Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Hand gun vs Chemical WeaponFollow

#102 Dec 12 2012 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Maybe we should have a philosophical discussion about whether or not you can have accuracy without inaccuracy?


If a bomb falls in the woods...
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#103 Dec 12 2012 at 12:59 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,578 posts

In a scientific sense, accuracy is how close your measurement(s) are to the true value, while precision is how little variance there is among your measurements. So if a laboratory scale weighs a 10 gram standard as 6 grams half the time, and 14 grams half the time, it's got 100% accuracy, but very poor precision.

I don't know if there's a widely accepted application of the terms to weapons science, but in common language terms, a weapon would be accurate if it hits its intended mark, and precise if its spread is highly predictable or controlled. By this definition, a GPS-guided atomic weapon could be very accurate (down to ~1 meter I guess?), but its precision would be poor, because I don't think even the experts know exactly how wide the blast will be (or how wind, rain, and other factors will spread the fallout).

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#104 Dec 12 2012 at 1:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,000 posts
Larger weapon systems have a larger error in their accuracy. They also tend to have a higher tolerance for it.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#105 Dec 12 2012 at 3:39 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,017 posts
SomeProteinGuy wrote:
If you literally define your target as hitting everyone and everything, then sure they're accurate. Assuming you don't want to kill your own people though, I could see an argument for inaccuracy when you have chemicals being blown around by changing winds or something.


That would be "everyone and everything" within a certain radius. If your goal was to hit Rhode Island and you drop an A-Bomb, you will more than likely affect outside of that radius.

TLW wrote:
Larger weapon systems have a larger error in their accuracy. They also tend to have a higher tolerance for it.


Please give an example.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#106 Dec 12 2012 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
This all seems paradoxical to me.

Isn't this perceived "accuracy" of WMD's derived from the indiscriminate goals of their use? As in, it's "accurate" because you don't really care how accurate it is?

That's silly.


Also, I'm so glad that I haven't been following this thread.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#107 Dec 12 2012 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,000 posts
Almalieque wrote:
SomeProteinGuy wrote:
If you literally define your target as hitting everyone and everything, then sure they're accurate. Assuming you don't want to kill your own people though, I could see an argument for inaccuracy when you have chemicals being blown around by changing winds or something.


That would be "everyone and everything" within a certain radius. If your goal was to hit Rhode Island and you drop an A-Bomb, you will more than likely affect outside of that radius.

TLW wrote:
Larger weapon systems have a larger error in their accuracy. They also tend to have a higher tolerance for it.


Please give an example.


A naval battleship cannon and a rifle are vastly different in scale. If you miss a direct hit by some small distance, the shell could still chunk the target, where the rifle round has a glancing blow, even if the distance missed is larger in the case of the shell.

Obvious, but apparently hard for you to grasp.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#108 Dec 12 2012 at 5:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,017 posts
Sooooo. which definition did my statement contradict?

TLW wrote:
A naval battleship cannon and a rifle are vastly different in scale. If you miss a direct hit by some small distance, the shell could still chunk the target, where the rifle round has a glancing blow, even if the distance missed is larger in the case of the shell.

Obvious, but apparently hard for you to grasp.


You missing a target doesn't mean that the weapon is inaccurate. Likewise, you hitting a target doesn't mean that the weapon is more accurate. Ask a Field Artillerymen.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#109 Dec 12 2012 at 6:25 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Sooooo. which definition did my statement contradict?

TLW wrote:
A naval battleship cannon and a rifle are vastly different in scale. If you miss a direct hit by some small distance, the shell could still chunk the target, where the rifle round has a glancing blow, even if the distance missed is larger in the case of the shell.

Obvious, but apparently hard for you to grasp.


You missing a target doesn't mean that the weapon is inaccurate. Likewise, you hitting a target doesn't mean that the weapon is more accurate. Ask a Field Artillerymen.



Wow.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#110 Dec 12 2012 at 6:51 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,017 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Sooooo. which definition did my statement contradict?

