Is it ok to train kids to terrorise?

[Lord Jim]

As I said, I really haven't been following this closely, so I can't speak to the substance of the specifics in this case...

But as a general operating principle, it seems to me that if someone has responded to what was posted, (whether that was in one minute, or one hour or one day) to substantively change what they responded to isn't cricket. (By which I mean "isn't fair" not "isn't boring"... )

[Gob]

Chingo, no se'

I usually edit my posts withing the first hour of my posting to 'clean up' and audit my publication. You can check the time tags to confirm that.

Intentional deception is not a part of that. I was not aware net debate was a speed event.

But that is now null and void, as Sean had responded to your original post, and you went on to request he respond again to it.

[The Hen]

''Your goal is to kill the MOST innocent civilians in order to get your message across,'' the assignment said.

Explain choice of victims and decide the best time and place for their attack.

Well, as far as I can work out, the most effective terrorist attack has yet to be carried out.

I propose a synchronised mass poisoning of major water supplies.

Everyone needs water. Everything needs water.

There is not enough bottled water available with complete loss of major water supplies. Imagine doing the entire planet?

Whoa. You got yourself some serious death tolls there.

Did I get an A?

[Sean]

Chingo, no se'

I usually edit my posts withing the first hour of my posting to 'clean up' and audit my publication. You can check the time tags to confirm that.

Intentional deception is not a part of that. I was not aware net debate was a speed event.

Clean up and audit?

The original post contained what has now become the first paragraph and nothing more. Everything else was added in later edits. Good form would be to acknowledge in your post what has been added in an edit. Better form would be to acknowledge that the poster responding did so to the original unedited post.

What you are showing Lo is a blatant disregard for any kind of reasonable debate.

What actually shit me the most was rather than acknowledge your decorum fuck-up after I called you on it:

And so Loca becomes the first poster on Plan B to edit her post beyond all recognition before asking me to explain my answer to the unedited post.

Hopefully the last too...

Tell you what Loca, you've just lost all credibility in my eyes as far as this thread goes so let's just forget about it.

you had the brass balls to come back with:

Very well, if you don't want to explain/debate, granted.

I'm going to ask this one time only Lo and to be honest I'm not expecting a straight or truthful answer from you at this stage but hey-ho...

Yes, warfare includes large and small scale tactics, terrorists having no nations nor standing armies; engage in small scale aggression (it's all they're capable of) to further their agendas.

Al Qaeda pulled off a high-profile(high body count) attack but technically it was not large scale; they did not achieve much strategic advantage over their adversary(the US) via military means of greater numbers nor greater ordinance.
They did terrorize the populous, but also galvanized them to resist such intimidation.

Battle won: jihad(war) lost.

As I understand it, the IRA has not achieved its goals by terrorist tactics but by its 'peace process' IOW Non-violent protest.


Meaning politics has more impact than terrorism.

Is it not true that everything in bold from the above post was added by you during edits and not contained in the original post?

[loCAtek]

Lo, could you re-post your original reply to Sean?

It's not good practice, some/most would say it's cheating, to change the meaning of your reply, and then expect others to be able to follow with logic.

Unfortunately, I can't because I can't recall what that was. Besides, my original post and edited one were made after Sean made his points; by Sean » Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:13 pm

by loCAtek » Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:49 pm

Last edited by loCAtek on Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:19 pm, edited 4 times in total.

So, I didn't change anything before he made his conclusions.

I had asked for an explanation because I didn't see what his following post had to do with the topic. I didn't read his post until after I completed my editing. Yes, it can take that long for me to write a post and longer; I often go open other tabs and check my sources. Sometimes go read something entirely different. If I include many links, images and quotes; I've taken up to two hours, sometimes more, to submit a single post. (My breads can take weeks, I go back tweak theme very so often, if anyone's noticed. You can check the edit tags) I just added that last after some thought of about a half an hour? This works fine fairly often. If it didn't work in this case; I defer to Sean being the faster responder.

[Sean]

Okay.

Loca, you are full of shit. Don't try and pull the wool over people's eyes... you're just not very good at it.

It's very fucking simple...

I posted at 8:13am.
You replied at 8:49am with a single paragraph post which made no sense whatsoever.
At 8:56am I suggested that you may have lost the plot.
Between then and 9:21am you made four edits adding four paragraphs to your original post and changing it beyond all recognition.
You then proceeded to ask me to explain my reply to the original post.

You really don't know why that is bad form? Maybe you should step away from the internet...

As to your assertions that you didn't see my reply (curious as to edit four times means returning to the thread four times...) and that you cannot remember the original content of your post (even though I've jogged your memory by posting exactly what it contained...) I would like to forward a theory based on pretty strong evidence.

