Learn From It

And the stupid-ass antics begin.

They began with your reply.

I simply pointed out that this is a topic you don't understand.

Ironically, if you had bothered to read the article, you'd find out that NO military personnel were asked about women in direct combat, that congress decided to do it all by themselves, and that one person described it as "a solution in search of a problem."

See what you might avoid if you actually read anything, gordo?

And this somehow changes your credibility to speak on the topic?

IRONICALLY, considering your statement in regards to congress, you just agreed with me.

That it's a stupid, baseless assertion that women aren't fit for direct combat that has no basis in anything real, and instead and in fact, is just a thinly disguised sexist thing?

Sure. Irony.

You don't even know what that word means.

Reading comprehension's not your forte' is it? Do I really need to explain the use of ironic for you?

As for the topic, I'll take it down a notch for you.

You have no practical or professional knowledge of what is required for the rigors of combat. You are simply venting your thinly veiled agenda on a topic that you, to be blunt, don't know shit about.

And so, having no practical or professional knowledge of what is required for the rigors of combat, I should not profess nor profer what is required for such rigors?

Yes?

No, I never suggested you aren't free to profess.

What I stated was that you don't know what you're talking about.

Nice dodge, gordo.

Now answer it, or go away.

Your slimy implications are ridiculous. You don't have the balls to explicate directly.

Wait, do you need balls, too, for direct combat? Or just the penis?

I answered your question and corrected YOUR implication in the process . Is English your second language?

What I've stated is that simply, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about when it comes to gender and combat. How much clearer do I have to be?

Do tell, how do YOU know what's best for America's Armed Forces? Please show the balls to explicate directly.

What were you implying by your very first comment on here, gordon?

Nothing at all? Do tell.

That was sarcasm. Do know what that word means?

Anyhow, it wasn't so much an implication as a statement.

Good dodge though.

Then state it, gordon.

I already have four times.

I forgot you are an authority on combat.

So you are, Gordon? if you are, please speak up and tell us why the penis is so crucial to direct combat please?

If not, then why are you here?

Stop making tiresome generalizations about Catholic schools. THAT school made the (erroneous) decision, not the Catholic Church.

You're better at being a martyr than you are at being a BDSM top, Hoody.

if you are, please speak up and tell us why the penis is so crucial to direct combat please?

I don't recall stating it was. Try to keep up with the thread.

Did you serve or not GOB?

Stop dodging the question.

Ooops. Looks like Gordon proved GOB doesn't know what he's talking about again.

When did I claim to serve? No I haven't served.

Nice sleight of hand, though, gordon/geoff...serving in the military does not qualify you to decide on the things this bill is deciding on.

Why do you claim it?

Always changing the subject. Slimy bastards.

Let me refresh your memory:

GLOB: "Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any "practical or professional knowledge" on combat?

No. And that was the fucking point from the beginning, gordon. "

Gordon: "Yes, and here is the evidence to support it."

Ooops. Looks like GLOB can't get his facts straight.

On combat conditions relative to one's gender..which is what this has been about the entire time, Geoff/Gordon.

And what evidence? he gave a list of congresspeople who have served in the military. Are any of those people on the bill? John McHugh certainly isn't. and he's the one quoted as the Bill's sponsor.

I should cut you a break. You're not used to having to provide concrete and relevant evidence to support the bile that flows from your orifices.

What's wrong? Things getting so boring over at the yawn-and-maw that you had to come here for an attempted gangfuck again?

Ooops. GLOB tells more half-truths. Duncan Hunter, who added the provision, served in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne and the 75th Army Rangers.

You should do your homework. Maybe then Gordon wouldn't have to devote so much time schooling you.

Nah. You won't. You prefer to spread lies to further your agenda.

Nice IP ban, by the way. I guess getting schooled hurts your ego.

Again, Gordon/Geoff...how does that qualify him to decide that females aren't appropriate for direct combat?

Still haven't answered that, have you.

If your IP address is banned, it's because you were fucking around with anonymizers and posting anonymous comments from various IP addresses.

Be a coward, be banned. Simple as that.

You're still posting here, aren't you?

And Gordon...where's your direct-combat experience? That was the ORIGINAL point. Not just service, but DIRECT-COMBAT experience.

Where's yours?

And Geoff? have you served? and if so, where's your direct-combat experience?

Mine's posted numerous times on my blog. You've seen it. You spend almost as much time there as I do. Gordon has more than I. Everyone at DSD is a vet, and only my brother hasn't seen combat.

Not that it's relevant, though. My only comment here was to point out that you were wrong and Gordon schooled you. You lied to promote your agenda. You got caught. You then threw a hissy and started banning IPs. No worries, though. I have plenty.

Keep repeating a thing and see if it makes it any more true, Geoffrey.

God, you're boring. And a liar.

Great come back. What's the matter? You don't want to talk about your statement anymore? Let me help you get back on track.

GLOB: "You're not used to having to provide concrete and relevant evidence to support the bile that flows from your orifices."

Geoffrey: "Ooops. GLOB tells more half-truths. Duncan Hunter, who added the provision, served in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne and the 75th Army Rangers."

You lied. You got caught. You threw a hissy and started banning IPs. Typical. You do that every time you get schooled.

Speaking of concrete and relevant evidence, I provided mine to back up my statement.

You called me a liar. Let's see your concrete and relevant evidence.

You asserted that i banned you in response to your blathering here and now.

Your assertion. Prove you've stopped diddling little girls.

Isn't this fun?

"Always changing the subject. Slimy bastards."

There you go again.

Avoiding the issue.

You lied. You got caught. I proved it.

Schooled again.

You lied, you got caught.

Were the wheels ever ON your wagon, Geoffrey?

Call us when the shuttle lands, Pauline.

And here we see it. Exposed as a liar. Exposed as a dodger. GLOB now abandons the topic completely and just focuses on what he does best. Sling bullshit.

You got schooled.

Yes, you "exposed" it all, Geoffrey. Assert baseless bullshit, then assume it's fact. Then attack based on your 'fact'.

and pretty soon, there are so many loose ends, so many frayed sections, so many things wrong with every sentence you utter that one doesn't even know where to start with it.

Yeah, "I got schooled." You so street, baby.

Next Congress will pass laws preventing women from working in skyscrapers, since on 9/11 hundreds of women died at the WTC site.

That analogy has no relevancy Homer.

Nice dodge, gordo.

Speaking of dodges, why is it you KEEP avoid answering my question?

What qualifies you to speak on behalf of what's best for America's fighting men and women? Let's hear those credentials. The background. The experience.

Quote: "and pretty soon, there are so many loose ends, so many frayed sections, so many things wrong with every sentence you utter that one doesn't even know where to start with it."

Funny. That sounds like something that ought to be said about YOUR posts, Biscuits.

Geoff, you heard him admit being beaten. Of course, it is couched in terms laden with sarcasm. Humility is not one of Biscuits' vices.

"America's fighting men and women". Listen to that patriotic fervor!

When I ask you to state directly your reason for your initial comment, you dont' answer directly, you only say, "I already did four times!"

Yeah, right.

State it, and I'll answer your question.

Same old tired bullshit from you, gordon.

Can you hear the circus music?

I simply pointed out that this is a topic you don't understand.
Posted by gordon the magnificent at 19 mei 2005 16:27

You have no practical or professional knowledge of what is required for the rigors of combat.
Posted by gordon the magnificent at 19 mei 2005 19:05

What I stated was that you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by Gordon the Magnificent at 19 mei 2005 19:35

What I've stated is that simply, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about when it comes to gender and combat. How much clearer do I have to be?
Posted by Gordon the Magnificent at 19 mei 2005 20:40

I'm beginning to wonder if you're on the right thread.

He obviously has a little trouble reading, too.

What's that hissing sound? Ahhhh, GLOBS credibility loosing air. It's fun to pop in here every now and then to show how full of shit he is.

And you think you have any "practical or professional knowledge" about me?

Do YOU have any "practical or professional knowledge" about combat? No.

Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any "practical or professional knowledge" on combat?

No. And that was the fucking point from the beginning, gordon.

If you think that I shouldn't be speaking on the "practical or professional" applications of direct combat in a humble little blog, what the fuck makes you think that someone with the ability to spend billions of dollars and enact sexist laws (civilian or military) should be speaking and acting on it?

You're a spoiler, gordon. You don't put forth original thoughts or opinions on anything. You just show up and try to grab some attention for yourself.

Now...why *exactly* and *specifically* do you think you're here, Gordon?

