The destruction of New Orleans?

“Usually one thinks of explanations such as projectionm in the face of an erroneous or unsupported attribution.

I don't know when Viuolin used the term "naive."”

“Nigal, that reminded me of Full Metal Jacket. I like you, you can F my sister.”

“Subject changing.

Interesting that the waters were "not as toxic as previously thought."”

“pedxing, read his last post”

“That was a cut and pasted (or re-typed) definition. It's hard to attribute to a word from a definition one has reproduced.”

“I know you are but what am I?”

“i can't tell you, you might cry!




(lol, couldn't resist - the 8 year old this past weekend said that)”

“Nowslimmer and I got into this discussion last fall. I thought he was attacking me at first but then I saw his logic and realized he was not attacking me. He was basically saying that Louisiana should not allow people to live where they should not. I agree with him and do not believe that many areas should be rebuilt. I think the levees should be blasted above New Orleans and allowed to reflood areas with fresh spoil and replinish the land. There was no way in hell to uproot residents from their homes prior to Katrina and Rita. You simply couldn't blast the levees and allow people to flood. Since mother nature did the job and now uncle sam has to pay the bill for the destruction it is time for logic to take over. Like Nowslimmer said last year, we need to get the people out, quit pointing fingers and allow nature to rebuild. The most important thing is that Katrina was not the BIG ONE for New Orleans. The big one is still coming and will destroy what is left of the place. Had Katrina followed the path of hurricane Betsy in 1965 the loss of life would have been 10 times higher. The west bank would also have had massive and rapid flooding. Only portions of the metro area flooded and with slow rising water. New Orleans is lucky most of the storm surge hit Bay Saint Louis Mississippi, not them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only one of our problems

“The seas are taking away my homeland. Global warming may be part of the problem but the Corps of Engineers and big oil companys are really to blame.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/index.html”
bateauxdriver
6:52:59 AM
10/31/04
ignore this user

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bateauxdriver
“That\'s bullcrap! The area is a natural floodplain and should be returned to just that. It is ludicrous for someone to settle there and then point the finger at others.”
nowslimmer
6:54:29 AM
10/31/04”

“The thing is this guy was not uprooted by a hurricane. The waterfront slowly moved 1/4 mile due to erosion.

The debate BatToe mentions is meaningful, but Sarge missed the boat entirely.

It is frustrating to argue with someone who seemingly loves to call peopel names and seems unable to admit he is wrong about anything.”

“It is frustrating to argue with someone who seemingly loves to call peopel names and seems unable to admit he is wrong about anything.”
pedxing
12:46:52 PM

pedx, meet 90% of the libs here... LOL”

“I admit I mispelled "peopel."”

“pedxing, by your definition of anything, I'm wrong no matter what I say. You think conservatives are wrong, period.

I feel the same way you do. (about you)

You pretend to be non-partisan, but you're not. You preface your arguments with little saying to make people think you're taking a non-biased view of things, but it's bologna.

Just because you think you're moderate, leaning left doesn't mean you are. You're a left leaning liberal. You can pretend you're objective all day long, but you're not. If you say anything even close to conservative (via your liberal prism glasses) you follow up with a "butt" or a "except" that throws it all out with the bathwater. I'm just telling you what other people are thinking (except your libby buds like USA and Violink maybe). You're only fooling yourself. When have you admitted to be wrong about anything? I have several times on here. Maybe you admitted to a spelling mistake.

Also, just because one "admits to being wrong" about something - doesn't make them "right". That's another fallacy of the left. It's a ploy to make conservatives say they were wrong. It's a joke, just like your supposed "bipartisan, non-biased" viewpoints.

Good night, and good day sir!
last edited: 10/11/05 1:29:02 PM”

“To take people's homes involves eminent domain. The cost of taking away these people's homes would be astronomical. The phenominal cost of insurance should be incentive enough to stop construction in prone area's.”

“Green Bay Packers 52, New Orleans Saints 3”

“Another intense and bitter personal attack? Set a fire to create a cloud smoke rather than admit a mistake?

