So who here are still pissed off at the French?

[PingSpike]

Why anyone wastes time being angry at the french is beyond me. They made their decisions regarding foreign policy just like we did. They aren't required to agree with us because we bailed them out 60 years ago, just like we aren't required to agree with them because they bailed us out 200 years ago.

And "freedom fries" is fvcking stupid. We haven't done anything that retarded since we renamed sour kraut to "liberty cabage" in WWII and at least we were at war with Germany back then...we only disagree with the French and everyone starts acting like a bunch of fvcking crybaby pussies. Its like we're just trying our asses off to find some one to get pissed at.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
It was an observation, a simple opinion that I would be happy to eleborate on in some circumstances.

It was presented in terms of a statement. And it's unsubstantiated.

But not with you (a person who has proven himself a blind partisan), and not with the type of insulting repsonse you gave.

Stop with the water works about how I'm insulting you. In the other thread I simply asked you questions and you got bent out of shape and tried to suggest I was the moron even though you were the one who couldn't defend your own statements.

So I have clearly laid out the nature of my comment. It was simple observation, not extended argument. I have stated why I have not answered. You are worthless to debate because of your intense partisanship, and you didn't seek my rationale, instead just being flippant and dismissing it. I have suggested what you could do to learn about my position on your own, to turn your ignorance on the subject into something that can lead to a discussion.

Irrelevant.

I can say the sun moves across the sky, and not providing reasoning doesn't make the observation false.

This is a pathetic analogy.

Well, you're assuming my observation is false because I refuse to provide my reasoning. That is more Infohawk foolishness.

Not really actually. Nice straw man. I'm saying it's unsubstantiated. I also said it was a generalization.

We might as well make something perfectly clear since you don't seem to "get it": I will never provide my extra reasoning on something to you- ever. I learned quickly you are a quack who's not looking for legitimate discussion, only cheap shots and ideological dogma. This topic is just another example out of many... I give a simple observation, and you attack it without reasonably seeking clarification. I explain my positions all the time at this site, but it's done on my terms, not because some partisan parasite "demands" more while being insulting and displaying ignorance on a different viewpoint.

More insults from someone who pretends to be above it all.

(btw, i said a VARIATION of the socratic method... it's called "discovery learning" and it's all the rage)

Your use of variation is too loose. If anyone was using the socratic method it was me. Asking you to support your statements. You failed.

Again, you can keep making statements, but if there is no support for them, I'm going to call you out on them. Cheers.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'm not too happy with their collusion with Saddam and the whole Oil-for-UN SC Votes ordeal.

However, if it weren't for France we wouldn't be debating this issue right now. Instead we probably be pissed that the Queen raised taxes on tea yet again.

Best post in the thread

 

[cwjerome]

Another sweeping generalization from 3chordcharlie, failing to provide reasoning and evidence for his observation.

Ooops, sorry about my Infohawk imitation

So what I gather from your last evasion Infohawk, is that you are admitting my position on France COULD be true. It's just you're really butthurt I didn't support my opinion. Boo-Hoo... re-read previous posts and understand why I won't, it's very understandable. Get used to it... I never will explain myself to you. If you seek understanding of my positions, you'll just have to skim my arguments when I'm engaged in legitimate discussions with rational people.

(send hate mail to the "discovery leaning" and "connected math" companies who contract with school districts across the country. Tell them that their teaching methods of self-guided exploration and reflective questioning are not a "variation" of the socratic method)

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

As for assisting them when Hitler II rolls into France, I don't recall the USA assisting when Hitler I rolled into France, Belgium and the Netherlands in 1940. I don't remember them assisting Norway either.

You may not want to open that can-o-worms. We didn't assist at first for many of the same reasons the liberals/left give now as reasons Bush shouldn't have gone into Iraq. We eventually figured out the liberals/left of the time were wrong and many, many more people died than should have by delaying that decision.

Good God man read some history before you belch out such ignorant rubbish!






:disgust:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

As for assisting them when Hitler II rolls into France, I don't recall the USA assisting when Hitler I rolled into France, Belgium and the Netherlands in 1940. I don't remember them assisting Norway either.