Ahh, yes. Hoody, who bans but still exploits the fact that I'm not as petty as he/she is.

So much for do unto others, huh? Won't Jesus have something to say to you when the Time Comes?

Geoffrey, you haven't a clue what real evidence is, what logic and reason are. You gave up on those a long time ago, when you discovered that shrill repetition was enough to drown out anything that disagrees with your cold, heartless little world.

Birds of a feather. Small-brained, flighty, low-on-the-food-chain birds.

[i]Geoffrey, you haven't a clue what real evidence is, what logic and reason are. You gave up on those a long time ago, when you discovered that shrill repetition was enough to drown out anything that disagrees with your cold, heartless little world.[/i]

I don't? Hmmmm. Let's try this evidence.

Glob: "Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any "practical or professional knowledge" on combat?

No. And that was the fucking point from the beginning, gordon. "

Geoffrey: "Ooops. GLOB tells more half-truths. Duncan Hunter, who added the provision, served in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne and the 75th Army Rangers."

Which part of my statement are you claiming isn't "real"?

You lied. You got caught. You cried about it and banned my IP. Now you continue to spin. You continue to denounce me. You also continue to not provide one single shred of evidence to contradict my evidence of your blatant lie. None. Zip. Nada. Nothing but foot stomping and hysterical whining.

You've been exposed, again, as the pathetic liar you are. I'm enjoying watching your breakdown.

Prove that you have the sociological background to determine that a uterus bans one from direct combat. Prove that any of the congressmen who foisted this sexism on the American public have that background.

And then i'll show you my list of banned IPs and the dates for which they were banned, straight from the Moveable Type admin page.

Get Help. Get Meds. Get out of here.

Ooops. GLOB misunderstood the question. He's having a little reading comprehension problem. Let's try again.

Glob: "Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any "practical or professional knowledge" on combat?

No. And that was the fucking point from the beginning, gordon. "

Geoffrey: "Ooops. GLOB tells more half-truths. Duncan Hunter, who added the provision, served in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne and the 75th Army Rangers."

Which part of my statement are you claiming isn't "real"?

And then i'll show you my list of banned IPs and the dates for which they were banned, straight from the Moveable Type admin page.

Don't bother. It's irrelevant to the discussion. You know you did. I know you did. Whether you admit it publicly isn't a concern. We both know you're lying. That's good enough for me.

cowering in the face of evidence. typical.

I'm still waiting for the part where you give evidence that the people who sponsored this bill have practical or professional knowledge on combat WHEN IT COMES TO BANNING PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY POSSESS A UTERUS.

Were you in direct combat? did you answer that? was gordon, your alter ego, in direct combat?

Does Duncan Hunter have the sociological studies that show that non-males are unfit for direct combat?

Will you answer any of these questions?

cowering in the face of evidence. typical.

It is typical. Maybe if you provided some evidence of your own, instead of just talking about it, you wouldn't have to cower in the face of mine.

did you answer that?

Yes, I did. Just another example of your lack of reading skills. Hmmm. It's also an example of your attempt to derail the discussion once you've been outed as a liar.

Does Duncan Hunter have the sociological studies that show that non-males are unfit for direct combat?

Another derail attempt. That wasn't what you said. Here, let me help you out again.

Glob: "Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any "practical or professional knowledge" on combat?

No. And that was the fucking point from the beginning, gordon. "

Geoffrey: "Ooops. GLOB tells more half-truths. Duncan Hunter, who added the provision, served in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne and the 75th Army Rangers."

What's that? Oh yeah. Yet another example of GLOB's lies. You seem comfortable with your dishonesty. I'm not surprised.

And you think you have any "practical or professional knowledge" about me?

Yes. I've read your blog and witnessed your droppings at my blog and several others. Are you claiming to have military service?

Do YOU have any "practical or professional knowledge" about combat? No.

Wrong again. I served several years and have a depth of understanding on this topic. Do you? Oh wait, you've been dodging that question since the start. Just disregard it again.

Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any "practical or professional knowledge" on combat?

Wrong again. Several members of Congress are decorated War Heroes. I'll do some research for you in a bit.

No. And that was the fucking point from the beginning, gordon.

Yep, mine too. You were wrong then and you're wrong now.

If you think that I shouldn't be speaking on the "practical or professional" applications of direct combat in a humble little blog,

Again, you're not paying attention at all to the thread. I told you earlier - "I never suggested you aren't free to profess. What I stated was that you don't know what you're talking about." I don't think it's possible to dumb it down for you anymore than I already have.

what the fuck makes you think that someone with the ability to spend billions of dollars and enact sexist laws (civilian or military) should be speaking and acting on it?

Sexist is your claim. Are you aware that this is what elected officials do on your behalf as your REPRESENTATIVE?

You don't put forth original thoughts or opinions on anything. You just show up and try to grab some attention for yourself.

Opposed to your own MoveOn.org talking points? As for the attention, your blog is hardly the venue for that.

Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any "practical or professional knowledge" on combat?

Veterans in the United States Senate
"#" in front of the name indicates a combat veteran.

#Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI) U.S. Army 1945-47

Robert Bennett (R-UT) National Guard 1957-61

Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Army Reserves 1968-74

Conrad Burns (R-MT) USMC 1955-57

#Thomas Carper (D-DEL) U.S. Navy 1968-1973
Navy Reserve 1973-1991

Thad Cochran (R-MS) U.S. Navy 1959-61

Jon Corzine (D-NJ) USMCR 1969-1975

Larry Craig (R-ID) National Guard 1970-72

Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) Army Reserve 1969-75

Michael Enzi (R-WY) Air National Guard 1967-73

Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

#Chuck Hagel (R-NE) U.S. Army 1967-68

Tom Harkins (D-IA) U.S. Navy 1962-67
Navy Reserve 1968-74

James M. Inhofe (R-OK) U.S. Army 1954-56

#Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Medal Of Honor
U.S. Army 1943-47

Johnny Isakson (R-GA) National Guard 1966-1972

Jim Jeffords (I-VT) U.S. Navy 1956-59
Navy Reserve 1959-1990

Tim Johnson (D-SD) U.S. Army 1969-

Edward Kennedy (D-MA) U.S. Army 1951-53

#John Robert Kerry (D-MA) U.S. Navy 1966-1970

Herb Kohl (D-WI) Army Reserve 1958-64

Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ) U.S. Army 1942-46

Richard Lugar (R-IN) U.S. Navy 1957-60

#John R. McCain (R-AZ) U.S. Navy 1958-81
*POW Vietnam 1967-73

Frank Murkowski (R-AK)US Coast Guard 1955-57

Bill Nelson (D-FL) U.S. Army 1968-1970

Pat Roberts (R-KS) U.S. Marine Corps (1958-62)

Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Army Reserves 1973-86

Arlen Specter (R-PA) U.S. Air Force 1951-53

#Ted Stevens (R-AK) Army Air Corps 1943-46

Craig Thomas (R-WY) U.S. Marine Corps 1955-59

#John R. Warner (R-VA) U.S. Navy 1945-46
Marine Corps 1950-53 Marine Corps Reserves 52-64

Zell Miller (D-GA) Marine Corps 1953-1956

Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any "practical or professional knowledge" on combat?

Veterans in the United States Senate
"#" in front of the name indicates a combat veteran.

#Joe Baca (D-42 CA) U.S. Army 1966-1968

Spencer Bachus (R-06 AL) National Guard 1969-1971

Michael Bilirakis (R-09 FL) U.S. Air Force 1951-1953

Sanford D. Bishop (D-02 GA) U.S. Army 1971

Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-24 NY) U.S. Army 1956-1958

John Boehner (R-08 OH) U.S. Navy 1968

#Leonard L. Boswell (D-03 IA) U.S. Army 1956-1976

#Allen Boyd, Jr. (D-02 FL) U.S. Army 1969-1971

Dan Burton (R-05 IN) U.S. Army 1957-1958 Army Reserves 1958-1962

Stephen E. Buyer (R-04 IN) U.S. Army 1984-1987, 1990, Army Reserve 1980-1984, 1987-Present

Howard Coble (R-06 NC) Coast Guard 1952-1956, 1977-1978
Coast Guard Reserve 1960-1982

Mike Conway (R-11 TX) U.S. Army 1970-1972

John Conyers (D-14 MI) National Guard 1948-1950 U.S. Army 1950-1954
Army Reserve 1954-1957

Robert E. Cramer, Jr. (D-05 AL) U.S. Army 1972
Army Reserves 1976-1978

#Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-51 CA) U.S. Navy 1966-1987

