PDA

View Full Version : The difference between facts and opinions


Cosmos Jack
04-22-2003, 04:16 PM
It seems on this forum there are a lot of people that have a certain point of view and they see that point of view as being more correct than mine.

What they all forget is for every idea or "fact" there is a information to support 1 way or the other way. So 1st you have a idea than you get "facts" to support or whatever you can pretty much choose what side you want to take on though's "Facts".
If I want to talk about men landing on the moon there are lots of sites and books that support that "fact" and than there are lots of sites that support the opposite that it never happened and it was a cover up. They have facts too you know. Did the Nazis really kill any Jews in WWII. I'm sure I can fined "facts" that would say other wise. Not that I beleave they didn't.

So there is a definite difference in interpretation here. It's not that I'm stupid, uneducated, or not informed. It's that I don't support the majorities interpretation of the facts. The popular them in this forum is the USA is bad and evil and out to control the world... I'm sorry, but that's not my interpretation of the facts and I'm not going to agree with any of you on anything supporting that. It's not that anything I say is wrong or anything you say is wrong its that whether you want to admit it or not my ideas are as true as yours from your point of view. A lot of the facts people talk about having and using are opinions that's why I don't care about them.

What makes your Opinions better than my wild guesses? I wouldn't say a lot of things unless I knew them to be true. I was shocked by all the Opinions that came flying at me as facts when I 1st posted here. I don't take lightly being called a lair. That's one part of my explanation for my wonderful attitude.

C'jais
04-22-2003, 04:31 PM
Interpretation of fact? Maybe, but I'll call it interpretation of data.

Opinions are one thing. Whether the war against Iraq is good or bad is purely an opinion from where I sit. There's no fact involved, as it's not a simple matter of doing the bodycount math between Saddam's regime and USA's new regime.

History is a very fluid subject, I agree. Much, if not all, of it is built on interpretation of texts and the like. People are lying and deceiving each other to bend the past to suit their present.

However, if you post something as "USA did most of the fighting and really won WW2 by itself", then most people stall. Here you can do the bodycount math, if you're so inclined, you can look at how long USA fought, and how long the other countries fought. You can look at when USA entered the war, and for which motives. All in all, the accepted fact, which means the fact, is that USA did not win WW2 by itself, and nor did it fight it singlehandedly. That's just bullsh*t to most people.

On a piece of history as recent as this, there's not much dispute, really. But if you moved back a thousand years and postulated that the vikings or chinese discovered America before Columbus, then I'd, and most others, be would be more open for listening.

And while some may think so, I do not think America is either evil, bad or out to control the world. Malice is often stupidity upon closer inspection, however.

ET Warrior
04-22-2003, 09:31 PM
Quick question, was the title of this thread supposed to be "Difference of Opinion"? I'm guessing it was by the topic of your post, because this thread would be much different if we were talking about "Deference of Opinion"......Actually, I'm not really sure what would be talked about in a Deference of Opinion thread.......


I am open to the fact that other people's views are different to mine, and that the fact that i'm arguing with them does not mean that they will suddenly see things my way and change their minds. I just like the debating and seeing multiple sides of different views.....

I think the reason you take a lot of flak is because you're usually rather blunt and somewhat rude in your posts. And some people are easily offended.

Cosmos Jack
04-23-2003, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by C'jais
However, if you post something as "USA did most of the fighting and really won WW2 by itself", then most people stall. Here you can do the bodycount math, if you're so inclined, you can look at how long USA fought, and how long the other countries fought. You can look at when USA entered the war, and for which motives. All in all, the accepted fact, which means the fact, is that USA did not win WW2 by itself, and nor did it fight it singlehandedly. That's just bullsh*t to most people.
Here is your body count you are so fond of. Russians did loose allot 56% died defending there country from the Nazis, but for one I never said allot of Soviets didn't die. They also didn't die freeing Europe, but Conquering along the way to Berlin. As I said in the other post and will say here. How long did it take for the Berlin Wall to fall? The next down is the Germans. Than Chinese they lost allot to the Japanese who is the next one down and than we have the USA. 400,000 died on forgin soil to free Europe not conquering along the way like your beloved Soviets.

I don't see the Soviets giving much allot of them were killed by there own military. As a result of no motivation and no will to fight other than if they didn't they would be killed. The Soviet Union was not a hero of any kind just another country that was under attack from a common enemy. If the USA had not entered the war and say the Russians were able to take the Nazis on there own. Which I doubt. Than all the countries the Nazis took over would have been taken over by the Soviets and instead of being Fascist Nazis you would be Communist pigs. All in all I see allot of bad or no training and little or no willingness to fight for one oppressive dictatorship over another resulting in so many Soviet deaths. Between Stalin and Hitler it is truly a toss up "what moron do I want to die for today"

Here are sites where you can a see a few of the Soviet liberated countries of WWII. As you can see each government was replaced with a Communist government.. Sounds like liberation to me....
1 http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/post-ww2.htm
2 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_east_europe/albania-timeline.jpg
3 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_east_europe/bulgaria-timeline.jpg
4 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_east_europe/czech-timeline.jpg
5 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_east_europe/hungray-timeline.jpg
6 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_east_europe/poland-timeline.jpg
7 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_east_europe/romania-timeline.jpg
8 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_east_europe/yugoslavia-timeline.jpg


Hmm where I got the deaths... Here you can also see how many of the Soviets own solders were killed by the Soviets not the enemy and the number of ethnic cleansing done buy the SOVIETS not the Nazis.... Wonderful liberating guy this Joseph Stalin..

So please no more talk about how wonderful the Soviets were. I'm saying Soviets not Russians, because that is the same as the difference between Nazis and Germans.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

USSR: 10.0M
Germany: 3.5M
China: 2.05M
Japan: 1.5M
USA: 0.4M
Romania: 0.3M
Yugoslavia: 0.3M
UK: 0.28M
Italy: 0.23M
France: 0.21M
Hungary: 0.14M
Poland: 0.125M
TOTAL: 19.0M

Cosmos Jack
04-23-2003, 03:22 AM
Since that was kind of off topic a bit. Well not really though it had allot of FACTS in it and not OPINIONS. The hole Soviets the good guys bit really gets on my nerves..

Another thing I thought off at work tonight.. It seems that I'm the only guy on here that shares my views. There are a few here and there that every once in awhile pop up, but for the most part itís me against the majority. It's popular here to be a left wing, US bashing, government hating, liberal. Anyone who seems to say anything remotely positive about the US or disagree with a person criticizing the US and dam they get slammed fast...

I lost count how many times I have got slammed not for saying anything negative to another person, but because I said something positive about the US. I think it's kind of sad that 1 majority seems to have excluded a hole other group of people just because they feel the opposite about what most people on here think.

It's constantly the same old redirect on here I'm the only one that disagrees it seems. I'm not here to be popular or even to make friends. I post here, because of all the ignorant US bashing I see. I said to myself "this isn't right"...
:swear:I'm not well liked and sure not to popular on here, but I'll be dammed if I stop posting here just, because of that.

Cosmos Jack
04-23-2003, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by C'jais
But if you moved back a thousand years and postulated that the vikings or chinese discovered America before Columbus, then I'd, and most others, be would be more open for listening.
The Chinese is still up in the air and the Vikings were in the Americas before Columbus. Amerigo Vasputchi found the mainland Americas not Columbus. All he found were Islands, besides how can you really discover something that was already found?

C'jais
04-23-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Here is your body count you are so fond of. Russians did loose allot 56% died defending there country from the Nazis, but for one I never said allot of Soviets didn't die. They also didn't die freeing Europe, but Conquering along the way to Berlin. As I said in the other post and will say here. How long did it take for the Berlin Wall to fall?

