223617 Bullies, 3649 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 751 to 760 of 1867
Page 76 of 187 FirstFirst ... 26667273747576 7778798086126176 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Jeff C. is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    182

    Posted On:
    2/21/2010 8:13pm


     Style: Ju-Jitsu/BJJ/Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I have two things I ask face-to-face of all of those good non-military folks I come across, the ones running around teaching "tactical" stuff to soccer moms and allegedly military personnel, with claims of being the next-best thing to happen to military training:

    "What is the difference between anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism?" To date, not a single one has answered correctly.

    "Define 'asymmetrical warfare.' " That one usually gets me a deer-in-the-headlights look, no attempt at answering, and an immediate change of subject. What's truly amazing is these nutbag wannabe instructors approach me KNOWING I am active duty!

    Jeff Cook
  2. tgace is online now
    tgace's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    1,271

    Posted On:
    2/21/2010 8:19pm


     Style: Arnis/Kenpo hybrid

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugo Stiglitz View Post
    I would hazard a guess that Ralph's a military reject, a ****-up, someone who always aspired to serve his country but never cut the mustard enough to meet his own expectations. This analogy fits what I see in the things Ralph's involved in, the passion he devotes to such subjects as tactical use of fire arms, mag changing drills, his woodland tactics and over all emphasis on use of firearms in his school's training.
    And if I had a nickel for every guy that spouted the "cops aint all that" line, only to find out later that he was a repeated "rejected for hire" by a PD, or a wash out of the academy .....


    ....well I would have a LOT of nickels.
  3. Dsimon3387 is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    san francisco
    Posts
    3,079

    Posted On:
    2/21/2010 10:01pm

    Join us... or die
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cy Q. Faunce View Post
    I never argued against this. I understand obligations. I understand secrecy. I understand the importance of keeping one's word.

    The only things I find objectionable are the ones I noted, and the ones you failed to address in your emotional, personalistic reply:


    • The nature and extent of your selective leaks smack of partisanship; the phrasing suggests a lot, but a close reading indicates that the underlying facts may not support the suggestions.
    • Your aggrieved rant about the necessity of an investigation subject having an argumentative advocate represent him, and the hysterical accusation that we are engaging in an inquisition.
    If you have changed your position on these points, I missed it. If you didn't, you might want to address them in your response, rather than a bunch of stuff I didn't say.

    Just to make it clear: I am not asking you to leak anything.
    Ok I will make an exception and address these two points
    - What appears as a leak is me trying to look at information I know very little about and giving a response. "darrell look at this certificate and what can you tell me about it."

    Ralph has requested that certain details of the cert not be made public....

    The certificate looks like it was issued for this reason (insert a reason) was it?

    etc.

    I have to consider these things. Thats why it is dicey and by the way I agree the information conduite was dicey but it is not from me trying to do Ralph a service it is from being ill equipped.

    Want Proof? My intention was outlined to you and IIF a while ago you remember what it was? it was to hopefully get agreements from Ralph to have a couple of you look over the certs with personal information blacked out... you know that this is true because of the pm sent to you and IIF. IIF even addressed that pm on this thread when he said these certs were not the issue to him and he wanted no part.

    I never got to that point because of the breakdown of communication. So i the cert expert was left to answer questions about everything from the certs to what is tatooed on the asses of Ralph's students!!! :biggrin: sorry I can't totally lose the humor.....

    My rant was no more hysterical when you engage in the hyperbole of using that word, besides CQ I do not have a uterus and never did have one. If the word is too strong for you and was insulting then I am sorry for that effect on you it was not meant to be insulting but guess what? we come off that way sometimes thats a fact... And being entitled to information is somewhat relative in the public domaine, even being entitled to it does not necessitate cutting off lines of communication in my opinion...

    I was trying to keep a line of communication open, sorry it did not work out but thats the way it goes sometimes.
    This thread never was a high quality conversation - My friend vern Gilbert on the William Acquier thread.

    The fight in question having started over who owns which piece of rubble. Nicko1;2233174 On the Acquier Kim Fiasco slash thread.
  4. Sri Hanuman is online now
    Sri Hanuman's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,489

    Posted On:
    2/21/2010 10:05pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Cheng Man Ching Taijiquan

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I think it might be a good idea to have a separate thread for this discussion. Just an opinion for whatever it's worth.
    =================
    Kama Sutra blue belt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emevas View Post
    I used to **** guys like you in prison.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock Ape View Post
    Dude I kill people for a fucking living.

