New info?- Iraq
- Thread starter Gridikal
- Start date
CW
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Ok, you select the text you want to put into quotes, right click on the mouse and select copy. Then you can either type [qu ote] (without space) then paste the text then close the tag with a [/ quote] (without space). This is pretty standard in the computer world. You could also click the " Wrap
Last edited:
Glenn said:
It’s making fun of the kid. See now this is what I was talking about. Somehow he isn’t in the wrong here? Yet if I said any of this I would be.
If it wasn't making fun of the kid then it doesn't matter. Whoever posted it could be trying to use it in such a way to think that I am in fact that kid. Mainly though it is making fun of the poor kid. I don't find it funny.
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
I'll give you a little tip...and I am not being a jerk here. If you really want to get rid of this post...stop posting. People will leave you alone and it will go away. :kissyou:Z22_Z33 said:
Gridikal
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Sidney, NE
I dunno bout you guys but I wish there was a "mute" button 
- Location
- Aransas Pass, Texas
There is a "mute" button. You can put annoying people on "ignore". Works great, unless people "quote" the ignored person.dothedew24_7 said:I dunno bout you guys but I wish there was a "mute" button
CW
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Whats the fun in that?
- Location
- Aransas Pass, Texas
Never said it was fun. I don't have anybody on the "ignore" feature currently..... those that would make the list simply serve as entertainement.CW said:
Urban Redneck
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Arlington Heights, IL
Mark Hinkley said:
That way there is a balance in the universe.
- Location
- Terra Firma
There is an "Ignore" buttondothedew24_7 said:I dunno bout you guys but I wish there was a "mute" button
- Location
- Terra Firma
Okay, Z22_Z33, you wrote this:
To which I responded by asking you to show us even ONE post where anyone suggested that you should be ashamed to be a Boy Scout. Am I correct in thinking that the mass of quotes you posted late last night or early this morning is your response to my request? If so, it's an interesting lesson in your biases and comprehension skills, because not of those posts you quoted says anything negative about the Boy Scouts, or suggests that you should be ashamed to be a part of the organization. NOT ONE. The fact that you apparently interrpreted them that way explains why this thread has dragged on as long as it has -- you are so close-focused on YOU that you can't or won't take the time to understand what people are responding to you with. And at the same time, since in another thread you wrote that you "assumed" people understood what you wrote, you show that you don't understand how communication works. The writer/speaker bears the major responsibility for being sure the message is clearly expressed. You started off with a black-and-white, 100%, take-no-prisoners blanket statement that the boys run the Boy Scouts. Faced with evidence to the contrary, you have been back-tracking ever since, in an attempt to both say that that's not what you meant while at the same time trying to position so it is true even when it isn't.
Remember when I advised you to put the brain in gear before engaging the keyboard? I respectfully repeat that advice. Then, after you have typed your response(s), take a moment or three to read what you wrote before you hit the "submit" button.
Z22_Z33 said:
To which I responded by asking you to show us even ONE post where anyone suggested that you should be ashamed to be a Boy Scout. Am I correct in thinking that the mass of quotes you posted late last night or early this morning is your response to my request? If so, it's an interesting lesson in your biases and comprehension skills, because not of those posts you quoted says anything negative about the Boy Scouts, or suggests that you should be ashamed to be a part of the organization. NOT ONE. The fact that you apparently interrpreted them that way explains why this thread has dragged on as long as it has -- you are so close-focused on YOU that you can't or won't take the time to understand what people are responding to you with. And at the same time, since in another thread you wrote that you "assumed" people understood what you wrote, you show that you don't understand how communication works. The writer/speaker bears the major responsibility for being sure the message is clearly expressed. You started off with a black-and-white, 100%, take-no-prisoners blanket statement that the boys run the Boy Scouts. Faced with evidence to the contrary, you have been back-tracking ever since, in an attempt to both say that that's not what you meant while at the same time trying to position so it is true even when it isn't.
Remember when I advised you to put the brain in gear before engaging the keyboard? I respectfully repeat that advice. Then, after you have typed your response(s), take a moment or three to read what you wrote before you hit the "submit" button.
Darky
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- 29 Palms, CA
I don't see why he keeps bringing it up when there've been a couple attempts to move back to the point, or why people keep responding. He wants the attention. Don't give it and let's get back to the topic at hand.
As far as this stuff about the RDX missing, I'd say we had 8 yrs to get it and other possible weapons out of there while Clinton was in office and the UN was sending inspectors there to be kicked out. Now all of a sudden, its the worst thing in the world that some troops didn't go there first. Its a war, war's have specific objectives decided by the president. He tells the generals what he wants (ie get rid of Saddam) and they decide, along with their advisors and lower staff, how to do that, what targets to go after. How it becomes the fault of the persident I don't know since he doesn't make the strategy up. Apparently people looked at that stash of deodorant manufacturing chemicals and said ya know, this just isn't as important as the guy's shooting at us over there. Lets go get them and then maybe we'll come back for it.
As far as this stuff about the RDX missing, I'd say we had 8 yrs to get it and other possible weapons out of there while Clinton was in office and the UN was sending inspectors there to be kicked out. Now all of a sudden, its the worst thing in the world that some troops didn't go there first. Its a war, war's have specific objectives decided by the president. He tells the generals what he wants (ie get rid of Saddam) and they decide, along with their advisors and lower staff, how to do that, what targets to go after. How it becomes the fault of the persident I don't know since he doesn't make the strategy up. Apparently people looked at that stash of deodorant manufacturing chemicals and said ya know, this just isn't as important as the guy's shooting at us over there. Lets go get them and then maybe we'll come back for it.
- Location
- Terra Firma
You are correct to a point, BlackSport, but don't forget that when the generals were putting together their invasion plan they told the administration how many divisions they wanted, and the administration (Rumsfeld) said "No way -- we'll give you two thirds of that."
So the critics who say we didn't have enough boots on the ground are and were correct. In fairness to Shrub, although I don't like to concede this, I don't think it's really his fault (except in the "The buck stops here" sense). He relied on his Secretary of Defense, and Donny was fanatically committed to using technology and machinery rather than manpower. What this translates to is that Shrub was given bad advice by his SecDef, and being a flyboy rather than a ground pounder, he can't be entirely faulted for not overruling Rummy.
Of course, in retrospect it appears that even the number of troops originally requested would not have been enough to secure the country after the invasion had been completed. If they had another division available at the time, could/would they have detached a company or a platoon to secure that particular site? Who knows.
So the critics who say we didn't have enough boots on the ground are and were correct. In fairness to Shrub, although I don't like to concede this, I don't think it's really his fault (except in the "The buck stops here" sense). He relied on his Secretary of Defense, and Donny was fanatically committed to using technology and machinery rather than manpower. What this translates to is that Shrub was given bad advice by his SecDef, and being a flyboy rather than a ground pounder, he can't be entirely faulted for not overruling Rummy.
Of course, in retrospect it appears that even the number of troops originally requested would not have been enough to secure the country after the invasion had been completed. If they had another division available at the time, could/would they have detached a company or a platoon to secure that particular site? Who knows.
red91
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- exact location unknown
Z22_Z33 said:
Maybe you just shouldn't start them...?
Similar threads
