs at the FBI in Washington, D.C.. In this position, he was tasked with overseeing the FBI's internal and external communications, including relations with the news media and handling of fugitive publicity, community relations, and other communications support.[8] At the FBI, Miller made steady improvements in the Public Affairs Office, introducing an aggressive community-outreach strategy aimed at developing stronger relationships in the Arab-American and Muslim communities.[citation needed] Miller also established an Employee Communications Unit to build stronger internal communications to the bureau's 31,000 employees. Among his collateral duties was to serve on the Strategic Execution Team (SET) to establish performance measurement standards for intelligence operations across the FBI's 56 field offices. The system, adapted from the CompStat process used by major police departments, is overseen by FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Awards and honors [edit]
Miller's journalistic awards include two Peabody Awards, a DuPont-Columbia Award, and nine Emmys.

Memberships and affiliations [edit]
[b]He is a member of the International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators and the International Association of Chiefs of Police
.

Miller is an instructor at the FBI's National Executive Institute, as well as the Leadership in Counterterrorism (LinCT) course and has attended training in organizational change at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government as well as the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Miller_(journalist)

That's all I know about John Miller, he certainly has a 'well rounded' resumé.

This was my top Google return on a Web search of "John Miller"+CBS:

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cbs ... op_b179629
CBS’ John Miller Secures Another Boston Bombing Scoop
By Alex Weprin on May 16, 2013 10:43 AM
There is a reason why at the CBS upfront in New York yesterday, the first CBS News correspondent mentioned by name was John Miller (the only other two mentioned by name were David Martin and Clarissa Ward).

Following the Boston bombing, the Benghazi investigation and other issues that involve law enforcement, Miller has proven to have impeccable sources in the law enforcement community. That was proven again this morning as he sent other networks scrambling to confirm another scoop: that Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev scribbled a note appearing to confess to the crimes on the inside of the boat he was hiding in.

(CBS video: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162- ... urces-say/)

I guess my only point is that given his mixed background, I'm leery of Miller's reporting. I mean, is he a floor wax, or a dessert topping, or both??
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6121
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

Postby stickdog99 » Sat May 18, 2013 2:15 am

seemslikeadream wrote:
Boston Suspect’s Writing on the Wall
May 17, 2013
Exclusive: Hiding and near death, Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev reportedly scrawled on the inside of a boat that he did what he did to avenge innocent Muslims killed by U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a rare look at the why behind “terrorism,” writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.


By Ray McGovern

Quick, somebody tell CIA Director John Brennan about the handwriting on the inside wall of the boat in which Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was hiding before Boston-area police riddled it and him with bullets. Tell Brennan that Tsarnaev’s note is in plain English and that it needs neither translation nor interpretation in solving the mystery: “why do they hate us?”



Yeah, it's all 100% believable. No reason to question the anything about the veracity of the note itself whatsoever. Let's instead feign anger about something or other in the name of Helen Thomas.

Yes, some people are frustrated enough to suicide bomb other people because their political situations are so asymmetrical compared with those of their adversaries. And that is a shame all around.

But I have seen no evidence to indicate that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was one of these people. Where is any actual evidence that the kid had anything to do with this other than Danny Boy's Pulp Fiction XV yarn and the "just discovered" boat note?
Last edited by stickdog99 on Sat May 18, 2013 2:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

Postby Jerky » Sat May 18, 2013 2:21 am

Why LOL? Have some people here not heard of pencils?

stickdog99 wrote:LOL

The writing on the inside of the boat dovetails with what Dzhokhar, 19, told investigators questioning him in a Boston hospital room shortly after his capture, the source said.

User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2188
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

Postby stickdog99 » Sat May 18, 2013 2:38 am

Jerky wrote:Why LOL? Have some people here not heard of pencils?

stickdog99 wrote:LOL

The writing on the inside of the boat dovetails with what Dzhokhar, 19, told investigators questioning him in a Boston hospital room shortly after his capture, the source said.



For almost a full month, reporters have been asking about the kid's motive. Suddenly, 4 weeks later, we are apprised that the kid left a full confession written in magic marker on the boat he was captured from.