    Dipshit
  5. Dsimon3387 is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    san francisco
    Posts
    3,079

    Posted On:
    2/21/2010 10:08pm

    Join us... or die
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by tgace View Post
    What leaves me scratching my head was (if I am recalling correctly) the almost immediate "hey guys Ralph sent me a bunch of paperwork and boy am I impressed...they look legit" response (paraphrased of course).

    Now there is a flavor of "well I don't know exactly what they were issued FOR or who issued them".

    I don't think that it was a matter of collusion as much as it looks like an issue of wishful thinking and giving a large "benefit of the doubt". But that's just a personal opinion.
    Thats a good point:

    It was a virtual double standard:

    for the YMAS thread it was .. wow this looks good! I think it shows some proof of some sort and looks imrpessive....

    I also qualified that and said for it to apply to any investigation standards of proof would be much more stingent. I said that it was not for MABS yet.

    I qualified my reaction to the information almost immediately. I was hoping that the Ymas could start a dialogue where some acknowledgment would cause goodwill and all parties acquiesing to a better scrutiny of the materials so they could be used in the investigation.

    Does this make sense?
    This thread never was a high quality conversation - My friend vern Gilbert on the William Acquier thread.

    The fight in question having started over who owns which piece of rubble. Nicko1;2233174 On the Acquier Kim Fiasco slash thread.
  6. Cy Q. Faunce is offline
    Cy Q. Faunce's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    3,577

    Posted On:
    2/22/2010 12:38am

    Join us... or die
     Style: Finding You

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Dsimon3387 View Post
    Thats why it is dicey and by the way I agree the information conduite was dicey but it is not from me trying to do Ralph a service it is from being ill equipped.
    Then why is your phrasing so obfuscated at various points?

    You let us think that his service record impressed you, but a closer examination of your wording shows that you only implied it. Given the rumor mentioned by tgace, this stands out pretty badly.

    You let us think that Ralph had impressive testimonials about the training he had conducted for LEO and military organizations, but now we learn that the only credentials he supplied were of training in various aspects of being a security guard in Texas.

    I don't think you were deliberately trying to fool us. I just think you let your defensiveness of Ralph get in the way of accuracy. I warned you up front that I thought this wouldn't work, and I was right. Ever wonder why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dsimon3387 View Post
    Want Proof? My intention was outlined to you and IIF a while ago you remember what it was?
    So because you claimed something was your intention, that's proof?

    And where in my reply did I question your intent? Partisanship isn't intent; in fact, it often subverts intent.

    I'm beginning to see how you can think well of guys like Ralph: You're not very clear in your thinking in general. I seriously don't intend this as an insult. Most people don't think very clearly. It's just difficult to address your statements directly and literally when they're all over the place like this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dsimon3387 View Post
    And being entitled to information is somewhat relative in the public domaine, even being entitled to it does not necessitate cutting off lines of communication in my opinion...
    It was Ralph's choice to cut off the communication, except for speaking through his chosen representative.

    As for whether or not we're entitled to it, don't be silly. If he advertises claims, anyone can ask about them. If he won't produce proof, he deserves to be ridiculed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dsimon3387 View Post
    I was trying to keep a line of communication open, sorry it did not work out but thats the way it goes sometimes.
    I think your attempt was and is based on all manner of faulty assumptions, but I don't blame you for trying. I just think you might want to consider why it didn't work out.
  7. Dsimon3387 is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    san francisco
    Posts
    3,079

    Posted On:
    2/22/2010 1:29am

    Join us... or die
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cy Q. Faunce View Post
    Then why is your phrasing so obfuscated at various points?

    You let us think that his service record impressed you, but a closer examination of your wording shows that you only implied it. Given the rumor mentioned by tgace, this stands out pretty badly.

    You let us think that Ralph had impressive testimonials about the training he had conducted for LEO and military organizations, but now we learn that the only credentials he supplied were of training in various aspects of being a security guard in Texas.

    I don't think you were deliberately trying to fool us. I just think you let your defensiveness of Ralph get in the way of accuracy. I warned you up front that I thought this wouldn't work, and I was right. Ever wonder why?


    So because you claimed something was your intention, that's proof?

    And where in my reply did I question your intent? Partisanship isn't intent; in fact, it often subverts intent.

    I'm beginning to see how you can think well of guys like Ralph: You're not very clear in your thinking in general. I seriously don't intend this as an insult. Most people don't think very clearly. It's just difficult to address your statements directly and literally when they're all over the place like this.


    It was Ralph's choice to cut off the communication, except for speaking through his chosen representative.

    As for whether or not we're entitled to it, don't be silly. If he advertises claims, anyone can ask about them. If he won't produce proof, he deserves to be ridiculed.


