tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post551224359306928234..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: WaterboardingRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36933859998520780662007-11-03T13:24:00.000-04:002007-11-03T13:24:00.000-04:00Bryan said:---Actually, yes, I do. I tend to mix w...Bryan said:<BR/>---<BR/>Actually, yes, I do. I tend to mix words and letters around. It's usually worse when I'm staring at a computer screen. As I said, I do apologize for misrepresenting what you said. Please forgive me.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Of course. But I will say that you probably will want to spend a little more time reading what others write before you respond to it if you know that this is something that happens to you frequently. It'll help avoid future problems.<BR/><BR/>And you probably should read some more satire at some point.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22579943006013641262007-11-03T00:22:00.000-04:002007-11-03T00:22:00.000-04:00“You have a serious reading impediment. The "edito...“You have a serious reading impediment. The "editorial changes" were the changes *I* made.”<BR/><BR/>Actually, yes, I do. I tend to mix words and letters around. It's usually worse when I'm staring at a computer screen. As I said, I do apologize for misrepresenting what you said. Please forgive me. <BR/><BR/>“Changes like:<BR/>You originally said:<BR/>---<BR/>how flippant of you to say when you aren't on the board.<BR/>---<BR/>I quoted this back with the editorial changes to make it fit the context by saying:<BR/>---<BR/>How flippant of you to say when you haven't done my overtime.<BR/>---<BR/>Really, it ought not be THIS difficult to follow a thread of thought.”<BR/><BR/>No, it shouldn't. I misread, and I apologize. <BR/><BR/>“Bryan said:<BR/>---<BR/>Point out directly what I said that was careless?<BR/>---<BR/>Well, we could start with the unnecessary question mark at the end of this sentence....”<BR/><BR/>Pointing out a typo? Apparently you have a lot to work with to point out what I said that was idle and careless, and you point out a typo like some message board troll? C'mon man. I misread your whole message, you can do better than that.<BR/><BR/>“You said:<BR/>---<BR/>I will take responsibility for anything that was careless.<BR/>---<BR/>Allow me to read with your lenses.<BR/><BR/>You'll take responsibility for ANYTHING that was careless? So it's YOUR FAULT Three Mile Island, the Titanic, and Britany Spears happened.”<BR/><BR/>It ought not be THIS difficult to follow a thread of thought. It's not hard to see that the anything in context points back to what I was saying earlier. You know, kind of like the “all” in some scriptures doesn't mean every individual. <BR/><BR/>“Anyway, you said:<BR/>---<BR/>What -I- was saying is that you have shown me more of the same carelessness by talking down to me off of a basic assumption about an apparent lack of education and no clue as to what my life is like and the work-load I have.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Allow me to emphasize a portion. You said: "you have shown me more of THE SAME CARELESSNESS" What is "the same" referring to? It is referring to your claim that my original words were careless.”<BR/><BR/>Yes.<BR/><BR/>“See, you brought up the issue of careless words. I haven't mentioned anything at all about them. I merely quoted you back to you, and then you say that my quoting you is the same carelessness. (The same as what? I can only suppose the same as what you originally said, which would be accurate insofar as what I said was a parroting of what you said.)”<BR/><BR/>The same as the original comment. Because as I read it, mixing it up, I thought you said that I was editing you, which was then preceded by what seemed like personal attacks against my education and so forth. Granted, I haven't given you much reason to think differently in the way I read your post. <BR/><BR/>“Is anyone else having difficulties following this like Bryan is? Do we need to start a homeschooling session in reading comprehension?”<BR/><BR/>Do comments like these make you feel like more of a man? If you need your masculinity affirmed, I don't mind helping a brother out. <BR/><BR/>“Bryan said:<BR/>---<BR/>Because waterboarding is such a hilarious context. <BR/>---<BR/>No, your spazing out over it is such a hilarious context.”<BR/><BR/>I was spazing out over your remarks which seemed very flippant to me about a very serious topic. Thus far I haven't actually said anything about the topic of waterboarding itself. <BR/><BR/>Bryan said:<BR/>---<BR/>And his own admission was that he _wasn't_ being facetious.<BR/>---<BR/>No, my own admission was that I wasn't being "factitious."