You Locatek, are a liar and a coward.

I honestly thought you were better than that. Oh well...

[loCAtek]

Sean, I think I see your point, but you don't see mine.

I was in the midst of editing, and I asked what you were suggesting, because your post was vague to me. All your tone conveyed was you were displeased with something, but I honestly didn't know what. I've admitted to my short-term memory problems, for as long as I can remember (Joke!) It's Hell on recalling passwords and driving directions.
Yes, I was changing my post; I do that with many of mine as the records show.
As for deliberate deception as my intent, that I firmly deny.

Nothing personal Sean, Adios.

[Sean]

Sean, I think I see your point, but you don't see mine.

Oh but I do Loca. You've dug yourself into a hole you can't get out of. You are now trying to save face.

I was in the midst of editing, and I asked what you were suggesting, because your post was vague to me.

This is a lie. Your last edit was at 9:19 and the post you are referring to you made at 9:21. And since when is "You've really lost the plot now haven't you chuck..." vague?

All your tone conveyed was you were displeased with something, but I honestly didn't know what. I've admitted to my short-term memory problems, for as long as I can remember (Joke!) It's Hell on recalling passwords and driving directions.
Yes, I was changing my post; I do that with many of mine as the records show.
As for deliberate deception as my intent, that I firmly deny.

Nothing personal Sean, Adios.

You can deny it all you want and I'm sure you will but if you'd had the intestinal fortitude to say "My bad" from the start this could have been avoided. But instead you spout the most transparent (and easy to prove...) lies and change your story at every second post. Now you're blaming short term memory problems? In that case, well done indeed for keeping up with the thread until it suited you not to!

That is what I call moral cowardice.

[loCAtek]

I didn't know what to say 'my bad' to Sean, which was why I asked. When that wasn't answered I continued editing. Gob asked me to repost my original and I can't remember it: honest truth.

I call it Living La Vida Loca! Have a good one

[Sean]

You really don't know when to quit Loca. You had finished editing before you asked!

Are you playing dumb? For your sake I hope so...

[loCAtek]

We agreed about that earlier. Above I should have said, 'When that wasn't answered I continued posting.' My bad.
The point being, my request for clarification then, wasn't answered.

[Sean]

And so Loca becomes the first poster on Plan B to edit her post beyond all recognition before asking me to explain my answer to the unedited post.

Hopefully the last too...

Tell you what Loca, you've just lost all credibility in my eyes as far as this thread goes so let's just forget about it.

Wasn't answered?
I think you'll find my post (quoted above) answered it pretty clearly.

Don't try and claim this as some big misunderstanding now Loca. You have done (in forum terms) a pretty nasty thing and if you don't have it in you to admit that then we're done here. I won't be responding to any more of your bullshit excuses and attempts to wriggle out of the hole you have dug for yourself.

[loCAtek]

Very well, in Sean-speak, I can now say, ‘The cabbage crates are coming over the briny!’ and you’re supposed to know what I said and why I said it. Explanations not necessary, thX!

so let's just forget about it.

[Scooter]

Get it through your head. He doesn't care whether you understand or not, because you forfeited any right to an explanation of his response when you engaged in an after the fact edit of the post to which he was responding

[loCAtek]

He responded with a personal remark, nothing to do with the topic.

If he doesn't care, why is continuing the personal remarks and not debating the topic?

[Scooter]

His repsonse made perfect sense in regard to the original, unedited post.

That it required explanation once you edited said post beyond recognition is a problem you brought on yourself.

[loCAtek]

That's true, I have short-term memory loss, but that condition is not a deliberate front to Sean.

[Sean]

Loca, as I said previously I have no wish to debate with somebody who lies and cheats rather than admit they made a mistake.

You made this personal when you edited your post to try and make me look foolish. I don't take well to that. The fact that you continue to hide behind a pathetic charade of lies and pitiful excuses isn't helping your cause either...

[loCAtek]

Again, there was no deliberate malice on my part.

I have not lied about my short term memory loss. It's a very real condition, I have to deal with in every day life.

[Sean]

You know the wonderful thing about a board like this Lo?
Everything is down in black and white, you don't actually have to remember any of it.
I'm not saying that you're lying about your memory (although you do seem to have extremely vivid recollections of the times you told the CSB about it...). That would come under the heading of 'pitiful excuses' in this case.

Quite simple Lo, if you haven't got what it takes to do the right thing here then at least please stop playing the victim to me.

In fact stop replying to me if you would be so kind.

In fact fuck right off!

For many years I thought you were better than this, how wrong was I...
Beware Loca, you may in fact be turning into Steve.

It seems that you are not worth my time.