Geoff Davis (R-04 KY) U.S. Army 1976-1987

Thomas M. Davis (R-11 VA) U.S. Army 1971-1972 Army Reserves 1972-1979

Nathan Deal (R-09 GA) U.S. Army 1966-1968

Peter A. DeFazio (D-04 OR) U.S. Air Force 1967-1971

William D. Delahunt (D-10 MA) Coast Guard Reserve 1963-1971

John D. Dingell (D-16 MI) U.S. Army 1945-1946

John F. Duncan, Jr. (R-02 TN) Army Reserve 1970-1987

Bob Etheridge (D-02 NC) U.S. Army 1965-1967

Lane Evans (D-17 IL) U.S. Marines 1969-1971

Terry Everett (R-02 AL) U.S. Air Force 1955-1959

Ernest L. Fletcher (R-06 KY) U.S. Air Force 1974-1980

#Rodney P. Frelinghuysen (R-11 NJ) U.S. Army 1969-1971

Jim Gibbons (R-02 NV) U.S. Air Force 1967-1971 National Guard 1975-1996
Active Duty 1990-91

#Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-01 MD) U.S. Marines 1964-1968

Paul Gillmor (R-05 OH) U.S. Air Force 1965-1966

Louie Gohmert (R-01 TX) U.S. Army 1977-1982

Charles A. Gonzales (D-20 TX) National Guard 1969-1975

Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (R-05 VA) National Guard 1969-1975

Bart Gordon (D-6 TN) US Army Reserve 1971-72

Ralph M. Hall (R-04 TX) U.S. Navy 1942-1945

Doc Hastings (R-04 WA) Army Reserves 1964-1969

David L. Hobson (R-07 OH) National Guard 1958-1963

#Duncan Hunter (R-52 CA) U.S. Army 1969-1971

Henry Hyde (R-06 IL) U.S. Navy 1942-1946 Navy Reserves 1946-1948

William J. Jefferson (D-02 LA) U.S. Army 1969-1972 Army Reserve 1975

William L. Jenkins (R-01 TN) National Guard 1970-1987

#Sam Johnson (R-03 TX) U.S. Air Force 1951-1979

Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-03 NC) National Guard 1967-1971

Paul E. Kanjorski (D-11 PA) U.S. Army 1960-1961

Peter King (R-03 NY) National Guard 1968-1973

#John Kline (R-02 MN) USMC 1969-1974

Jim Kolbe (R-05 AZ) U.S. Navy 1965-1969 Navy Reserves 1970-1977

Ron Lewis (R-02 KY) U.S. Navy 1973

John Linder (R-7 GA)US Air Force 1967-69

Edward J. Markey (D-07 MA) Army Reserves 1968-1973

#James Marshall (D-3 GA) U.S. Army 1968-1970

Jim McDermott (D-07 WA) U.S. Navy 1968-1970

Alan Mollohan (D-01 WV) U.S. Army 1970 Army Reserves 1970-1983

Dennis Moore (D-03 KS) U.S. Army 1970 Army Reserves 1970-1972

#John Murtha (D-12 PA) U.S. Marines 1952-1955, 1966-1967
Marines Reserve 1967-1990

#Charlie Norwood (R-9 GA) U.S. Army 1967-1969

Soloman P. Ortiz (D-27 TX) U.S. Army 1960-1962

Thomas Osborne (R-3 NE) National Guard 1960-1966

C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-1 ID) Army National Guard 1968-1973

William Pascrell, Jr. (D-08 NJ) U.S. Army 1961 Army Reserves 1962-1967

Ron Paul (R-14 TX) U.S. Air Force 1963-1965 National Guard 1965-1968

Collin C. Peterson (D-07 MN) National Guard 1963-1969

John E. Peterson (R-05 PA) U.S. Army 1957 Army Reserves 1958-1963

#Joseph R. Pitts (R-16 PA) U.S. Air Force 1963-1969

Ted Poe (R-2 TX)Air Force Reserve 1970-1976

Jim Ramstad (R-03 MN) Army Reserves 1968-1974

#Charles B. Rangel (D-15 NY) U.S. Army 1948-1952

Ralph Regula (R-16 OH) U.S. Navy 1944-1946

#Silvestre Reyes (D-16 TX) U.S. Army 1966-1968

Harold Rogers (R-05 KY) National Guard 1957-1964

Mike Rogers (R-8 MI)US Army 1985-89

Bobby Rush (D-01 IL) U.S. Army 1963-1968

John Salazar (D-03 CO)U.S. Army 1973-1976

John "Joe" Schwarz (R-7 MI) U.S. Navy 1965-1967

Robert C. Scott (D-03 VA) Army Reserves 1970-1974 National Guard 1974-1976

Jose E. Serrano (D-16 NY) U.S. Army 1964-1966

Donald R. Sherwood (R-10 PA) U.S. Army 1964-1966

John Shimkus (R-19 IL) U.S. Army 1980-1984 Army Reserves 1987-Present

#Vic Snyder (D-02 AR) U.S. Marines 1967-1969

Mike Sodrel (R-09 IN) National Guard 1966-1973

John M. Spratt, Jr. (D-05 SC) U.S. Army 1969-1971

Fortney P. Stark (D-13 CA) U.S. Air Force 1955-1957

Cliff Stearns (R-06 FL) U.S. Air Force 1963-1967

John S. Tanner (D-08 TN) U.S. Navy 1968-1972 National Guard 1974-2000

Gene Taylor (D-05 MS) Coast Guard Reserve 1971-1984

#Mike Thompson (D-01 CA) U.S. Army 1968-1969

Edolphus Towns (D-10 NY) U.S. Army 1956-1958

Dave Weldon (R-15 FL) U.S. Army 1981-1987 Army Reserves 1987-1992

Ed Whitfield (R-01 KY) Army Reserve 1967-1970

Roger F. Wicker (R-01 MS) U.S. Air Force 1976-1980 Air Force Reserve 1980-Present

Heather A. Wilson (R-01 NM) U.S. Air Force 1978-1989 *Only woman veteran in Congress.

Joe Wilson (R-2 SC) US Army Reserve 1972-75

Frank R. Wolf (R-10 VA) U.S. Army 1962-1963 Army Reserves 1963-1967

C.W. Bill Young (R-10 FL) National Guard 1948-1957

Don Young (R-All AK) U.S. Army 1955-1957

and which of those are participating on this legislation?

and which people decided that it would be wrong to allow blacks to serve with whites because of 'disruption' and were dead-wrong about that?

and which of those people are studied in psychology and sociology and have at their hands references to back up their assertions?

oh, wait...now we're at the core of it: you only assert and never have anything to back up your assertions, other than to claim that they're true thru repetition. No, wait, you don't even do that.

Are YOU, GORDON, qualified to decide that the female anatomy ACROSS-THE-BOARD is incompatible with direct-combat?

If so, show me your qualifications and show me the studies.

from that article, because clearly you have no interest in actually following up on the things you claim:

"Many Americans feel that women in combat or combat support positions is not a bridge we want to cross at this point," said Rep. John McHugh, R-New York, who sponsored the amendment.

and that's as good as it gets for defending the reasons why they want to ban women.

Wow. I have to admit, schoolings as harsh as this one are few and very, very far between.

GoB, I believe you have been handed your own arse on a silver platter. The best, safest, and generally sanest course of action would be to retire from the field when you are only a few million points behind, instead of working your way into the billions.

Although, I do have to admit, I have never seen a finer display of stereotypical, idiotic blame-deflection as I have just read from GoB... The issue was never about your commenters, it was about you. But, evidently, that thought is beyond your ken...

Hello God of Biscuits! Perhaps in your highschool days (back when it was still ok to live at home with your mother) you did some basic biology. You might have learnt then that Men and Women are different.

Also, I think if a Roman Catholic school holds Roman Catholic values it is a good thing.

You mean schooling that teaches you when the appearance of evidence is good enough such that you don't have to provide relevant evidence?

The one where questions that are too troublesome to one's repetitious baseless assertion are ignored in favor of pathetic attempts to sound 'street'?

That kind of schooling?

Have the Dog's Knot crew become bored again and started to send their dittoheads this way again?

DaveJ: good thing the RCs weren't around yet when Mary got herself knocked up by someone other than her husband, eh? But then again, she was only 13 or 14 at the time, so what could she know about how to take care of herself?

You mean schooling that teaches you when the appearance of evidence is good enough such that you don't have to provide relevant evidence?

HAHAHAHAHA! GLOB has "secret" evidence.

Wait....I feel it coming again....