<BR/><BR/>Ok, another typo. You knew what I meant. Here's the deal. I screwed up. I had a problem with what you said, I should have taken to you instead of dragging it out In public. We're also told to restore a brother gently, so I'm sure the snark didn't help either. I honestly do apologize for both of those things. Tell you what. You can have the last word. You can make me look dumb, or whatever you want to do. You can point out my typos, my illiteracy... in fact I could probably give you a list that you don't even know about to use. However, I do hope you see my sincerity in apologizing, and the sincerity of the intent and concern behind the flawed attempt at my first post. You probably don't see it or even remotely care. That's ok too. God bless.Bryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02113705233124343514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48120666359148024082007-11-02T21:36:00.000-04:002007-11-02T21:36:00.000-04:00I’d like to amplify or augment a few of Gene’s per...I’d like to amplify or augment a few of Gene’s perceptive comments:<BR/><BR/>1.There’s a distinction between sin and crime, sinners and criminals. We’re all sinners. None of us is innocent before God. That doesn’t mean we’re all guilty of the same crimes with respect to our fellow man. I can be guilty before God, yet innocent of wrongdoing with reference to you. Not every sinner is a bankrobber or rapist or serial killer.<BR/><BR/>2.Apropos (1), the Mosaic law regards all human beings as sinners. But that doesn’t prevent it from distinguish between criminal innocence and guilt, or between assailants and victims.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44324852696573513862007-11-02T20:56:00.000-04:002007-11-02T20:56:00.000-04:00Julie,I don't see the relevance of your comment? ...Julie,<BR/><BR/>I don't see the relevance of your comment? Are you trying to say that the American Revolutionists should not have engaged in guerilla warfare?Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46658495210014244452007-11-02T20:15:00.000-04:002007-11-02T20:15:00.000-04:00I realize Julie is too offended to read the commen...I realize Julie is too offended to read the comments to her post, because, well, that would just be wrong, but, for the sake of the other readers, I'll take this:<BR/><BR/><I>From my reading or Romans, we're all guilty and none are innocent.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>1. If true, then why are you objecting to waterboarding? If these men are guilty, wicked sinners, then isn't their punishment deserved?<BR/><BR/>2. More to the point, this is a category mistake - again. The Bible uses "guilt" and "innocence" in many senses. In Romans, Paul is talking about an eternal sense, before God's judgment bar. The Bible calls different men "righteous" and then turns around and says that there is no one "righteous" who has not sinned relative innocence between men. Here, Paul is talking about relative innocence - those who are (potential) victims of terrorism.<BR/><BR/>3. I agree, Julie does need to listen to Dr. Piper. She may just learn how to read her Bible.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80713351339085971362007-11-02T16:09:00.000-04:002007-11-02T16:09:00.000-04:00Bryan said:---Um... I quoted your whole post in it...Bryan said:<BR/>---<BR/>Um... I quoted your whole post in its entirety, so I'm not sure where the "editorial changes" were made.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>You have a serious reading impediment. The "editorial changes" were the changes <I>*I*</I> made. Changes like:<BR/><BR/>You originally said:<BR/>---<BR/>how flippant of you to say when you aren't on the board.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>I quoted this back <I>with the editorial changes to make it fit the context</I> by saying:<BR/>---<BR/>How flippant of you to say when you haven't done my overtime.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Really, it ought not be <I>THIS</I> difficult to follow a thread of thought.<BR/><BR/>Bryan said:<BR/>---<BR/>Point out directly what I said that was careless?<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Well, we could start with the unnecessary question mark at the end of this sentence....<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>---<BR/>I will take responsibility for anything that was careless.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Allow me to read with your lenses.<BR/><BR/>You'll take responsibility for <I>ANYTHING</I> that was careless? So it's <I>YOUR FAULT</I> Three Mile Island, the Titanic, and Britany Spears happened.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, you said:<BR/>---<BR/>What -I- was saying is that you have shown me more of the same carelessness by talking down to me off of a basic assumption about an apparent lack of education and no clue as to what my life is like and the work-load I have.