Supposedly, the FBI tried to confiscate all the police cellphones from the scene of the capture, but the Boston cops all refused because the feds had no warrant. Yet no one came forward to mention the signed confession the FBI was for some reason supposedly worried that cops had photographed. That is, until the former FBI spokesman got the scoop on this less than 48 hours ago to save the day for people's right to timely information on topics of public interest.

No reason to ask any questions. It all makes perfect sense. Basically, the FBI was trying to hide its most incriminating evidence from the defense this whole time, but our intrepid reporter put the public's right to know first!
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

Postby Canadian_watcher » Sat May 18, 2013 8:04 am

0_0 wrote:The majority of people are not that smart, never have been and never will be. So it's a pretty safe bet for those liars. Just take a look at history, people have always believed the craziest things. The lies change with time, but the people stay the same. You can wonder at it from the safety of your home, but you cannot change it.


sorry if this is a bit of a diversion..

I have said the same myself so many times, but I'm realizing that to say 'people just aren't that smart' is perhaps inaccurate. I'm more inclined to think that people are just that fearful - they are smart enough, all right. Look what people accomplish - particularly the poor - amazing things. And when push comes to shove people have a way of getting straight to the heart of matters - witness community meetings where people are united for one cause - they can be ingenious and eloquent in those situations.

I think people (most, anyway) are fearful of distrusting the lies that come out of government because of what that would mean for them and the way they live their lives. I'm heard many testimonies about that moment when the veil lifted as I'm sure you have, too. The stories recount painful dislocation and sometimes years off struggling to find a way to operate even somewhat comfortably in a world they suddenly realize is not at all what they had been led to believe it was - and that they *did* believe it was. People are smart enough to avoid that sort of pain so to me it isn't lack of intelligence, it's lack of courage.

But of course, there are a great many who have never even thought about it before. They just need the right turn of phrase, maybe, to get them thinking. Here's a really interesting short video to demonstrate my point:



apologies to peeps if this was too far off the beaten path for this thread. It's the last I'll bring it up. thanks for indulging me for a minute.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

Postby compared2what? » Sat May 18, 2013 1:19 pm

The stories recount painful dislocation and sometimes years off struggling to find a way to operate even somewhat comfortably in a world they suddenly realize is not at all what they had been led to believe it was - and that they *did* believe it was.


Not to veer completely off-topic, but agree. I think it's always that dynamic Alice Miller writes about, in some form. So there's a painful loss both ways, but only one of them is an avenue to real independence/personal freedom.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

Postby compared2what? » Sat May 18, 2013 1:34 pm

No reason to ask any questions. It all makes perfect sense. Basically, the FBI was trying to hide its most incriminating evidence from the defense this whole time, but our intrepid reporter put the public's right to know first!


Per Supreme Court opinions of many decades' standing, during the pre-trial phase, the DoJ -- including the FBI and federal prosecutors -- is constitutionally obligated to protect the defendant's sixth and fourteenth amendment rights by not parading all of its evidence against him/her in front of the public, via the media. The defense doesn't have to find out about it in the press, but actually gets to see it directly.

The public has a right to know what the disposition of the case was, and whether the process was lawful, and whether it was in accord with constitutional requirements, and so forth. But there is no inherent global public right for every member of it to review all the evidence prior to trial after it's been publicly served to them on a public silver platter. That would, in fact, be a violation of the constitution by the state. Not an observance of it.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

Postby compared2what? » Sat May 18, 2013 3:08 pm

stickdog99 wrote:Hey, folks, I apologize to all.

Basically, I like to read threads like this for information rather than for the back and forth of point by point (personal or at least semi-personal) dialog. This is simply my preference, and I realize that your mileage my vary.

I also realize that I added to what I myself would term clutter, and I regret doing so. Sorry.

Back to the topic.


That's not much of an apology if it doesn't account for why, if you prefer to read threads for the information:

(a) you insulted me for posting on-topic responses to you on page 72, then
(b) insulted me again by calling me a responsebot for politely acknowledging your dislike of me, then
(c) personally attacked me out of the blue 100-plus pages later as if I hadn't apologized to you privately and immediately laid off, and then,
(d) to top it all off, reported me for objecting to your having posted a string of information-free personal attacks on other posters.