Glob: "Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any "practical or professional knowledge" on combat?

No. And that was the fucking point from the beginning, gordon. "

Geoffrey: "Ooops. GLOB tells more half-truths. Duncan Hunter, who added the provision, served in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne and the 75th Army Rangers."

It's funny to see the King of Lies totally abandon his failed argument.

Class Dismissed.

Hey, GLOB, do you even know what the hell you're talking about? I'm guessing you flunked out of debate class in high school.

Man, the only people who are making any sense in this are Gordon, Geoff and anyone else posting in this thread who is not you. I know I had a barrel of laughs reading some of their postings.

Simply put - suck it up, princess, and just admit you're just shooting heavy amounts of verbal diarrhea. This is 2005, not 1955, and you know women have come a long way in male dominated professions. Hell, "Survivor" has even had female sole survivors in the past. Put that in your pipe and smoke that! :P

Geoff, it's really really bothering you that you don't have any control here.

Bored at the Dog's Knot to the point that you have to start linking here again?

Keep adding bullshit here all you want. Ooooh, now you say I have 'secret evidence'?

Keep adding bullshit, Geoff. I'm enjoying this.

I never claimed you SAID you were sexist, Geoff, just that clearly if you're so opposed to my opposition to the bill, you must agree with it.

Do you agree with the bill or not?

Nice how you (and now the Beave, too!) obviously don't know what context is.

I'mm still waiting to hear why YOU trotted out Duncan Hunter as having professional or practical knowledge in combat that would apply to the provision he added.

Gordon, I invite you to go back and count the number of times Geoff clipped the same out-of-context piece of text that I wrote, the number of times he said "you've been schooled!' and "class dismissed!".

i DID do research. John McHugh, the bill's SPONSOR, didn't serve. Nor did he offer any authority or expertise as to why he would categorically ban women. the first and only thing he offered was that american's weren't ready for it.

Now. Duncan Hunter. clearly he researched the issue well, and based on studies that clearly demonstrated that women were ill-fit for direct combat?

I'm laughing at you Gordon, insisting on someone else doing research. When do you do any?

just that clearly if you\'re so opposed to my opposition to the bill, you must agree with it.

Oops. I\'m sorry. Where did say that? Ahhh. I didn\'t. Another lie from GLOB. They\'re coming fast and furious now!

out-of-context piece of text that I wrote

Out of context? HA! I quoted you directly. You lied. You got caught. You\'ve spent Lord knows how many comments trying to weasel out of it.

I\'m laughing at you Gordon, insisting on someone else doing research. When do you do any?

He did enough to prove you\'re a liar. They keep coming.

A combat veteran feels that through his experience women don\'t belong in combat. You, with zero experience and citing zero reasons for your beliefs, disagree.

Class Dismissed, Liar!

Acutally, thanks for taking things OUT OF CONTEXT again. What I actually said was:

I never claimed you SAID you were sexist, Geoff, just that clearly if you're so opposed to my opposition to the bill, you must agree with it.

Quite different.

So you clip out the part where I said I'm not accusing you, just so you can turn around and say I'm accusing you of something.

Not a lie, but how close are you willing to get to one?

You're a crazy cracker, Geoff.

Quite different.

Not different in the least. I never said I was opposed to the bill. I never said anything to leave that impression. My entire argument in this thread has been that you lied, and the points you lied about. I pointed them out and gave factual evidence of your lies. Since then, all you\'ve been doing is spinning, trying to shore up your leaks, and attempting to shift the focus from your lies to anything else you can grasp at. Unsuccessfully, of course, since you use more lies.

Gordon schooled you. You lied in your defense. I caught you.

Class Dismissed, Liar!

slooowly steppping awaaaaay from the craaaaaazy.....

slooowly steppping awaaaaay from the craaaaaazy..

Of course you are. Your lies have backed you into a corner. You\'ve been completely and accurately exposed and schooled.

Class Dismissed!

Why did you remove that first part of the sentence I wrote when you quoted me?

Oh, wait, because that's one of those grade-school tacks you use when you throw your little "you don't dare disagree with me!" tantrums.

Why didn't you include that part, Geoff?

Why did you remove that first part of the sentence I wrote when you quoted me?

Oh, wait, because that\'s one of those grade-school tacks you use when you throw your little \"you don\'t dare disagree with me!\" tantrums.

Why didn\'t you include that part, Geoff?

I apologize. I thought you could keep up. I will now begin quoting your entire comment to remove any further confusion for you.

You lied. You got caught. I provided your remedial education. I\'ll continue helping you until you get it. Now, since you\'ve attempted to shift focus again, I\'ll put us back on track.

Where have I indicated that I was \"opposed to your opposition?

If you \"explicitly\" stated that the Congressmen who created the bill have no practical or professional knowledge of combat, and I prove you lied, where do you get your practical or professional knowledge that they are wrong?

Where did I state that \"very own sexist opinion that women, categorically, are unfit for direct combat\"?

Lies lies and more lies from GLOB. I want to thank you for the enjoyment, by the way. I love watching you try to weasel out of blatant lies. Granted, I enjoyed watching Gordon show you don\'t know what the fuck you\'re talking about, but this is so much better.

Class Dismissed!

Oooh, let ME try quoting me:

I never claimed you SAID you were sexist, Geoff

See? I SAID IT.

But you clipped that part out so that you could repeat yourself ad lib and ad nauseum for a few more go-arounds in ACCUSING ME OF SAYING YOU CALLED YOURSELF SEXIST.

Yeah, you're schooling me alright.

Your pasty skin is very shiny when you're caught in the headlights of an oncoming truth, Geoff.

You quoted your own wrong quote. Trying moving up the page. Here. I\'ll get the entire thing for you to avoid confusion.

GLOB: Care to offer Mr Hunter\'s qualifications? Because you\'re now using him as an authority to support your very own sexist opinion that women, categorically, are unfit for direct combat.

Ooops. Look like GLOB is caught in another lie. How many GLOB lies are we up to now? Maybe I\'ll go back and start a running count.

Class Dismissed, Liar!

[quote]Dave, are you a regular reader here?[/quote]

Not regularly, but this WAS linked at Dog Snot Diaries, and it drew MY interest. But what REALLY interested me was the half-assed comments you posted, and the little shit parade you created by flinging shit with Geoff and Gord.

And even after my two previous comments, Goddess of Biscuits, you continue to scream, cry and bitch like a schoolgirl who's mad because she missed out on Justin Timberlake/Hilary Duff/Avril Lavigne concert tickets.

I said it before and I'll say it again - suck it up, princess, and give it up. You are never going to win as long as you continue to spew out lies without backing up with concrete evidence. And I suggest you do the research yourself. We are not fact-checkers on your blogging staff.

Biscuits, stop making a fool of yourself. Your talking through your ass about something you have no clue of.

GOB,
Let's just backtrack and clear this entire matter up, shall we? It will require cooperation if you're able.

Did you or did you not claim that members of congress had no "practical or professional experience" with combat?

Geoff, it's really really bothering you that you don't have any control here.

Where did that come from? OHHHHH, another attempt to draw attention from the fact that you don't know what you're talking about?

Bored at the Dog's Knot to the point that you have to start linking here again?

Kinda. Gordon sent me a link showing how full of shit you were. As soon as I got done laughing, I figured I'd come here and straighten you out.

Ooooh, now you say I have 'secret evidence'?

No, you did. Actually, you just said you don't have to provide any "relevant evidence". Good thing you don't have to, because you sure as hell haven't. You've been schooled, though. You know it. I know it. That's all that matters.

Keep adding bullshit, Geoff. I'm enjoying this.

I hope you are. Educations are supposed to be fun. Exposing you as a liar has been fun for me. I get a kick out of re-reading this thread and seeing your blatant lies right there in black and white for anyone to see. This one's obviously my favorite, though.

Glob: "Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any "practical or professional knowledge" on combat?

No. And that was the fucking point from the beginning, gordon. "

Geoffrey: "Ooops. GLOB tells more half-truths. Duncan Hunter, who added the provision, served in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne and the 75th Army Rangers."

That's classic. An easily exposed lie.

This one may go in my forums signature, though. It's classic:

Glob: You mean schooling that teaches you when the appearance of evidence is good enough such that you don't have to provide relevant evidence?

HAHAHAHA! Class Dismissed!

What about "The issue was never about your commenters, it was about you," is so hard to understand, I wonder...

Well, Linoge, he has to find something else to talk about now that it's been made clear that he doesn't know crap about the topic he chose.

Cricket.... Cricket....

