Should this be a cause for concern?

[CivilDiscourse]

She has a tendency, it appears, when presented with a solid argument, just to abandon the argument, or try to switch to some other aspect.

Wait until she distracts through semantic arguments over technicalities that aren't even relevant to the topic at hand. (Such as arguing over technical definitions for words used and commonly understood under common usage. For example arguing about the definition of Pedophile technically meaning attraction to children who haven't hit puberty, yet the common use combines Pedophile, and Ephebophile (attraction to adolescents).)

[Sparko]

A forty eight page report cannot be summarised by one sentence. I have asked others to cite the relevant sections in support of their contentions and they decline to do so. I am perforce left to draw the conclusion they have not actually read the entire document.

I gave you my opinion about the Guardian article that it was over dramatizing the fact that there were undesirables in the police force. They used words like "infiltrate" and grouped together incidents over two decades and conflated "white supremacists" with "far right groups" and other conservatives.

I said that I accept that such undesirables do get in the police force but it was a minor issue and that they try to screen for malcontents and those with psychological issues but sometimes they slip through the cracks.

I also read the report and it backed up my assertions by saying that the problem was a tiny percentage of the police force. That was what I said, and the report you relied on confirmed the same thing.

Obviously, only a tiny percentage of law enforcement officials are likely to be active members of white supremacist groups

The rest of the report was pretty much a biased piece of garbage, which reads more like a blog than some scientific report or study. And nothing in the report contradicted the conclusion I stated that the problem was a tiny percentage of the police force. The Guardian article was just exaggeration.

That is the only part I needed to back up my assertion. I have no need to quote other parts of the biased drivel. He chopped off his own head on the first page.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

She has a tendency, it appears, when presented with a solid argument

Where, and what, is this "solid argument" of which you write?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I gave you my opinion about the Guardian article that it was over dramatizing the fact that there were undesirables in the police force. They used words like "infiltrate" and grouped together incidents over two decades and conflated "white supremacists" with "far right groups" and other conservatives.

I said that I accept that such undesirables do get in the police force but it was a minor issue and that they try to screen for malcontents and those with psychological issues but sometimes they slip through the cracks.

I also read the report and it backed up my assertions by saying that the problem was a tiny percentage of the police force. That was what I said, and the report you relied on confirmed the same thing.

Obviously, only a tiny percentage of law enforcement officials are likely to be active members of white supremacist groups

The rest of the report was pretty much a biased piece of garbage, which reads more like a blog than some scientific report or study. And nothing in the report contradicted the conclusion I stated that the problem was a tiny percentage of the police force. The Guardian article was just exaggeration.

That is the only part I needed to back up my assertion. I have no need to quote other parts of the biased drivel. He chopped off his own head on the first page.

As I wrote earlier, the reluctance to provide citations in support of comments, leaves me to draw my own conclusions.

[Cow Poke]

Where, and what, is this "solid argument" of which you write?

You wouldn't see it if I bolded it and enlarged it.

[mikewhitney]

Another faux pas - neither an army nor a police force is a "private citizen".

Both organisations are made up individuals who, outside of their positions within those respective organisations, are private citizens, but an army or a police force is an institution.

Or are those applying to join the USA's police and military required to "bring your own tank and machine gun"?

In the philosophical foundation of the US, the military and police are granted powers by the people. So if the people don't have these rights to bear arms, neither does the military or the police.

[mikewhitney]

The "deficiencies" that you allege are nothing but products of your prejudices towards anything that is not of the Right.

I sincerely doubt you have actually read all 48 [or thereabouts] pages of that report.

Haha. It was one of those articles not worth reading the whole thing. But Sparko did and he found the same things that I did.

[Sparko]

As I wrote earlier, the reluctance to provide citations in support of comments, leaves me to draw my own conclusions.

I gave you a citation from German that backed up my assertion and destroyed what the Guardian was trying to promote with its fear mongering. I am sorry if that wasn't enough for you. The rest of the "report" was drivel.

[Sparko]

Goodness me one comment from a 48 page document"! You consider that sufficient to support your contentions.

Sorry, did German go on to contradict himself later? If so I didn't see it. Please cite the source for your assertion.

I am perforce left to surmise you obtained your qualifications by collecting the tokens from the back of the cereal packet.

As have been many of the posts made by my interlocutors on this thread.

You even insult while putting on airs and using $20 words where a $2 one would suffice.

[Bill the Cat]

You even insult while putting on airs and using $20 words where a $2 one would suffice.

Resisting the urge to make a Blazing Saddles reference....

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Sorry, did German go on to contradict himself later? If so I didn't see it. Please cite the source for your assertion.

That does rather contradict what you wrote here:

I have read the report. Twice now.

Or is short term memory another problem for you?

You even insult while putting on airs and using $20 words where a $2 one would suffice.

Your pusillanimity is duly noted. There is a saying that runs something along the lines of "If you cannot take it, do not hand it out".

Therefore if you feel free to make unwarranted personal remarks about me, you must be prepared, on occasion, to receive in kind. My observation concerning your qualifications and how you may have obtained them, is, however, premised on the manner and style of your posts to me which tend to be little more than subjective opinion, veiled insults, and generalisations with no supporting evidence.

The fact is that you don't like what I said

I hate to disabuse you but to quote a line, "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn".

My observations pertain to over-simplistic remarks that indicate [as noted by your above comment] that you have not fully read what you are commenting upon but have dismissed it out of hand because it comes from a source that does not echo your own political opinions.

[Sparko]

That does rather contradict what you wrote here:

Or is short term memory another problem for you?

I did. I was being sarcastic because I know he didn't contradict himself later so my use of his statement was correct. I wanted to use him to support my assertion and I did. I have no need to quote other parts of his report to support myself since that cite did just fine.


Did you just want me to randomly quote parts of his report for no reason? You haven't quoted anything to contradict what I quoted. So it stands.

Your pusillanimity is duly noted.

You make me laugh. Thanks for that.

There is a saying that runs something along the lines of "If you cannot take it, do not hand it out".

Therefore if you feel free to make unwarranted personal remarks about me, you must be prepared, on occasion, to receive in kind. My observation concerning your qualifications and how you may have obtained them, is, however, premised on the manner and style of your posts to me which tend to be little more than subjective opinion, veiled insults, and generalisations with no supporting evidence.

I hate to disabuse you but to quote a line, "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn".

My observations pertain to over-simplistic remarks that indicate [as noted by your above comment] that you have not fully read what you are commenting upon but have dismissed it out of hand because it comes from a source that does not echo your own political opinions.

I find your skepticism risible.

[Cow Poke]

Resisting the urge to make a Blazing Saddles reference....

I doubledogdare ya!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I did. I was being sarcastic because I know he didn't contradict himself later so my use of his statement was correct. I wanted to use him to support my assertion and I did. I have no need to quote other parts of his report to support myself since that cite did just fine.

Other parts? You cited one sentence from the Introduction!

Did you just want me to randomly quote parts of his report for no reason? You haven't quoted anything to contradict what I quoted. So it stands.

If you cannot or will not substantiate your comments that is your decision.

However, that decision lends no credence to your allegations.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Resisting the urge to make a Blazing Saddles reference....

Go on then. It's one of my favourite films.