    I think your attempt was and is based on all manner of faulty assumptions, but I don't blame you for trying. I just think you might want to consider why it didn't work out.
    You think I somehow or other told you I saw something which I didn't. I appreciate you giving me an out but some things do have to be understood here. No,everything I said I saw I did... Lets play a game here: We can both retrace my steps and if you would do better... then maybe I am the cryptic thinking assuming, partisan near-do- well you imagine.

    1) A letter that states a person completed something at a time and place satisfactory and, with distinction at times, I would say is a testimonial when it comes with a diploma certifiying something was completed. hence there are testimonials as I said. Or was I off on this?

    2) there is some sort of certificate information from a group which I know for a fact is special forces in the army.... I don't know what this certificate information exactly is... How would you deal with that scenerio? what I did was to say that this group was in training with Ralph when in fact the certificate could mean other things, like they were training Ralph, or something else.... that was my error.

    3) I don't need you to accept that my lack of comprehension comes from not knowing what I am looking at, but I do need you to understand I did not tell anyone that I saw something that I didn't see. There now you have the error I made and why I said what I said. Just keep in mind the sheer breadth of this information.... there are a lot of these certs and letters.

    4) You know CQ if it was simple and simplicity of thought = clarity I think the world would be a better place. I don't think it works that way though. Some things, some ideas are not very clear and that should not make us adverse to going where those ideas are. Guys like you think the world is black and white and don't like the grey areas so you think people who see the grey are unclear in thought deed and action.

    With a 98% percntile in certain areas of the Stamford Binnet somehow my unclear chaotic mind diablically finds a way to put itself on the right side of the curve.... go figure
    This thread never was a high quality conversation - My friend vern Gilbert on the William Acquier thread.

    The fight in question having started over who owns which piece of rubble. Nicko1;2233174 On the Acquier Kim Fiasco slash thread.
  8. Dsimon3387 is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    san francisco
    Posts
    3,079

    Posted On:
    2/22/2010 1:40am

    Join us... or die
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cy Q. Faunce View Post
    Then why is your phrasing so obfuscated at various points?

    You let us think that his service record impressed you, but a closer examination of your wording shows that you only implied it. Given the rumor mentioned by tgace, this stands out pretty badly.

    You let us think that Ralph had impressive testimonials about the training he had conducted for LEO and military organizations, but now we learn that the only credentials he supplied were of training in various aspects of being a security guard in Texas.

    I don't think you were deliberately trying to fool us. I just think you let your defensiveness of Ralph get in the way of accuracy. I warned you up front that I thought this wouldn't work, and I was right. Ever wonder why?


    So because you claimed something was your intention, that's proof?

    And where in my reply did I question your intent? Partisanship isn't intent; in fact, it often subverts intent.

    I'm beginning to see how you can think well of guys like Ralph: You're not very clear in your thinking in general. I seriously don't intend this as an insult. Most people don't think very clearly. It's just difficult to address your statements directly and literally when they're all over the place like this.


    It was Ralph's choice to cut off the communication, except for speaking through his chosen representative.

    As for whether or not we're entitled to it, don't be silly. If he advertises claims, anyone can ask about them. If he won't produce proof, he deserves to be ridiculed.


    I think your attempt was and is based on all manner of faulty assumptions, but I don't blame you for trying. I just think you might want to consider why it didn't work out.
    You think I somehow or other told you I saw something which I didn't. I appreciate you giving me an out but some things do have to be understood here. No,everything I said I saw I did... Lets play a game here: We can both retrace my steps and if you would do better... then maybe I am the cryptic thinking assuming, partisan near-do- well you imagine.

    1) A letter that states a person completed something at a time and place satisfactory and, with distinction at times, I would say is a testimonial when it comes with a diploma certifiying something was completed. hence there are testimonials as I said. Or was I off on this?

    2) there is some sort of certificate information from a group which I know for a fact is special forces in the army.... I don't know what this certificate information exactly is... How would you deal with that scenerio? what I did was to say that this group was in training with Ralph when in fact the certificate could mean other things, like they were training Ralph, or something else.... that was my error.

    3) I don't need you to accept that my lack of comprehension comes from not knowing what I am looking at, but I do need you to understand I did not tell anyone that I saw something that I didn't see. There now you have the error I made and why I said what I said. Just keep in mind the sheer breadth of this information.... there are a lot of these certs and letters.

    4) You know CQ if it was simple and simplicity of thought = clarity I think the world would be a better place. I don't think it works that way though. Some things, some ideas are not very clear and that should not make us adverse to going where those ideas are. Guys like you think the world is black and white and don't like the grey areas so you think people who see the grey are unclear in thought deed and action.