Which you thus evidently were compelled to do because your sense of justice demands that you remain free to keep insulting other people for no reason at all in an environment that doesn't tolerate accurate characterizations that include mildly off-color slang.

It's the reverse of one.

But fwiw, I'm sorry I asked you why you were being a douche.

Carry on.
____________

ON EDIT: And for posting this, if it was offensive. But the truth shouldn't be, imo.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

Postby stickdog99 » Sat May 18, 2013 4:26 pm

I have never reported anyone on this forum. As for your PM to me, thank you for your gracious apology.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to use this thread to exchange a slew of recriminations.

You are probably a very nice person and you do make good points all the time, but I personally often find your argumentative style tedious, debilitating and ultimately obfuscating to the subject at hand. I can't see how engaging in more and more quoted back and forth discussion with you can do anything but exacerbate this. But, like I said, I admit that you often make good points, and I have come to realize (admittedly belatedly) that I am merely hewing to a stylistic preference that many here do not share.

For example, in your discussion with Mac, I agreed with many of your points. But that didn't make the discussion any more readable. From my point of view, I really don't think the approximate time of death saying "UNKNOWN" is necessarily suspicious. He does, or at least did. You and others do not, and many of you made good points to that effect. So what? I do not appreciate having to sift through 4 pages of back and forth on this minor point just in case I might find a needle of interest in the braystack.

But here I am doing exactly the same thing that I am decrying. I realize that I need to take my own advice more and I apologize for not doing so two days ago, but posts like the one you just addressed to me basically make it almost impossible to forego dragging this discussion down to the level of a personal tit for tat.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

Postby stickdog99 » Sat May 18, 2013 4:36 pm

compared2what? wrote:Per Supreme Court opinions of many decades' standing, during the pre-trial phase, the DoJ -- including the FBI and federal prosecutors -- is constitutionally obligated to protect the defendant's sixth and fourteenth amendment rights by not parading all of its evidence against him/her in front of the public, via the media. The defense doesn't have to find out about it in the press, but actually gets to see it directly.

The public has a right to know what the disposition of the case was, and whether the process was lawful, and whether it was in accord with constitutional requirements, and so forth. But there is no inherent global public right for every member of it to review all the evidence prior to trial after it's been publicly served to them on a public silver platter. That would, in fact, be a violation of the constitution by the state. Not an observance of it.


Which is my point. Everything the spooks have "leaked" have been strategically meant to bolster the prosecution's case in both the court of law and the court of public opinion. They had no compunction about telling the press that the kid admitted everything to them and detailing his motives, even though this would ostensibly conflict with Supreme Court opinions of many decades' standing. But somehow, despite dozens of people on the prosecution's side having to have noticed it, and everybody involved in prosecuting the case having to have known about it for over 4 weeks (that is, if it actually existed 4 weeks ago), nobody saw fit to leak the most incriminating piece of evidence to the press.

Until a former FBI spokesperson broke the "scoop," that is.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

Postby compared2what? » Sat May 18, 2013 5:46 pm

stickdog99 wrote:I have never reported anyone on this forum. As for your PM to me, thank you for your gracious apology.


In that case, I actually apologize to you very sincerely. The rest of it was fine, in-bounds, no acknowledgments necessary.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to use this thread to exchange a slew of recriminations.


If I've done anything that merits them, have at it. Otherwise, I have the same objection to that remark that I had to the apology. You're effectively convictng me without identifying the offenses. It's not fair. I'd rather be recriminated against, in broad daylight.


For example, in your discussion with Mac, I agreed with many of your points. But that didn't make the discussion any more readable. From my point of view, I really don't think the approximate time of death saying "UNKNOWN" is necessarily suspicious. He does, or at least did. You and others do not, and many of you made good points to that effect. So what? I do not appreciate having to sift through 4 pages of back and forth on this minor point just in case I might find a needle of interest in the braystack.


Yeah, okay. Not that I wouldn't prefer to be able to express myself better. But we all have flaws, limitations and human weaknesses that inform the style and content of our posts. If they don't constitute a personal offense against someone, it's not any more toipical to carp and complain about them than it would be to make fun of someone's pronunciation.

