[andyt]

I find the debate incredibly boring. But this article caught my eye:

Quote:

U.S. defence expert says jets will cost double DND and Tory estimates

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-defence-expert-says-jets-cost-double-dnd-20110405-071027-195.html

Quote:

"Nobody on this earth is going to be buying F-35s in flyable condition at $75 million a copy. That's not in the cards," said Wheeler, who was invited to Ottawa by the left-leaning Rideau Institute think-tank...

He said the government's estimates refer to what is known as the unit recurring flyaway cost, or URF. He said the URF is not used in Washington because it doesn't include essential things needed to actually fly an aircraft — and that includes the engine.

Of course that will really lower the maintenance costs on those babies, so maybe it's a good idea to buy them without engines. We could just train the pilots to make zooooooooooooooom noises and pretend they're flying the aircraft. Certainly confuse he hell out of the enemy.

[EyeBrock]

The Center for Defense Information is a well known liberal 'think tank' in the US, comparable to the Rideau Institute in Canada. It's staff are left wing anti military types.

I'd be very surprised if the CDI thought any weapons system on the planet was a good purchase.

Look at the sources before you post andy.

[andyt]

EyeBrock wrote:

The Center for Defense Information is a well known liberal 'think tank' in the US, comparable to the Rideau Institute in Canada. It's staff are left wing anti military types.

I'd be very surprised if the CDI thought any weapons system on the planet was a good purchase.

Look at the sources before you post andy.

So you're saying he's wrong?

Quote:

Wheeler worked for three decades on security issues for the U.S. General Accounting Office and for members on both sides of the aisle of the U.S. Senate...
Wheeler said Tuesday the unit cost of the F-35 jet will be about $148 million per airplane — an estimate that is in line with what the parliamentary budget officer has projected.

Just disparaging a source without putting up actual contrary data - sounds like trolling to me. But then it's CKA SOP.

[EyeBrock]

I'm saying look at the source and assign credibility accordingly.

Check out the Rideau Institute too. Anti-military 'think tanks' with 'experts' who have done nothing but join left-wing causes.

On trolling, there you go again! Naughty andy can't stop trolling.

[DrCaleb]

andyt wrote:

Just disparaging a source without putting up actual contrary data - sounds like trolling to me. But then it's CKA SOP.

Then you have not been paying attention. Posting a statement like '[CD Howe's] staff are left wing anti military types.' is an opinion and does not need contrary data in any rational form of debating. Posting things that people know to be untrue, just to get an emotional reaction out of them - that my friend is "trolling", in the 'bait a hook and paddle around the bay to see what bites' sense. Not debate.

[andyt]

EyeBrock wrote:

I'm saying look at the source and assign credibility accordingly.

Check out the Rideau Institute too. Anti-military 'think tanks' with 'experts' who have done nothing but join left-wing causes.

On trolling, there you go again! Naughty andy can't stop trolling.

Provide your counter sources that say differently. Probably turn out to be pro military experts who have done nothing but join right-wing causes. Is the PBO anti-military left-wing too?

[andyt]

DrCaleb wrote:

andyt wrote:

Posting things that people know to be untrue, just to get an emotional reaction out of them - that my friend is "trolling", in the 'bait a hook and paddle around the bay to see what bites' sense. Not debate.

Please show me where I've done that?

[EyeBrock]

andyt wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

I'm saying look at the source and assign credibility accordingly.

Check out the Rideau Institute too. Anti-military 'think tanks' with 'experts' who have done nothing but join left-wing causes.

On trolling, there you go again! Naughty andy can't stop trolling.

Provide your counter sources that say differently. Probably turn out to be pro military experts who have done nothing but join right-wing causes. Is the PBO anti-military left-wing too?

Boring andy. You are becoming very boring.

[andyt]

EyeBrock wrote:

Boring andy. You are becoming very boring.

When you ain't got nothin, you got nothin to lose. Just slagging the source. Sad, really.

[DrCaleb]

andyt wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

andyt wrote:

Posting things that people know to be untrue, just to get an emotional reaction out of them - that my friend is "trolling", in the 'bait a hook and paddle around the bay to see what bites' sense. Not debate.

Please show me where I've done that?

Please show me where I said you had. (Case in point by the way, reading into people's posts things they have not said, then getting pissed off at the things you made up)

[andyt]

To use your Albertans vs all Albertans example, please show me where you said I hadn't. You inserted yourself into a conversation where Brock is saying I'm trolling. Pretty easy come to the conclusion you're talking about me. If you just wanted to put our your particular definition of what trolling is, duly noted.

[DrCaleb]

andyt wrote:

To use your Albertans vs all Albertans example, please show me where you said I hadn't. You inserted yourself into a conversation where Brock is saying I'm trolling. Pretty easy come to the conclusion you're talking about me. If you just wanted to put our your particular definition of what trolling is, duly noted.

Show where you 'hadn't' what? Where you hadn't 'trolled'? I can not show a negative. Bad form. Results in answers to division by zero questions, moons colliding, cat and dogs living together . . . Every post where someone is not trolling is a post where they don't troll. How's that?

I did not insert myself into this conversation andy, you inserted me in your comment saying that trolling has become "CKA SOP." By your definition, you do not understand what trolling is, but saw fit to include me and every other CKAer in your definition. And that is not my definition of trolling, that is the accepted definition of trolling, internet wide. Look it up if you don't take my word for it.

[andyt]

It's pretty simple - show me where you said that you weren't talking about me when you gave your definition of trolling. Just as you got all upset because I use the conventional form of speech "Albertans" to mean a majority or a general consensus within the province, you insisted that because I hadn't said "some Albertans" I must be talking about every last one of them.

[DrCaleb]

andyt wrote:

It's pretty simple - show me where you said that you weren't talking about me when you gave your definition of trolling.

DrCaleb wrote:

Posting things that people know to be untrue, just to get an emotional reaction out of them - that my friend is "trolling", in the 'bait a hook and paddle around the bay to see what bites' sense. Not debate.

Do you see your name, or any personal pronouns there? Or, instead did you decide it was about you, and get offended by it?

andyt wrote:

Just as you got all upset because I use the conventional form of speech "Albertans" to mean a majority or a general consensus within the province, you insisted that because I hadn't said "some Albertans" I must be talking about every last one of them.

Because it's basic English. "Water is wet" means all water, not some water. "Albertans' favour oil industry subsidies' means all Albertans, not some. 'Trolling is CKA Standard Operating Policy' means all of us, not some.

One thing I don't understand about you, is once you've been shown to have painted yourself into a corner, you ask for more paint.

[andyt]

DrCaleb wrote:

andyt wrote:

Just as you got all upset because I use the conventional form of speech "Albertans" to mean a majority or a general consensus within the province, you insisted that because I hadn't said "some Albertans" I must be talking about every last one of them.

Because it's basic English. "Water is wet" means all water, not some water. "Albertans' favour oil industry subsidies' means all Albertans, not some. 'Trolling is CKA Standard Operating Policy' means all of us, not some.

One thing I don't understand about you, is once you've been shown to have painted yourself into a corner, you ask for more paint.

Maybe you have different speech patterns in Alberta, I dunno. "Canadians favor x, y,z" read that in the paper all the time. Not once did I assume they meant every single last one. Just a majority. People are different than water.

Same thing I meant by "attacking the source is CKA SOP." It's a common tactic employed on this forum. Doesn't mean everybody does it, or people do it all the time. But take it however you wish.