| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mixed Nutz |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 8:30:40 PM
...Here you go, fishinmission, MCV, and the rest of you Liberals:http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/obamas-giveaway-oil-rich-islands-to-russia/
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!! |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| jstrange |
Posted - 03/01/2012 : 6:22:25 PM
Gee, what brought you two guys out of the wood work?? You don't write, you don't call, then show up with an opinion. The old rule of git in when you fit in is apropos here.
Umm, you gonna eat that?
Thousands have died to save my freedom. Only one has died to save my soul! |
| duckcommander |
Posted - 02/29/2012 : 8:28:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by stonoman
Lee you have been suckered.:)
Stonoman
Glad I am not alone in that realization. This will end the same as 500 other threads... with a certain poster trying to post last.
www.erycriddlelaw.com |
| stonoman |
Posted - 02/29/2012 : 8:06:42 PM
Lee you have been suckered.:)
Stonoman |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 02/29/2012 : 1:25:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by capntang
"It" is referring to the dismissal of someone who expresses a political or religious view, no matter how factual and free from opinionated bias, that could be seen as dissent in the eyes of the forum majority (or at least the vocal majority). It's happened before, in a few instances to me. Unfortunately, most of the threads in which it has happened to me have disappeared. They're memorable enough for my "prejudice" to remain, however, and I will likely continue to expect that kind of response anytime I break rank and chime in on such a topic.
The preceding paragraph is not accusatory, especially not towards you, and is not intended to elicit another lengthy response and carry this on further. It is merely provided as a definition and explanation for "it".
I am left somewhat amazed that my one sentence caused this much of a stir, but you did agree with me on the facts, and I recognize and appreciate that. In the interest of letting it go, I'll end with a brief, clear, and succinct "OK".
Given that you and I actually know each other fairly well by this point, I will keep an eye on this thread for the last word, which you are free to have as I will post no more responses. I promise. 
This isn't really "a stir". It's two guys going back and forth over a single comment by each. Nothing really.
What amazes me is that you're still arguing (for days now) about my single comment--where I disagreed with your one comment while I was agreeing with you on the topic. It didn't have to be an argument, Collin. It was your choice to make it one, and another choice to continue the "stir". My comment could have been dismissed as easily as your own. We're talking about this now only because you chose to argue about my initial response and to keep arguing back to my every reply. I did the same. It takes to tango. If you had let it go on page one, we wouldn't be here now.
Per your other comments, the dismissal of unpopular, but factual, ideas by forum majorities is common across the internet. There's no patent on that here, but it's actually happened to me on this site more than to you, so I'm not saying it doesn't happen. It's just not as characteristic of this forum as you suggest--at least no more than it is of the average site--guns, hunting, fishing; you name it. It also doesn't make people insane to dismiss you, and it didn't happen in this thread, anyway; in fact, the opposite happened. So, in the midst of taking your side and doing the opposite of what you obviously expected, I simply pointed out that I disagree with your derrogatory comments. I agreed with the facts and disagreed with the opinion.
Below is my initial post--the one that you're still here arguing about. Feel free to point out where I made a big "stir" out of anything rather than just explaining where I agree and disagree with your post.
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
No offense to my internet friend, Mixed Nutz, but Capntang is correct about this. The article admitted that the land situation up there, and our supposed inaction, long predates President Obama. That's why I didn't respond to this earlier. The artile, along with SDW, also incorrectly cited the 1867 treaty (per my reading of the Treaty, anyway). I looked up the treaty text itself, as the only reliable, original source to resolve the dispute, and it says the bounday goes between Copper Island and Attou (Attu), which places Copper and the other islands on Russia's side (unless I'm reading it incorrectly; I didn't read the whole Treaty, but only the small part where it addresses the boundary). On the other hand, I see no call for Capntang to insult your sanity or that of the whole forum. That's another matter. Admittedly, quite a few people are fooled by the popular myths, but that's not a forum or Mixed-Nutz problem. That's a human/internet problem, and it happens all over the world. It's called propaganda. People have used it for ages. Now, if 15 people had jumped on the bandwagon of this thread, calling for Obama's stripes, then maybe Tang would have more grounds on this one, but this thread got zero replies at the point Tang declared the forum insane; so, I say it's just a simple case of a guy reading a WND article and believing that it was accurate when it wasn't.