Aight Jack, I'm well aware that the Soviet Empire was far more cruel than Nazi Germany ever hoped to be, but stop saying how I "love them sovjets". I don't.

But I do know that we can be thankful in a twisted sense for how many men of theirs they threw on the meat grinder, in an effort to stop Hitler. If Hitler's eastern front hadn't been completely grinded to a halt and crushed by the Soviets, you would be speaking either German or Japanese today. Hitler was after the Russian oil fields, and if he had managed to grab them, it might have looked very different.

Again, I'm not saying I love the soviets. I'm only responding to the outrageous statement that your country did most of the fighting in WW2 and won the war alone. Because you didn't. Saying that as the Soviet troops were just as propaganda fed and oppressed as the German troops it somehow disqualifies them from the title of "Hardest fighting country in WW2". They f*ckin' ended WW2 by destroying Hitler. After the eastern front had collapsed, it was all downhill for Germany.

And I saw you noticed yourself that the Soviet Empire conquered a lot of eastern Europe. That doesn't count as fighting as well? And look at those body count statistics of yours - pretty easy to see who had the ****tiest job of 'em all. Just because the Soviets were evil creeps doesn't make it so that they all of a sudden doesn't count. Germany was evil too, I guess they didn't fight either?

I don't see the Soviets giving much allot of them were killed by there own military. As a result of no motivation and no will to fight other than if they didn't they would be killed.

So f*cking what? It doesn't matter if they didn't believed that they were heroic saviours - they still crushed Hitler's dreams, in the end. They still fought with bitter determination. They still died in droves. Your country didn't enter the war because of sheer goodwill. You retaliated and aided an economic ally against a common enemy - is this so different from Russia?

All in all I see allot of bad or no training and little or no willingness to fight for one oppressive dictatorship over another resulting in so many Soviet deaths. Between Stalin and Hitler it is truly a toss up "what moron do I want to die for today"

So? Morals doesn't matter at all when speaking of history. The fact remains that the soviet troops fought harder than yours, and played a huge part in winning WW2.

Here are sites where you can a see a few of the Soviet liberated countries of WWII. As you can see each government was replaced with a Communist government.. Sounds like liberation to me....

Like what you're doing to Iraq right now? Sure sounds like liberation to me... Face it, if the Iraqi people wanted to elect a communist or a theocratic party, you wouldn't let them, simply because such governments are bad markets for capitalism. Very bad, in fact, and you've been mightily pissed at the Iranians for overthrowing the US puppet-dictator in exchange for a democratically elected theocracy. Sure sounds like great ideals to me.

And yes, for the umteenth time, I'm fully aware that the Soviet Empire was a horrid, brutal regime. Quit it already.

C'jais
04-23-2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Anyone who seems to say anything remotely positive about the US or disagree with a person criticizing the US and dam they get slammed fast...

Perhaps because it's very weird supporting the "Land of the Free, home of the Brave"-crap after reading a bit of history on what you guys have done:

1) Which is the only country in the world to have dropped bombs on over twenty different countries since 1945?

2) Which is the only country to have used nuclear weapons?

3) Which country was responsible for a car bomb which killed 80
civilians in Beirut in 1985, in a botched assassination attempt, thereby making it the most lethal terrorist bombing in modern Middle East history?

4) Which country's illegal bombing of Libya in 1986 was described by the UN Legal Committee as a "classic case" of terrorism?

5) Which country rejected the order of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to terminate its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua in 1986, and then vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law?

6) Which country was accused by a UN-sponsored truth ommission of providing "direct and indirect support" for "acts of genocide" against the Mayan Indians in Guatemala during the 1980s?

7) Which country unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in December 2001?

8) Which country renounced the efforts to negotiate a verification process for the Biological Weapons Convention and brought an
international conference on the matter to a halt in July 2001?

9) Which country prevented the United Nations from curbing the gun trade at a small arms conference in July 2001?

10) Aside from Somalia, which is the only other country in the world to have refused to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

11) Which is the only Western country which allows the death penalty to be applied to children?

12) Which is the only G7 country to have refused to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, forbidding the use of landmines?

13) Which is the only G7 country to have voted against the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998?

14) Which was the only other country to join with Israel in opposing a 1987 General Assembly resolution condemning international terrorism?

15) Which country refuses to fully pay its debts to the United Nations yet reserves its right to veto United Nations resolutions?

I think you can recognize at least a few here.

I've got nothing against USA, or the ideals for which it stands. Those are beatiful. But I cannot for the life of me get why so many are so proud to be American instead of a foreigner. It's as if America has the patent right for doing good things, and can never do bad. I hate that attitude, but I still like the people.

:swear:I'm not well liked and sure not to popular on here, but I'll be dammed if I stop posting here just, because of that.

That's the spirit, man. Don't let us get you down.

Cosmos Jack
04-23-2003, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
But I do know that we can be thankful in a twisted sense for how many men of theirs they threw on the meat grinder, in an effort to stop Hitler. If Hitler's eastern front hadn't been completely grinded to a halt and crushed by the Soviets, you would be speaking either German or Japanese today. Hitler was after the Russian oil fields, and if he had managed to grab them, it might have looked very different. LOL you forget our love of dropping BIG BIG BOMBS. If Germany had not of fallen we would have used the A-Bomb on them like Japan. Except the 2 we used was the only 2 we had at the time. Roosevelt had pondered on whether to have ever used them on Germany.
The resin we used it on Japan was because there was no way to win a ground assault on main land Japan. Millions of Americans would have died. The US body count would have made the Soviets a little spec. Your right we have to think all the dead Russians that fought at gun point for the Soviets. They werenít fighting for the right resins and they werenít fighting because they wanted to. They wasnít fighting to free Europe from an Oppressive fascist Nazi rule, but to install there own Oppressive Communist rule.
Originally posted by C'jais
And I saw you noticed yourself that the Soviet Empire conquered a lot of Eastern Europe. That doesn't count as fighting as well? And look at those body count statistics of yours - pretty easy to see who had the ****tiest job of 'em all. Just because the Soviets were evil creeps doesn't make it so that they all of a sudden doesn't count. Germany was evil too, I guess they didn't fight either? [/B] Yep the Germans fought they at least fought because they wanted to. It all makes a good point here you just donít seem to care.Originally posted by C'jais So f*cking what? It doesn't matter if they didn't believed that they were heroic saviours - they still crushed Hitler's dreams, in the end. They still fought with bitter determination. They still died in droves. Your country didn't enter the war because of sheer goodwill. You retaliated and aided an economic ally against a common enemy - is this so different from Russia? [/B] If all we did was aid you would be speaking German or Russian right now.Originally posted by C'jais
So? Morals doesn't matter at all when speaking of history. The fact remains that the soviet troops fought harder than yours, and played a huge part in winning WW2. [/B] OK let me rephrase this for you. The USA fought to free Europe and the Soviets fought to conquer EuropeÖ Does this make since now? Yes they did play a huge role in gaining more territory than the Nazis..