You may not want to open that can-o-worms. We didn't assist at first for many of the same reasons the liberals/left give now as reasons Bush shouldn't have gone into Iraq. We eventually figured out the liberals/left of the time were wrong and many, many more people died than should have by delaying that decision.

Good God man read some history before you belch out such ignorant rubbish!

:disgust:

Please do provide an actual rebuttal to prove me wrong instead of making an inane and content free proclamation, as you did above, if you actually do know anything about that time period, and it's clear already that you don't.

I'll be looking forward to it.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Mayax

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Mayax

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Mayax

Originally posted by: Gaard
Does the fact that they were "on the take" mean they were wrong?

No, it means their motives were questionable. Actually, the French weren't even right. They had no idea if Saddam had WMD's or not.

I'm just trying to understand here. So we basically said "We can't tell you what we know, but you should take our word for it and wage war against Iraq with us", is that right?

Nope, not at all. Try another shot at understanding.

Help me out here then. You say France had no idea if Iraq had WMD, but we knew FOR A FACT that they did. Either we knew something that they didn't (which would back my "take our word for it" statement) or the evidence wasn't as SOLID for them as it was for us. Which one?

I didn't say we knew for a fact that he did.

I didn't say that you did. Our president and his administration did.

Here's a helpful hint for you....replace "we" in my previous post with "Bush & Co." (it might help you understand my post a little better) Now after you do that, think about it for a little while, then answer the question.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: bozack
Yes.

Personally I avoid all products from France and have no plans in the next decade to visit their country.

Smart move considering frances 6 million muslims who may guillotine you and yours. This geos for traveling americans everywhere too , not just france/

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: TranceNation


just curios, looks like they were right in the first place

right? how?

theres still an oil-for-food scandal

hah ... any old excuse will do for you, right ??

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

is that you are admitting my position on France COULD be true.

Yes, it could be true. You haven't shown it is though. Get it? If you can't, it's because you're a fraud.

If you seek understanding of my positions, you'll just have to skim my arguments when I'm engaged in legitimate discussions with rational people.

You don't seem to understand what reason is. Among other things, reason means giving support for your statements.

Tell them that their teaching methods of self-guided exploration and reflective questioning are not a "variation" of the socratic method)

I seriously doubt any teaching method involves your level of pompousness and lack of logic.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
If you can't, it's because you're a fraud.

I seriously doubt any teaching method involves your level of pompousness and lack of logic.

See my sig.

 

[Infohawk]

Tasteslikechicken, not apologizing to you for something I didn't do wrong doesn't make me a fraud, if that's what your suggestion. We've been over this... PM me if you are still confused.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Check my sig again, Infohawk.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Check my sig again, Infohawk.

What's the date on that post?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Check my sig again, Infohawk.

What's the date on that post?

10/05/2004 07:41 PM

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...AR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

 

[Infohawk]

Are you saying troll is a name-call? I don't consider it one. This will be my last post to you on this topic in this thread. I'm PMing you to spare the others. Oh wait you blocked me. End of discussion.

I'm still waiting for cwjerome though.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Are you saying troll is a name-call? I don't consider it one. This will be my last post to you on this topic in this thread. I'm PMing you to spare the others. Oh wait you blocked me. End of discussion.

I'm still waiting for cwjerome though.

Calling a member a "fraud" and "pompous" is not calling someone a troll. Now you try to weasel your way out of yet another demonstration of your lies.

Do you really think you're fooling anyone but yourself, Infohawk?

Now the discussion is ended. The people of this forum can make their own determination.

 

[Minchenden]

Sweet F**king A.

When I last posted on this thread, people did, at least, have a veneer of politeness and cordiality. I come back 20 hours later and it has turned into yet another pissing match, and the original OP has become irrelevant.

Even dumbya can debate/argue better than this. :roll:

 

[Babbles]

Nearly every single Parisian I ran into when I was in France was a jackass, so I'm still pissed off at them. Seems like the further you get from Paris, though, the nicer the people are.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Are you saying troll is a name-call? I don't consider it one. This will be my last post to you on this topic in this thread. I'm PMing you to spare the others. Oh wait you blocked me. End of discussion.

I'm still waiting for cwjerome though.

Calling a member a "fraud" and "pompous" is not calling someone a troll. Now you try to weasel your way out of yet another demonstration of your lies.