No big "stir". No outragous arguments. Just some simple comments and facts. You chose to dispute the comments this far, so just accept responsibility for your part in that, and let it go. Otherwise, don't be amazed when someone responds to your continued arguments.
Thank you for giving me the last word--since you had the first. Bravo in advance on keeping your word.
No hard feelings, either. We're big boys. I was serious about buying you lunch.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| Bonzo72 |
Posted - 02/29/2012 : 11:37:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by capntang
Unfortunately, most of the threads in which it has happened to me have disappeared
can you catch sheepshead? 
The Morris Island Lighthouse www.savethelight.org |
| capntang |
Posted - 02/29/2012 : 10:44:41 AM
"It" is referring to the dismissal of someone who expresses a political or religious view, no matter how factual and free from opinionated bias, that could be seen as dissent in the eyes of the forum majority (or at least the vocal majority). It's happened before, in a few instances to me. Unfortunately, most of the threads in which it has happened to me have disappeared. They're memorable enough for my "prejudice" to remain, however, and I will likely continue to expect that kind of response anytime I break rank and chime in on such a topic.
The preceding paragraph is not accusatory, especially not towards you, and is not intended to elicit another lengthy response and carry this on further. It is merely provided as a definition and explanation for "it".
I am left somewhat amazed that my one sentence caused this much of a stir, but you did agree with me on the facts, and I recognize and appreciate that. In the interest of letting it go, I'll end with a brief, clear, and succinct "OK".
Given that you and I actually know each other fairly well by this point, I will keep an eye on this thread for the last word, which you are free to have as I will post no more responses. I promise. |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 1:41:03 PM
Short version of post above.
Capntang, check the original post date of this thread versus that of your first post. This thread sat here for 26 hours with no response--no bandwagon, no calling for Obama's stripes, no hoard of frothing Right-Wing conspiracy theorists. That wasn't because of you, because you didn't post until 26 hours after the initial post of the thread, and when you did, not one soul called you a "heretic" or an Obama follower.
On the contrary, at least one person supported the factuality of your positions on the topic and DEFENDED you and President Obama. I am that one person.
Thus, your prejudice was proven to be just that--prejudice. Your assumption was wrong. If you can't admit that, fine. We'll agree to disagree.
Now, you can keep making subtle counter-jabs about me being the forum's "white knight" and "it" happening before (whatever "it" is), and we can continue a petty dispute over this for another 5 pages if you want, or you can just focus on the fact that I took YOUR SIDE on this topic, and we can let it go. It always amazes me that someone will argue this hard and long over somethig so minor, and then refer to something being tedius, as if his hand were not involved in making it so.
Let's let it go and not belabor it any further. You can buy Mixed Nutz that beer, and I'll be happy to buy you lunch when I see you again.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 1:32:37 PM
Capntang,
"Again, I wasn't pointing any fingers at you."
I know that. Who implied that you were?? Not I.
"Who knows. Maybe it was because of the explicit disclaimer in my first post."
Or maybe it's just because you were wrong. Since when does a contrary opinion or a sassy post like yours ever stop people from airing their opinions on this site or any other? Don't flatter yourself too much.
"Fact remains that it has happened before, especially when religion and politics are the topic at hand."
WHAT has happened before?
"No need for you to feel the need to be the white knight for the politics forum or anything like that."
Then, we might as well also say that there's no need for you to be Obama's white knight either, right? What's the difference? (Rhetorical question.)
"Man enough to admit that it didn't happen in this thread?"
No, just man enough to admit you were wrong. No one did what you said, and those who call people Obama followers in other threads do so to people who ARE Obama followed for the most part. You apparently read so little of this forum that you don't know who's who and what actually goes on.
"but I can see this being nothing but tedious."
Definitely. It didn't have to be, though, but I had a feeling you'd insist on making it so. It takes two to tango.
