Washington football community discussions spanning the Redskins to Commanders era. 20+ years of game analysis, player discussions, and fan perspectives.
https://the-hogs.net/messageboard/
Countertrey wrote:Fios wrote:I'll take death!
You'll have to settle for a frozen pizza.
GSPODS wrote:Countertrey wrote:Fios wrote:I'll take death!
You'll have to settle for a frozen pizza.
Some of those have been known to cause death. Ever heard of Totino's?
Countertrey wrote:Here is just a small sample of thousands of highly credentialed professionals in engineering, aviation, academia, public service, law enforcement, and intelligence
And, yet, you still expect to be taken seriously! It's on the internet! It has it's own websites! It MUST be true!!!!
You didn't happen to note how many of the "articles" were without credit? How about how many were by the same author? How about those that were by known nuts?
Didn't think so... I'm sure it wouldn't help your cred to actually vet the web sites you use.
"From areas around the Palazzo Chigi, nerve centre of direction of Italian intelligence, it is noted that the non-authenticity of the video is supported by the fact that Osama bin Laden in it 'confessed' that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York. However, all of the democratic areas of America and of Europe, with the Italian center-left in the forefront, now know full well that the disastrous attack was planned and executed by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world to falsely incriminate Arabic countries and to persuade the Western Powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Countertrey, you are blowing smoke. Is it that you just can't admit you are wrong or is there some other agenda you are following?
Dozens and dozens more decorated career military officers
Francesco Cossiga – President of Italy (1985 - 1992) and Former Prime Minister. His comments :
Quote:
"From areas around the Palazzo Chigi, nerve centre of direction of Italian intelligence, it is noted that the non-authenticity of the video is supported by the fact that Osama bin Laden in it 'confessed' that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York. However, all of the democratic areas of America and of Europe, with the Italian center-left in the forefront, now know full well that the disastrous attack was planned and executed by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world to falsely incriminate Arabic countries and to persuade the Western Powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan."
RayNAustin wrote:You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar. Don't worry, even if others don't take the time to review the sources I posted, and you don't have the evidence to back up your claims of kooks and nuts that have questionable credibility, I'm going to show everyone what a bald faced liar you are. Your game is so transparent.
GSPODS wrote:And all you comment on is the first sentence? That's not like you, Kaz.
KazooSkinsFan wrote:OK. You clearly weren't a math major.
RayNAustin wrote:You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar
KazooSkinsFan wrote:RayNAustin wrote:You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar
Hey Ray. Does it make sense to call him an imbecile AND a liar? I'm not addressing the underlying argument here, but just the logic of calling him both. So for the sake of argument, let's assume you're right on the underlying issue, our government is a bunch of Right wing nut jobs who want to declare war on the world and are willing to murder their own people to do it. FoxNews knows that and is covering it up by putting on a bunch of liberals to say how wrong they are. The devious bastards.
Anyway, if he's an imbecile, why would he need to be a liar? Wouldn't an imbecile believe something stupid and not need to be telling a lie? Actually, if he was telling a lie, wouldn't that mean he actually did get it which would undercut your imbecile theory? Inquiring minds want to know.
RayNAustin wrote:You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar
GSPODS wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:OK. You clearly weren't a math major.
Would you care to expound upon the above statement?
You are fully aware I did not major in mathematics.
I'm certain you have a point, however, I am not grasping it.
KazooSkinsFan wrote:GSPODS wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:OK. You clearly weren't a math major.
Would you care to expound upon the above statement?
You are fully aware I did not major in mathematics.
I'm certain you have a point, however, I am not grasping it.
I was referring to the 2+2 and the fact stuff, which your statements were nonsense mathematically. I WAS a math major. Anyway, I just meant it as a tongue in cheek comment to mess with you since asked for another opinion and I obviously agree with the government sucking part.
GSPODS wrote:Sarcasm duly noted. Of course, if you had been taught that 2+2 = 5 or that a number squared is equal to the number times the square root of the number, then you would believe that as fact. Two is only defined as two because we accept it as such. Society dictates what is or is not accepted by usage and commonality. Just because we accept it as a society doesn't make it a fact. At one time we accepted as fact that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. Facts change as the information the facts are based upon changes.