Do you really think you're fooling anyone but yourself, Infohawk?

So sleezy of you to make me crap in the flood instead of taking this to IM.

Well, you're taking an old quote. After inquiring with the mods it turns out some name-calling is not against the rules depending on the context. Moreover, if you look at the forum low-level name-calling is wide-spread So my position has changed.

Again, you are dirty for constantly taking your personal issues with me into the forums.

Edit: just to be clear I am not saying the mods told me that name-calling is okay. It's more of a general reasonableness standard.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Minchenden
I come back 20 hours later and it has turned into yet another pissing match, and the original OP has become irrelevant.

I genuinely apologize to you. I am partly responsible for this. I have asked tasteslikechicken to PM so that we don't crap all over the thread but he wants you to see it.

 

[Squisher]

Do I hate the French? No. Do I distrust them more than others? Yes.

I can understand a country making decisions in its own best interest, but it seems France reviles us to such an extent that I question their motives behind all their desicions.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
So sleezy of you to make me crap in the flood instead of taking this to IM.

Since when has that stopped you in the past?

Well, you're taking an old quote. After inquiring with the mods it turns out some name-calling is not against the rules depending on the context. Moreover, if you look at the forum low-level name-calling is wide-spread So my position has changed.

Yeah it's old; all of 4 weeks old. :roll:

Flip-flopping, huh? :shocked: What a surprise.

I genuinely apologize to you. I am partly responsible for this. I have asked tasteslikechicken to PM so that we don't crap all over the thread but he wants you to see it.

I wanted everyone to see it, not just Minchenden, since you have a penchant for foisting personal attacks on so many in here. I'm hoping that publicly demonstrating your hypocrisy will temper that habit some but I'm dubious as to whether it will have any actual effect, though it may provide some reprieve for an hour or so.

And I apologize to everyone else for thread-crapping. I hope you understand.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Infohawk
So sleezy of you to make me crap in the flood instead of taking this to IM.

Since when has that stopped you in the past?

Actually, it has. Remember that's why I IMed you. Then you blocked my IMs...
:roll:

Well, you're taking an old quote. After inquiring with the mods it turns out some name-calling is not against the rules depending on the context. Moreover, if you look at the forum low-level name-calling is wide-spread So my position has changed.

Yeah it's old; all of 4 weeks old. :roll:

Flip-flopping, huh? :shocked: What a surprise.
[/quote]

I changed my mind based on new information. I'm sorry I am not ashamed of that.

I genuinely apologize to you. I am partly responsible for this. I have asked tasteslikechicken to PM so that we don't crap all over the thread but he wants you to see it.

I wanted everyone to see it, not just Minchenden, since you have a penchant for foisting personal attacks on so many in here. I'm hoping that publicly demonstrating your hypocrisy will temper that habit some but I'm dubious as to whether it will have any actual effect, though it may provide some reprieve for an hour or so.
[/quote]
BS. This is your personal problem. You are swiping back with anything you can. First it was that I called you a troll, now it's that I insult people. What's your issue exactly?

And I apologize to everyone else for thread-crapping. I hope you understand.

You have no excuse. You could have PMed me but you didn't.

 

[cwjerome]

To: Infohawk
Re: Re-read

So what I gather from your last evasion Infohawk, is that you are admitting my position on France COULD be true. It's just you're really butthurt I didn't support my opinion. Boo-Hoo... re-read previous posts and understand why I won't, it's very understandable. Get used to it... I never will explain myself to you. If you seek understanding of my positions, you'll just have to skim my arguments when I'm engaged in legitimate discussions with rational people.

(send hate mail to the "discovery leaning" and "connected math" companies who contract with school districts across the country. Tell them that their teaching methods of self-guided exploration and reflective questioning are not a "variation" of the socratic method)"


AGAIN: I will not explain any of my arguments, observations, or opinions to you- ever. I have clearly stated why several times. I don't know what's so hard to understand about it... you are meaningless and your words are worthless because I don't respond to your inquiries. Why do I keep repeating myself? Say whatever you want and is doesn't apply... I do not support my words to YOU, they will always be unsubstantiated to YOU, so accept this fact that when you ask something of me you'll get nothing