See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #201
   On February 17th, 2009 at 5:22 pm, zyzzyg said:

   #191

   I’ve been completely honest from the start of this debate. Your expectations are obviously not well founded.

   Well, part of being honest is answering the question asked. Not responding with questions and taking the conversation on tangents.

   You call it a debate. I said nothing the first time you suggested we were having a debate. For the record, I am having a converstion. Asking and answering questions. A dialogue. Implicit in the term, debate, requires a winner and looser. Hence, I guess that is why you got all excited about supposedly crushing me.

   Are you sure you do not suffer from ADHD?

2. #202
   On February 17th, 2009 at 5:27 pm, zyzzyg said:

   #199

   Find me someone else that believes that they would invade a country by first pulling the troops. Preferably someone with some military planning experience – not that any should be required.

   Corkie, it is called time, you know tick, tick, tick Days to weeks. Weeks to Months. Months to Years. Decades.

   Pull the military out on day one, and then invade on day 3,560.

   Time Corkie. Time separates the pulling out from the later invasion.

   Are you sure you do not have ADHD?

3. #203
   On February 17th, 2009 at 5:36 pm, zyzzyg said:

   #200

   Are you really wrapped around the axle because you don’t think I answered your invasion of Saudi Arabia question soon enough?

   No. It is far more frustrating having to answer questions, over and over again. I have answered a question. You ask it again. Then, I cut and paste my first response. Then you ask the same question. Then I simply refer you to the numbered post where I first answered your question and to the post where I answered it a second time.

   No. You not answering questions, is not the issue. That is who you are and I have kind of come to terms with that.

   What is frustrating is that you fail to absorb the answers enough not to ask the question repeatedly. Or, you take tangents asking new question in order to avoid providing an answer.

   Are you sure you do not have ADHD?

4. #204
   On February 17th, 2009 at 6:22 pm, corkie said:

   Well, part of being honest is answering the question asked. Not responding with questions…

   I’ve only ever asked questions so that you can clarify your question or as an attempt to demonstrate irrelevancy. This is common practice.

5. #205
   On February 17th, 2009 at 6:22 pm, corkie said:

   Time Corkie. Time separates the pulling out from the later invasion.

   Fair enough.

6. #206
   On February 17th, 2009 at 6:24 pm, corkie said:

   Are you sure you do not have ADHD?

   Yes, if I did, I would not be focused on this DEBATE for over a week.

7. #207
   On February 17th, 2009 at 6:25 pm, corkie said:

   Are you sure you’re not mentally retarded?

8. #208
   On February 17th, 2009 at 6:26 pm, corkie said:

   Should I assume that you’re refusing to answer this question?

   What were you advocating in 2003? 2001? and 1990?

9. #209
   On February 17th, 2009 at 10:10 pm, zyzzyg said:

   #204

   I’ve only ever asked questions so that you can clarify your question or as an attempt to demonstrate irrelevancy. This is common practice.

   No Corkie. You have asked if I have ever had executive experience. That is a tangental question, of no revelance, in an attempt to avoid answering my questions.

   Are you sure you do not have ADHD?

   No Corkie. You have asked if I googled, or read maps. That is a tangential question of no revelance to avoid answering my question.

   No Corkie. You have asked if I were stupid. That is a tangential question of no revelance to avoid answering my question.

   Repeatedly, you have asked questions seemingly out of nowhere. Always a new question, always avoiding what I ask.

   Very well, I will accept that your questions are seeking irrelavncy, and therefore will accept that they are themselves irrelevant.

10. #210
    On February 17th, 2009 at 10:14 pm, zyzzyg said:

    #206

    Yes, if I did, I would not be focused on this DEBATE for over a week.

    Is it yes, or what?

    We discussed your sentence structure in the past. You say ‘yes’ then add a negative with a qualification, ‘if I did.’

    Are you sure you do not have ADHD?

11. #211
    On February 17th, 2009 at 10:18 pm, zyzzyg said:

    #207

    Are you sure you’re not mentally retarded?

    Yes, I am sure I am not mentally retarded.

    See how easy it is to answer a question. Very straight forward, no conditional statements, and no additional questions.

    Quoting you from your Post #169

    For me, pulling troops from a region means that I wouldn’t invade.

    Said, another way -

    For me, x means y, really.
    Corkie Post #169

12. #212
    On February 17th, 2009 at 10:30 pm, zyzzyg said:

    #208

    Should I assume that you’re refusing to answer this question?

    What were you advocating in 2003? 2001? and 1990?

    Until you mentioned the word ‘irrelavancy’ I was was going with your typical ‘tangent’ type avoidance of questions.