Truth: I'm far from a genius.
Fact: If everyone more intelligent than I am died, I would be a genius.
JansenFan wrote:RayNAustin wrote:You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar. Don't worry, even if others don't take the time to review the sources I posted, and you don't have the evidence to back up your claims of kooks and nuts that have questionable credibility, I'm going to show everyone what a bald faced liar you are. Your game is so transparent.
Remember, attack the post, not the poster. Just a friendly reminder. If you want to call countertrey an imbecile, please do so in talking smack.
Thank you for your cooperation.
RayNAustin wrote:JansenFan wrote:RayNAustin wrote:You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar. Don't worry, even if others don't take the time to review the sources I posted, and you don't have the evidence to back up your claims of kooks and nuts that have questionable credibility, I'm going to show everyone what a bald faced liar you are. Your game is so transparent.
Remember, attack the post, not the poster. Just a friendly reminder. If you want to call countertrey an imbecile, please do so in talking smack.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Fair enough, I stand corrected....and no argument from me....but it was a return insult, just so you know.
KazooSkinsFan wrote:RayNAustin wrote:You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar
Hey Ray. Does it make sense to call him an imbecile AND a liar? I'm not addressing the underlying argument here, but just the logic of calling him both. So for the sake of argument, let's assume you're right on the underlying issue, our government is a bunch of Right wing nut jobs who want to declare war on the world and are willing to murder their own people to do it. FoxNews knows that and is covering it up by putting on a bunch of liberals to say how wrong they are. The devious bastards.
Anyway, if he's an imbecile, why would he need to be a liar? Wouldn't an imbecile believe something stupid and not need to be telling a lie? Actually, if he was telling a lie, wouldn't that mean he actually did get it which would undercut your imbecile theory? Inquiring minds want to know.
.....but in keeping with the rules of the board for which I've been politely reminded and for which I intend to dutifully honor, hypothetically speaking....could not an imbecile (defined as a stupid or silly person by the dictionary) also lie or fabricate or deceive in order to support their position? Of course they could. But does that then mean that they knew all along that their position was steeped in dishonesty? Not necessarily. They could be so totally convinced their beliefs are true that they are willing to lie to defend them. Conversely, to follow your logic, a liar would automatically have to be a smart person. And I don't think you are really suggesting that are you?
JansenFan wrote:RayNAustin wrote:JansenFan wrote:RayNAustin wrote:You are such an imbecile, smokescreen creating liar. Don't worry, even if others don't take the time to review the sources I posted, and you don't have the evidence to back up your claims of kooks and nuts that have questionable credibility, I'm going to show everyone what a bald faced liar you are. Your game is so transparent.
Remember, attack the post, not the poster. Just a friendly reminder. If you want to call countertrey an imbecile, please do so in talking smack.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Fair enough, I stand corrected....and no argument from me....but it was a return insult, just so you know.
First, let me start by apologizing. This was meant to be a PM. Secondly, I didn't notice any prior to that, so let me just make this a blanket, "Everyone watch the personal attacks."
RayNAustin wrote:I'm not sure why you or other inquiring minds would automatically consider the two maladies to be mutually exclusive of one another
Now there are all types of lies. There are lies of commission, and lies of omission. There are deceptive practices and ploys engaged in by those who find their position effectively challenged by the truth or the facts. There are those who will misquote, and those who will divert, and those that selectively address points taken out of context. Frequently such types never address an issue directly, but will demand sources, implying that no sources exist. When those sources are presented, they will attempt to disqualify a single source in oder to bring into doubt all sources. All of it can be classified as dishonest, and by definition, a lie. But that does not prove one way or the other whether someone believes or not the position they are defending with such tactics. Only a mind reader could answer that. And I don't read minds.
Have I satisfactorily addressed your question?