Guess I don't blame you GOB, if I were you I wouldn't want to revisit the beginning of the thread either.

Besides, you're too preoccupied posting as much as possible to bury this thread. It's not hard too tell.

I just find it amusing that this person (using that term loosely in GoB's case) keeps demanding proof about whether or not anyone else is qualified to comment on this subject, when he/she/it provides no such backing itself... In fact, when its comments are systematically disproven, it still fails to provide any logical, rational, materially-based backing for any of its arguments. Talk about backing a spineless rat into a corner... Put up or shut up. As I have always said, this debate is not about your commenters, it is about you, any backing you have for making your comments, and any "education" you have for doing the same. Sure, you can make all the quack observations you want on any topic you so desire. However, just because you make them, that does not make them inherently accurate, correct, or rational... Neither does it for anyone else. However, until you provide backing for your own statements, which chronologically predate anyone elses, I completely fail to see why anyone else should be put in the limelight.

Of course, I do not, at all, forsee you providing any backing, whatsoever, for your half-assed, half-thought, half-crazy comments... Typical attention-deflection techniques are all that I have really come to expect from you, and that solely from reading this thread. It is sorry how pathetically you handle a debate... My pet rock could school you in bucking up and answering direct questions...

No, Geoff, I never said I had secret evidence. YOU said it.

Classic tactic....litter the discourse with exaggeration, "white lies", dropped words, and—most annoying of all—crass literalism, all in an attempt to send the one who DOES care about fact, who cares about truth, who takes this whole thing quite seriously, off the main topic to track down and correct all your little stupidities along the way.

You've admitted to me in email that you don't give a flying fuck about truth, that I take blogging and the content therein far too seriously, that you treat it as entertainment and nothing more, and that Gordon is easily "managed" by dropping anything that sends him off the deepend and that eventually he'd go away.

Actually, Geoff, i'm perfectly comfortable CALLING you a sexist, but that's not what's at hand here. You accused me to stating that you'd fessed up to being a sexist.

Now that's something I'll never expect you to do.

Gordon, welcome back, Beave!

You want it summed up? Meaning you haven't read through everything I've written but you continue to comment and attempt to lambaste it nonethe less.

Here's a summary:

literal part: "practical or professional knowledge"
CONTEXTUALLY-DERIVED PART: "about women being categorically unfit for direct combat."

Now, Gordon, sum it up for me: what about Duncan Hunter and the obvious *exhaustive* research he's done or had commissioned on female's categorical inability to perform in direct combat make him professionally or practically knowledgeable enough to put up a sexist provision like he did?

And while we're at it, why did John McHugh, the SPONSOR of the bill, state only that americans weren't ready to cross that line [into allowing females to participate in direct combat[ and NOT offer any substantive evidence to support the claim materially?

Linoge: I didn't profer a bill that would discriminate against women in the military.

If i'm offering no more or no less expertise or "backing up" with respect to females' abilities at direct combat than Duncan Hunter, why would you allow a Duncan Hunter to get away with it?

Actually, if you bothered to do your homework (again), you would find that Mr. Hunter has a fair amount more expertise when it comes to the entire concept of combat than you ever will.

http://www.house.gov/hunter/bio.html

Notice the use of the words "173rd Airborne" and "75th Army Rangers", as well as the word "veteran". Methinks he has a clue. Methinks you are continuing to speak out of your now grossly-oversized ass.

Now, once again, put up or shut up. What rational, reasoning, logic, experience, or any manner of backing do you have for your own meandering, pointless, and generally contentless rationales, or are you continuing to speak out of that aforementioned orifice?

Typical GOB reply. Superflous and evasive.

I asked:

Did you or did you not claim that members of congress had no "practical or professional experience" with combat?
Posted by gordon the magnificent at 22 mei 2005 17:44

This requires simply a yes or no. Just one word. But what do I get?

You want it summed up? Meaning you haven't read through everything I've written but you continue to comment and attempt to lambaste it nonethe less.

Here's a summary:

literal part: "practical or professional knowledge"
CONTEXTUALLY-DERIVED PART: "about women being categorically unfit for direct combat."

Now, Gordon, sum it up for me: what about Duncan Hunter and the obvious *exhaustive* research he's done or had commissioned on female's categorical inability to perform in direct combat make him professionally or practically knowledgeable enough to put up a sexist provision like he did?

And while we're at it, why did John McHugh, the SPONSOR of the bill, state only that americans weren't ready to cross that line [into allowing females to participate in direct combat[ and NOT offer any substantive evidence to support the claim materially?

And that there people - is indicative of how GOB not only evades a direct question but asks you several more in the process. He dodges, spins, and opens up several new questions to sway the attention.

Let's give it one more try.

Did you or did you not claim that members of congress had no "practical or professional experience" with combat?

Yes or no.

You've admitted to me in email that you don't give a flying fuck about truth, that I take blogging and the content therein far too seriously, that you treat it as entertainment and nothing more, and that Gordon is easily "managed" by dropping anything that sends him off the deepend and that eventually he'd go away.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! The liar speaks!

...all in an attempt to send the one who DOES care about fact, who cares about truth, who takes this whole thing quite seriously, off the main topic to track down and correct all your little stupidities along the way.

You care about the truth? Then why so many lies? Why do you avoid the truth? Why do you fly off the handle, ban IPs, and completely leave any connection to the topic behind when you've been exposed as a liar? You lost the argument, so you stop attacking it and attacking the person instead. Such hatred for the truth. What truth? Let me refresh your memory again:

Glob: "Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any "practical or professional knowledge" on combat?

No. And that was the fucking point from the beginning, gordon. "

Geoffrey: "Ooops. GLOB tells more half-truths. Duncan Hunter, who added the provision, served in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne and the 75th Army Rangers."

Class Dismissed!

Hey, Goddess of Biscuits! While I understand the crass literalism (which, in my honest opinion, is well deserved) I wonder what white lies (not that there's anything wrong with that) and dropped words you're talking about.

I've read the opening statements that Gordon and Geoff have posted on Dog Snot, and they tend to be quite serious in their opinions, as can I. But not only do you not seem to think so, you also seem to go off the deep end, sweet Goddess. You are SUCH a child.

Why don't you admit you've gone a little crazy with this issue over the past two days, so you can learn to blog nicely for a change? It would be a start. And while you're at it, you may want to contact your local university to see if there are any debate courses you can take. You could very well benefit from some. Think about it.

There's that literalism again.

Do you any concept of what context is, Geoffrey?

No, I didn't' think so.

I'm still waiting for your evidence that shows that Duncan Hunter has practical and professional knowlege on combat with respect to the topic of the entry.

THAT is context, ass.

Now, care to show me how Duncan Hunter and the rest of them have specific knowledge and experience that has to do with owning the authority to decide that females are categorically unfit for direct combat?

You wouldn't make a very good scientist, journalist or even lawyer.

Not that you appear to make a very good human being in the first place.

Yeah, crazy for engaging the Dog's Knot and expecting the outcome to be any different that the ridiculous piling on of lies and misstatements.

They're good at the flushing quail tactic. Not good at reasoned argument. No interest in the truth, just in calling someone else a liar.

Then repeating the same catch-phrases over and over again in hopes of beating down any opportunity for others to notice that their tactics don't bear close examination.

White lies: that i have some kind of 'secret evidence'.
Dropped words: "relevant"

Dave, are you a regular reader here?

[anonymous commenter's remarks deleted 2005.05.24]

Slomo...who are you? Email me and tell me who you are.

If you can't do that, after all you've just said, you'll be deleted.

Nunya, if that's you, we've been through this and I told you I wouldnt' abide that kind of shit from anonymous cowards.

Do you any concept of what context is, Geoffrey?

Sure. Here's some context for you:

Glob: "Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any "practical or professional knowledge" on combat?

No. And that was the fucking point from the beginning, gordon. "

Geoffrey: "Ooops. GLOB tells more half-truths. Duncan Hunter, who added the provision, served in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne and the 75th Army Rangers."

Duncan Hunter is a combat vet. To anyone except those that spin the truth he's qualified to speak on what takes place in combat physically and psychologically. He's been there. He's seen it. He knows what's required to serve in it.

You wouldn't make a very good scientist, journalist or even lawyer.

You make a great liar, though. You specifically stated that those who created this bill have no professional or practical knowledge of combat. I didn't say that, you did. You didn't ask if they did. You didn't question what knowledge they had. You flatly stated they had no combat knowledge.

As I've shown, you flatly lied.

Class Dismissed.