So if you don't appreciate that, don't read those pages. I try to be considerate. But my existence -- some aspects of which are innate, not voluntary -- isn't secondary to your convenience and pleasure.

But here I am doing exactly the same thing that I am decrying. I realize that I need to take my own advice more and I apologize for not doing so two days ago, but posts like the one you just addressed to me basically make it almost impossible to forego dragging this discussion down to the level of a personal tit for tat.


Welcome to the club. You can have the last word if you want it, though. I really mean it about the amiable non-grudge-holding. No hard feelings. Just please stop insulting me,

stickdog99 wrote:
compared2what? wrote:Per Supreme Court opinions of many decades' standing, during the pre-trial phase, the DoJ -- including the FBI and federal prosecutors -- is constitutionally obligated to protect the defendant's sixth and fourteenth amendment rights by not parading all of its evidence against him/her in front of the public, via the media. The defense doesn't have to find out about it in the press, but actually gets to see it directly.

The public has a right to know what the disposition of the case was, and whether the process was lawful, and whether it was in accord with constitutional requirements, and so forth. But there is no inherent global public right for every member of it to review all the evidence prior to trial after it's been publicly served to them on a public silver platter. That would, in fact, be a violation of the constitution by the state. Not an observance of it.


Which is my point. Everything the spooks have "leaked" have been strategically meant to bolster the prosecution's case in both the court of law and the court of public opinion. They had no compunction about telling the press that the kid admitted everything to them and detailing his motives, even though this would ostensibly conflict with Supreme Court opinions of many decades' standing. But somehow, despite dozens of people on the prosecution's side having to have noticed it, and everybody involved in prosecuting the case having to have known about it for over 4 weeks (that is, if it actually existed 4 weeks ago), nobody saw fit to leak the most incriminating piece of evidence to the press.

Until a former FBI spokesperson broke the "scoop," that is.


I'm not sure whether it's the most incriminating piece of evidence or just the most incriminating piece of evidence to have been leaked to date. If that's what it is. I mean, if there is video of him setting a backpack down on the otherwise bare spot where a bomb went off shortly before the second explosion, that's pretty incriminating. Kind of depends on how you define "leak."

But you're totally right that they're leaking for gainful advantage, strategically. My point was more that the problem with that wasn't that the public's right to know was infringed by their not having done it sooner.

I guess I was just confused by the terms, basically.

Same applies to our dispute about the show-of-force response earlier in the thread, ftm. I'm appalled and alarmed by some of the same parts of it that you are. The (almost literal) overkill wrt his capture, for instance. But to me, that's more classifiable as "like unto the manhunt for Christopher Dorner" than "like unto martial law." Because they always run rampant with almost no regard for the law -- and sometimes no regard for public safety at all -- when they think they're going after a cop-killer. As in "They feel entitled to burn people alive, secure in the knowledge that they'll get away with it."

If my seeing it that way makes me repellently weak-on-personal-liberty as you see it, then you're right to call me on it. But I do.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

Postby justdrew » Sat May 18, 2013 6:04 pm

stickdog99 wrote:
compared2what? wrote:Per Supreme Court opinions of many decades' standing, during the pre-trial phase, the DoJ -- including the FBI and federal prosecutors -- is constitutionally obligated to protect the defendant's sixth and fourteenth amendment rights by not parading all of its evidence against him/her in front of the public, via the media. The defense doesn't have to find out about it in the press, but actually gets to see it directly.

The public has a right to know what the disposition of the case was, and whether the process was lawful, and whether it was in accord with constitutional requirements, and so forth. But there is no inherent global public right for every member of it to review all the evidence prior to trial after it's been publicly served to them on a public silver platter. That would, in fact, be a violation of the constitution by the state. Not an observance of it.


Which is my point. Everything the spooks have "leaked" have been strategically meant to bolster the prosecution's case in both the court of law and the court of public opinion. They had no compunction about telling the press that the kid admitted everything to them and detailing his motives, even though this would ostensibly conflict with Supreme Court opinions of many decades' standing. But somehow, despite dozens of people on the prosecution's side having to have noticed it, and everybody involved in prosecuting the case having to have known about it for over 4 weeks (that is, if it actually existed 4 weeks ago), nobody saw fit to leak the most incriminating piece of evidence to the press.

