Senate: removal of Hussein has enhanced security

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
BTW, don't you think your thread title is somewhat incomplete? Maybe you should put in exactly what they said?

I think the title of the thread was intentionally vague and misleading.

There's 2 possibilities here. Either charrison didn't fully understand that it said allies (not US) and it was simply a mistake to word the title that way...or you are correct, it was intentionally misleading. Either way, it should be changed.

I thought you were above thid kind of thing charrison.

Knock it off - you kids whine about people attacking the source instead of substance all the time....now looky who is doing it.

The title is fine - you just ASSume it means the US, but if you read the link and what he posted you will get the full picture. The title is no more "incomplete" than most of the thread topics in this forum.


CkG

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
BTW, don't you think your thread title is somewhat incomplete? Maybe you should put in exactly what they said?

I think the title of the thread was intentionally vague and misleading.

There's 2 possibilities here. Either charrison didn't fully understand that it said allies (not US) and it was simply a mistake to word the title that way...or you are correct, it was intentionally misleading. Either way, it should be changed.

I thought you were above thid kind of thing charrison.

Knock it off - you kids whine about people attacking the source instead of substance all the time....now looky who is doing it.

The title is fine - you just ASSume it means the US, but if you read the link and what he posted you will get the full picture. The title is no more "incomplete" than most of the thread topics in this forum.


CkG

It's not very polite to constantly refer to people as "kids".

I don't think they are attacking the source, but rather the context. It's kind of hard to attack the actual source wich is bill # whatever.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
BTW, don't you think your thread title is somewhat incomplete? Maybe you should put in exactly what they said?

I think the title of the thread was intentionally vague and misleading.

There's 2 possibilities here. Either charrison didn't fully understand that it said allies (not US) and it was simply a mistake to word the title that way...or you are correct, it was intentionally misleading. Either way, it should be changed.

I thought you were above thid kind of thing charrison.

Knock it off - you kids whine about people attacking the source instead of substance all the time....now looky who is doing it.

The title is fine - you just ASSume it means the US, but if you read the link and what he posted you will get the full picture. The title is no more "incomplete" than most of the thread topics in this forum.


CkG

BTW: CadKindofGuy, I asked you in another thread what your education and background was? Did you ever get a chance to answer?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
BTW, don't you think your thread title is somewhat incomplete? Maybe you should put in exactly what they said?

I think the title of the thread was intentionally vague and misleading.

There's 2 possibilities here. Either charrison didn't fully understand that it said allies (not US) and it was simply a mistake to word the title that way...or you are correct, it was intentionally misleading. Either way, it should be changed.

I thought you were above thid kind of thing charrison.

Knock it off - you kids whine about people attacking the source instead of substance all the time....now looky who is doing it.

The title is fine - you just ASSume it means the US, but if you read the link and what he posted you will get the full picture. The title is no more "incomplete" than most of the thread topics in this forum.


CkG

It's not very polite to constantly refer to people as "kids".

I don't think they are attacking the source, but rather the context. It's kind of hard to attack the actual source wich is bill # whatever.

"source" meaning messenger.
Yeah the "kids" thing was low, I admit that, but the actions(posts) show childish behavior, do they not?(yes) Now, I don't know about this "constantly" charge though

CkG

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
BTW, don't you think your thread title is somewhat incomplete? Maybe you should put in exactly what they said?

I think the title of the thread was intentionally vague and misleading.

There's 2 possibilities here. Either charrison didn't fully understand that it said allies (not US) and it was simply a mistake to word the title that way...or you are correct, it was intentionally misleading. Either way, it should be changed.

I thought you were above thid kind of thing charrison.

Knock it off - you kids whine about people attacking the source instead of substance all the time....now looky who is doing it.

The title is fine - you just ASSume it means the US, but if you read the link and what he posted you will get the full picture. The title is no more "incomplete" than most of the thread topics in this forum.


CkG

It's not very polite to constantly refer to people as "kids".

I don't think they are attacking the source, but rather the context. It's kind of hard to attack the actual source wich is bill # whatever.

"source" meaning messenger.

CkG

I think it is perfectly appropriate to attack the practice of taking qoutes out of context. I believe both you and charrison on many occasions in the past have taken issue with similar practices.


If I were attacking the messenger I would have said "charrison your views are different than mine, therefore they are invalid or something similar"

 

[Gaard]

CAD, it might be appropiate for you to never again complain about someone quoting something out of context.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, it might be appropiate for you to never again complain about someone quoting something out of context.

What was out of context. Short title , with the full sentence for everyone to read as the first link. Or is one sentence too much read?

If I mislead anyone, it is only because they have faulty reading comprehension skills.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
CAD, it might be appropiate for you to never again complain about someone quoting something out of context.

He didn't "quote" anything fool. It was a topic title which usually means that there might just be some context in the content of the post. It would be "misleading" or "incomplete" if he never would have put the info in his post or if he would have said "US" in the title -which he didn't - You Assumed - you misinterpreted things because you Assumed.


CkG

tnitsuj- YHPM

 

[Miramonti]

Ironic that they didn't state which "other US allies" they were referring to.

 

[BOBDN]

I wonder what spending $200 BILLION dollars HERE IN AMERICA could do to inhance our security?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
I wonder what spending $200 BILLION dollars HERE IN AMERICA could do to inhance our security?

Well I'm not sure what it would do for security. But it would surely incite another 20 threads from you criticizing every aspect of it.