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Allow me to emphasize a portion. You said: "you have shown me more of <I><B>THE SAME CARELESSNESS</B></I>" What is "the same" referring to? It is referring to <I>your claim</I> that my original words were careless.<BR/><BR/>See, <I>you</I> brought up the issue of careless words. I haven't mentioned anything at all about them. I merely quoted you back to you, and then you say that my quoting you is <I>the same</I> carelessness. (The same as what? I can only suppose the same as what you originally said, which would be accurate insofar as what I said was a parroting of what you said.)<BR/><BR/>Is anyone else having difficulties following this like Bryan is? Do we need to start a homeschooling session in reading comprehension?<BR/><BR/>Bryan said:<BR/>---<BR/>Because waterboarding is such a hilarious context. <BR/>---<BR/><BR/>No, your spazing out over it is such a hilarious context.<BR/><BR/>Bryan said:<BR/>---<BR/>And his own admission was that he _wasn't_ being facetious.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>No, my own admission was that I wasn't being "factitious."<BR/><BR/>Anonymous said:<BR/>---<BR/>Didn't you know that Peter was in track in high school? His main event was jumping to conclusions.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Dude, that was so funny in 1983. Frankly I prefer the Jump To Conclusions mat from Office Space myself, though. It's easier on the knees.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28586737045960859052007-11-02T13:50:00.000-04:002007-11-02T13:50:00.000-04:00Mr. Manata,Thank you for your response. Where is ...Mr. Manata,<BR/>Thank you for your response. Where is the verse about humanity's innocence? From my reading or Romans, we're all guilty and none are innocent.<BR/><BR/>Good bye, Triablogue. You've made an unfortunate ugly notch in the reputation of reformed believers. Your attitude and use of words speaks loudly from your hearts. The bible tells us that out of the mouth the heart speaks.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to listen to Pastor Piper. I need a real Gospel message from a person that truly loves people.<BR/><BR/>Go ahead and tear this post apart. I won't see it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01291223160654184593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6581056029052134912007-11-02T12:14:00.000-04:002007-11-02T12:14:00.000-04:00Didn't you know that Peter was in track in high sc...Didn't you know that Peter was in track in high school? His main event was jumping to conclusions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22711151143124990212007-11-02T11:19:00.000-04:002007-11-02T11:19:00.000-04:00"The basic problem is that Peter stooped to the us..."The basic problem is that Peter stooped to the use of humor, and we all know how ungodly humor is (Ps 1:4)."<BR/><BR/>Because waterboarding is such a hilarious context. I get it now. And his own admission was that he _wasn't_ being facetious.Bryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02113705233124343514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1827074959654027042007-11-02T11:18:00.000-04:002007-11-02T11:18:00.000-04:00"Well since most of my comments were simply me quo..."Well since most of my comments were simply me quoting your words back to you (with editorial changes to fit the context), if I "have shown [you] more of the same" then by your own admission I HAVE already shown you where your words were careless."<BR/><BR/>Um... I quoted your whole post in its entirety, so I'm not sure where the "editorial changes" were made. Perhaps you can compare your original with mine and show me to them so I can represent you correctly?<BR/><BR/>And where have you already shown me that? Point out directly what I said that was careless? I will take responsibility for anything that was careless. What -I- was saying is that you have shown me more of the same carelessness by talking down to me off of a basic assumption about an apparent lack of education and no clue as to what my life is like and the work-load I have. That is more of the same carelessness that I was talking about. You have not shown me where I was careless. <BR/><BR/>However, if you do think that I was careless in what I had to say, then do please forgive me for saying it, and my ignorance as to what about it was careless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49578356339437321622007-11-02T10:45:00.000-04:002007-11-02T10:45:00.000-04:00The basic problem is that Peter stooped to the use...The basic problem is that Peter stooped to the use of humor, and we all know how ungodly humor is (Ps 1:4).stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84017599338304112442007-11-02T10:20:00.000-04:002007-11-02T10:20:00.000-04:00Bryan said:---Sure, show me where my words were ca...Bryan said:<BR/>---<BR/>Sure, show me where my words were careless and I'll gladly repent. However, you have shown me more of the same by assuming that you know me and what my situation is.