A Ninja Ex-Marine Captain Speaks: What It Means to Be a Warrior

[W. Rabbit]

Jack Hogan, Master of the One Eyed Death Stare.

Note: Not Jack Hoban, Booj Warrior.

[submessenger]

This thread needs more Monty Python:

[Azatdawn]

Again, your reading comprehension sucks.
Never did i claim such, put down the straw already.
Your post that i responded to came four days and nearly 100 posts later.
So you and i both had the benefit of seeing the context of the conversation; thus my "changed his stance numerous times".
"Whole of" is a strawman on your part.
I was responding to "initial issue", and quoted you in fact.





No the content of the initial point is not up for debate, i quoted it.
Neither is the chronology, so stop lying.
You are attributing some logic and structure to itwasn'tme's posts, that is your failure.







Again, first and second sentence is your diversion.
The Hitler's morality argument came after the Hitler should be commended argument.
It's there in black and white, unless you'd like to continue to be itwasn'tme's champion and extrapolate a logical sequence when there is none.



Hahahaha, you call this garbled?


Dude, you really need to stfu about reading comprehension.
You cannot even see the distinction between itwasn'tme's argumentS, and Azatdawn's argumenT, even when it's quote blocked for you.



Please refer to that last paragraph of yours below and the s/v disagreement; i corrected you on numerous things including chronology, content and even your little s/v disagreement.
Stop lying.



Quote me doing so, liar.
I said you were attributing Azatdawns argument(and in fact his reasoning) to itwasn'tme.(Edit, more accurately you conflated itwasn'tme's original point, with his subsequent "rebuttal" to Azatdawn's argument.)
The quote is right up there.^



Aww, Chuckie is butt-hurt.




I have no doubt you will persevere, it is but the least of your failings in this thread.

Guys, guys... stop fighting over me. *blushes*

[catfishaggie]

You're a hypocrite and a liar.

Roflmao!!!!

I do not think that word mean what you think it means.

I tell you to shut the **** up because you **** in threads with your "expert" opinion and I'm the hypocrite and liar. Tell me how am I a hypocrite and liar? You made the claim. If you are trying to troll me good luck, I've been on boards when you had to know the actual numerical address of the BBS by getting the Internet phone book from Radio Shack.

[catfishaggie]

This thread needs more Monty Python:

Lol, it needs the Spanish Inquisition, no one ever expects that lol

[bobyclumsyninja]

If you want your word to weigh more than mine, or anybody else, aside from Chuck, provide sources.

How about you throw some links down, showing how much Hitler cared for his people lol.

That was your original point, yes?

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...g-world-war-ii
On the cars bit: Apparently, though the factory did make some strength-through-joy cars (lol), it mostly focused on the Type 62 Kubelwagen, and the amphibious Schwimmwagen during the war (which started several months after production started).

Are you walking around thinking Hitler is Mr cars? He spread military armor, munitions, enslavement, genocide, racism etc. around the globe, but the VW had it's EPIC sales post WW2.

Do you think Hitler was nice to the Germans? Do you think he rose to power nicely? Do you think he was nice to those who launched him into power? Do you think his motives were founded on goodwill for anyone?

Do you have one of those "at least he wasn't a commie" angry Uncles or summit? Who's been filling your head with all this bullshit? Is it from movies?

[It is Fake]

These threads turn into whiny pissing contests entirely too often and too quickly

Is it really that easy to troll these days? I though it would take more than 'Hitler iz da greatest!! woot!!" to get people going.

Ok I kind of skimmed through this tiff that you gals are in but if you are having to provide sources to show that hitler was awful, then the person you are arguing with its either 1) an evil piece of **** 2) trolling you or 3) retarded....None of those are worth arguing with....

My favorite part of these threads is the posters who ALWAYS tell people how dumb these threads are....










































































while participating in said

WORST THREAD EVER!

[It is Fake]

I know I must be crazy because I keep reading these and expecting some form of intelligence and it never happens. A lot of times it degrades into two guys with too much testosterone (I would guess too much hairgel and too many Affliction Tees) threatening each other and planning some sort of fight that neither one of them will follow through on. I have seen this 3 or 4 times at least and I have not been on very long. This site is great to find a school but other than that, it is mostly a bunch of pissing contests. It is also very humorless, as no one can laugh at themselves. The initial topic sometimes interests me but the thread always goes down hill.