Anyway, since you ask the last time I admitted a mistake on on T was four days ago (unless I'm forgetting something)in response to a challenge from Mutt on 10/7/05 on the "Bush Winning War on Terror!!" thread.

You would have no way of knowing what I aspire to be or how I wish to be seen, despite your apparent penchant for gossip about me.”

“Gossip? I'm talking to YOU. You're a phoney.”

“Ok, not gossip - you're a psychic then?

Which is why you say:

"I'm just telling you what other people are thinking"”

“It's odd though that you are preferring name calling and antagonism to substantive discussion.”

“I don't know when Viuolin used the term "naive."”
pedxing
11:48:18 AM
10/11/05

=====

b) The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.
last edited: 10/11/05 11:30:44 AM”
VioLiN
11:29:23 AM
10/11/05

Admit you are wrong again. Stop blaming semantics and others for your mistakes pedxing. Start taking responsiblity for yourself.”

“pedxing - "Odd?" My actions are "odd"?

Is that substantive discussion?

Go ahead, skirt the question.

Everyone knows that is antagonism.

HYPOCRITE!!!”

“Ok, not gossip - you're a psychic then?

Which is why you say:

"I'm just telling you what other people are thinking"”
Undeadxing
10:05:39 PM

Actually it's been written on here by others. I'm not a psychic. I just don't have selective reading like you do.”

“Sarge. I said "I don't know." I admitted my ignorance - how that could be an error is beyondme.

Anyhow you are persistently nasty and unwilling to address real issues. This discussion has become distasteful and boring.”

“Admit you are wrong again. Stop blaming semantics and others for your mistakes pedxing. Start taking responsiblity for yourself.”
SARGEantSlaughter
10:08:14 PM
10/11/05

Sarge. I said "I don't know." I admitted my ignorance - how that could be an error is beyondme.
Undeadxing
10:12:24 PM
10/11/05

=====

So you chose "semantics". Nice choice.”

“Is that a real futball or a Sears football?”

“PS pedxing - It's right here in black and off-orange that you were being antogonistic in calling my actions "odd", right after calling my actions "antogonistic".

Even when you take your ball and go home, that's still HYPOCRITICAL.

Just because we can't see you doesn't mean you're not who you are, a hypocrite.”

“One more thing.

More specifically, you're a "passive aggressive hypocrite".

The worst kind of hypocrite.”

“okay, i've not gotten into this political stuff here befor but here is what i have to say about it. while i'm not sure of the passive aggresive, or the entire hypocrit thing, i agree with sarge. ped is a liberal. i also agree with what he said about "You preface your arguments with little saying to make people think you're taking a non-biased view of things".

that said, to each their own. call 'em how you see them, and don't try and hide behind any fluff.

bi tches.”

“has anyone seen carlette? i miss her.”

“Ped, S-rge, G-d and I await your apologey. LOL!

Hey Dayhiker, check it out...all the great srg. Harman clips on one page! Now there was a REAL sergeant!”

“It is hard resisting the attempt to defend myself in the face of vicious and unthinking attack.

First of all the things I said that Sarge paints as antagonistic were said after significant provocation. Secondly there is a significant difference between talking about actions or things said that attacking the being and nature of another person. There is a difference between calling attention to a contradciton or flaw in an argument and bashing a person, between disagreeing and challenging and behaving in a more globally hateful manner.

I know nothing of what Sarge is like in real life or of his character, I find his arguments here immune to evidence and reason.”

“The very first rude comment to anybody on this thread was: "Parlez-vous le non-sequitor?", by you in a rude french language designed to be demeaning.

Deny it all you want libbie boy. You dish it out. Now suck it up.”

“"First of all the things I said that Sarge paints as antagonistic were said after significant provocation."

No WAY!! Get OUT!! The best time was when he told Mapeleaf to fukc off (or maybe it was go fukc yourself) and then proceed to rail on for three days straight like wounded bunny rabbit because Sass suggested he'd be happier if he left tt. Classic! I guess what I'm trying to say is, it ain't you Ped. :)”

“Well Sarge I do agree with ya on that. I find the use of French offensive also. Not because it's demeaning but just because it's French.”

