Yeah, what we're saying is that if you get to define all the terms, winning any debate is pretty easy.
That's not "style"; unless dynamiting fish in a barrel is your "style".
Like it or not, that's what you're doing. Sure has nothing to do with open debate.
Perhaps the funniest bit so far is Martlet calling you on the "35 years ago" gambit. Shack.
Opinions on incidents 35 years ago that support your position are admissable but Opinions on incidents 35 years ago that don't support your position are invalid. Define the terms, own the debate. And only Martlet called you on it. Nice job.
And you see this as some triumph?
Again, I KNOW you're smarter than that, so you HAVE to be trolling to amuse yourself. I mean, you've made a few previous posts on how you use the BBS to basically stir the ......soup.... and challenge yourself.
[Nash]you don't seem willing to wanna even acknowledge the fact that this is pure politics,
You don't seem to have noticed that I have not "debated" this "issue" at all in this thread. My comments have all been made with respect to your fishing expedition, because I can't believe your serious here. Particularly with you defining the debate and ruling out anything that doesn't support your "lure". (IE: the 35 years thing...... cheez... that's classic!)
Pure Politics??? Say it ain't so, Shoeless Joe! Fer reel? I'm simply amazed at this blinding insight. You can find my take on this issue in another thread. Search for Toad, in the O-Club with the phrase "junior officers". With that clue, you will WIN the GAME! and know what I think about all this.
[Nash]Kerry stepped into the OC
Puhleez! Again with the defining of terms. With this quote you're either illuminating your lack of military experience or just tossing another red herring into the chum line. Maybe both, I guess.
Still, you've done well with your latest Friday Night Fishing. I look forward to next week's topic when you again toss out a bait.