Sorry, thanks for playing. Just having been there doesn't qualify you as an authority. Where's his degree? Where are his experts? Where is the objective evidence? Where are the references that might be followed up on there?

Having been there 35 years ago makes his experience that much less relevant, sociologically.

Interestingly, the only justification for the policy so far has been from John McHugh, who was NOT on your little list of veterans, who stated that the reason for it was that Americans (civilians) aren't ready to go there (i.e., have women in direct-combat) yet. One would think that if there were better reasons than "Americans don't want to see their ladies get down with the violence", they would have said so, no?

I seem to recall at some point that Americans weren't quite ready yet for mixed-race combat units, either. And I'm sure it was American vets and the American people who ponied up their 'expertise' to make those statements.

Just having been there doesn't qualify you as an authority. Where's his degree? Where are his experts? Where is the objective evidence? Where are the references that might be followed up on there?

You never said "authority". Your exact words were, and I'll quote you again: "practical or professional knowledge" He has both. You lied. You got caught.

GLOB lies 101:

Glob: "Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any "practical or professional knowledge" on combat?

No. And that was the fucking point from the beginning, gordon. "

Geoffrey: "Ooops. GLOB tells more half-truths. Duncan Hunter, who added the provision, served in Vietnam with the 173rd Airborne and the 75th Army Rangers."

Class Dismissed!

GIB - what is your email address and I will gladly email you. I do not know who or what a 'nunya' us, but I assure I am not her.

sure, gordon.

ask a flawed question that ignores the meat of the issue, then demand an overly simplistic answer?

yeah, you're good.

I don' think that Hunter's service in the militiary qualifies him for foisting this kind of bill on women. I'm sure that if he had further qualifications, he would have provided those qualifications as a basis for this provision.

Now, Yes or No: You have continued to ignore the context of the entry and the ensuing gangfuck you and your ilk have perpetrated here?

YES OR NO, Gordon.

See? aren't loaded questions and the demand for meaningless answers a hoot?

yes or no, gordon.

Now, do you agree that regardless of individual strengths and abilities that women as a category are unfit for direct combat?

Yes or no.

I *DO* however know who and what gord and geoffrey are. I used to have a blog a couple of years ago and they harrased me to the point where I took my blog down because of it.

"Class dismissed!"

You dont' take any of this seriously, Geoff. I'm sure you're having a grand laugh that I do take it seriously.

Context, Geoffrey. Because I didn't explicitly state a thing every time I commented on it, because I assumed that a comment on an entry was enough context even for a thuddingly literalist person like you, you pervert your entire argument into lies.

and then you pile on more lies like stating I banned you as a response to your comments on this entry. Another lie.

Care to offer Mr Hunter's qualifications? Because you're now using him as an authority to support your very own sexist opinion that women, categorically, are unfit for direct combat.

Care to offer YOUR reasons why all women should be banned from this activity without even being permitted to attempt to qualify?

Care to offer anything more than your contrarian, soulless, mindless, thoughtless tearing-down?

What blog?

Oooh, let me try at being Geoffrey instead of Jeffrey: "Geoff, anonymous-coward SCHOOLED you! You been schooled! Class dismissed!"

Nope, still not seeing the fun in it.

Slomo, whoever you are....my email address is available anywhere on here. blog@godofbiscuits.com

I didn\'t explicitly state a thing every time I commented on it,

Liar. You specifically said: \"practical or professional knowledge\". That\'s pretty explicit.

Because you\'re now using him as an authority to support your very own sexist opinion that women, categorically, are unfit for direct combat.

I am? Where did I say that? Oh wait. I didn\'t. Another GLOB lie.

contrarian, soulless, mindless, thoughtless tearing-down?

I\'m quite content tearing down your lies. You keep piling them up, though, as I again gave evidence. Funny, for all your crying, you\'ve yet to provide any evidence to support your claim. Oh wait. You said you didn\'t have to.

My point is that you're NOT saying anything.

Liar. You specifically said: \"practical or professional knowledge\". That\'s pretty explicit

literal part: "practical or professional knowledge"
CONTEXTUALLY-DERIVED PART: "about women being categorically unfit for direct combat."

Let's go back to the Electric Company, circa 1975, and put those two things together: "practical or professional knowledge...about women being categorically unfit for direct combat".

See how that works, literalist dunderhead?

Now that you see what meaning context can provide, care to offer up Mr Hunter's qualifications?

Keep dodging, Geoff. Keep trying to distract. It all comes down to you playing the spoiler and having no talent in creating anything on your own.

literal part: \"practical or professional knowledge\"
CONTEXTUALLY-DERIVED PART: \"about women being categorically unfit for direct combat.\"

Ooops. Another lie. Let me finish your quote to help you out: \"practical or professional knowledge\" on combat?

You lie with such frequency you can\'t even keep up with them.

\"practical or professional knowledge...about women being categorically unfit for direct combat\".

See how that works, literalist dunderhead?

Yep. That works great. Only you said: \"practical or professional knowledge\"... on combat? Ooops. Caught in your own lies.

Keep dodging, Geoff. Keep trying to distract. It all comes down to you playing the spoiler and having no talent in creating anything on your own.

I created an excellent thread exposing your lies. Speaking of which, you haven\'t offered up the comment where I said: your very own sexist opinion that women, categorically, are unfit for direct combat.

Why? Because you can\'t. It\'s yet another GLOB lie in this growing list of GLOB lies.

GOB,
I left this thread two days ago and return to hear you repeating the same talking points and demanding answers to the same questions that are irrelative to what we are discussing.

And you have the gual to accuse Geoff of being repetitious? You're a broken record.

Not only are you repetitious, but you're lazy. You demand that others do your research for you. Two days ago I accommodated you twice since I knew that it wasn't just laziness, but aversion to the truth.

You proclaimed that the Congressman had no "practical or professional knowledge" on combat?

I said they did.

You said prove it.

I did.

I took the time to do your research for you and proved that you were, in fact, wrong.

I even provided the extensive list of the Congressman with "practical or professional knowledge" of combat for you to peruse.

You got upset and called into doubt whether it was an updated list. So, again, I took the time to do the research on each and every name on those lists. Turns out all but eight, including Zed Miller, were still Congress members.

Now you demand educational checks, qualifications, etc etc.

Well, let's think about this. If you are calling all this into doubt, then why don't YOU do some research.

But you won't. You're lazy and repetitious.

I don' think that Hunter's service in the militiary qualifies him for foisting this kind of bill on women.

*blinks*

*blinks again*

Well, then, ladies and gentlemen, I think that answers are questions as to just how retarded GoB really is. Here he is, without a whit of experience in the matter in which he is speaking, making sweeping comments over topics about which he has no clue, and then he pulls this stunt. Sure, Mr. Hunter's previous service in the military makes no difference whatsoever, but only because you say it makes no difference.

*blinks*

Can you really be that stupid? I mean, really? Please tell me people are not let out of the school system with this weak a grasp of "evidence" and "research"....

You accused me to stating that you'd fessed up to being a sexist.

I did? Could you point out where I did that?

Lies, dodges, and re-directs. That's about all you get from GLOB. I must admit, it's fun to pop over from time to time and point out what a fraud he is.

Wait, so since I have experience in attending school, I must be qualified to design the curricula for all schools?

That's your logic, Geoff & Linoge? Really?

It's my OPINION that direct-combat alone does NOT QUALIFY SOMEONE TO MAKE SEXIST POLICY DECISIONS.

Did Mr Hunter offer any evidence to support his claim? Any authority? Any data?

Or was the only thing said about this bill—said by John McHugh, NOT on your little list—that americans weren't ready for it.

Just like americans weren't ready, at one point, for "Negros' to drink from the same fountains as white people?

Chumley, that's not chivalrous...it's sexist because you're a priori deciding that women are less.

Connie, there are plenty of men who could not drag a 300lb man. There are also plenty of women who COULD drag a 300lb man. Why categorize ALL women that way?

Geoffrey, when do you actually ever have respect for any truth or fact? you've told me yourself that you don't really give a flying fuck about doing anything except bread & circuses.

Okay, first of all, I am not a ditto-head. Let's get that out of the way.

Second, I came here hoping GoB would have some rational argument to support his tirade, only to be dissapointed.

Third, it is obvious that the "powers that be" have taken this issue and gone to the people through polls and the ELECTED officials of this country. I agree with them - I don't think the people of this country are really ready to send their daughters home in body bags. Remember Jessica Lynch? They idolized her service because she was a woman. I don't see that happening to the over 1,000 men who have died already in this war - or the thousands of others wounded like Jessica.

Do I think we, women are less capable? Depends on the type of duty. I can't pull a 300lb man back to base after he's been wounded in gunfire. But you're damn skippy I can shoot. It all depends on the type of service.

Frankly, I don't understand your comments. We already have women who are serving in Iraq. My friend Scott, stationed in Northern Iraq, has 3 women in his unit, which has luckily survived two bombings. If someone in the House wants to Ban Women in War Zones, it is probably because of his constituents back home. Again, the US hasn't really been ready to deal with the death of women in combat.

It's not because of some grand conspiracy to downgrade women's status in the Military. Ma and Pa Smith don't want their daughter splattered across the desert. If you feel differently, let your Congress-person know, let your Representative know, and get involved.

If you judged the workings of Congress on the level of the types of bills presented, they would be considered hypocrits, tax dodgers, animal haters and all types of bigots.

What MATTERS, however, is the bills that pass, and end up being signed by the President - not the bills that make it to the floor. I think you would be seriously remiss not to consider all the ludicrous bills that were tossed either while in committee or after being presented. It's the way the Congress works. maybe you should read up on it.

My sister spent 13 months in Balad, Iraq. They were shelled and shot at daily. Her entire showerstall was blown up around her. thankfully she wasn't severely hurt. This whole issue seems to be a moot point, although admittedly I haven't read the entire War and Peace post, because as long as women are allowed to be pilots in war zones the risk of capture/rape exists. I don't believe the bill prevents women from piloting in war zones. Personally, I don't think we should have women fighting, but that's just the Chivalrous knight that I am.

Geoffrey, when do you actually ever have respect for any truth or fact? you\'ve told me yourself that you don\'t really give a flying fuck about doing anything except bread & circuses.

Ooops. Derail. Sidetrack. Dodge. Lie.

You lied repeatedly. You got caught. Now you try to shift the focus. You\'ve been exposed for the lying fraud you are. I\'m laughing my ass off at you, mostly because you KNOW it\'s true.

And of course, still no evidence from anyone citing that morale or anything else would suffer substantively (if at all) if women were permitted direct-combat.

The only evidence presented in this thread only proves you\'re a lying fraud.

Class Dismissed!

So you're admitting you don't give a flying fuck about truth or respect?

I haven't lied about shit. i've just listened over and over to you accusing me of lying. I've left every message of yours intact, I've followed up on anonymous messages that disparaged you and Gordon and will delete them if I don't hear back from the author. I've not altered your comments like you did to mine on your site.

The fact remains that I give you far more respect than you would ever give to someone who disagrees with your silly masculinist cartoonery.

You accused me of banning your IPs in response here, which I did not. You're the liar on that score.

It stands as fact that not the introducer nor the sponsor of the legisation in the context of this entry has offered any objective support for his position, nor has offered any evidence to show that either is an expert on the sociological impact of women in direct combat.

Can you provide any of that evidence, Geoff?

Do you support the bill?

I haven\'t lied about shit

Really? Let\'s take a trip down memory lane...

Glob: You accused me to stating that you\'d fessed up to being a sexist.

Lie.

Glob: Care to offer Mr Hunter\\\'s qualifications? Because you\\\'re now using him as an authority to support your very own sexist opinion that women, categorically, are unfit for direct combat.

Lie.

Glob: clearly if you\\\'re so opposed to my opposition to the bill,

Lie.

Glob: I didn\\\'t explicitly state a thing every time I commented on it,

Lie.

Glob: Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any \"practical or professional knowledge\" on combat?

No. And that was the fucking point from the beginning, gordon. \"

Lie.

Glob: you\'d find out that NO military personnel were asked about women in direct combat,

Lie.

Glob: Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any \"practical or professional knowledge\" on combat? No.

Lie.

And the hits keep coming. You\'re a liar.

Class Dismissed!

HA! And you banned again. Getting schooled must really embarrass you. What a fraud.

Comment Submission Error

Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:

You are not allowed to post comments.

If you have a TypeKey identity, you can sign in to use it here.

Please. Your keeping comments intact is some measure of moral high ground? Try listening and acting with humility. That will score many more points in terms of moral viability on your part.

Funny, but there were people posting nasty things about you, Geoff, and I assumed they were coming from the anonymizers out there.

So i banned www.unipeak.com from being able to post here.

Saaaaaay, that wasn't YOU, was it? Visiting my site from anonymizers? Coward.

Now WHY would you do that?

hoody, you mean I should learn a lesson in listening and humility from Geoff and Gordon?

Keeping my comments intact is more that YOU do, hoody, it's more than Geoff does.

or are you saying that intentionally misrepresenting someone is ok in your book as long as the people doing it agree with you?

Now, Geoff: saying i assumed you supported the bill isn't a lie. It's an opinion. One which you have YET to correct. If your'e calling me a liar about that, should I assume that you don't believe the bill is a good one?

And about one of Geoff's lies:

banned IP list.

So, Geoff, which of those IP addresses are yours? and just to help you out, this entry was posted on May 19, 2005. Be sure to verify the dates!

You can apologize any time.

There you go, acting like a little child again. Well, a child who knows big words, actually.

You continue to prove one thing on here, Goddess -- that arguing on the Internet is just like running a race in the Special Olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded.

Says Mr Dave Lightfoot with the name-calling.

I guess you'd know from acting like a child, or rather, acting like schoolyard bullies, what with landing here on the coat-tails (probably more like a cape) of the Dog's Knot boys.

You *can* just leave. I did exactly that with the Dog's Knot boys when I realized that they have no respect for discourse, nor for other people, nor for the truth, nor for decency.

and of course, Dave Lightfoot, you had no comment on the notion that there are women who are more physically capable than some men, yet are categorically denied access to direct combat should they so want it.

And of course, still no evidence from anyone citing that morale or anything else would suffer substantively (if at all) if women were permitted direct-combat.

Now WHY would you do that?

Because you're a nutcase. Every time I post anywhere online, I use a proxy. Keep justifying your bans, though. I get a kick out of it.

One which you have YET to correct.

I've posted a list of your lies. It wasn't that hard. You're a habitual liar.

You lied. I exposed you.

Class Dismissed, Fraud!

Keep banning IPs, coward. I have an endless supply.

Class Dismissed!

Yeah, men who need guns to feel manly, gordon. I know at least one of those.

And Geoff? You're insane. You could simply stay away, as I stay away from the Dog's Knot--except when there's suddenly a half-dozen references from you and then I go to check out what your latest lame-ass photoshopping is all about.

You exposed nothing but your own childishness: "I'll keep coming by by hiding...waaaah. I'll keep saying 'class dismissed' when i'm learning impaired...waaah...I'll keep calling you a liar even though i keep making shit up..waaah."

Yeah, that's all you, Geoff.

I quoted a list of GLOB lies. Your words. Your lies. Gordon schooled you, I exposed you as a lying fraud. So much for your high moral horse. You're a dishonest whiner.

Class Dismissed!

You're such an idiot GOB. I'm not sexist. How in the fuck am I saying women are 'less'? Coming from a gay man I think that's rather ironic don't u? And if u looked outside of your very small world of poor GOB and your dear gay friends you'd see that the Israelis have women at all levels of their arrmed forces and can kick some serious ass. This is out of necessity as they don't have the population of men to fill those roles. Now sending women into combat doesn't make sense from a societal standpoint as you end up with a "China Syndrome". A disproprotionate amount of men to women. I know that is your Mecca, but to straight men it's rather disconcerting.

Wanting to "protect" womenfolk from the hasher realities of the world implies that menfolk are better suited and that women are more delicate and less able.

I've known some pretty able women in my day, and some pretty effete men.

Why must you be categorical against humans with uteruses?

Societal "China Syndrome"? What are you talking about? The world's going to melt down because women are dying in combat alongside of men?

I have to agree with Connie's statements above...
How many men returning home from Iraq have signed book deals and movie rights for their personal story in Iraq? And if you want to talk about discrimination, what about that American Indian girl who was in Jessica's convoy that WAS killed? The news barely even picked her story up. The only reason I found out about it was because a tribute to her went around AF email. If that's not enough, what about the African American girl Shoshanna Johnson? She was held hostage in Iraq as well.

I'm currently serving in the AF and I've seen some pretty tough women. However, the norm is that men are typically physically stronger than women. That's not an 'insult' or a put down to women. It's a fact of life. I weight lifted with a male friend of mine and it would make me nervous when I had to spot his bench press of 275lbs. I'm not a sissy but I wouldn't be able to lift that kind of weight.