KazooSkinsFan wrote:RayNAustin wrote:I'm not sure why you or other inquiring minds would automatically consider the two maladies to be mutually exclusive of one another
Now there are all types of lies. There are lies of commission, and lies of omission. There are deceptive practices and ploys engaged in by those who find their position effectively challenged by the truth or the facts. There are those who will misquote, and those who will divert, and those that selectively address points taken out of context. Frequently such types never address an issue directly, but will demand sources, implying that no sources exist. When those sources are presented, they will attempt to disqualify a single source in oder to bring into doubt all sources. All of it can be classified as dishonest, and by definition, a lie. But that does not prove one way or the other whether someone believes or not the position they are defending with such tactics. Only a mind reader could answer that. And I don't read minds.
Have I satisfactorily addressed your question?
Well, I have to agree in the general that one could certainly be both an imbecile and a liar. But in this case, I mean in the hypothetical case, the accused perpetrator of mischievous acts was informed he was both imbecile and liar in the course of ascertaining a single conclusion. Wouldn't there be a an inconsistency in simultaneously engaging in both transgressions since to engage in one you would be required to have awareness the act which you are engaged in is deceitful, and in the alternate you are by definition incapable of determining the validity of the incident in question? So isn't your insinuation that Trey, er, I mean the hypothetical accused, is both imbecile and liar in the aforementioned incident raise an irreconcilable dichotomy rendering the conclusion he is both of highly questionable validity?
I'm just asking.
RayNAustin wrote:The long answer is no. I covered that in my previous explanation, but let me rephrase.
In this hypothetical instance, the alleged imbecile drew upon nonsensical arguments that rely on factual inconsistencies as the basis for his opinion/position regarding the matter. I have no doubt he sees that differently, and believes his position to be the right stance....i.e. not a lie.
However, during the course of debate, the hypothetical imbecile engaged in tactics and arguments in support of that position which were untrue, and in my determination, purposely, knowing his supporting arguments and tactics were untrue. Follow me?
Now I could be wrong....and this hypothetical person could be just a complete imbecile, so stupid as to not even recognize his supporting arguments and tactics were dishonest.
But I suspect that is not the case, and believe my gut level impressions were accurate.
RayNAustin wrote:I have an analogy to better explain the point:
You are off fishing alone one evening and your wife is at home. You come home at 10:00 pm with fish.
The next day it is discovered that someone who looks a lot like you robbed a convenience store and drove off in a car that looks a lot like yours.
The Police show up at your door, wanting to know where you were at 8:00 PM the night before. Your wife knowing that you would never do such a thing, tells the Police that you were home with her all evening. Little did she know that it really was you that robbed the store....you caught the fish at 7:00, and robbed the store at 8:00 and returned home at 10:00. But she didn't know that. She just knew that you were alone and therefore no legitimate alibi for your whereabouts.
She lied in support of what she firmly believed was the truth.
Now to take it one step further, perhaps you have a long history of robbing convenience stores, and she is aware of it, but chose to believe you when you said you didn't do it, that you really were out fishing.
That would make her a Liar and an imbecile in support of what she foolishly believed was true.
Get it?
KazooSkinsFan wrote:RayNAustin wrote:The long answer is no. I covered that in my previous explanation, but let me rephrase.
In this hypothetical instance, the alleged imbecile drew upon nonsensical arguments that rely on factual inconsistencies as the basis for his opinion/position regarding the matter. I have no doubt he sees that differently, and believes his position to be the right stance....i.e. not a lie.
However, during the course of debate, the hypothetical imbecile engaged in tactics and arguments in support of that position which were untrue, and in my determination, purposely, knowing his supporting arguments and tactics were untrue. Follow me?
Now I could be wrong....and this hypothetical person could be just a complete imbecile, so stupid as to not even recognize his supporting arguments and tactics were dishonest.
But I suspect that is not the case, and believe my gut level impressions were accurate.
Aaaahhhahaaa! So you admit it's in fact entirely conceivable the hypothetical party in question (noting we have no reason whatsoever to believe is actually in reality Trey) is in fact merely an imbecile and not a liar at all! You were engaging in mere conjecture and rampant speculation on that point! NOW we're getting somewhere. I should have been a lawyer.