TLW wrote:
A naval battleship cannon and a rifle are vastly different in scale. If you miss a direct hit by some small distance, the shell could still chunk the target, where the rifle round has a glancing blow, even if the distance missed is larger in the case of the shell.

Obvious, but apparently hard for you to grasp.


You missing a target doesn't mean that the weapon is inaccurate. Likewise, you hitting a target doesn't mean that the weapon is more accurate. Ask a Field Artillerymen.



Wow.


Your mind is now blown....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#111 Dec 12 2012 at 7:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You missing a target doesn't mean that the weapon is inaccurate. Likewise, you hitting a target doesn't mean that the weapon is more accurate. Ask a Field Artillerymen.


Um... But when the center point of your hit varies from the center point of the target by some statistically consistent value, then that *is* a function of the inaccuracy of the delivery system (at a given range of course). An NFL quarterback who can throw the ball at a receiver 20 yards away and consistently get that ball to a random location within a foot of his receivers hands is considered "accurate". One who can only consistently get the ball to a random location within 10 feet of his receivers hands is considered "inaccurate".

Similarly, a Syrian rocket that randomly hits a point within 100M of the center of the target area is less accurate than a US smart bomb that will randomly hit a point within 3 feet of that same center point. Regardless of the payload being delivered, that is how we measure accuracy within the context of projectiles (whether weapons or footballs). The advantage of a more accurate delivery system is that you can put a smaller payload on it and hit just what you want. The reason one might gravitate to using chemical weapons instead is because there is less need for being accurate without dealing with the significantly increased weight involved in just putting a bigger explosive in there. Being "close" is good enough in that case.

Note that this has nothing at all to do with how accurate the weapon is. If a weapon system (payload plus delivery system) is "accurate enough", then we might use the term called "effective". An inaccurate weapon can be effective if accuracy is not required. But that doesn't magically make it accurate.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112 Dec 12 2012 at 7:41 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,017 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Quoted Text

Um... But when the center point of your hit varies from the center point of the target by some statistically consistent value,


But it doesn't. Do you honestly believe that with all the money that we spend on weapons, that we wouldn't put a great emphasis on the accuracy of weapons with such destruction power? Seriously? I would argue that the bigger weapons are more accurate than the small arms due to the possible aftermath. You missing a shot with a 9 mm is one thing, you missing your target with a tank or arterillary round is a completely different story. There simply isn't any room for error.

Gbaji wrote:
An inaccurate weapon can be effective if accuracy is not required. But that doesn't magically make it accurate.


Except in this case it's effective because it's accurate. Again, ask a Field Artilleryman. At this point, you're simply creating fictitious weapons in order to prove a point.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#113 Dec 12 2012 at 8:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
What the **** are you talking about? Yes "we" (meaning the US military) put great weight on the accuracy of our weapons. But "them" (meaning folks who lob chemical weapons on scud missiles) do not.

I thought we were talking about folks launching chemical payloads on rockets that randomly hit a spot within a 5 mile diameter circle. Their weapons are *not* accurate. Using Chemical weapons on those sorts of rockets is fine because in that case you don't care how accurate they are. But that doesn't magically make them accurate. WTF?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#114 Dec 12 2012 at 8:37 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,017 posts
Quote:
What the **** are you talking about? Yes "we" (meaning the US military) put great weight on the accuracy of our weapons. But "them" (meaning folks who lob chemical weapons on scud missiles) do not.

I thought we were talking about folks launching chemical payloads on rockets that randomly hit a spot within a 5 mile diameter circle. Their weapons are *not* accurate. Using Chemical weapons on those sorts of rockets is fine because in that case you don't care how accurate they are. But that doesn't magically make them accurate. WTF?


1. No, you got off on a tangent. This thread was created on why the US should care what weapons other nations have while we're here crying over the right to "bear arms". The response was that chemical, biological, nuclear,etc. weapons are not accurate because they cover a large area and can't be directed to a single target.. I responded that it is accurate because it attacks the desired target, a city. You then created fictional weapons with horrible accuracy to prove a point. HOWEVER, these WMD were never restricted to missiles or rockets. I can have a smart bomb, which was admitted to be accurate, with chemical gas and detonate it on the desired target. You can't get any more accurate than being on top of your target.

2. Given the fact that actual detailed data on weapons are often kept at least a SECRET level of any nation, I would say that you're creating fictional weapons again.

3. Just because the US has the best military in the world, doesn't mean that a poor country can't have the means of getting good firearms.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#115 Dec 12 2012 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Um... No. I said that chemical weapons are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems *because* they do not need to be very accurate to be effective. Dude. Seriously?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Dec 13 2012 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
This is my favorite thread where people with, at best, casual knowledge of weapons argue with each other with such intense fervor.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#117 Dec 13 2012 at 8:38 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
This is my favorite thread where people with, at best, casual knowledge of weapons argue with each other with such intense fervor.

When the dog bites when the bee stings when I'm feeling sad, i simply remember my favorite thread and then I don't feel so bad.

I singed for you.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#118 Dec 13 2012 at 9:06 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,000 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
This is my favorite thread where people with, at best, casual knowledge of weapons argue with each other with such intense fervor.


It's a full time job for Almalieque.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#119 Dec 13 2012 at 9:20 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,000 posts
Almalieque wrote:
2. Given the fact that actual detailed data on weapons are often kept at least a SECRET level of any nation, I would say that you're creating fictional weapons again.


TCPs are foolproof.

Also, noone can see a system in use.


____________________________
Just as Planned.
#120 Dec 13 2012 at 9:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
This is my favorite thread where people with, at best, casual knowledge of weapons argue with each other with such intense fervor.

So my years of Command & Conquer mean nothing to you?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#121 Dec 13 2012 at 9:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Also, noone can see a system in use.


Oh they do, but the weapons never miss their mark, and dead men tell no tales. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#122 Dec 13 2012 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,000 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Also, noone can see a system in use.


Oh they do, but the weapons never miss their mark, and dead men tell no tales. Smiley: schooled


They also kill anyone who see's them. We've militarized 'The Ring'.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#123 Dec 13 2012 at 9:37 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... No. I said that chemical weapons are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems ...

What people are you talking about.

Inaccurate delivery of chemicalized weapons will be very ineffective.

It's easy to effectively gas people dead if you can contain them in a chamber and control the concentration of gas that fills the confined space. Otherwise it can be pretty hit or miss.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#124 Dec 13 2012 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,289 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Also, noone can see a system in use.


Oh they do, but the weapons never miss their mark, and dead men tell no tales. Smiley: schooled


They also kill anyone who see's them. We've militarized 'The Ring'.


Seven days after you get the phone call a Navy Seal crawls out of your T.V. and stabs you to death?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#125 Dec 13 2012 at 10:51 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Also, noone can see a system in use.


Oh they do, but the weapons never miss their mark, and dead men tell no tales. Smiley: schooled


They also kill anyone who see's them. We've militarized 'The Ring'.


Seven days after you get the phone call a Navy Seal crawls out of your T.V. and stabs you to death?
McAfee will block seals.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#126 Dec 13 2012 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,289 posts
Elinda wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Also, noone can see a system in use.


Oh they do, but the weapons never miss their mark, and dead men tell no tales. Smiley: schooled


They also kill anyone who see's them. We've militarized 'The Ring'.


Seven days after you get the phone call a Navy Seal crawls out of your T.V. and stabs you to death?
McAfee will block seals.


But not extradition papers.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#127 Dec 13 2012 at 11:16 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,471 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Couldn't you argue that it's accurate, but not precise? Or am I confusing the two terms?


You would be correct.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#128 Dec 13 2012 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,000 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Couldn't you argue that it's accurate, but not precise? Or am I confusing the two terms?


You would be correct.


It's both less accurate and less precise, which is why you target things several orders or magnitude larger.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#129 Dec 13 2012 at 3:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
11,982 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
This is my favorite thread where people with, at best, casual knowledge of weapons argue with each other with such intense fervor.


Next it will be ***.

bu dum bum.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#130 Dec 13 2012 at 3:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,017 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... No. I said that chemical weapons are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems *because* they do not need to be very accurate to be effective. Dude. Seriously?


So you agree that weapons of mass destruction or accurate?

Isn't that comparison the same with a knife vs a gun?

LolGaxe wrote:
This is my favorite thread where people with, at best, casual knowledge of weapons argue with each other with such intense fervor.


I do believe I said "Go ask a Field Artilleryman" several times. I'm not the one making up false accuracy stats.. I am a proud Signaleer

Edited, Dec 13th 2012 11:23pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#131 Dec 13 2012 at 3:43 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Claiming that a WMD is accurate because it totally kills the indiscriminate boatload of people that you intended it to is like claiming that McDonald's is an exclusive restaurant because they only let in the people they want to let in.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#132 Dec 13 2012 at 4:29 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,017 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Claiming that a WMD is accurate because it totally kills the indiscriminate boatload of people that you intended it to is like claiming that McDonald's is an exclusive restaurant because they only let in the people they want to let in.


What?

I said that WMD is accurate because it fits the definition of accuracy. NO one has provided an actual definition that contradicts the accuracy of WMD only opinions on why they don't think it is.

Since when is hitting your target head on "not accurate"?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#133 Dec 13 2012 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but it needs batteries, you probably have the wrong abstraction."
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#134 Dec 13 2012 at 4:43 PM Rating: Excellent
So...if i fire a.45 cal bullet with a poison gas payload into a room and kill everybody in it, was my shot accurate?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#135 Dec 13 2012 at 4:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,289 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
So...if i fire a.45 cal bullet with a poison gas payload into a room and kill everybody in it, was my shot accurate?


No, since with your eyesight you would miss the room entirely.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#136 Dec 13 2012 at 4:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
So...if i fire a.45 cal bullet with a poison gas payload into a room and kill everybody in it, was my shot accurate?


No, since with your eyesight you would miss the room entirely.
So what you're saying is I'd have to roll a natural 20 with a +5 to hit, amirite?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#137 Dec 13 2012 at 4:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,289 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
So...if i fire a.45 cal bullet with a poison gas payload into a room and kill everybody in it, was my shot accurate?


No, since with your eyesight you would miss the room entirely.
So what you're saying is I'd have to roll a natural 20 with a +5 to hit, amirite?


No, you need to hand the gun over to someone who can actually hit their target. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#138 Dec 13 2012 at 4:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
So...if i fire a.45 cal bullet with a poison gas payload into a room and kill everybody in it, was my shot accurate?


No, since with your eyesight you would miss the room entirely.
So what you're saying is I'd have to roll a natural 20 with a +5 to hit, amirite?


No, you need to hand the gun over to someone who can actually hit their target. Smiley: tongue

Give it to a Field Artilleryman. I hear they're pretty accurate.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#139 Dec 13 2012 at 5:02 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,980 posts
Nexa wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
This is my favorite thread where people with, at best, casual knowledge of weapons argue with each other with such intense fervor.

Next it will be ***.

bu dum bum.

Are you saying you like it in da ****?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#140 Dec 13 2012 at 5:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Almalieque wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... No. I said that chemical weapons are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems *because* they do not need to be very accurate to be effective. Dude. Seriously?


So you agree that weapons of mass destruction or accurate?


Do you seriously have the reading comprehension of a garden snail or something?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#141 Dec 13 2012 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,000 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I do believe I said "Go ask a Field Artilleryman" several times. I'm not the one making up false accuracy stats.. I am a proud Signaleer


Hey guess what, I just called Doug, who is in fact a "Field Artilleryman", and he said you are full of ****, ****, and mandick wrapped in barbed wire and cleaning solvent. He got somewhat more emotional that I expected.

He still has aids.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#142 Dec 13 2012 at 5:52 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,017 posts

Isn't that comparison the same with a knife vs a gun?
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... No. I said that chemical weapons are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems *because* they do not need to be very accurate to be effective. Dude. Seriously?


So you agree that weapons of mass destruction or accurate?


Do you seriously have the reading comprehension of a garden snail or something?