I like how people complain about YMAS and trollshido whose descriptions are:

Welcome to the closet of Bullshido's unconscious. Don't post here. Don't click links.

Just don't.

Take the gloves off and grammatically beat on each other and dead horses such as Style vs. Style, Chi, Ashida Kim, George Dillman, and related, retarded discussions. Lightly moderated, for blatantly obvious idiocy and NSFW or illegal content.

So, we have grammar, we have dead horse arguments and I'm certain someone has used "retarded" or one of its derivatives.

Yes, I saw your caveats.

That's okay, I know computer screens can look small from atop a soapbox or a high horse. MaartenSFS informed me of the problem.

[ChuckWepner]

Again, your reading comprehension sucks.
Never did i claim such, put down the straw already.
Your post that i responded to came four days and nearly 100 posts later.
So you and i both had the benefit of seeing the context of the conversation; thus my "changed his stance numerous times".
"Whole of" is a strawman on your part.
I was responding to "initial issue", and quoted you in fact.
No the content of the initial point is not up for debate, i quoted it.
Neither is the chronology, so stop lying.
You are attributing some logic and structure to itwasn'tme's posts, that is your failure.

OK, Chen, here we go. I'm going to lay this out, step by boring step.

In his first paragraph about Hitler, itwasntme claimed that Hitler should be commended for many of his actions AND that Hitler actually cared about what was best for the German people.

There was no chronological break in the thread between these issues. They were in the same post.

The fact that you read "should be commended" in some non-moral sense despite the fact that the next sentence was about Hitler's supposedly altruistic motivation and that therefore you have decided that the moral issue "came up later" doesn't make you right. It means that you are insisting on a very debatable reading of itwasntme's original post as if it were the only possible reading when most other people didn't read it that way (with good reason).

Here's the whole original paragraph, not just the part that you quoted. "Should be commended" by itself can reasonably be taken as moral; "should be commended" AND "he actually cared about the welfare of his people; a trait few leaders possess" together sound a hell of a lot like moral admiration to me.

Umm, Hitler should be commended for a quite a few of his actions. For starters, he actually cared about the welfare of his people; a trait few leaders possess. The guy mass produced (reliable) cars to be sold for low prices across Germany. He invented the fucking highway. He volunteered to be on the front lines, serving his country. Do I really need to keep going?

Again, first and second sentence is your diversion.
The Hitler's morality argument came after the Hitler should be commended argument.
It's there in black and white, unless you'd like to continue to be itwasn'tme's champion and extrapolate a logical sequence when there is none.

I haven't been his champion at all. You are the one fucktardedly denying that he praised Hitler's moral motivation in his original paragraph, when he did. To say that someone should be commended because he cares about the well-being of his people is to make a claim about his morality, specifically about his moral character. Wow. No wonder you are so confused. You don't know what morality is.

I guess it is an introduction to ethics that you need most urgently.

Hahahaha, you call this garbled?

No. Once again, you have only quoted one sentence and left off the relevant part. In this case, though, it looks like an intentional attempt to avoid showing how garbled your attempt to state it was. So, you are the only one lying here, lying by omission. Your moral issues aren't just theoretical.

You are addressing Azatdawn's argument then.
Hitler should not be commended, despite the inaccurate points itwasn'tme raises to try to support his opinion.
I think you are indulging in his idiocy.

That was your fucktarded attempt to summarize Azatdawn. And it was followed by the idiotic comment you deny making equating my position with his, liar.

So, one of us has lied in this thread, but it was you, Chen.

One of us has misrepresented the views of multiple other posters, but it was you, Chen.

The only things you have "corrected" are the facts, which you have freely altered in your bullshit posts to cover your mistakes.

You have contributed nothing to the thread. Zero information, zero analysis.
You weren't able to understand my argument apparently, since every time you've tried to comment on it, you have totally misdescribed it.

You are the senile drunk in the corner, belching out the occasional curse or ill-informed stock opinion when he hears a familiar name or phrase without having followed most of conversation for hours.

[Mister]

College Professor Mode.

Activate!