“the last time I admitted a mistake on on T was four days ago (unless I'm forgetting something)in response to a challenge from Mutt on 10/7/05 on the "Bush Winning War on Terror!!" thread.

Which, by the way, supports Sarge's assertion that you're not as objective as you pretend.”

“Errr Sarge - that French remark came after you responded to an article link with what seemed to be an irrelevant rant about a Dufus (it turned out to be a rant based on a complete misunderstanding of a picture in the article).

And Mutt, I don't "pretend" to be objective. I am not a nuetral observer. I have strong opinions. I do try to think for myself and to analyze things carefully and am dismayed when I miss something.

I've referred to myself as a "Bush basher" many times, and even if I agree with Bush or say that an attack on him is unfair or baseless - I acknowledge my long running antagonism towards his leadership. I've moved from wariness about him to antipathy.”

“French (or a version of it), by the way, is the native language of the Cajuns who settled in the coastal regions of Louisiana. It might well be the language of the "dufus" in the picture.”

“I do try to think for myself and to analyze things carefully

Meh, I've seen you summarily dismiss sound arguments simply because they disagree with your worldview.”

“Useless fact #28476382893476: The Cajuns are actually of Canadian origin having come from Quebec, not France.”

“"Meh, I've seen you summarily dismiss sound arguments simply because they disagree with your worldview.”

That's like frickin' 99.9% of TT. Myself included.”

“But pedX has cultivated his particular social image more than most. That's why it's worthwhile to point out.”

“I'm sure I'm guilty of many knee jerk reactions, like I said I try to think for myself and to analyze things carefully.

Of course I'm sure we disagree on the soundness of many arguments you've put forth,as well as on the soundness of my points.

r.e. the useless fact... actually, most of the cajuns are decended from Acadians who were expelled by the Brits from Atlantic Canadia (mostly from Nova Scotia). Longfellows Evangeline is the story of some oft hoseexpelled.

(I worked a summer in Nova Scotia near the "French Shore" -otherwise I probably wouldn'tknow this)”

“Right country; wrong provence. So shoot me! What do ya expect for a useless fact ya got for free? :)”

“A refund?

I promise not to spend it all in one place!”

“Alright, here's a freeby. Now go away kid, ya bothe rme...

A dime has 118 ridges around the edge.”

“Now that's way kewl, a bargain at half the price!”

“pedxing is the king of semantics - fooling just himself to repeat myself

Also, ...


Errr Sarge - that French remark came after you responded to an article link with what seemed to be an irrelevant rant about a Dufus (it turned out to be a rant based on a complete misunderstanding of a picture in the article).

Errr pedxing - that "rant" was not a "rant" upon you or anyone else on TT. YOU are the one who started with the antogonistic argument here on TT.

Again, deny all you want ... you only fool yourself.”

“Sarge - There maybe a clue ere regarding how much conflict you get into on TT. There is a big difference between 1) someone teasing you, or making a joke, about a post you make that is off point - that completely misses the mark, and nasty personal attacks that bash another person. See, for example, Nigals recounting of your exchanges with other TT'ers.

Over the years, lots of people have pointed to dumb posts I've made, teased me or called a suggestion of mine "about the stupiddest response possible" (or some words to that effect - I'm thinking of Nigal, who was far from accurate, actually).

Stove Stomper seems to think I've got a huge liberal bias and I admantly disagree with him onlots of points. I'm sure Nigal and many others could tell you how wrong they think I am on a number of issues, but they don't launch nasty personal attacks. I disagree with them intensely at times, but I don't bash them either. They may have a laugh at my expense, or I at theirs - but there are no hateful posts between us or hostile name calling.”

“I was just teasing you and making a joke, like you were to me.

(being able to lie like pedxing makes it easier to justify my actions, it's pretty cool)”

“PS - Why does pedxing keep bringing this up? What a sick-o!

Get a life sick-o! You're boring everyone!”