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Well since most of my comments were simply me quoting your words back to you (with editorial changes to fit the context), if I "have shown [you] more of the same" then by your own admission I <I>HAVE</I> already shown you where your words were careless.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72494467168575277962007-11-02T07:43:00.000-04:002007-11-02T07:43:00.000-04:00"How flippant of you to say when you haven't done ..."How flippant of you to say when you haven't done my overtime."<BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, I would work your overtime, but I'm too busy working on my masters degree and working to support me while I'm here at school and working to support my mom after she was laid off. I can't find the time.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"I wasn't being "factitious." Water boarding isn't all that different from doing a kick turn in the swimming pool. And while all things considered I'd rather have a steak dinner followed by a nice movie, I would STILL prefer an hour of water boarding to reliving the overtime of this week.<BR/><BR/>But hey, why don't YOU lay it out. We've got two openings where I work...although I doubt you'd get hired until you finally get your GED."<BR/><BR/>Can you get your GED if you're working on your masters?<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Isn't there something about a beam in your own eye and a mote in someone elses?"<BR/><BR/>Sure, show me where my words were careless and I'll gladly repent. However, you have shown me more of the same by assuming that you know me and what my situation is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42099544881265596432007-11-02T01:37:00.000-04:002007-11-02T01:37:00.000-04:00Bryan said:---how flippant of you to say when you ...Bryan said:<BR/>---<BR/>how flippant of you to say when you aren't on the board.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>How flippant of you to say when you haven't done my overtime.<BR/><BR/>Bryan said:<BR/>---<BR/>Man up and do it to show us you mean it. Oh. You were being factitious.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>I wasn't being "factitious." Water boarding isn't all that different from doing a kick turn in the swimming pool. And while all things considered I'd rather have a steak dinner followed by a nice movie, I would STILL prefer an hour of water boarding to reliving the overtime of this week.<BR/><BR/>But hey, why don't YOU lay it out. We've got two openings where I work...although I doubt you'd get hired until you finally get your GED.<BR/><BR/>Bryan said:<BR/>---<BR/>Isn't there something about being called to account for every careless word?<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Isn't there something about a beam in your own eye and a mote in someone elses?Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13375932532398049082007-11-01T23:03:00.000-04:002007-11-01T23:03:00.000-04:00You know, I went waterboarding once on Lake Wanaha...You know, I went waterboarding once on Lake Wanahakalugi. It was a lot of fun until I wiped out and forgot to let go of the rope...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41878282955227501462007-11-01T22:30:00.000-04:002007-11-01T22:30:00.000-04:00"As for the Stockholm Syndrome being "more applica...<I>"As for the Stockholm Syndrome being "more applicable to female hostages" does not disqualify it from applying to men. It is a flexible approach to try with any captive. False dichotomies abound on all sides."</I><BR/><BR/>I think you're out of touch with the warrior mentality.<BR/><BR/>During SEAL training we were subjected to worse stuff than water boarding.<BR/><BR/>And, it is a mandatory qualification for all special forces members is to go through (some kind of) SERE training. Our men our beat, sleep deprived, subjected to severe psychological stress, etc. It is a known fact that (pretty much) everyone breaks when subjected to this - it's just a matter of how long. Keep them in then dark long enough allows command to change codes, plans, etc. Surviving long enough is the goal. Taking your sweet time to question someone is pointless. Or, if the plan is big enough, then keep them in the dark until it can be implemented.<BR/><BR/>So, we're not dealing with weak minded people. We're not dealing with pansies who get attached to their captors. Escape is always on the mind. Kill your captor if you can.<BR/><BR/>Asking questions does not get the info. These men are proud. They want to return and say that they didn't talk. They'll be heroes. They will lie, cheat, steal, anything to throw off the enemy.