Are you seriously incapable of answering a simple yes or no question or something? You're hiding behind befogging words.A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Edited, Dec 14th 2012 1:54am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#143 Dec 13 2012 at 5:55 PM Rating: Good
gbaji doesn't do "yes or no" without qualifiers. He hates to be rooted to a single reality.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#144 Dec 13 2012 at 6:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Almalieque wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... No. I said that chemical weapons are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems *because* they do not need to be very accurate to be effective. Dude. Seriously?


So you agree that weapons of mass destruction or accurate?


Do you seriously have the reading comprehension of a garden snail or something?


Are you seriously incapable of answering a simple yes or no question or something? You're hiding behind befogging words.A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.


No, it wont. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no answer only please.


My statement was quite clear: They (chemical weapons) do not have to be accurate to be effective. This is why they are popular for those who do not have accurate delivery systems. Was any part of that really confusing to you?

Edited, Dec 13th 2012 4:04pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#145 Dec 13 2012 at 6:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji doesn't do "yes or no" without qualifiers. He hates to be rooted to a single reality.


I also hate it when people change the very specific and clear words I use and insist that I must either agree or disagree 100% with their modified version of what I said. He changed "chemical weapons" to the much broader "WMDs", then spoke about the payload being accurate instead of the delivery system, then asked me to agree or disagree with that garbage. There are a host of reasons I don't play that game.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#146 Dec 13 2012 at 6:12 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji doesn't do "yes or no" without qualifiers. He hates to be rooted to a single reality.


I also hate it when people change the very specific and clear words I use and insist that I must either agree or disagree 100% with their modified version of what I said. He changed "chemical weapons" to the much broader "WMDs", then spoke about the payload being accurate instead of the delivery system, then asked me to agree or disagree with that garbage. There are a host of reasons I don't play that game.


Of course you play that game. You just cry like a baby unless you're on the other side of it.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#147 Dec 13 2012 at 6:15 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji doesn't do "yes or no" without qualifiers. He hates to be rooted to a single reality.


I also hate it when people change the very specific and clear words I use and insist that I must either agree or disagree 100% with their modified version of what I said. He changed "chemical weapons" to the much broader "WMDs", then spoke about the payload being accurate instead of the delivery system, then asked me to agree or disagree with that garbage. There are a host of reasons I don't play that game.
HI. I wasn't talking about this subject, but all subjects you discuss.

Idiot.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#148 Dec 13 2012 at 6:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
HI. I wasn't talking about this subject, but all subjects you discuss.


I qualify my statements when people attempt to misstate them back to me. There happen to be a number of people who do this quite often. I can only surmise it's because they find it hard to argue against the things I actually say, so they feel a need to misstate what I say so as to make an easier target. Blame them when they do this if it bothers you, but I'm absolutely going to correct them and say "Nope. That's not what I'm saying" when they do. What other choice do I have? Just agree that I said something I didn't say? That seems kinda silly.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#149 Dec 13 2012 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
HI. I wasn't talking about this subject, but all subjects you discuss.


I qualify my statements when people attempt to misstate them back to me. There happen to be a number of people who do this quite often. I can only surmise it's because they find it hard to argue against the things I actually say, so they feel a need to misstate what I say so as to make an easier target. Blame them when they do this if it bothers you, but I'm absolutely going to correct them and say "Nope. That's not what I'm saying" when they do. What other choice do I have? Just agree that I said something I didn't say? That seems kinda silly.


People restate your argument back to you in the same way that therapists ask couples to restate statements between couples to make sure there is no communication error and you still say they got it wrong. Just like my ex....who was diagnosed bi-polar type 1.....hmmmmmmmm.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#150 Dec 13 2012 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,584 posts
gbaji wrote:
I can only surmise it's because they find it hard to argue against the things I actually say


Good guess, but wrong Smiley: lol
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#151 Dec 13 2012 at 7:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Debalic wrote:
Nexa wrote:
Next it will be ***.

bu dum bum.
Are you saying you like it in da ****?

She's saying she likes to *** the uneducated hobos. Like Smash.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 57 All times are in CDT
idiggory, RavennofTitan, TherealLogros, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (53)