Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • So do people who predictably respond with nothing but “you don’t comprehend.”
    • Why did you post that here? In fact, I almost always post detailed rebuttals when I disagree, so obviously you can't be referring to me.
      • I almost always post detailed rebuttals when I disagree

        Like the one sentence post above, bitching about someone not knowing what he is talking about... when what the person actually does is point out articles written by others?

        Yeah... right.

        Any interested party could search thru your exchanges as see just how lacking your responses are.

        I especially liked the part where you linked to his *entire* blog. Wouldn't by chance want every stinking point from a(ny) particular post thrown back in your face as being t
        • when what the person actually does is point out articles written by others?

          So when he -- not quoting anyone else -- called Judge Roberts an asshole, that was merely pointing out articles written by others?

          Pull the other one!

          Any interested party could search thru your exchanges as see just how lacking your responses are.

          Feel free. Is that supposed to make me worried, that you could "expose" me?

          I especially liked the part where you linked to his *entire* blog. Wouldn't by chance want every stinking point fro
          • So when he -- not quoting anyone else -- called Judge Roberts an asshole, that was merely pointing out articles written by others?

            See, this is part of my problem with your statement about 'detailed rebuttals'. You didn't provide a link...

            I have to wade thru three pages of posts to even get a glimmer of what you are referring to. I couldn't even tell what your original post was referring to because of the lack of detail.

            Nope, he wasn't just pointing out something written by someone else (in that case). Not a
            • See, this is part of my problem with your statement about 'detailed rebuttals'. You didn't provide a link...

              So? You seem to think I care if you fully understand what I am referring to. I don't.

              I couldn't even tell what your original post was referring to because of the lack of detail.

              As noted in my last reply, I was not referring to anything specifically. Read much?

              How on earth can you say that he has no basis to make that claim?

              Apart from the fact that those regions voted mostly FOR Bush?

              And it very muc
              • As an aside, I just wanted to say that the gentleman you are currently sparring with has zero clue about what happened with the aftermath of Katrina and why.

                • You are right. I don't know what did happen. And a lot of effort is now being put into making sure others don't either.

                  But...

                  I was, a long time ago, in the National Guard and as part of that duty trained in responding to these kinds of issues.

                  As a National Guardsman I did actually respond to the Govenor's call to help with the riots in Miami in the early eightys.

                  I've also got 13 years experience and training as a "first responder" for nuclear incidences.

                  I also know that my wife works for an organization (th
                  • I only know what *should* have happened.

                    Then you also know that the National Guard is directly the responsibility, and under the control of, the governor, not the President. Yet you still say Bush is primarily to blame for the supposed lack of response. Hum.
                    • Then you also know that the National Guard is directly the responsibility, and under the control of, the governor, not the President.

                      It is a bit more complicated [af.mil] than that. (That is why there are Guard Units on the base closure list.)

                      Note that the above page says "When Air National Guard units are not mobilized or under federal control, they report to the governor of their respective state ...". The state function is secondary (actually tertiary since they can be mobilized by the feds for emergencies in other states... just like is happening right now)

                      And, you can't deploy an asset that you don't have. [cnn.com]
                      "What you lost was a lot of local knowledge," Taylor said, as well as equipment that could have been used in recovery operations.
                       
                      "The best equipment went with them, for obvious reasons," especially communications equipment, he added.
                      That local knowledge is hard to replace with a body from the next state (or several states) over. The equipment helps too. Even if we are only talking about 30 percent of the poeple, which is one number I've seen. (Can't seem to find any reporting on the equipment.)

                      But the use of the National Guard isn't my (sole) issue.

                      Hell, my issue wasn't even with Katrina, it's handling or the subject of your original journal entry.

                      Yet you still say Bush is primarily to blame for the supposed lack of response.

                      First of all, I never said any such thing. (But he didn't help much by appointing an incompetent boob to head FEMA. That is the problem with rich people^H^H^H^Hpoliticians, [why can't you strike out text?] they actually think the spoils system is a good idea.)

                      Second of all, I've already told you [perl.org] that you are not free to say I have said something because you "infered [perl.org]" it.

                      You are wrong too often in your interpretations to be given that privilege.

                      I'd strongly suggest you start from the beginning and read the post I commented to and the comments I made.

                      Your "inferences" into the meaning are your own bias... not mine.

                      For the record, my initial entry into the conversation was your assertion that you always provide detailed rebuttals.

                      Yet this [perl.org] will be the actual first *link* to the original article in question. A detail that is apparently too damn hard to provide in a web based environment.

                      And, while my version of "the blame game" might otherwise be known as "accountability"... Bush isn't the sole person on the list.

                      And, the list isn't just Republicans either.

                      A LOT of people screwed up on this one. Too damn many to ignore.

                      And you know what? It doesn't matter if it was Republicans or Democrats... Sean is right... it looks like something you expect from a corrupt third world country... not a "super power".

                      The fact that it probably isn't corruption, just plain old incompetence is little solace.
                    • It is a bit more complicated than that.

                      Of course. But the bottom line is that she is the one responsible for having the personnel, being able to deploy them, and actually deploying them.

                      Hell, my issue wasn't even with Katrina, it's handling or the subject of your original journal entry.

                      And I hope it's been perfectly clear I couldn't care less what you think about that.

                      Second of all, I've already told you ... ... many, many things I couldn't care less about.

                      You are wrong too often in your interpretations t
                    • And I hope it's been perfectly clear I couldn't care less what you think about that.

                      You sure have made a lot of entries trying to counter something I didn't say.

                      Maybe you should have someone check your meds. They aren't working.

                      You are wrong too often in your interpretations to be given that privilege.

                      According to who?

                      I am the authority on the meaning of what I say. Not you.

                      For the record, my initial entry into the conversation was your assertion that you always provide detailed rebuttals.

                      That's a very nice
                    • You are a dick.

                      When people are dicks to me, I am often dicks back to them. It's a fair cop, but it's not exactly a point in your favor.