I like how you still say the Soviets fought harder no they fought dumber and had no more love for the Soviets than they did for the Nazis. They were fighting to conquer as much as they could. I personally canít believe you support them. It was almost a 3 way war. They were only fighting the Nazis they wanted more territory as well it was an excuse to expand. Hitler and the Russians also agreed to annex Poland together before the war. They didnít win WWII the clamed the spoils of the fallen countries they conquered. You defiantly are not winning any FACT battle on this you might as well give up.
Originally posted by C'jais
Like what you're doing to Iraq right now? Sure sounds like liberation to me... Face it, if the Iraqi people wanted to elect a communist or a theocratic party, you wouldn't let them, simply because such governments are bad markets for capitalism. Very bad, in fact, and you've been mightily pissed at the Iranians for overthrowing the US puppet-dictator in exchange for a democratically elected theocracy. Sure sounds like great ideals to me. [/B] Yep your right we wouldn't becouse Comunism is great!!!! They don't have the Human rights problems the US does lol. People donít have a chance if they do a crime and when they do itís a show trial. They have little if no human rights, because it doesn't help the force of the Government. They just shoot drug dealers. I'm all for that. Donít mention all the things in the US you get a slap on the wrist for, but under communist law you get executed....

All the crap you listed about all the bad things the USA has done why don't you list all the bad things the Soviets did or the Chinese or the North Koreans or Freaking Saddam...The list goes on and on there are far more countries to pick on that are no fairy god mother. What the USA has done is a drop in the bucket and by the looks of not anything BAD unless you want to make them out to be. As far as dropping bombs on people. Itís better than sending our troops into a ďmeet grinderĒ and loosing millions. The difference in American troops and Soviet is you don't have to threaten to kill there families to get them to fight. They also know there not just puppets of an overbearing oppressive government. If Saddam had used Chemical or Nuclear weapons you would have seen another BIG BIG BOMB dropped you could have added to you count. Only 2 Nuclear bombs have ever been used in American warfare and that was against Japan. It was justified, because if they hadnít Japan would have never surrendered and no force of American troops would have subdued Japan.
Originally posted by C'jais
And yes, for the umteenth time, I'm fully aware that the Soviet Empire was a horrid, brutal regime. Quit it already. [/B] Yeah so give it up already. Stop supporting what the Soviets did. You are wrong Iím right deal with itÖ..

Eldritch
04-23-2003, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Yeah so give it up already. Stop supporting what the Soviets did. You are wrong Iím right deal with itÖ..
I don't think C'jais was supporting what the Soviets did, I think he was just trying to present a more accurate history of events.

Cosmos Jack
04-24-2003, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by Eldritch
I don't think C'jais was supporting what the Soviets did, I think he was just trying to present a more accurate history of events. Hmm so far the only accurate histories of events are the facts witch I have posted...I never disputed Russians died in WWII. Only that they weren't fighting to liberate Europe and that they didn't give more than the Americans just because more of them died. Not only did we actually liberate Europe we didn't set up as occupying force and depose all the countries governments we freed.

If you really want to get specific not only did we fight the Germans and meet the Russians in Berlin, but we fought the Japanese we fought on 2 fronts and one the war and lost only 400,000. We interred in 42 and it ended with the defeat of Japan in 45. Yes the war was fought long before we stepped in and nothing was accomplished tell we did. Given the fighting of the Russians if the Nazis had not had a 2 front war they would have defeated Russia. They had to split there forces to fight on both sides.

How about those Japanese nobody was really fighting them except the Chinese and little Russian involvment. Mostly everyone was getting the as@s wooped by the Japanese tell America steped in.

Lets get more specific and more to the point. I like how "C'jaisĒ says that the US interred the war to little to late to really make a deference.. The Soviets had a packed with the Nazis to divide territories and to not fight. In June 1941 Hitler attacked Russia forcing there entry into the war much like Japan and the US. The allies made a deal with a devil to defeats anther devil. A deference of 6 months... whether anyone wants to admit it or not America liberated Europe not the Russians. It's a simple fact not an opinion. Opinion is that the Soviets fought harder and gave more than the AmericansÖIím getting tired of opinions being thrown at me as facts..

here are the facts......
http://www.troyhigh.com/academic/socScience/webProjects/russia/Sh_StalinAndWWII.html

Cosmos Jack
04-24-2003, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by C'jais
Like what you're doing to Iraq right now? Sure sounds like liberation to me... Face it, if the Iraqi people wanted to elect a communist or a theocratic party, you wouldn't let them, simply because such governments are bad markets for capitalism. Very bad, in fact, and you've been mightily pissed at the Iranians for overthrowing the US puppet-dictator in exchange for a democratically elected theocracy. Sure sounds like great ideals to me. I like how you keep taking up for Saddam kind of like Soviets you seem to like Oppressive Dictatorships. Maybe that's just how I see you. For whatever resin we are in Iraq the simple fact is he need to be taken out. He wasn't fit to rule anything. He was a mass murder and overbearing dictator. With that said.

If Communism was such a great idea how come of all the countries that went communist there are only 2 true communist states left Cuba & North Korea. Cuba isnít that bad off, but N. Korea sure is hurting. Russia it's self is now Capitalist. Communism doesnít really work itís fine in theory. Capitalism & Democracy does.

If you could form a good example of Marx's idea. I government were everything was truly evenly distributed amongst all people and everyone had a good standard of livening equal as well as people in power and straight form of democracy added. I would be a Socialist. Something tells me a Dr. livening at the same rate as a janitor isn't going to work though.

Bonedemon
04-24-2003, 02:40 PM
The Nazi regime didnīt have to fight a 2 front untill d-day in 44' springtime the 4th of some month I think(canīt remember it precisly). Rusia was allready pushing them back at that time. Thatīs a FACT
I think they could have done it without US, but the death toll......

Marx did suggest democracy as a way of spreading the wealth
equaly.

The allies also occupied something called western Germany.

The communism, the way it was interpreted Ūn the soviet union anyway, was far from what was Marxs idea. That can be called a fact.
I think it was a power grab, but thatīs just a oppinion/theory

The US administration estimated 1 million casualties in the land war against all of Japan including islands around the pacific. Cut the "s" of the war casualties you talked about there.

Cosmos Jack
04-25-2003, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by Bonedemon
The allies also occupied something called western Germany.
The only thing I am going to respond to here is this. Not because your right about everything, but because there is no point in arguing the same things I shot down 2 or 3 days ago all over again.

There is a big deference from the liberation of western Europe and the Occupation of Eastern Europe by the Russians. The idea that you would say that is totally ignorant and you need to read a little more on the facts I listed above and keep your Opinionated interpretations out of the subject...

This isn't a flame. That's just how it is. I expected to come back to something more not the things I shot down 2 or 3 days ago.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-27-2003, 06:42 PM
America liberated Europe not the Russians.
Are you going to start that again?

Consider this: When the USA invaded half or more of the Nazis were busy getting their butts kicked by the Soviet Union. If Germany wasn't fighting at two fronts (or three, counting UK, which they were still fighting), would you still have won? I'm not too sure about that. I'm not saying that USSR and the UK could have won the war alone, but I am saying that without their help, you couldn't have made it.

I have nothing against people who are proud of what the States did during WW II. However, your theory that USA could have liberated Europe without the Allies, and that Soviet and Great Britain should have none of the glory, is highly controversial to me, mainly because it is not true.

Edit:
Nazi - Soviet Pact
- Hitler ans Stalin signed ten-year Nazi-Soviet non-agression pact in August 1939
- Promise to remain neutral if other became invovled in War
- Agreement
- Partition of Poland along Vistula
- Soviets : Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Bassarabia
- Nazis : everything west of Soviet's gains including Lithuania
- Trade treaty and exchange of raw materials and arms
- Stalin caught off guard on June 22, 1941
- Nazi armies attacked Soviet Union
- October 1941 : Leningrad surrounded Moscow beseiged

OPERATION BARBAROSSA
- June 22, 1941
- Hitler attacks Soviet Union breaking the Nazi-Soviet Non-agression pact
- Russia's vast spaces and climate advantage

BATTLE OF STALINGRAD
- July 1942
- One of the bloodiest battles of WWII
- Over one million Russian soldiers killed
- Russian Winter advantage
- Turning point in war
- 1944
- Soviet pushed their way into Eastern Europe
Don't see where it says the USA won the war, not Russia.. it details the invasion of the Soviet Union and East Europe in good deatail, though. Thanks.