Until a former FBI spokesperson broke the "scoop," that is.



well, this "former FBI spokesperson" has jeopardized the defendants right to a fair trial, and it's going to be even harder now to find a jury.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

Postby Canadian_watcher » Sat May 18, 2013 6:35 pm

stickdog99 wrote:As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to use this thread to exchange a slew of recriminations. ...

I personally often find your argumentative style tedious, debilitating and ultimately obfuscating to the subject at hand. I can't see how engaging in more and more quoted back and forth discussion with you can do anything but exacerbate this. ....

...

But here I am doing exactly the same thing that I am decrying. ... but posts like the one you just addressed to me basically make it almost impossible to forego dragging this discussion down to the level of a personal tit for tat.



and here *I* am adding to it, but since we're already so far down the road, I think it might be wise just to get to the end of it this time instead of turning around. So...

I agree with stickdog here, and want to point out something that has stuck in my craw for a long time:

See the last thing stickdog said, above? THAT is exactly the point. There are some people who, historically, have been seen as tireless defenders of the faith when they belabour points (and by this I mean points that aren't exactly germane to the thread OP) and then there are the rest of us. the rest of us, should we continue to 'defend' ourselves after a certain point are jumped on and warned. And so, this being the dynamic, many people just give up, don't fight back, let it go and leave the impression that there are people here who are 'always right' and who 'always win.' Sorry to name names, but c2w and barracuda are the primary suspects wrt those who can belabour and belittle with impunity.

So I feel you, stickdog - I completely understand where you're coming from. On the one hand you want to just get back to the discussion of the topic, but on the other hand that's impossible without acquiescing to the terms of said discussion which are laid out by a select few by virtue of their relentless point by point nitpicking of posts, clogging up the site.

merci. c'est tout.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

Postby justdrew » Sat May 18, 2013 6:38 pm

so if some of you think there is no room for debate, don't engage, but debate is foundational to the point of a forum
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

Postby compared2what? » Sat May 18, 2013 6:45 pm

Canadian_watcher wrote:
stickdog99 wrote:As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to use this thread to exchange a slew of recriminations. ...

I personally often find your argumentative style tedious, debilitating and ultimately obfuscating to the subject at hand. I can't see how engaging in more and more quoted back and forth discussion with you can do anything but exacerbate this. ....

...

But here I am doing exactly the same thing that I am decrying. ... but posts like the one you just addressed to me basically make it almost impossible to forego dragging this discussion down to the level of a personal tit for tat.



and here *I* am adding to it, but since we're already so far down the road, I think it might be wise just to get to the end of it this time instead of turning around. So...

I agree with stickdog here, and want to point out something that has stuck in my craw for a long time:

See the last thing stickdog said, above? THAT is exactly the point. There are some people who, historically, have been seen as tireless defenders of the faith when they belabour points (and by this I mean points that aren't exactly germane to the thread OP) and then there are the rest of us. the rest of us, should we continue to 'defend' ourselves after a certain point are jumped on and warned. And so, this being the dynamic, many people just give up, don't fight back, let it go and leave the impression that there are people here who are 'always right' and who 'always win.' Sorry to name names, but c2w and barracuda are the primary suspects wrt those who can belabour and belittle with impunity.


Examples, or you're just throwing a rock then running away. I have no problem with being called out for what I do.

Show me where I instigated an off-topic dispute and then belabored my side of it. as opposed to "where I was insulted for my presumed reading habits, sheep-like conformity or political views when (a) nothing I'd said represented any of those things; and (b) the points I had made were being ignored, then objected when the person who hurled those rocks ran away without being helpful enough to me to show me where I'd erred."


Because if I have, I want to know. And if I haven't, you're out of line to name me and then scamper off. I don't do it to you. Or to anyone. It's not fair. Kafkasesqe, as a matter of fact.

Or you could just try not insulting me. If you did, I wouldn't have anything else to say.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests