Leave your almanacs and travel guides at home!

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Your entire first post is a giant ad hominem with a question stuck at the end. Your second post has a few more ad hominens as well. I will document some of them for you here shortly I disagree You can certainly read your own words here that were posted publicly. You made these statements so you have the burden of proof for these statements, I will comment after each one: Okie doke I can't tell if you are just using sarcasm here or making an ad hominem using reverse sarcasm. You read waaaay too deeply into it. And I realize there are some resident persecution complexes involved here but the statement was being made in a facsetious manner to indicate that while complaints are made there will be no right answer for the persons being complained about to give. Provide documentation for all these posts you mention where I have stated there is no way for them to win and that they damned if they do damned if they dont. Also explain what that has to do with original article posted in this topic. Don't have to, they are already posted by you. You have complained about the Bush administration and other groups many times and I decided to ask what your solution to these problems are....you don't like almanac profiling...so what is your better idea? Who knows maybe we are being monitored and the idea will be put into practice? This is quite clearly about me and not the news article that is the foundation for this topic. Another ad hominem. Yes in this case it has to be about you ...since well you were the one making the post....you are sounding more and more like another scholar who used to wander around here claiming ad hom attacks...next will we see accusations of Strawmen? (I only post this in particular because you seem to use the words Ad Hominem or its abreviations a lot lately.) Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m Function: adjective Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person Date: 1598 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made I personally do not feel my questions of you rise to the level of either of these definitions. Actually you are twisting something right there again. I wasn't complaining, I used sarcasm as opening comments on a news article. Here are my exact words: "Oh man, I guess I will have to memorize the travel almanac for my next vacation. I sure won't be holding an Almanac in my hand the next time I "observe" a historic landmark or other place of notable interest." You started with the ad hominem attacks I have documented after this. If you would have merely asked your question and/or merely commented on the news article I would have no issues with your posts in this thread. Discussing the issue of profiling or other investigative alternatives is fine as well as the topic that the news article is about. Recent expiriences have taught me that the lowest form of discourse is making personal snipes at a poster rather than discussing the topic at hand. I expect personal snipes to end or to get the attention of moderators The rules clearly state: Sorry, but it still sounds like you were complaining..and judging from other posts in the thread, I am not the only one who thought you were. Being a complaint, I was moved to ask for your advice on how they would best correct the matter you were complaining about...you refused and started labeling my request as an attack... Finally you don't have to wait for the moderators to "shut me up", all you have to do is ask me politley to not post in regards to your threads and I will oblige you. I dont mind having mindful discourse about the topics at hand. like the news article that was posted. But clearly making personal snipes and using ad hominem debate tactics and making defamatory implications violates the forums rules. Perhaps you haven't broken any of these rule and you have just skated close. Maybe I am just a bit over sensitive becasue of recent events? I do know that if I get anymore "You are this, Your posts, You only do this" type posts I will ask for moderation and clarification of the forum rules with regards to making topics too personal. Besides- making it personal takes the fun out of having discussions. Who can learn from divergent veiwpoints and new perspectives if the discussion consists of "you are this and you are that"? Take Care, Chewy All I asked for was a reasonable alternative to the methodology you were showing contempt for. I even gave you my own personal thoughts on the matter and how it would be better accomplished. Instead of just giving a reply to my question, you started yelling for the mods, complaing about attacks and basicly doing a lot of everything but actually answering the question. If the mods deem my questioning you an offense or if you request me not to reply to your posts...I'll stop asking the questions. I am not going to continue to try and discus or debate with some one who really doesnt want me involved. In summation...it's not ALL about you Chewie...in some measure it is..but what it is really about is....what is a better idea than the ones being implemented. I say Profile them racially, by height weight byu sex, by nation of origin, by public actions, by priovate internet conduct, by any means necessary to get the job done.

[ 12-30-2003, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: I guess we will see if pestering tourists actually stops a terror attack. In the meantime, I do hope the police and FBI are focused on looking for far more determinable clues of suspicious behavior, like behaving nervously and/or carrying or leaving large out-of-place packages at landmarks for example.

In reference to the highlighted text here, I am clipping the paragraph that you highlighted in the original article....


The FBI noted that use of almanacs or maps may be innocent, "the product of legitimate recreational or commercial activities." But it warned that when combined with suspicious behavior -- such as apparent surveillance -- a person with an almanac "may point to possible terrorist planning."

If you will notice, the last line indicates that the FBI is NOT using the presence of almanacs as a sole indicator. They specifically state that the presence of an almanac "when combined with suspicious behavior"...may point to possible terrorist planning.
[/QUOTE]I did write: "I do hope the police and FBI are focused on looking for far more determinable clues of suspicious behavior."

The key word that 'focuses' my opinion here is the word focused.

My main contention, the one veiled in sarcasm in the original post, is that an entire memo was sent out about almanacs giving the impression that a focus should be on almanacs rather than a whole variety of other determinable factors.

I would think in the two plus years since 9/11 the wide-range of suspicious terrorist activities would have been documented more comprehensively rather than sending out seemingly random memos about secondary indicators that overwhelmingly more times than not will be used innocently.

And if it is possible to focus...(and Id like ot know how) when does ones focus become too narrow and thus miss the blindingly obvious but outside your focus and thus result in the deaths of tens, hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands?

The Job law enforcement is doing re-terrorism is a task of near unimaginable scope for most people...the sheer volume of traffic into and out of the country, the number of electronic and paper mail enourmous...and all it takes is one package with the right material to slip through the cracks.....

My point is not that law enforcement/administration can do no wrong....Im saying rather than look for things to complain about...lets realize we have a load to thank these guys for.....such as no repeats in the USA in the last 2 years. And if we must criticize...at least be ready with an alternative.....it is only fair.

Id say it is quite unfair to say "No your doing it all wrong" and then when aksed "Oh really? How should we do it" to not have a reply forthcoming.

[ 12-30-2003, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: My main contention, the one veiled in sarcasm in the original post, is that an entire memo was sent out about almanacs giving the impression that a focus should be on almanacs rather than a whole variety of other determinable factors.

The key fact being..thats all YOU (not you , you just an in general you..as in the public you) know about. because that is the one that got leaked to the press or that the press decided to print....the fact is, you cannot believe that this "memo" is the summ total of the plan by federal law enforcment types......Im mean government workers are notoriously lazy and unimaginative in general...but they really aren't all that way....it is just a stereotype.

[ 12-30-2003, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

FBI grunt observation: "You know, sir, we've noticed some of these terrorists use almanacs as a source of information, and will often carry them around -- we've found them in the possession of some terrorists we caught."

FBI management: "Okay, that's useful, let's get that tip to law enforcement."

IW Forum: Today we will have an in depth discussion of this miniscule issue and blow it up to gargantuan proportions class. Pencils and keyboards ready.

Ugh.... I can feel my IQ lowering with each post. This thread sucks at my brain like a ravenous illithid.

If Big Brother really annoys you, rant about the Patriot Act or a REAL issue. I have seen the term "almanac profiling" created here today, and I am a bit dumber for the experience.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: FBI grunt observation: "You know, sir, we've noticed some of these terrorists use almanacs as a source of information, and will often carry them around -- we've found them in the possession of some terrorists we caught." FBI management: "Okay, that's useful, let's get that tip to law enforcement." IW Forum: Today we will have an in depth discussion of this miniscule issue and blow it up to gargantuan proportions class. Pencils and keyboards ready. Ugh.... I can feel my IQ lowering with each post. This thread sucks at my brain like a ravenous illithid. If Big Brother really annoys you, rant about the Patriot Act or a REAL issue. I have seen the term "almanac profiling" created here today, and I am a bit dumber for the experience.

I agree. I actually initially posted with the thought this was kinda humorous in a "Daily Show" kinda sarcastic way. I mean really, a whole memo for almanacs, It just sounds kinda silly.

edit:

If some type of serious discussion evolves out of it that doesnt involve posters making personal swipes at other posters, I see no harm in the thread, unless of course it is sucking away your IQ! Then stay away!

[ 12-30-2003, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

I am personally more worried about ravenous illithids running loose on the forums than the prospect of "almanac profiling".

As for the personal swipes, they have been taken by both sides so it should be easy enough for both sides to agree that they have given as good as they got and move on.

Well I seriously didn't mean to take personal swipes, but to just be brutally honest and up front about people trying to do a tough job with criticism coming in from all angles.

I have been told I am too direct some times [img]smile.gif[/img] all I can say is....you won't have to wonder what Im thinking [img]smile.gif[/img]

Now about these ilithids.....how do we go about stopping them?

[ 12-30-2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[John D Harris]

ROTFLMAO anybody notice the words: SOME, COULD, MAY, MIGHT and words of simular meanings? Instead of words like: ALL, ARE, WILL, DEFININTLY(sp?).

The sky sorta coulda may might be falling

Well if you don't use words that allow for some slip, then no one will cut you a break if you use
the wrong word. [img]smile.gif[/img]