Surge may be working, says Dem analysts

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And that was the point, he was mostly sarcastic in categorizing humans below animals.

Our society is a very, very sarcastic society.

We often do not say what we mean or mean what we say. It is very, very difficult for those who have not been immersed in the culture to understand what level of skepticism and sarcasm all aspects of speech.

For an outsider to our culture to understand it would nearly impossible.

BYU71 is actually a very genuine human being, but a very sarcastic poster.

Sarcasm can be hard to detect in a written medium like this, even without the language and cultural barriers. So it's not at all surprising that we sometimes get meanings misconstrued in discussions with mindful.

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

Sarcasm can be hard to detect in a written medium like this, even without the language and cultural barriers. So it's not at all surprising that we sometimes get meanings misconstrued in discussions with mindful.

thats why i take any post as sarcasm, until the opposite could be proved

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by mindfulcoug

thats why i take any post as sarcasm, until the opposite could be proved

So that means you think I was being sarcastic in that post?

[Colly Wolly]

I gotta say I am really disappointed in the insensitivity and rudeness displayed towards mindfulcoug by many of you. It really is shameful.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If true, it would be great news. Are you hoping for a debate on that point?

Oops.

Liberal blogs have reacted with special outrage to Monday's New York Times op-ed piece by liberal war critics Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution that said the Iraq war surge is working.

Glenn Greenwald writes on salon.com — "For sheer deceit and propaganda, it is difficult to remember something quite this audacious and transparently false."

Logan Murphy writes on crooksandliars.com that the op-ed "uses cherry picked data to give the false impression that there is real progress being made militarily."

And from Duncan Black at the Eschaton blog — "What's amazing how simple it is, how willing our media - universally - are willing to catapult George Bush's propaganda. I do not believe they are all that stupid, so they are willing accomplices in this disgusting game which perpetuates misery, death, and destruction. If our grand poobahs in the mainstream media want to know why us dirty (expletive) hippie bloggers hate them, this is why."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291791,00.html

And here's the original links for Cali's enlightenment, since Fox News is so unfair.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...lon/index.html
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...st-might-lose/
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_07_2...17227956835719

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I keep thinking about the game against Stanford at LES during the Crowton years. Beck throws an interception. What an idiot Crowton was, he should have run and punted. After Stanford intercepted the ball my 6 year old granddaughter said, he shouldn't have passed it Grandpa.

We all know if Crowton had punted, BYU would have won the game.

After analyzing football games, I guess some people get tired and move on to bigger things like analyzing war strategies.

there is no question in my mind Crowton screwed up that game. At least if by some fluke we would have lost that game and done so playing it "by the book" instead of what Crowton tried to do instead we'd probably chalk it up more to bad luck than bad coaching. That was what did Crowton in. When an unorthodox approach fails miserably people remember why there is a "booK' to begin with and why playing the percentages is what most coaches do.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Oops.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291791,00.html

And here's the original links for Cali's enlightenment, since Fox News is so unfair.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...lon/index.html
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...st-might-lose/
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_07_2...17227956835719

I don't see your point. As I said, IF true, it would be great news. They take issue with the truthfulness of the report, not with the premise that it would be great if true.

And I still don't see your point on Fox News either. Quite clearly, they took what he said out of context, then used his quote with the infamous ... preceding it to fit within their newly defined context.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't see your point. As I said, IF true, it would be great news. They take issue with the truthfulness of the report, not with the premise that it would be great if true.

They take issue with the report's truthfulness on nothing but their own desire that it be false. They make no substantive argument whatsoever, a tactic you also employ.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And I still don't see your point on Fox News either. Quite clearly, they took what he said out of context, then used his quote with the infamous ... preceding it to fit within their newly defined context.

There is no ellipses, "infamous" or otherwise.

WaPo: "But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be 'a real big problem for us.'"

Fox: "Democratic House Whip James Clyburn says a positive report from Iraq forces commander General David Petraeus to Congress in September would be — 'a real problem for us.'"

Quite clearly, Fox accurately reported the gist of the article. Your nitpicking skills have failed you, once again.

[Mindfulcoug]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

I gotta say I am really disappointed in the insensitivity and rudeness displayed towards mindfulcoug by many of you. It really is shameful.

improve your sarcasm!
why ? becuase it was a little bit TOO transparent

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by mindfulcoug

well,the downside of applying sarcasm is this....you think that i couldnot take the hint and vice versa ,while we both enjoy our own sarcasm while posting .
but categorising human being in animal echelon and requiring the animal kingdom roles to govern it ,is basically uncomparable with any sort of distinction and you know that..

OK, if it will make you feel any better toward BYU, as an alumni I am now renouncing my calling human beings part of the animal kingdom. We are part of the human being kingdom. However, I still think human beings as a whole function on the survival of the fittest model.

I make no claim as to that being the grandest model to operate on. Perhaps the French model is the better one. Let others run you over and then have someone who operates on the other model come in and save your butt.