SkinWalker
04-27-2003, 10:04 PM
Interesting topic, considering it's origin.

However, opinion versus fact is, or should be, an easy enough discussion.

The best opinions are supported by facts that both sides of an argument cannot dismiss. That is not to say that a fact cannot become invalid at some point. This happens all the time as new information becomes available in various fields of study (biology, anthropology, evolution, aeronautics, chemistry, etc.)

If I walk into my house and attempt to turn on the light and nothing happens, then my opinion is quickly that there is a problem with the bulb. This is because of these facts:

1) the vcr is still displaying the time
2) the vcr is on the same circuit as the light
3) my house wiring is reliable and chance of it's failure is extremely low.
4) the bulb is rather old
5) bulbs have had to be replaced in the past

So I change the bulb. The light works. My opinion (or theory) held true.

But later, I start to think... suppose the bulb was good, but just not seated in the socket correctly. Perhaps the train that creates a vibration when it passes helped unseat it.

The bulb has long since gone out with the rubbish, but this possibility still remains. Still, my best theory was the original and was supported by solid facts, despite the other possibility.

Facts, therefore, must be a set of data that can be held as true by all parties in a discussion, debate or argument.

Opinions, therefore, are interpretations of facts and are best if supported by as many as possible. Opinions are also called theories if they are testable. Theories can be negated by failing to consider all the facts in the set. Many people conjure opinions based on only the facts they like and ignore the remaining facts in the set. These are merely misguided, misleading, or blatantly false opinions and cannot be considered theories since, by design, they do not hold up to scrutiny or allow themselves to be updated or corrected.

The guy I don't see anymore used to have a lot of these..... haven't seen those in some time, however. ;)

Cosmos Jack
04-27-2003, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Don't see where it says the USA won the war, not Russia.. it details the invasion of the Soviet Union and East Europe in good deatail, though. Thanks. Dam I really should have just ignored this. That timeline had nothing to do with showing that the USA won the war. All it was there for was to show the link between the Nazis and the Soviet Union.

Once again your not paying any attention to what I'm posting. Than you post a comment. All you serve to do by doing this is confuse other people about what I'm talking about. If you don't understand what I'm saying please don't respond......

Cosmos Jack
04-27-2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
If I walk into my house and attempt to turn on the light and nothing happens, then my opinion is quickly that there is a problem with the bulb. Did you take my College Biology class, because my professor said that exact same thing.

Reborn Outcast
04-27-2003, 10:42 PM
Yes, SkinWalker said it very well. It can only be a fact if ALL roads lead to the same conclusion. Not one or two but all.


And guys... LAY OFF THE NAZI/SOVIET UNION THING ALREADY!!! Thats not the topic of this thread. If you wanna discuss it, please, make another thread devoted specifically to that purpose.

Thanks. :D

Cosmos Jack
04-27-2003, 10:53 PM
"Reborn Outcast" you do have a point on makeing another thread, but also of all facts leading to the same conclusion; however, not all will you have to pic the best most creditable facts.

I think everyone on here needs to think about where there facts are comeing form and how just there opinions made on them are.

Reborn Outcast
04-27-2003, 11:02 PM
But what makes anything a fact? Like Skin said, the person would assume its the lightbulb, however it could be a number of things. Even if a "fact" comes from a credible source, that does not make it true.

Think of it this way (I am NOT trying to start something here)

Evolution is a THEORY. It may be a WELL SUPPORTED theory but that does not make it a fact.

Cosmos Jack
04-27-2003, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Evolution is a THEORY. It may be a WELL SUPPORTED theory but that does not make it a fact. That is left up to the observer. If you can look at all the facts that support that theory and still say its not true? Than I have to ask where are that facts that say evolution doesn't happen and see how creditable they are.

The bible has no lead way with me it's a book writen by a man just the same as "The Origin of Species" writen by Charles Darwin. One tells us we have no power over life the other says life has power over us. My money is on Mr. Darwin.

I used to have a link to a Christen web site that devoted its time to debunking evolution and the age of the world and basically science in general. It was the funniest mess I ever read. The 1 and only reason Evolution isn't a fact is, because religion still stands in the way. Saying evolution doesn't happen is like saying the sun still revolves around the Earth. Religion stood in the way of astronomy as well once.

Sorry back on subject now.....

Reborn Outcast
04-27-2003, 11:30 PM
Before we get back on topic...

Until all the missing links are found, it is still a theory. Not a proven fact from all angles.









Back on topic.

Cosmos Jack
04-27-2003, 11:38 PM
If you come upon a flight of stairs and it has a few missing steps do you really have to ask if it is a flight of stairs...

Back on topic.;)

Dagobahn Eagle
04-28-2003, 12:43 AM
Once again your not paying any attention to what I'm posting. Than you post a comment.
Problem here is, we all knew USSR was connected to Nazi Germany. Nobody deny it anymore, do they, if they ever have? So well, you're not paying too much attention either.

Fact: What's true, such as "the light won't go on".

Opinion: What you think is true. Such as a good one, such as "I think the bulb's out", or a bad one: "I think it's the fact that my neighbour the Hindu just stepped in and it cursed the bulb..", or "the light goes on. It's just that I'm going insane and for that reason can't see it".

Good enough?

Cosmos Jack
04-28-2003, 10:35 AM
"Dagobahn Eagle" you are still on my ignore list you might as well not reply to anything I type.

Actually since You hate me and I most defiantly have no love for you lets just not go here anymore.. All you want to do is get me to tell you off so you can run and get me banned... So you might as well stop...

Dagobahn Eagle
04-28-2003, 05:23 PM
"Dagobahn Eagle" you are still on my ignore list you might as well not reply to anything I type.

Actually since You hate me and I most defiantly have no love for you lets just not go here anymore.. All you want to do is get me to tell you off so you can run and get me banned... So you might as well stop...


Weeeell.... That's your OPINION.:).

Fact is, this is a free forum on a server based in a free country, where everyone who's not banned are allowed to post.

C'jais
04-28-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
The resin we used it on Japan was because there was no way to win a ground assault on main land Japan.

And because you wanted to test its effects on human population centers.

Your right we have to think all the dead Russians that fought at gun point for the Soviets. They werenít fighting for the right resins and they werenít fighting because they wanted to. They wasnít fighting to free Europe from an Oppressive fascist Nazi rule, but to install there own Oppressive Communist rule.

That is not the issue, as I've said a thousand times now.

What matters is that:

A) The fought more and harder than you. It doesn't matter what the reasons were. They still did. You cannot begin to compare the US casualties to the Soviet casualties. By following your rhetoric above, you're also implying that the troops of Germany didn't fight at all, because they fought for all the "wrong reasons". It doesn't matter Jack.

B) They were instrumental to winning WW2. It doesn't matter what their motives were, without them it might have been a sure loss, or an incredibly long, drawn out war. One could argue they stopped Hitler in his tracks more than the US did. Thus, this quickly dispells the myth that USA won WW2 all by itself.

Jack, history doesn't care about the motives, moral reasons or what's going through the head of the soldier in battle - only the outcome, the actions. And the outcome is undeniable in this case - Soviet Russia played a huge part in WW2.

The USA fought to free Europe and the Soviets fought to conquer EuropeÖ Does this make since now? Yes they did play a huge role in gaining more territory than the Nazis..

They ended WW2, along with the rest of us. That's the role they played.