<BR/><BR/>This is a big, scary world, with mean, nasty men. Bleeding hearts and liberals are out of touch with reality. They're weak-kneed and don't know how to deal with someone who is dedicated to a cause. They don't know how to win wars, to protect innocent life.<BR/><BR/>There's a reason why those who engaged in "dirty" fighting in the Rev. and Civ. wars avoided massive casualties, while creating a large body count (back then it was just, well, "immoral" to hide in the bushes and ambush platoons). There's a reason why Spec Ops were the only guys winning and making progress in the Vietnam war. Many of the arguments against Steve sound like the arguments against Rev. and Civ. war guerrilla warfare. It wasn't "civilized." It wasn't "gentlemanly." It was "immoral." It was evidence of disorder, a rebellious spirit.<BR/><BR/>But without this type of warfare, we may well still be eating crumpets right now. But we're not. Indeed, one reason you're able to sit here and Monday morning quarterback is because of the use of previously thought "immoral" actions. War, successful warfare, takes a certain kind of person. At the end of the day, we all want a General Patton to conduct warfare rather than "Julie" or "Mike" or "Anonymous."Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81143893788225585282007-11-01T21:30:00.000-04:002007-11-01T21:30:00.000-04:00steve said:onelasttime said:"Okay, who is the righ...steve said:<BR/>onelasttime said:<BR/><BR/>"Okay, who is the right person to waterboard and what is the right reason to do it?"<BR/><BR/>Let's see. What about a high-value terrorist who won't volunteer his knowledge of impending terrorist plots.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45730312646418637822007-11-01T21:20:00.000-04:002007-11-01T21:20:00.000-04:00"FWIW, I've had to work over 10 hours of overtime ..."FWIW, I've had to work over 10 hours of overtime so far this week. All things considered, I'd prefer one hour of waterboarding.<BR/><BR/>Oh well."<BR/><BR/>how flippant of you to say when you aren't on the board. Man up and do it to show us you mean it. Oh. You were being factitious. Isn't there something about being called to account for every careless word?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74803822299746647302007-11-01T21:06:00.000-04:002007-11-01T21:06:00.000-04:00Okay, who is the right person to waterboard and wh...Okay, who is the right person to waterboard and what is the right reason to do it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77345300524260306982007-11-01T20:12:00.000-04:002007-11-01T20:12:00.000-04:00onelasttime said..."If you use it on the wrong per...onelasttime said...<BR/><BR/>"If you use it on the wrong person for the wrong reason."<BR/><BR/>Relativism?<BR/><BR/>*******************************<BR/><BR/>A one-word response with a question mark at the end is not an argument. Do you care to actually explain how you equate that with relativism?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42080543908490135602007-11-01T19:58:00.000-04:002007-11-01T19:58:00.000-04:00"If you use it on the wrong person for the wrong r..."If you use it on the wrong person for the wrong reason."<BR/><BR/>Relativism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21780109781895122722007-11-01T18:44:00.000-04:002007-11-01T18:44:00.000-04:00Julie said:---I have asked other regular readers h...Julie said:<BR/>---<BR/>I have asked other regular readers here about your post and some have said they have decided to stop reading, others said they are considering discontinuing reading Triablogue, others have said it makes no difference.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>I have asked other regular posters here about your comment and some have said they have decided to stop reading them, others have said they are considering disconnecting their Internet, others have said it makes no difference.<BR/><BR/>I fall in the third category.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81525888946802683642007-11-01T18:38:00.000-04:002007-11-01T18:38:00.000-04:00FWIW, I've had to work over 10 hours of overtime s...FWIW, I've had to work over 10 hours of overtime so far this week. All things considered, I'd prefer one hour of waterboarding.<BR/><BR/>Oh well.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41365407770575468602007-11-01T17:24:00.000-04:002007-11-01T17:24:00.000-04:00onelasttime said:"Is waterboarding ever wrong Stev...onelasttime said:<BR/><BR/>"Is waterboarding ever wrong Steve?"<BR/><BR/>If you use it on the wrong person for the wrong reason.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25007094282925194032007-11-01T17:20:00.000-04:002007-11-01T17:20:00.000-04:00Is waterboarding ever wrong Steve?Is waterboarding ever wrong Steve?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com