    Here’s the deal. I made that statement to demonstrate that you do know what I was advocating at any time.

    I could have used the years 2002, 1999, and 1980. It did not matter. You had a theory, which you admitted was short on facts.

    OK, you admitted you had a position on something in a year you stated. That is all good. What I am willing to do is to go back through MM’s archives and provide a link to what I have said in the past, thus establishing what my position was at that time, and remains so.

    I am not asking you to do so.

    All I ask is that you give me time to do so.

    Quoting you from your Post #169

    For me, pulling troops from a region means that I wouldn’t invade.

    Said, another way -

    For me, x means y, really.
    Corkie Post #169

13. #213
    On February 17th, 2009 at 10:39 pm, zyzzyg said:

    As to the notion that this is a debate. Among the elements of a debate, one is a moderator. Moreover, in debating there has been a panel to determine who has won, or lost.

    As defined, a debate has at least these two elemnts, a moderator and a panel, where are they in this conversation? I suppose, we are in reality, just having a dialogue.

    No winners. No losers. Just questions, and dare I say answers. A conversation.

    Quoting you from your Post #169

    For me, pulling troops from a region means that I wouldn’t invade.

    Said, another way -

    For me, x means y, really.
    Corkie Post #169

14. #214
    On February 17th, 2009 at 10:42 pm, zyzzyg said:

    #212

    CORRECTION

    to the numbered post -

    I said,

    Here’s the deal. I made that statement to demonstrate that you do know what I was advocating at any time.

    I intended to say,

    Here’s the deal. I made that statement to demonstrate that you do NOT know what I was advocating at any time.

15. #215
    On February 17th, 2009 at 11:14 pm, zyzzyg said:

    I managed to find an old post of mine. It is archived in Al Qaeda, Jihadist and is Post #30. It is from Oct 13, 2007. It is titlted “Remember the Cole: Seven years”. Unfortunately, I do not know how to provide a link. In that post you will realize that the theme is the same, as in this current post, where we are having a dialogue. I wonder about Saudi Arabia.
    I am and have always been consistent. Take a look and see for yourself.
    This might be the link

    http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/remember-the-cole-2/

16. #216
    On February 17th, 2009 at 11:44 pm, corkie said:

    Gee. You went all the way back to…Oct 2007????

    Show me something from before the Michael Moore movie (no – I will not specify which one. You can figure it out on uyour own).

17. #217
    On February 17th, 2009 at 11:59 pm, corkie said:

    Debate…use a dictionary. Two can certainly debate.

    In fact, one can debate – as in – “I debated with myself regarding…”

18. #218
    On February 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am, zyzzyg said:

    Very well, you win the debate. You are welcome to continue the conversation by yourself.

19. #219
    On February 18th, 2009 at 9:34 am, corkie said:

    You asked:

    “Are you sure you do not have ADHD?”

    I answered:

    “Yes, if I did, I would not be focused on this DEBATE for over a week.”

    There is nothing wrong with my sentence. Do not blame me for your reading problems.

20. #220
    On February 18th, 2009 at 9:47 am, corkie said:

    What were you advocating in 2003? 2001? and 1990?

    Here’s the deal. I made that statement to demonstrate that you do [not] know what I was advocating at any time.

    Lame.

    Illogical explanation.

    Of course I don’t know what you were advocating. That’s why I…ya know…was asking you.

    I also assumed that you didn’t know what I was advocating. That’s why I…ya know…told you.

21. #221
    On February 18th, 2009 at 9:51 am, corkie said:

    You’ve accused me of answering questions with questions.

    In THAT context, I countered with:

    I’ve only ever asked questions so that you can clarify your question or as an attempt to demonstrate irrelevancy. This is common practice.

    My statement was and is true.

22. #222
    On February 18th, 2009 at 9:53 am, corkie said:

    I will accept that your questions are seeking irrelavncy, and therefore will accept that they are themselves irrelevant.

    You’ve reached an illogical conclusion.

23. #223
    On February 18th, 2009 at 9:56 am, corkie said:

    For me, pulling troops from a region means that I wouldn’t invade.

    Please keep quoting my above statement.

    This statement makes sense. Your whole x and y thing is stupid.

24. #224
    On February 18th, 2009 at 10:06 am, corkie said:

    This is what I’ve gathered from our DEBATE.

    If you had been put in charge of the US after 9/11, you would have invaded Saudi Arabia and started killing the “beast from the root.”

    You offer no strategy for accomplishing this objective (which is your prerogative – convenient prerogative) but you state that failure would not have been an option.

    You no longer advocate an invasion of Saudi Arabia but refuse to state when you no longer continued to advocate such.

    I’ll think of more later.

    You have not shared your planning experience.