Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not sure if serious Frazzled...

LordofHats wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Seriously just drop it. I was clear in what I implied. You just made a stupid statement about me contradicting it and now your trying to defend yourself.

No you made an ignorant (and off topic) statement and then contradicted yourself and are trying to avoid admitting you did so.

It's not like any of you have managed to put out a coherent and logical opinion on this issue yet anyway.

It would have been interesting, but I gave up having a real discussion on UN policy when someone had to go off and make a sweeping generalization about Americans, which I could have let go, but then he had to go and contradict himself, and I felt the need to point it out, but apparently explaining that contradiction 3 times wasn't enough for him to get the point.

So here we are again, in another thread that could have been much more informative.

No, it wasn't going to be any better. Not with frazzled screaming like his heads cut off about his faux hit-piece article concerning a situation that realistically, no one here knew a damn thing about. This was doomed from the start.

LordofHats wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Seriously just drop it. I was clear in what I implied. You just made a stupid statement about me contradicting it and now your trying to defend yourself.

No you made an ignorant (and off topic) statement and then contradicted yourself and are trying to avoid admitting you did so.

It's not like any of you have managed to put out a coherent and logical opinion on this issue yet anyway.

It would have been interesting, but I gave up having a real discussion on UN policy when someone had to go off and make a sweeping generalization about Americans, which I could have let go, but then he had to go and contradict himself, and I felt the need to point it out, but apparently explaining that contradiction 3 times wasn't enough for him to get the point.

So here we are again, in another thread that could have been much more informative.

Your unbelievable. Welcome to ignore. + your getting archived under stupidity in my brain.

While I'm not one to promote the idea of U.S. superiority, I have to side with the U.S. government on the frequent inanity of the U.N.

LordofHats wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Which part of "But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else." makes you think I'm talking about American individuals?

Oh whatwhat. Frazzled states "This is why we make fun of the UN" 'we' of course implying Americans. You respond "the US wants to be a law unto itself and that's why we make fun of the UN" creating a broad implication that all Americans agree with what their government does. You then respond later, that you "are not responsible for the actions of your government."

Maybe you clunked your head with a baseball bat? That's a rather simple 2+2 equation.

Wait is this a real baseball bat or some wussy British version?

whatwhat wrote:Your unbelievable. Welcome to ignore. + your getting archived under stupidity in my brain.

Wonderful! I'll pass a resolution condemning you ignoring me and all will be right with the world

Witzkatz wrote:Not sure if serious Frazzled...

Nah. Frazzled never takes OT seriously. He;s just waiting for some British patriot to leap in and start ranting about the differences between the Falklands and WW2.

Fortunately, I'm too smart to fall that particular hook.

I'm unsure whether to file away your idea on how to win an argument for future reference though: the idea being to misquote someone several times to make it look like they said what you were accusing them of saying and then, if that desn't work, just say they must have implied something different than what their statement literally means.

Ahtman wrote:I can't believe this gets a thread yet McDonald's bringing back the delicious McRib™ sandwich* gets no fanfare whatsoever.



*for a limited time only

They had a version of the mcRib in high school (genuine Mastadon ribs back then). I would have killed people to get to it in line. Seriously.

I know it's hard, I understand the drive.. the need.. to reach through the screen and strangle the guy who disagrees with you, to feel the last few strands of his very life spill from your fingers like sand on a beach. And not just any beach either, but a really, really nice one, where you've got a nice bit of shade and the all nude Swedish girls volley ball team are practising and need a physio and you happen to have a magic sponge with you... yeahhh.. like that.

But, it's radical I know, as opposed to just continually going "Uh uh ! you did mean X/Y/Z " , and going steadfastly nowhere, just accept the fact that the other person might not have meant what you "think" they did and move on. Ta.

Witzkatz wrote:Not sure if serious Frazzled...

Neither am I.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:

Witzkatz wrote:Not sure if serious Frazzled...

Nah. Frazzled never takes OT seriously. He;s just waiting for some British patriot to leap in and start ranting about the differences between the Falklands and WW2.

Fortunately, I'm too smart to fall that particular hook.

One day you'll slip up Ketara!

I know it's hard, I understand the drive.. the need.. to reach through the screen and strangle the guy who disagrees with you, to feel the last few strands of his very life spill from your fingers like sand on a beach.

You have no idea.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I know it's hard, I understand the drive.. the need.. to reach through the screen and strangle the guy who disagrees with you, to feel the last few strands of his very life spill from your fingers like sand on a beach.

You have no idea.

I do.

Is there a "like" button for this thread somewhere?

ShumaGorath wrote:No, it wasn't going to be any better. Not with frazzled screaming like his heads cut off about his faux hit-piece article concerning a situation that realistically, no one here knew a damn thing about. This was doomed from the start.

The article contiained all of the relevant information. Putting Saudi Arabia in charge of the panel on women's rights is like recruiting the guys who turn up on To Catch a Predator to run your Girl Scout troop. Do you think that would be a good idea?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:No, it wasn't going to be any better. Not with frazzled screaming like his heads cut off about his faux hit-piece article concerning a situation that realistically, no one here knew a damn thing about. This was doomed from the start.

