GW Bush: Our National Embarrasment Continues, page 3
This thread is an example of some of the worst that ATS has to offer, and why I believe ignorance is currently winning here.
I wasn't going to post to this thread at all, because I have no interest in following it further, and even less interest in attracting the kind of ad hominem attention that is driving ATS into the mud.
But since I am including it in my signature as an example of how ignorance wins, I thought it only fair to inform this thread's contributors of that fact.
Actually, if you look closely, it appears Clinton is already out of the door. I don't think Bush is trying to rush through to beat him. If you think about it, I'm sure many of us have still photos taken of ourselves that could be interpreted many ways.
posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 02:07 PM
As I see it, as BoutTime explained, there was an established protocol for this formal occasion which this "president" attempted to circumvent/defy.
The thread is titled "national embarrassment". That refers to another sample of the man's behavior that is unsavory and unstatesmanlike. Of course there will be people jumping to the man's defence, who would forgive anything, as welll as those who take a critical look.
You could choose to ignore it. But that that choose not ignore it to are certainly not ignorant. Thankyou for further publicizing the topic, Majic!
posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 12:04 PM
Yes, and congratulations to another WATS word count award winner!
Given that the thread is linked in your signature as an example of how ignorance wins, I for one would enjoy to hear your postion on exactly what you're deeming ignorant? As a breif aside, I also was slightly perplexed as to your ad hominem way of staving off a potential ad hominem retort against you? You see, ad hominem means, as I'm sure you're aware, to appeal to people�s emotions and beliefs rather than their ability to think, so you can see where not knowing where you come down on the point of what constitutes how ignorance wins can tweak a modest mind like mine.
First of all, I applaud BT for bringing to light a rather deep analysisof dubya's persona. I love how criticizing Bush for his many, many character and political flaws is labelled "bush bashing" as to dismiss it. The man is criticized so much for good reason.
I've said it before, people have contempt in their heart for the man b/c of how bad things have gotten, not b/c they're so great.
posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:36 PM
I'm not sure what a "word count award" is. What are you talking about?
Given that the thread is linked in your signature as an example of how ignorance wins, I for one would enjoy to hear your postion on exactly what you're deeming ignorant?
I'm satisfied that the posts in this thread speak for themselves and do not require interpretation by me to make my point.
As a breif aside, I also was slightly perplexed as to your ad hominem way of staving off a potential ad hominem retort against you?
I'm not sure what you're talking about. My criticism is directed at the content of this thread, where criticism belongs. How the contributors feel about their own contributions is their business, as are their feelings about my opinion of the thread.
My criticism of the thread is that it demonstrates how ignorance wins on ATS. Not all of the posts in this thread contribute to the problem, but most of them do. If you think your posts are among them, that is based on your assessment, not mine, since I have not and will not name names. The posts speak for themselves, as well they should.
As for the matter of ad hominem attention, I am not the topic of this thread. Posts -- not individuals -- are the subject of my criticism. I prefer to keep it that way and don't see why that should be considered controversial.
posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:05 PM
Of course they do, since you're not in a wholesale condemnation, but assailing either the pro or con argument. Simple question, simple answer.
If you think your posts are among them, that is based on your assessment, not mine, since I have not and will not name names. The posts speak for themselves, as well they should.
I thing my posts are germain to the character assessment; specifically, the lack there of, so no problem with what I've posted from me. Again, circuitous is your style; not to be difficult, but say what you will and stand by it; people are more cordial than you're giving them credit for.
No controversy, good god no! Just a polite invocation for points & brevity
posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:10 PM
*Apologies to George W Bush and those assembled here, my itchy trigger finger pushed the wrong button and this ended up busting through the doors like an unwelcome noisy gatecrasher *
GW Bush: Our National Embarrasment Continues, page 3
This thread is an example of some of the worst that ATS has to offer, and why I believe ignorance is currently winning here.
I wasn't going to post to this thread at all, because I have no interest in following it further, and even less interest in attracting the kind of ad hominem attention that is driving ATS into the mud.
But since I am including it in my signature as an example of how ignorance wins, I thought it only fair to inform this thread's contributors of that fact.
Actually, if you look closely, it appears Clinton is already out of the door. I don't think Bush is trying to rush through to beat him. If you think about it, I'm sure many of us have still photos taken of ourselves that could be interpreted many ways.
posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 02:07 PM
As I see it, as BoutTime explained, there was an established protocol for this formal occasion which this "president" attempted to circumvent/defy.
The thread is titled "national embarrassment". That refers to another sample of the man's behavior that is unsavory and unstatesmanlike. Of course there will be people jumping to the man's defence, who would forgive anything, as welll as those who take a critical look.
You could choose to ignore it. But that that choose not ignore it to are certainly not ignorant. Thankyou for further publicizing the topic, Majic!
posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 12:04 PM
Yes, and congratulations to another WATS word count award winner!
Given that the thread is linked in your signature as an example of how ignorance wins, I for one would enjoy to hear your postion on exactly what you're deeming ignorant? As a breif aside, I also was slightly perplexed as to your ad hominem way of staving off a potential ad hominem retort against you? You see, ad hominem means, as I'm sure you're aware, to appeal to people�s emotions and beliefs rather than their ability to think, so you can see where not knowing where you come down on the point of what constitutes how ignorance wins can tweak a modest mind like mine.
First of all, I applaud BT for bringing to light a rather deep analysisof dubya's persona. I love how criticizing Bush for his many, many character and political flaws is labelled "bush bashing" as to dismiss it. The man is criticized so much for good reason.
I've said it before, people have contempt in t
heir heart for the man b/c of how bad things have gotten, not b/c they're so great.
posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 01:36 PM
I'm not sure what a "word count award" is. What are you talking about?
Given that the thread is linked in your signature as an example of how ignorance wins, I for one would enjoy to hear your postion on exactly what you're deeming ignorant?
I'm satisfied that the posts in this thread speak for themselves and do not require interpretation by me to make my point.
As a breif aside, I also was slightly perplexed as to your ad hominem way of staving off a potential ad hominem retort against you?
I'm not sure what you're talking about. My criticism is directed at the content of this thread, where criticism belongs. How the contributors feel about their own contributions is their business, as are their feelings about my opinion of the thread.
My criticism of the thread is that it demonstrates how ignorance wins on ATS. Not all of the posts in this thread contribute to the problem, but most of them do. If you think your posts are among them, that is based on your assessment, not mine, since I have not and will not name names. The posts speak for themselves, as well they should.
As for the matter of ad hominem attention, I am not the topic of this thread. Posts -- not individuals -- are the subject of my criticism. I prefer to keep it that way and don't see why that should be considered controversial.
posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:05 PM
Of course they do, since you're not in a wholesale condemnation, but assailing either the pro or con argument. Simple question, simple answer.
If you think your posts are among them, that is based on your assessment, not mine, since I have not and will not name names. The posts speak for themselves, as well they should.
I thing my posts are germain to the character assessment; specifically, the lack there of, so no problem with what I've posted from me. Again, circuitous is your style; not to be difficult, but say what you will and stand by it; people are more cordial than you're giving them credit for.
No controversy, good god no! Just a polite invocation for points & brevity
posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:10 PM
*Apologies to George W Bush and those assembled here, my itchy trigger finger pushed the wrong button and this ended up busting through the doors like an unwelcome noisy gatecrasher *