Michael Wong is a hypocrite

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well, was Captain Smith's plane vaporized, of simply damaged to the point where is was no longer combat effective? There's the evidence, you decide.

The author used the word "obliterated" so he obviously meant vaporized, I conclude that the picture is wrong.

[kojikun]

Hey Franc, I'm your really daddy. I don't have any proof but it doesnt matter cuz your mom remembers that night.

Now go jump off a bridge, you stupid child.

[NecronLord]

*pops up holding can of "Very Expensive Whoop-ass" offers it to DW*

you know you want to...

[Ender]

The Lusitania was full of weapons?

Yes

[EmperorMing]

Looks at thread, gets Marshmallows ready to toast...

I'll bring some hotdogs...

[SPOOFE]

Add me to the list of people who keeps E-mails going back several years.

[aerius]

Full email archives come in quite handy when fucknuts try to rewrite history. Coming in here and making those outlandish claims without backing evidence is the same as saying "the dog ate my homework". If you could show the partially digested homework papers in your dog's feces you could make a valid claim, otherwise you're just full of shit.

[Kamakazie Sith]

No doubt, text based on pictures can leave out details and be less than informative.

But can't pictures lie as well?

If you saw the Lusitania torpedoed by a U-boat, you assume the Germans were attacking civilians, because that's what was apparent at the time.

It turns out she was full of weapons and the submarine fired on a legitimate target.

And can't pictures without the accompanying explaination be inferred outside their actual meaning?

Lies can take many forms...

Did the Germans know that the Lusitania was full of weapons? That is the question that must be asked!

[Alyeska]

No doubt, text based on pictures can leave out details and be less than informative.

But can't pictures lie as well?

If you saw the Lusitania torpedoed by a U-boat, you assume the Germans were attacking civilians, because that's what was apparent at the time.

It turns out she was full of weapons and the submarine fired on a legitimate target.

And can't pictures without the accompanying explaination be inferred outside their actual meaning?

Lies can take many forms...

Did the Germans know that the Lusitania was full of weapons? That is the question that must be asked!

Indeed they did. However even a ship full of weapons must be given warning before sinking. What most people did not know is that the Lusitania was an ARMED transport, and under the rules of war the U-Boat was under NO obligation to warn the ship. Thus, the deaths of the civilians is the fault of the British government for putting them on a legitimate target in the first place.

[Kamakazie Sith]

No doubt, text based on pictures can leave out details and be less than informative.

But can't pictures lie as well?

If you saw the Lusitania torpedoed by a U-boat, you assume the Germans were attacking civilians, because that's what was apparent at the time.

It turns out she was full of weapons and the submarine fired on a legitimate target.

And can't pictures without the accompanying explaination be inferred outside their actual meaning?

Lies can take many forms...

Did the Germans know that the Lusitania was full of weapons? That is the question that must be asked!

Indeed they did. However even a ship full of weapons must be given warning before sinking. What most people did not know is that the Lusitania was an ARMED transport, and under the rules of war the U-Boat was under NO obligation to warn the ship. Thus, the deaths of the civilians is the fault of the British government for putting them on a legitimate target in the first place.

Then I honestly have no problem with it.

[Next of Kin]

Are you guys dimwits or something ? THE ARGUMENT WAS LIKE TWO YEARS AGO. Do you all keep archives of your emails from two years ago ?

.

So do you like go to the mall and like do stuff...

[Illuminatus Primus]

I smell horseshit.

[Ted]

Goodbye
*PLONK*

[CmdrWilkens]

No doubt, text based on pictures can leave out details and be less than informative.

But can't pictures lie as well?

If you saw the Lusitania torpedoed by a U-boat, you assume the Germans were attacking civilians, because that's what was apparent at the time.

It turns out she was full of weapons and the submarine fired on a legitimate target.

And can't pictures without the accompanying explaination be inferred outside their actual meaning?

Lies can take many forms...

Did the Germans know that the Lusitania was full of weapons? That is the question that must be asked!

Indeed they did. However even a ship full of weapons must be given warning before sinking. What most people did not know is that the Lusitania was an ARMED transport, and under the rules of war the U-Boat was under NO obligation to warn the ship. Thus, the deaths of the civilians is the fault of the British government for putting them on a legitimate target in the first place.

Which itself conjures up memories of such things as the USS Maine which died by an explosion in its engine room of its own cause yet few people objected to the idea of the ship being torpedoed. Basically some governments will do strange things to get into wars they can win, or that they think they ought to be involved with, and they will sacrifice civilian lives to do it.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Okay, Frankie. You want to debate? Debate me. I'll make you a little wager while we're at it: if I defeat you, you vamoose. (AFter all, why would you want to stay and face the shame of having been defeated by this board's pet idiot?) Our subject: whether or not a literary scene is as objective as a filmed scene. (I'm a writer, myself, so I know the answer to this one.)