    With a 98% percentile in certain areas of the Stamford Binnet somehow my unclear chaotic mind diablically finds a way to put itself on the right side of the curve.... go figure
    This thread never was a high quality conversation - My friend vern Gilbert on the William Acquier thread.

    The fight in question having started over who owns which piece of rubble. Nicko1;2233174 On the Acquier Kim Fiasco slash thread.
  9. tgace is online now
    tgace's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    1,271

    Posted On:
    2/22/2010 4:42am


     Style: Arnis/Kenpo hybrid

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Mr Simon, I know that you can probably not answer this as you are not Mr Severe, but as you are the one with the most direct contact with him let me pose this question to you.

    In your opinion what is the big deal with just telling us the whos and wheres? What is the big fucking secret? What was the point of giving YOU this stuff if none of the details are going to be "allowed" to go public?

    IMO it leaves me with two possibilities.

    One you are complicit in some sort of "chain jerking" in all of this

    Or you have been put into a position where you are being used as a pawn by Ralph to jerk some chains around here.

    My advice (if it's the latter) is to "**** or get off of the pot". If Ralph is never going to "allow" this stuff to go public then shred it...send it back...whatever. The way things are going now it's looking like Ralph is using you and this "certs ****" to play his little game of "control".
  10. Dsimon3387 is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    san francisco
    Posts
    3,079

    Posted On:
    2/22/2010 5:08am

    Join us... or die
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by tgace View Post
    Mr Simon, I know that you can probably not answer this as you are not Mr Severe, but as you are the one with the most direct contact with him let me pose this question to you.

    In your opinion what is the big deal with just telling us the whos and wheres? What is the big fucking secret? What was the point of giving YOU this stuff if none of the details are going to be "allowed" to go public?

    IMO it leaves me with two possibilities.

    One you are complicit in some sort of "chain jerking" in all of this

    Or you have been put into a position where you are being used as a pawn by Ralph to jerk some chains around here.

    My advice (if it's the latter) is to "**** or get off of the pot". If Ralph is never going to "allow" this stuff to go public then shred it...send it back...whatever. The way things are going now it's looking like Ralph is using you and this "certs ****" to play his little game of "control".
    What is more important to you

    Whether Ralph is using someone, not using someone,etc...

    or whether information comes out or not?

    Is the fact that someone is a nice person, or a son of a bitch relevant to you in regards to why that person is/is not lying about credentials? It might be anecdotally important but... its quite a minor consideration really is it not? People would have you believe that a person's character will tell you that they are telling the truth about everything or not... this simply is not true. Its a grey area and some people will not be forced into acquiesing for whatever reason... the result being a faulty conclusion.

    It really gets me that people do not see this. And I am the one with fuzzy logic?

    I am accused of cloudy logic but my logic is very clear: when someone is being put on the table it becomes very important to get information... ALL INFORMATION out about that person. Just because that person is egotistical or being silly, or thinks it is beneath them... is no excuse not to try at all costs to get that information. Now in this case I have an opportunity to be that person..

    I will tell you a secret: I was REALLY hoping that instead of Ralph trusting me that I could instead be picked for the dallas cowgirl cheerleader panty sniffing panel as a judge.... it just did not work out that way. I was befriended by a 260 pound behamouth who I do in fact know is a martial artist of some repute... instead of the girls with the panties... What can I say!?

    As long as i get information from somoene who trusts me on these forums I will do what I can to help get it into the community whether it is popular or not, whether people want give me a pink belly or not. I will a say this seriously: I have worked something out that I am proposing to CQ in a pm that might help things so this does not happen again thats a promise.

    My friend the bottom line is do not commit the moral fallicy of thinking that because a person might appear to you lacking... that it follows every bad conclusion about their past must be true.... A lot of people's lives could be destroyed by this thinking... Example: A list of pedophiles lists a person and you have a kid so you look in your neighborhood "Megin's list" and see this horrible face of this guy in their and learn he is your neighbor... come to find out that in California you can get on this list as a Juvenile and that this horrible person is on the list because he was exactly one year older than a girl he had a liason with who was technically a minor... his crime in essence being that despite being only a year apart, he had sex with a minor... you see my point about this type of thinking? I taught ethics there is a reason I can be such a difficult son of a beech about these issues and its not cause of fuzzy logic
    This thread never was a high quality conversation - My friend vern Gilbert on the William Acquier thread.

    The fight in question having started over who owns which piece of rubble. Nicko1;2233174 On the Acquier Kim Fiasco slash thread.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.