I agree that it's not a 'weakness' for men in combat to look after women, just as it's not weak for them to pull their male buddies out of harm way. I just believe (and no I don't have any kind of special degree) that combat is a stressful enough environment. Why bring women, which would eventually include sexual tension, into that already complicated situation? Before you laugh that off, plenty of girls are shipped back from deployed places because they wind up pregnant. So much so that I was joking with one lab technician how there should be mandatory depro-provera shots given out to women before they head out. The logistical cost involved, not to mention disruption in operations, due to having to constantly take pregnant women out of the field is ridiculous.

I'm not trying to be rude but you definitely didn't have me convinced for your side of the argument, and you're supposedly fighting for 'my' side.

"I've known some.... some pretty effete men."

I don't doubt that!

Trisa, then why not decide it on an individual basis instead of decide that NO MATTER WHAT, people with uteruses cannot do a thing?

I've never disputed the requirement for being physically able. But as I also pointed out, some women are physically more capable than some men.

But as I also pointed out, some women are physically more capable than some men.

You're a lying fraud. Most people have stopped paying attention to what you've "pointed out".

Because usually, rules are based on the norm. Is that a fail proof strategy? No. Obviously there have been mistakes on what society deems 'normal' in the past.

Let's look at that point in context and in relation to your racism argument. People didn't want to keep blacks out of the military because blacks were physically 'inferior' to whites. The segregation mentality came from the overall racism that is in our ugly history. This day and age, statistically, women are physically less abled (a.k.a. less qualified) than men to perform well in combat situations. Again, not every woman but for the most part they are. In order to save a lot of grief, the government and military wants to KISS (keep it simple stupid) this situation and leave things as they are.

However, case by case strategies would still not alleviate the other problems involved with women in combat situations.

As I said, sexual tension (it WILL happen when you're in the field for months at a time), mens protectiveness over women (whether or not you want to blame society you can't argue that it doesn't exist), pregnancy issues, periods, etc. Women in combat won't be immune from these problems. Although, I'm not implying blame would lie solely with them on the pregnancy issue. However, I know some days of the month I'm in so much pain I just want to curl up in a ball and not move. As a team leader in a deadly environment would you be willing to take that risk on? You might try and fight that saying that men get hurt all the time... And you're right they get hurt. BUT, if you can avoid certain pitfalls altogether, why willing take on extra, unnecessary risks?

Of course you've stopped paying attention to it, because it's all about Geoff in Geoffworld, blathering on Geoff-truths and condemning all dissenters.

Trisa pulls the commenting conversation back on topic, and the first thing you do is try to pull the universe back to Geoff.

Statistically, yes, women are physically less capable than men. So? That doesn't keep women from being beat cops or firefighters.

Set a physical standard for it besides "you must have a penis", and I wouldn't have any complaints about it whatsoever.

If you have studies that show that women are wholly disruptive to combat troops, i'd like to see it.

Trisa pulls the commenting conversation back on topic, and the first thing you do is try to pull the universe back to Geoff.

No, I pull it back to the universe of "argue with GLOB all you'd like, just keep in mind he lies". That's a universe very relevant to this discussion, since a great portion of what you post is untrue.

You're a liar and a fraud.

My opinions don't agree with yours, you are categorically incapable of understanding anything above literalist interpretation, and you're repeating yourself over and over and over again, while not addressing your outright lies.

Maybe I should just take your own advice about how to manage Gordon. I'm sure that advice will work on you as well.

The last time I checked the physical standard wasn't "you must have a penis." Look up Army Ranger or Navy SEAL regulations and check out the qualifications. They are TOUGH. Physically, men far surpass women in that regard most of the time.

Taken from Navy SEALs.com:

Physical standards in order to pass training.

Obstacle course 10 min, 4 mile timed run (in boots) 30 min, 14 mile run Completion,2 mile ocean swim with fins 75 min

Taken from Department of Defense Physical: Standards Ranger PFT

Minimum Scores

Pushups in 2:00: 49, Situps in 2:00: 59, Pullups: 6, 2 Mile run: 15:12, 5 Mile run: 40:00, 16 mile hike w / 65lb pack: 5 hours 20 min

Recommended scores

Pushups in 2:00: 80+, Situps in 2:00: 80+, Pullups: 12, 2 Mile run: Sub 13:00, 5 Mile run: 35, 16 mile hike w / 65lb pack: 4-5 hours

Those are some pretty tough standards. I would imagine that more females would be able to pass the minimum scores for the Rangers than for the SEALs. But nonetheless, most women still wouldn't be able to keep up with the men. Even when I was in tip-top shape, the fastest I ran the 1.5 miles for my physical fitness test was 11:30 (and I'm a runner). I'm sure there are women who could beat that score though... just not many.

Since that standard applies to most people, it makes sense that it is a rule. It's not to keep the 'uteruses' out of an old fashioned military.

I'm off work for the weekend but this is something that's interesting to me so I'll be checking back next week.

while not addressing your outright lies.

What outright lies would those be? Post a couple. I've already proven you're a liar.

Geoff: . You got caught. You then threw a hissy and started banning IPs. No worries, though. I have plenty.

when asked about YOUR combat experience: Mine's posted numerous times on my blog. You've seen it. You spend almost as much time there as I do

Prove that one, liar.

Trisa...you keep saying "most" women. Well, then, why not just let "most" women not meet the standards and go from there?

Why decide ahead of time that "most" is the same as "all" and ban based on gender instead of ability?

Prove that one, liar.

Wait, didn't you say combat experience is irrelevant? Regardless, You're a liar yet again.

http://dogsnot.net/mt/archives/000920.html

You're a liar and a fraud. The funny thing is, though, I'm sure you know it.

LOL!

You big liar. You don't want attention drawn to your 'statement of fact' because you're too busy trying to shoot down my 'statements of opinion'.

Retract your 'statement of fact' about my visits to your site, and about my supposedly banning your IP in response to your tired old antics, or just skulk off to Geoffworld.

I posted the ban message. Beyond that, it's impossible to prove. We both know it's true, though, and that's enough for me.

You're a liar and a fraud. I've proven that in this thread numerous times. That alone is enough to carry the assumption that your denial is yet another lie.

Impossible to prove and yet you call me a liar based on it?

On the other hand, I gave you evidence that you lied about the IP banning.

Show me your http access logs, show the world, Geoff.

You're caught in your own little scheme of preferring to continue to assert that a dissenter of Geoffworld couldn't possibly be anything but a liar, rather than having an honest, genuine interest in uncovering the truth.

You're pathetic. You're not welcome here. Go away.

If you stay, it will prove that you're only a harrasser and an impotent thug.

Impossible for me to prove doesn't make it untrue. I don't just call you a liar because of that, however, you just chose one item on an entire list I provided. Those are easily provable simply by reading this thread.

On the other hand, I gave you evidence that you lied about the IP banning.

No you didn't. You showed a list of IPs you have control of manipulating. Since I've already proven you to be a liar, it's worthless.

You've been proven to be a liar and a fraud. Obviously, it upsets you that I've put the evidence together for others to view also.

What's pathetic is that you preach from your high moral horse, yet you're a pathetic liar. Typical.

Impossible to prove doesn't make it TRUE, either, Geoff.

I didn't say the IP ban list was proof, I said it was evidence. You asked for some. Why did you even ask, knowing that it was unprovable to 100%? Why?

You've proven absolutely nothing. YOu've only ignored context to be a literalist boob and then ran with your idiocy.

Keep grunting and clicking, Geoff.

I see you're still here, so, well, there you have it.

You're a liar. I've proven it. You know it, and I know it. Let's rehash:

Glob: You accused me to stating that you\'d fessed up to being a sexist.

Lie.

Glob: Care to offer Mr Hunter\\\'s qualifications? Because you\\\'re now using him as an authority to support your very own sexist opinion that women, categorically, are unfit for direct combat.

Lie.

Glob: clearly if you\\\'re so opposed to my opposition to the bill,

Lie.

Glob: I didn\\\'t explicitly state a thing every time I commented on it,

Lie.

Glob: Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any \"practical or professional knowledge\" on combat?

No. And that was the fucking point from the beginning, gordon. \"

Lie.

Glob: you\'d find out that NO military personnel were asked about women in direct combat,

Lie.

Glob: Do the people in Congress who created this bill that would bar women from direct combat have any \"practical or professional knowledge\" on combat? No.

Lie.

And the hits keep coming. You\'re a liar.

Class Dismissed!

HA! And you banned again. Getting schooled must really embarrass you. What a fraud.