Whaddya say, Frankie? Got the stones to get slammed by a Village Idiot?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

You know, I really don't think Francois will be returning. Especially since he will get his ass handed to him the moment he tries his lame rebuttles without evidence.

It'll depend. I think he may actually believe he has the wit to take Mike on in a debate. Then again, he's French, so his surrender is inevitable.

Hey, man! That was just cold-hearted and mean! (I like it.)

[Ted]

You know, I really don't think Francois will be returning. Especially since he will get his ass handed to him the moment he tries his lame rebuttles without evidence.

It'll depend. I think he may actually believe he has the wit to take Mike on in a debate. Then again, he's French, so his surrender is inevitable.

Hey, man! That was just cold-hearted and mean! (I like it.)

Well theoretically, he aint French, so you can't call him a Frog, he's a Quebecois. So he might not always surrender.

[EmperorMing]

It'll depend. I think he may actually believe he has the wit to take Mike on in a debate. Then again, he's French, so his surrender is inevitable.

Hey, man! That was just cold-hearted and mean! (I like it.)

Well theoretically, he aint French, so you can't call him a Frog, he's a Quebecois. So he might not always surrender.

There's enough French in there to make him do it. We just have to keep pummeling him.

[jegs2]

I have something to say on that....

"A picture is worth a thousand words."

That rests the case.

And how does that rest any kind of case? That is but a meaningless saying that people bring up in conversation, ascribing no real value to it. No one seriously believes that statement to be accurate in all (or even any) cases, and depending upon the words used, the thousand words can actually badly distort a scene that a visual picture would accurately depict.

[Ender]

Which itself conjures up memories of such things as the USS Maine which died by an explosion in its engine room of its own cause yet few people objected to the idea of the ship being torpedoed. Basically some governments will do strange things to get into wars they can win, or that they think they ought to be involved with, and they will sacrifice civilian lives to do it.

Actually, we still have zero proof as to what exactly caused the explosion, that is just a prevailing theory. The destruction of the Maine will go down with the "Cold Turret" explosion as one of the great US navy mysteries

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

In any case, the vermin seems to have scurried off in search of fatter pickings. Too bad -- my boots needed breaking in.

[Coyote]

...What else can I say after such a ridiculous post by Michael Wong.

And yet you don't reject scientific studies just because they're "written", don't you ? STUPID, STUPID, STUPID ! ...

C'mon. This is TOO blatant, TOO obvious. This has got to be a chain-yanker. Nobody could possibly be this much of a psychological masochist. Grand Admiral Thrawn? Is that you again, with another trick?

Franc28, whoever you are, you've got to have proof to back up your wild claims, otherwise they're just so much blahblahblah.

[Darth Wong]

C'mon. This is TOO blatant, TOO obvious. This has got to be a chain-yanker. Nobody could possibly be this much of a psychological masochist. Grand Admiral Thrawn? Is that you again, with another trick?

Sadly, this guy is for real. He honestly believes that a description of a scene and a photograph of the scene are equally objective forms of evidence. And when I tried to explain the problem to him, he became frustrated that I wasn't agreeing with him, made vague reference to years of studying philosophy, and screamed that "you don't even know what objectivity is!"

He's a bit like Darkstar that way; he claims to have superior knowledge and superior skills, he claims that I'm the one using all of the cheesy debate tactics, and he has no idea how utterly ludicrous his ideas seem to a normal person. I didn't take him seriously (just as I never took Darkstar seriously), and just like Darkstar, he chose to interpret that as fear rather than apathy. I wonder how many other weirdoes are creeping around out there, believing that they've soundly thrashed me in battle because I didn't bother responding to them, and using that belief to build up their confidence in their laughable ideas.

[Master of Ossus]

Who are you ? I don't have to justify myself to you.

You must back up your claims. Do you have any evidence, whatsoever, of this exchange?

[Darth Wong]

No doubt, text based on pictures can leave out details and be less than informative.

Text will only describe what the observer noticed, perceived, and believed. It takes a special kind of idiot to describe this as objective evidence.

But can't pictures lie as well?

No, they can only be misinterpreted (unless we're talking about doctored images, which is a special case).

If you saw the Lusitania torpedoed by a U-boat, you assume the Germans were attacking civilians, because that's what was apparent at the time.

It turns out she was full of weapons and the submarine fired on a legitimate target.

Prime example of misinterpretation. The picture doesn't lie, but an over-ambitious attempt to read things into the picture can make assumptions which turn out to be false. In any case, the picture only shows the Lusitania being torpedoed and sinking. Barring photographic alteration, it is impossible for a picture to "lie", per se. A human observer, on the other hand ...