I like how you still say the Soviets fought harder no they fought dumber and had no more love for the Soviets than they did for the Nazis.

That's irrelevant.

They were fighting to conquer as much as they could.

That's irrelevant. They helped stop Hitler, and without them, you wouldn't be in a position to speak Engrish.

I personally canít believe you support them.

That's because I don't.

It was almost a 3 way war. They were only fighting the Nazis they wanted more territory as well it was an excuse to expand.

That's a very crude way of putting it. USA wanted more territory as well. They still do. Did it ever occur to you why your country sets up bases whever it can, and install capitalistic dictators to create new markets for your goods?

Hitler and the Russians also agreed to annex Poland together before the war. They didnít win WWII the clamed the spoils of the fallen countries they conquered. You defiantly are not winning any FACT battle on this you might as well give up.

Irrelevant rubbish. The not-so-subtle threat didn't help your image either.

Yep your right we wouldn't becouse Comunism is great!!!!

I never said or implied that.

Donít mention all the things in the US you get a slap on the wrist for, but under communist law you get executed....

Oooh... the "communist law"? There is no "communist law".

All the crap you listed about all the bad things the USA has done

It's "crap"? Well, did you know half of it?

why don't you list all the bad things the Soviets did or the Chinese or the North Koreans or Freaking Saddam...

Because we know what they've done. We know they're bad nations with brutal laws.

But I bet not many people knew a third of that little list. It needs to be known, because the US is promoting itself like the saviour of oppressed people, when it's in fact displaying itself as the biggest hypocrite in our time. But not many people know that.

What the USA has done is a drop in the bucket and by the looks of not anything BAD unless you want to make them out to be.

So, terrorism, oppressing populations and pissing on human rights is not "really bad"? Gee, who'd have known...

The difference in American troops and Soviet is you don't have to threaten to kill there families to get them to fight.

No, there is no difference here. It's big-time propaganda all the way.

Both countries' people think they're doing the right thing.

They also know there not just puppets of an overbearing oppressive government.

Depending on who you think it oppresses.

Yeah so give it up already. Stop supporting what the Soviets did. You are wrong Iím right deal with itÖ..

On the other hand, you're the one resorting to personal attacks and threats to get your point across. Not to forget your ability to stuff my mouth full of words of your choosing, and generally twisting my points into something you can easily debate.

C'jais
04-28-2003, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Before we get back on topic...

Until all the missing links are found, it is still a theory. Not a proven fact from all angles.

Do you hold the atomic theory as true? What about the theory of relativity? No? They're not fact after all? But they're theories, right?

Listen Reborn, a theory can be a fact and a theory at the same time. Until sufficient proof arrives to conclude that the theory of evolution doesn't hold up, it's a fact. The majority of the world regard it as fact, except for some overly zealous states in the US. It's quite sad. Do they really think they know better than the combined brainpower and technical might of the scientists and their tools on this? I'd say that's pretty damn proud of them.

Reborn, do you still "interpret" the Bible literally in the worst place? Believe me, the Genesis is the place where common sense is required to reading. God is talking through metaphors man.

Regarding the fossil record, it will always be incomplete. Many fossils have been lost to erosion, and many more will. But it doesn't matter, as there's more than sufficient proof to firmly place the theory of evolution as fact.

Some questions to ponder:

-If the world had been covered in a global flood, how come there's still ice on the polar ice caps? Ice floats on water y'know, and if the flood had happened within the last hundred millenia, all the ice would have broken off never to be seen again.

-How come we have different blood types. These genetic differences could only have come about if there were more than 2 humans present from the beginning, and it requires evolving still.

-Look at all the species in the world. How could they ever fit on this planet? Not enough space or food, that's for sure.

-I don't really have to explain how ridiculously silly the "Ark" idea is, save for use as a moral myth, do I?

-Nor do I have to explain all the evolving going on on a microscopic scale in your body, right?

If the evolutionary/old earth theory is so blatantly false, how come it always works? How come it always predicts the right answers? How come we've gained profound knowledge of geology, medicine, astronomy, genetics and the future and past of our planet? Trying to debunk evolution would be the same as trying to debunk all of science as they're so intermingled - a very futile, and very counterproductive effort indeed.

Cosmos Jack
04-28-2003, 08:23 PM
"C'jais" I actually started to reply to you Cosmos Jack Flaming rant. About 1/2 way threw I stop and realized it was pointless not because your right, but because you don't care.

All there is here is that you are a US Basher. That's it nothing else.
All your opinions aren't very creditable there 1 sided and have no obvious meaning other than to trash the US. It appears all you do is look up bad things the US has done and blow them out of perportion. I think you should do something more productive with your time rather than trash the US. It was here long before you and it will be here long after you. It wonít be a super power for ever countries never stay on top for long, but I'm willing to bet it will outlive you and me as one. Get over it move on there are other things in life. I don't believe you are ever going to sway the opinion of the world enough to remove the US from power. I guess you can try that's your right.

It's nice to know that as a moderator you only practice your power on the people you don't like. If I had said some of the things people say to me including some of the things you just did I would been banned again. It's nice to know I'm in a forum where I know I can be treated equally. I no longer harass people, but its ok for certain individuals including you to harass me. Dare I defend myself?

Like I said before. I know I'm not the only person that has the opinions I do it's odd that I'm the only one on this forum. People's arguments are only creditable if they agree with the popular people on here otherwise they are opinions and not creditable?

This is a totally one sided forum...

Dagobahn Eagle
04-28-2003, 08:39 PM
C'Jais has called other countries some mean things in the past, too. I seem to recall he reffered to Denmark as "f---ed", in a discussion about alcohol?

In a discussion about the US and Iraq, you have to expect bashing of the USA and/or Iraq. If you can't debate something without taking the other side, don't debate.

Oh, and military actions are just one side of the US. I think that C'Jais, like everyone else, perfectly well knows that.

ShockV1.89
04-28-2003, 09:16 PM
Well, well... I clicked that little button that lets me view Jacks post.

Shall I break down your post?

All there is here is that you are a US Basher. That's it nothing else.

You havent been here long enough to determine that CJais is a US basher and "nothing else." One can criticize US actions without hating the US. I have seen CJais compliment the US several times, but he takes a decidedly liberal standpoint (by US standards), and being that the administration right now is rather conservative, of course he will be more critical.

All your opinions aren't very creditable there 1 sided and have no obvious meaning other than to trash the US.

Shall we have two sided opinions? Seems to me your opinions are exactly all encompassing (sp?) either...

It appears all you do is look up bad things the US has done and blow them out of perportion.

:rolleyes:

I think you should do something more productive with your time rather than trash the US.

I think you should do something more productive than try to start trouble with everyone who dares to disagree with you. But thats my opinion.

It was here long before you and it will be here long after you. It wonít be a super power for ever countries never stay on top for long, but I'm willing to bet it will outlive you and me as one.

I guess this is a reason to never criticize US actions? Doesnt make sense to me...

It's nice to know I'm in a forum where I know I can be treated equally. I no longer harass people, but its ok for certain individuals including you to harass me. Dare I defend myself?

Dude, if it were up to me, you would have been permanently banned a long time ago. Furthermore, you still post with a decidedly aggressive and oftentimes insulting demeanor. You are rarely polite to anyone. Is it so hard to believe that people are going to be annoyed at you? You carry the stigma of one who flamed at a whim. Top that on top of your now current reputation of one who only insults people some of the time and is rude ALL of the time, and I'm surprised you're not treated worse! (Go ahead, tell me all about the real world :rolleyes: ).