Consider it dropped.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| saltydog235 |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 09:49:26 AM
Can I build a vacation home on one of those islands? How's the weather?
Mark
Mako 262 Twin Yammaha F200s
Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal? I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
"Life's tough......It's even tougher if you're stupid" John Wayne
|
| capntang |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 09:40:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
"Fact is, past threads and common behavior around here leads me to expect to be dismissed as a heretic for what is sure to be perceived by more than a couple folks as support for the unpopular current administration."
Well, with all due respect, I guess we proved you wrong on that assumption.  Knowing you, I think you're man enough to admit that. Rather than calling you a "heretic", I jumped in and supported the factuality of your argument, exhonerating President Obama and dispelling a popular Right-wing source for political news and opinions. The only part I didn't support was the implications against the people of the forum.
Man enough to admit that it didn't happen in this thread? Well, clearly it didn't. Who knows. Maybe it was because of the explicit disclaimer in my first post.
Fact remains that it has happened before, especially when religion and politics are the topic at hand. It will continue to happen. Here and on other forums. In those few instances when I break my own rules, venture into this subforum, and decide to involve myself in a thread that is quite obviously antagonistic from the start, I might say the same sort of thing. No promises there.
Again, I wasn't pointing any fingers at you. I wasn't calling out anyone in particular, Mixed Nutz included (though I get the impression he understands that). Call it a general address to the previously observed mob mentality that has taken over threads in the past. No need for you to feel the need to be the white knight for the politics forum or anything like that.
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
So, let's let that sidebar discussion go and focus on our agreement over the misinformation. I also agree that it's important to dispell such misinformation, and that's part of why I post here a lot.
Internet handshake?
Yes, let's let it go. The back-and-forth with Mixed Nutz was fun, but I can see this being nothing but tedious.
Internet handshake is fine by me. Like I said, I never take anything I write around here that seriously anymore - aside from the facts, of course.
Have a great day! |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 6:59:30 PM
To make a long story short, Collin, I was trying to tell you that you were wrong about this forum, and that this thread is proof. Your prediction failed. Instead of the members of this forum jumping in to call you a heretical Obama follower, as you predicted, or to call for Obama's stripes, no one did that, and I actually jumped in to back your side of the topic up with proof, citing and providing sources in your favor.
You're not the devil, but neither is this forum or its members. This is not the first time folks have defended President Obama from weak theories withOUT being called names for it. Several of us give the President credit for his wiser moves, too, and people regularly bust the chops of anyone who posts a bogus political accusation on this site--regardless of the party. The incidence of faulty political complaints is no greater here than on any website with a political forum.
So, let's let that sidebar discussion go and focus on our agreement over the misinformation. I also agree that it's important to dispell such misinformation, and that's part of why I post here a lot.
Internet handshake?
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 6:49:12 PM
Honestly, I never intended to argue about your comment to this degree, Collin. I just felt compelled to criticize the failing of both sides, if either. I wanted to give your position my support because you were right, and because the very corrections you posted were the reasons for why I had not posted in this thread myself (because it was off base). At the same time, though, I wanted people to know that while I agreed with you on the facts of the articles, I didn't agree with the insults. I didn't want to be aligned with that part of your comments. Mixed Nutz knows exactly what I mean because I've disagreed with him for defending me by telling someone to go to hell before in one of these threads. LOL. Jstrange can also confirm, as can Alabamafan. I like to keep politics separate from judging each other in ways not related to the exact topic itself. If you had said that Mixed Nutz was too easily assuming the articles' accuracy because of an anti-Obama bias, or that the site has a Conservative bias or a Right-winger mentality in general, well, I'd probably agree. It's very easy to accept such articles too hastily when you want nothing more than to see the destroyer of America dethroned, and because of the high frequency of the false stories, it's hard to vet everything out. Sanity and intelligence are another matter, though.
That's not to say that I'm beyond fault in that regard myself. I do have my weak moments, too. We all make mistakes and get a little too personal or judgmental at times. Your statement in this present thread really wasn't that big of a deal, though, Collin. We're both making it sounds a lot worse than it was, and that's beyond my intention. That's why I changed the post. So, let's just focus on the fact that we agree on the topic.