The article contiained all of the relevant information. Putting Saudi Arabia in charge of the panel on women's rights is like recruiting the guys who turn up on To Catch a Predator to run your Girl Scout troop. Do you think that would be a good idea?

Again a simple yes or no is easy on this one. Bueller? Bueller?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:No, it wasn't going to be any better. Not with frazzled screaming like his heads cut off about his faux hit-piece article concerning a situation that realistically, no one here knew a damn thing about. This was doomed from the start.

The article contiained all of the relevant information. Putting Saudi Arabia in charge of the panel on women's rights is like recruiting the guys who turn up on To Catch a Predator to run your Girl Scout troop. Do you think that would be a good idea?

Oh? Did it say why it was put on the panel? Did it say what the panel did? I mean, honestly, unless this panel is led by a fething wizard who can wave his hand and make womens rights happen then I think you don't have ANY of the relevant information here. All you know is that A: it's a panel that has something to do with womens rights, and B: it has saudi arabia as an elected member of the panel (member not leader, but then I can't expect people to actually read the article, can I?).

Asking this forum to actually use a measure of intelligence when constructing opinions is like asking a bear to make you a paper airplane. It's just going to scream and attack you or run away.

Its a panel on women's rights. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst women's rights offenders. Unless the agency prmotes the oppression of womeon's rights its a travesty. Its funn y you're able to convict the US or Republicans on way less information.

Shuma obfiscating for rights abusers since 2010...

Its a panel on women's rights. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst women's rights offenders. Unless the agency prmotes the oppression of womeon's rights its a travesty. Its funn y you're able to convict the US or Republicans on way less information.

A panel on womens rights could imply that it requires it's members to work harder on womens rights offenses. It could imply that members pledge to adopt a set of universal laws. Hell, it could be a tacit promise to "do better". It's a panel on "womens rights", thats fething meaningless, you don't know what they do, how they do it, what they want, and who they require it of. You have none of the information besides the focus of conversations.

Its funn y you're able to convict the US or Republicans on way less information.

Actually, I don't. I just know a hell of a lot more then you, so when I do you assume I'm spouting off about nothing. Given how quick you are to make assumptions about situations you know nothing about this doesn't surprise me.

Shuma obfiscating for rights abusers since 2010...

How are you a mod when you can't even avoid trolling your own threads?

Then educate yourself.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/saudi-arabia-elected-to-uns-new-womens-rights-agency.html

The United Nations on Wednesday rejected Iran's bid for a seat to the board of the new U.N. agency to promote equality for women after fierce opposition from the United States and human rights groups to Tehran's treatment of women.
But the U.N. accepted the bid of Saudi Arabia, which is also opposed by human rights groups.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/iran-rejected-saudi-arabia-picked-un-womens-rights-panel_516374.html

The new agency was formed after a General Assembly resolution adopted in July merged four U.N. bodies dealing with women's issues into one with greater clout to represent half the world's population. The resolution calls for a 41-member executive board, with 35 members chosen by regional groups and six representing donor nations.

Kk, so it's part of the organization and is a regional representative? Neat. Does that mean it's bound to attempt to work on it's womens rights record now? Or does membership magically make one immune to the edicts of a group that has no actual power outside of the members of it's group?

Is this one of those things where its toothless group that can only police it's members, but it's bad because it has members that need policing?

Do you listen to yourself?

And now we see Shuma for who he really is.

Excellent.

Frazzled wrote:And now we see Shuma for who he really is.

Excellent.

What does that even mean?

I think that Shuma asked a good question, myself.

That is: "Does that mean it's bound to attempt to work on it's womens rights record now?"

Melissia wrote:I think that Shuma asked a good question, myself.

That is: "Does that mean it's bound to attempt to work on it's womens rights record now?"

If the UN has no binding authority on...anything how could it?

Its standard practice. The abusers get on the panels so they can quash anything related to them or their issues.

Frazzled wrote:And now we see Shuma for who he really is.

I think it would be more accurate to say that now you see Shuma for what you want him to be.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:I think that Shuma asked a good question, myself.

That is: "Does that mean it's bound to attempt to work on it's womens rights record now?"

If the UN has no binding authority on...anything how could it?

Its standard practice. The abusers get on the panels so they can quash anything related to them or their issues.

As opposed to being off the panels where they can ignore anything related to them or their issues? Like I already asked, do you listen to yourself?

The Dreadnote wrote:I think it would be more accurate to say that now you see Shuma for what you want him to be.

The Dreadnote wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And now we see Shuma for who he really is.

I think it would be more accurate to say that now you see Shuma for what you want him to be.

Considering he keeps banning me I don't think he wants to see me at all.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And now we see Shuma for who he really is.

Excellent.

What does that even mean?

It means he thinks you have a beautiful body and that you should hold it against him. Or something like that.