I'm as patriotic as the next guy. I love my country, and I hate hate hate it when people spontaneously flame it for no good reason (I can PM you a link to a thread where I went to war with someone over it). But I'm also clearheaded enough to know that not everyone who criticizes the US is doing so without good reason. Try to distinguish the random US haters from the intellectuals who might have something meaningful to say. It'll go easier on everyone.

Or you can respond to this with a stinging, barb-filled retort in which you make some mildly witty, mildly insulting, sarcastic comment about me.

Whichever.

munik
04-29-2003, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by C'jais
And because you wanted to test its effects on human population centers.That's not fair. That implies a less then human quality in the action. Everyone knew it would mess stuff up, they were just curious as to how bad it would be. It's an aside, never the main intention of the bomb. I know what a grenade does upon detonation, I've seen it destroy decoys. But if I was to use one against people, I would do it because I can safely assume it will mess them up. But I would also be curious as to how bad it will mess them up, and how effective it was. But that in no way would be my intention for using the grenade. Originally posted by C'jais
-How come we have different blood types. These genetic differences could only have come about if there were more than 2 humans present from the beginning, and it requires evolving still.Interesting idea. The first coupling mentioned after Adam and Eve was between Cain and his wife. But it gives no mention as to where Cain's wife came from, who she is, anything. So that could be your different blood type. Or, as the bible never mentions a coupling resulting in the birth of a woman, or a geneology including a woman, we could just assume it was his sister. In which case we can argue that different blood types are the result of genetic mutation caused by an uncountable amount of incest. Interesting idea, yes, but it can easily be deflected by those who wish to believe.

Cosmos Jack
04-29-2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
Well, well... I clicked that little button that lets me view Jacks post. Dam I wish you hadn't figured that out.


Originally posted by ShockV1.89
I think you should do something more productive than try to start trouble with everyone who dares to disagree with you. But thats my opinion. Last time I checked everytime I post ecluduing the very 1st time I got slamed practicly flamed. Then I replyed and relized this is a buddy buddy only club. whatever

Originally posted by ShockV1.89
Dude, if it were up to me, you would have been permanently banned a long time ago. Furthermore, you still post with a decidedly aggressive and oftentimes insulting demeanor. You are rarely polite to anyone. Is it so hard to believe that people are going to be annoyed at you? You carry the stigma of one who flamed at a whim. Top that on top of your now current reputation of one who only insults people some of the time and is rude ALL of the time, and I'm surprised you're not treated worse! (Go ahead, tell me all about the real world :rolleyes: ). I don't get the logic in banned I mean all I have to do is make a new SN and pop right back on. Whatever if it makes people feel powerful.

Originally posted by ShockV1.89
Or you can respond to this with a stinging, barb-filled retort in which you make some mildly witty, mildly insulting, sarcastic comment about me.

Whichever. [/B] :lol: I liked you so much better when you were ignoring me.

ShockV1.89
04-29-2003, 11:45 AM
Last time I checked everytime I post ecluduing the very 1st time I got slamed practicly flamed. Then I replyed and relized this is a buddy buddy only club. whatever

Buddy buddy only? Dude, have you even read any of the religion threads? There's some huge rifts in those, but just because people disagree doesnt mean they cant be friendly to each other. You probably got slammed or flamed because of your attitude. Care to post a link to it?

Either way, just because you had a bad initial experience with this forum doesnt giove you the right to run around pissing everyone else off. I'm sorry if you think you got flamed at the beginning. There have been some nasty people through here.

I don't get the logic in banned I mean all I have to do is make a new SN and pop right back on. Whatever if it makes people feel powerful.

They can ban more than just your SN. They can permanently ban your IP, in which case, it wont matter what SN you pick.

Anyway. I notice you didnt reply to a single point I made. Instead, you chose to take the second route, insulting me. Honestly, I tried to give you good advice there. I dont like having someone on my ignore list. You're the only one. Go ahead, respond saying you're proud of it. But man, even Rogue Photonic never made it on there.

Just stop attacking people and stop acting so arrogant. Maybe thats how people act in your "real" world, but we try to hold each other to a higher standard in here.

Kurgan
04-29-2003, 12:46 PM
A simpler way to differentiate is to say that:

Facts = true whether you believe them or not, not based on popularity.

Opinions = interpretations of reality. some are more 'informed' than others, but everybody's got one. many are purely subjective and "unprovable" (based on personal preference or feeling).


Now I think what you're saying is that what some people call "facts" are in fact not true (ie: not really facts at all).

Data doesn't have to have an opinion attached to it (opinions are often interpretations of presumed facts), but you can have an opinion based on facts (ie: Nazis are bad because they killed Jews; NASA is worthwhile because they got us to the moon, etc).

Kurgan
04-29-2003, 12:56 PM
When you want to verify facts, especially about something you don't know much about, you consult experts (scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc). On the other hand, these people provide "professional opinions" as well, so try not to confuse them. Otherwise its just an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.

But for example a scientist can show you the data and explain why it shows that we really did land on the moon, etc. whereas anyone can claim that we did or didn't without proof.

C'jais
04-29-2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
I don't get the logic in banned I mean all I have to do is make a new SN and pop right back on. Whatever if it makes people feel powerful.

Heard of IP banning?

Coming back under a different name when the community obviously doesn't want you here, is what we refer to as "Bad Behaviour". I don't think you like us either, to be frank.

So next time, just stay the hell away.

Kurgan
04-29-2003, 03:32 PM
Heard of IP banning?

FACT.


Coming back under a different name when the community obviously doesn't want you here, is what we refer to as "Bad Behaviour".

OPINION.

(one I happen to agree with)

I'm all for people saying they're sorry and coming back with a spirit of good natured community, but sometimes people wear out their welcome in a really big way, and they accept the consequences.
; p

Cosmos Jack
04-29-2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
Anyway. I notice you didnt reply to a single point I made. Instead, you chose to take the second route, insulting me. Honestly, I tried to give you good advice there. I dont like having someone on my ignore list. You're the only one. Go ahead, respond saying you're proud of it. But man, even Rogue Photonic never made it on there. To be honest I have givein up on trying to repond to anything nomatter how right I am or how many facts I have on anything I'm still going to be wrong becouse I don't fall into your little click.
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
Just stop attacking people and stop acting so arrogant. Maybe thats how people act in your "real" world, but we try to hold each other to a higher standard in here. When people stop attacking me I will think about it.

bla bla bla All this because I don't except others opinions as facts. I am dam sure I'm not the only arrogant person here. I didn't think being right was arrogant, but if it is I must be the most arrogant person in the world.

"C'jais" the word "LIKE" has nothing to do with what I think of any of you, to be frank. I just give back what I receive. If all of you think I'm rude that's just real sad, becouse this is me being nice.

Yes I know all about IP banning and have taken that in to consideration a long time ago......
Originally posted by C'jais
So next time, just stay the hell away. If I said that I would be flaming ? Do you say that to everyone that doesn't share you opinions?

C'jais
04-29-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
To be honest I have givein up on trying to repond to anything nomatter how right I am or how many facts I have on anything I'm still going to be wrong becouse I don't fall into your little click.
When people stop attacking me I will think about it.

I'm fairly sure you were the one who did the attacking in the first place, and that we haven't really reacted until now.

bla bla bla All this because I don't except others opinions as facts.

Forgive me for being so absentminded, but what are you arguing here? Which of our opinions did you not take as fact? The only one I can remember from the top of my head is the USA-WW2 issue, and that's not so bad is it? I mean, it was pretty much just 2 or 3 of us who "ganged up" on you - you have to expect that when you're coming with such statements out of the blue. Most people do have more modest views on this.

And stop thinking of me as a Stalin-sympathesizer while we're at it again.

I am dam sure I'm not the only arrogant person here. I didn't think being right was arrogant, but if it is I must be the most arrogant person in the world.

Don't flatter yourself.

Saying that you're right doesn't equal being right. You ought to know that.

"C'jais" the word "LIKE" has nothing to do with what I think of any of you, to be frank. I just give back what I receive. If all of you think I'm rude that's just real sad, becouse this is me being nice.

So you're just giving back what you get? In that case, stop being so generous - it's killing us.

Yes I know all about IP banning and have taken that in to consideration a long time ago......
If I said that I would be flaming ? Do you say that to everyone that doesn't share you opinions?

Listen, it's against the rules to come back under a different name when you have already been banned (temporary bans are another case, of course). If you do so, and still find yourself banned (don't know for sure, but I think I saw a Cosmos Jack 3), you're obviously not wanted. Then it's just you being a bully, and most people don't like those. It's really simple - if you go against the rules, you get banned. If you come back under a different name while you're banned, you're banned again. If you're banned, and we don't like you, why even bother?

Jack, I'm curious, have you ever thought about that you might just be wrong? It's sometimes hard to fathom, but I think it deserves some pondering on your part in this case.

SkinWalker
04-29-2003, 04:42 PM
Curiosity and thinking a bit about what Shock was typing made me look past my "Ignore List" of one as well. I see nothing's changed.

Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
To be honest I have givein up on trying to repond to anything nomatter how right I am or how many facts I have on anything I'm still going to be wrong becouse I don't fall into your little click.

Perhaps you should consider why you don't fall into our "little click." If one, or even a few people "don't like" you, no problem. They're probably a@@holes anyway. But if most people seem to dislike you, you would probably be amiss and definately remiss in not questioning why.

Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
When people stop attacking me I will think about it.

Do you think people are attacking you or could it be your sentiment, rudeness, callous disregard for etiquette, unprofessional demeanor, etc.?

Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
bla bla bla All this because I don't except others opinions as facts. I am dam sure I'm not the only arrogant person here.

No. I freely admit to some degree of arrogance. I, and others, have shared some of your opinions. It's not your opinions or interpretation of facts that people disagree with, but rather your inciting and provoking attitude within the scope of this forum.

Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
If all of you think I'm rude that's just real sad, becouse this is me being nice.

If that were true (which I actually doubt), then you would be a person to pity.

Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Yes I know all about IP banning and have taken that in to consideration a long time ago......

What you don't know, is that one or more members of this forum, with whom you may have strong negative feelings for, requested that you be given a chance after your last Ban/ScreenName violation. In other words, the desire was to accept you into the "clique" rather than exclude you. You see, differences of opinion and alternative interpretation of facts is a desirable status quo within this forum. It would be boring if we all agreed.

Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
If I said that I would be flaming ? Do you say that to everyone that doesn't share you opinions?

While that might be a tad harsh, I think what he's trying to say is: if you feel so strongly that we are all wrong and you are the only one that's right, leave, but this time don't come back.

I've also noted that Cjais was well within the scope of his duties as moderator to request a ban from the SuperMods, but chose not to do so since the rules violations were directed toward him rather than other members. He's cut you a lot of slack, Jack.

So, in keeping this on topic, there are a few facts to note:

1) Nearly every member of this forum agrees that you are rude, offensive, and/or a general distraction from the intended purpose of the forum.

2) Several people have you on their "Ignore List," at least two of which only have one person in their lists.

3) Many members of this forum, while in disagreement with your behavior, actually have agreed with your interpretation of facts on one or more occasions.

4) You've been cut a lot of slack from mods, supermods, and forum members.

5) You have in the past, violated one or more rules and have been temporarily banned (in the past).

6) You have violated rules since without being banned.

7) You have indicated that you consider responses to your interpretation of facts as "attacks" of you.

8) The Senate Chambers is a forum of "reasoned debate" and "serious discussion."

9) I'm leaving some facts out because I'm out of time.


Now... let's interpret these facts and I'll offer my opinion:

From my perspective, most members of the forum would rather have more disagreement than agreement, since this makes for more interesting discussion. Also, "debate" would be impossible otherwise. You seem to feel that people here are attacking you personally and attempting to exclude you, while I see evidence of the opposite: people are going out of their way to accept you, unfortunately, your attitude and behavior within the forum is often distracting, though I will admit you have also made some very legitimate posts that did not come off as "rude, arrogant, insensitive, etc."

Finally, members and mods within this forum have sought to avoid bans that are either temporary or permanent. I also think that you have been more careful about what you say to whom since you came back from the last ban, however, I also think that you are more interested in showing us all how much of a nuisance you can be rather than engage in "reasoned debate" or "serious discussion." The latter is quoted from the forum description, the former from a thread title that overcame "heated discussion" and "hateful remarks" to create an interesting thread.

Stay or go. It matters not to me. I'll leave you off of my ignore list for several reasons... I don't like ignoring people, I think you have something valid to add to the forum, and I want to be fair. But should your posts continue to seem a waste of time (or return to that status), I can always engage that feature again.

Cosmos Jack
04-29-2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
I'm fairly sure you were the one who did the attacking in the first place, and that we haven't really reacted until now. If you say so :rolleyes:
Originally posted by C'jais
That's the spirit, man. Don't let us get you down.
From that to this huh .....
Originally posted by C'jais Listen, it's against the rules to come back under a different name when you have already been banned (temporary bans are another case, of course). If you do so, and still find yourself banned (don't know for sure, but I think I saw a Cosmos Jack 3), you're obviously not wanted. Then it's just you being a bully, and most people don't like those. It's really simple - if you go against the rules, you get banned. If you come back under a different name while you're banned, you're banned again. If you're banned, and we don't like you, why even bother?
Originally posted by C'jais
Jack, I'm curious, have you ever thought about that you might just be wrong? It's sometimes hard to fathom, but I think it deserves some pondering on your part in this case. Maybe you should ask this of yourself. I will admit when I'm wrong, but if I'm right you can hate me all you want and say whatever you want. I'll still be right.

C'jais
04-29-2003, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack

From that to this huh .....

That was then, and that was adressing the point you raised: Do we just make our opinions "fact" when in the majority?

Now, however, you've stopped beating that horse, and moved on to the next. The former point was valid enough, but what you're trying to do now, is to make us look like the big baddies because we don't like your attitude. Two different things.

Maybe you should ask this of yourself. I will admit when I'm wrong, but if I'm right you can hate me all you want and say whatever you want. I'll still be right.

Once again: Which concrete examples are we talking about? Is it still the WW2 "facts" that are bothering you? In that case, go ahead and argue your case, instead of arguing about arguing the case, and losing us all in the process of your now-empty ravings.

Reborn Outcast
04-29-2003, 07:48 PM
C'jais this is why I hate being on the wrong side of a debate with you. :D You always get me tied up so I don't know what to say. :D :p




And Cosmos... Please stop it now. You're not on my Ignore List yet but you're coming close but I don't think I will since I find your posts amusing.
You think you're right and everyone else is wrong. :rolleyes: Good luck getting that one across.

Maybe you should ask this of yourself. I will admit when I'm wrong, but if I'm right you can hate me all you want and say whatever you want. I'll still be right

Well from what I read... C'jais presented a better argument than you did. Its better to admit that you could have been wrong. That helps you learn, which you obviously don't want to do.


Also, if I say that your spelling is a piece of sh*t, would you admit that I'm right? For someone who supposedly works in a forensic psycological lab (or whatever you said when you posted in the other thread a while ago) you sure don't have a command of the English language. :rolleyes: Spy_jmr just posted a thread in the Swamp at the very top, talking about what he would do to peoples' posts if they don't shape up their grammar and spelling. You should check it out...

And by the way, you have a spelling mistake in your sig that a 4th grader could pick out, as you should to since you claim to work in such an excellent field of study. It's waste not waist. :rolleyes:

Dagobahn Eagle
04-29-2003, 09:06 PM
Last time I checked everytime I post ecluduing the very 1st time I got slamed practicly flamed. Then I replyed and relized this is a buddy buddy only club. whatever
The first time I posted in the JK Senate Chambers, a week or two ago -at the same time as you-, I got welcomed and I haven't been attacked yet, I believe. "Buddy-only club"? If it was, I'd be flamed too, right?

If you acted more friendly, people would have liked you more.

Cosmos Jack
04-30-2003, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Well from what I read... C'jais presented a better argument than you did. Its better to admit that you could have been wrong. That helps you learn, which you obviously don't want to do. What was the point he made. All I ever agued was that the US freed Europe while the Russians conquered it. We didn't take France over or even Germany. We help rebuild while the Russians were removing governments we were getting them back on there feet. I never said the Russians didn't contribute. His sole argument is that the war would have been won without out the US yes it might have. Instead of a free Europe you would have had a Communist Europe simple as thatÖ.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Also, if I say that your spelling is a piece of sh*t, would you admit that I'm right? For someone who supposedly works in a forensic psycological lab (or whatever you said when you posted in the other thread a while ago) you sure don't have a command of the English language. :rolleyes: Spy_jmr just posted a thread in the Swamp at the very top, talking about what he would do to peoples' posts if they don't shape up their grammar and spelling. You should check it out...
Do you have a PhD in English or something are you perfect? I have no doubt I can go threw your posts and fined mistakes. I guarantee you make them. If not you are the only one on this whole Forum. I type everything in Microsoft Word before I post it. I proof read it a little than I post the crap. I didn't know I was getting graded maybe I would have cared more.. Sorry I don't put as much effort into this as I do a college turn paper.....

Here are your spelling mistakes on your postÖ
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
C'jais presented a better argument than you did. ( Its ) better to admit that you could have been wrong. ( Its ) or ( Itís ) Thatís a 4th grader mistake right there.
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Also, if I say that your spelling is a piece of sh*t, would you admit that I'm right? For someone who supposedly works in a forensic( psycological ) lab
( psycological ) or ( psychological ) So you want to dog my spelling?
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
And by the way, you have a spelling mistake in your sig that a 4th grader could pick out, as you should to since you claim to work in such an excellent field of study. It's waste not waist. :rolleyes: That's not a spelling mistake that's a grammar mistake. Two words that sound the same, but spelled differently. They're very common mistakes and it was spelt correctly.

What is it with you and calling me liar about where I work? I don't work in a lab I work in a hospital whether you want to believe me or not. For f@ck sake it's not like I said I was a Dr. or even a freaking nurse. I'm just a freaking tech. Hell college kids have the same job. It's a good job to have while youíre going to school. I make my own hours and it more than pays my bills. I make decent money doing it, because not allot of people like being spit on, kicked, and cussed out all dam day long. Not to mention being attacked. Do you want my freaking work number you can call and ask them what I do and where I work?

What else is odd I didnít get the job because of medical experience or college credits. I got it because I had military experience you would be surprised at the number of noncollege grads and exmilitary working in this field.

At least everyone else is making good points about me. All you want to do is take cheep shots. I would respect you more if you just ran up and kicked me in the balls.

Don't bother posting my mistakes I know I made them and I don't care !!!!!

Dagobahn Eagle
04-30-2003, 02:43 AM
The difference, CJ, is that C'Jais is Danish, not American.

Oh, and even then he makes a good deal less mistakes than you. Actually, a lot of people do.

But I agree, spelling, if you do your best, doesn't matter. If that was the only problem with you, I'd like you.

Cosmos Jack
04-30-2003, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
The difference, CJ, is that C'Jais is Danish, not American.

Oh, and even then he makes a good deal less mistakes than you. Actually, a lot of people do.

But I agree, spelling, if you do your best, doesn't matter. If that was the only problem with you, I'd like you. For christ sake "C'Jais" didn't say anything about my grammer "Reborn Outcast" did. Where does "C'Jais" come into this subject?

SkinWalker
04-30-2003, 03:00 AM
Minor mistakes, few and far between are acceptable, but in attempting to get your point across in a written discussion, forum, debate, etc., good grammer, spelling and the general ability to write well is imparitive.

However, this is the internet and this is LucasForums, not The Well or some other venerable shrine to intellectualism, so I suppose some latitude is expected.

I find it interesting that most of the remarks about Jack's spelling/grammer have been less than direct, but he quickly takes offense. I suspect that this is something that he genuinely wishes to improve or is aware of already. Besides, his former English Lit Professor made mistakes, too, so why push it? Let's cut Jack some slack in his grammer.

ShockV1.89
04-30-2003, 08:16 AM
Yeah. He's not as bad as M54 was. ;)

You do understand that people are trying to help you here, Jack. You may be interpreting some constructive criticisms as attacks. Dont, please.

Reborn Outcast
04-30-2003, 08:17 AM
My fault Jack that was uncalled for. I'll try not to do it again.

C'jais
04-30-2003, 08:49 AM
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame31.html

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame29.html

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame75.html

Don't be like those guys. Not in my forum.

And let's lay off the grammar nazism. It serves no purpose, although I will admit that Jack can definately do better when he really wants to.

I still have faith in you Jack. If you just start behaving nicer, I believe we could get along just fine.

Now, should I just close this thread, or is there really anything more we need to debate on this topic?

ShockV1.89
04-30-2003, 08:55 AM
Hey, I found a pic of CJais! http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/assets/Admin.jpg
:D

Might as well close it. Maybe let Jack give a response or two. Wouldnt really be fair to close it without letting him put his final say in.

C'jais
04-30-2003, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
Hey, I found a pic of CJais! http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/assets/Admin.jpg
:D

Was anticipating that, really :D

Might as well close it. Maybe let Jack give a response or two. Wouldnt really be fair to close it without letting him put his final say in.

Yup, I was referring to Jack. His thread, 'n all.

Cosmos Jack
04-30-2003, 12:29 PM
:o I really donít know of anything to say I was expecting to be banned again after my little outburst. I make the mistake of posting a lot of my responses after I come home from work. By that time Iím already pissed off; however, I was off yesterday. I also think people misinterpret my posts as rude when Iím really not trying to be. I have been criticized in the past in person for being rude, overbearing, and little stuck up when I have no idea Iím being that way. I didnít think it could really carry over in my typing. I will also admit Iím most likely taking things the wrong way myself. I have always been quick to be offended.

This might be a surprise, but even as pissy as my posts have been on this thread thatís still after I retyped them 3 or 4 times. I would have been banned after the first one. I can just imagine how my fire team felt after a week in the field with me. I probably went over the verbally abusive line a many of time. Maybe we can all meet in the middle I can try to be less rude and you can try to just look over me. Itís not that Iím trying to be rude thatís just the way I am. Iím not saying let me get away with being a as@hole, but try to realize that even though I might sound rude thatís not what I was thinking.

ďCíjaisĒ itís not that I consider the USA a saint by no means. There was a time when I compared the USA to Nazi Germany and Andrew Jackson to Hitler; however, if you wouldnít mine doing me a favor. When I post a pro USA thread like the ďIraq and al-Qaeda link foundĒ Donít automatically come off like you did. It might be disproved tomorrow it might have already been, but it was a legit point and I didnít start it off rude or anything.

Donít delete the thread just close it. I donít want to loose my points..;)