Yes, Mixed Nutz pretty much always takes such things in a good nature. That's how he is. That is party why I defended him. He's a pretty decent fellow.
"Fact is, past threads and common behavior around here leads me to expect to be dismissed as a heretic for what is sure to be perceived by more than a couple folks as support for the unpopular current administration."
Well, with all due respect, I guess we proved you wrong on that assumption. Knowing you, I think you're man enough to admit that. Rather than calling you a "heretic", I jumped in and supported the factuality of your argument, exhonerating President Obama and dispelling a popular Right-wing source for political news and opinions. The only part I didn't support was the implications against the people of the forum.
That was my point, Collin. We actually showed that we do NOT fit the mold you applied to this forum. If we did fit that mold, I wouldn't be here defending your side of the topic itself, and/or more people would be jumping in to call you a heretic or an Obama supporter.
"You misunderstood my contention with the phrase "popular myth". I wasn't taking issue with calling it a myth. I was attempting to draw attention to the fact that it is in no way popular. Thankfully, most dismiss it as wild conspiracy instead of passing it around."
Roger that. Not a problem. What I mean is that such misinformation is all too popular in general--which is the same point you made here. I was confirming your position about misinformation while telling you that it's no more common here than elsewhere on the internet. In this case, you confirm that it's actually more populare elsewhere.
"All that aside, we agree on the facts at the core of this issue, and I suppose that's the relevant part."
That sounds good to me. I think it's important to dispell false information, and my involvement here was primarily to support you in that effort. The rest is really a sidetrack.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| capntang |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 5:43:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mixed Nutz
No hard feelings here. I've enjoyed the debate! And while having spent the better part of the day trying to find whether the U.S. ever officially claimed these islands, I've come up empty.
I did however find some data stating that the U.S. never recognized Russia's sovereignty over them, for what it's worth.
Sorry capntang, the dog ate my debate class book. So I'll look forward to you and Big Wes to furthering my education here on CF.COM!!
I'm off to light the grill, and burn some burgers, and HOPE the rain stops in Daytona. You folks have a great afternoon.
Seeya, Scott!!
Ha! You're a good sport about it, and that I can respect. You lost me at Daytona, though. I'm more of a Formula 1 fan myself.
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
Collin,
I deleted one of my posts because, after I posted it, I reposted the same thing, but with the last line changed (the line where I addressed your slur on Mixed Nutz and the forum as insane). I did not change anything of substance, or anything with regard to any fact or positions presented. I only changed my address to your slur, and I did so to soften the statement as to not present it as a slap or challenge to you. In other words, I thought the line in my first post was a little too harsh, and I didn't want to slam you so hard, so I changed it.
Yes, I'm sure that plenty have jumped on the bandwagon against President Obama over this specific issue elsewhere on the internet, but that has not happened here, so it's irrelevant and is no basis to judge this forum. Only one post was made here in that regard, and no one even responded to it, so it is irrational for you to attack this forum over that. As for other similar threads where more people jump in to give credence to myths, false propaganda, or conspiracy theories--which ever term you like best--that does happen, but it happens all over the internet, not just here.
As for the term "popular myth", that's what it is. It's a little silly to me for us to quibble over whether it's more of a myth or a "conspiracy theory". My use of "myth" was to point out that it's ONLY a myth, NOT a factual account of history. In other words, I was agreeing with you about the inaccuracy of the WND article. I also refer to it as false propaganda, conspiracy theory, or simply false information. So, don't read too much between the lines there. Read what I actually wrote. I took your side on the facts--namely, that what the WND and SDW articles said about the land deal is false.
As for hating to see false information propagated, I agree. That's why I decided to chime in and agree with you. If the tide is so strong here, as you say, then maybe you ought to acknowledge that going against that grain you spoke of is not an easy thing to do. I spoke up in defense of Obama here because the articles were unfactual. However, I could not agree with calling the whole forum--or even just Mixed Nutz--stupid or crazy.
The reason forums like this devolve is because people argue forever just because someone doesn't agree 100%. They can agree 99%, but that 1% sticks in the craw because people worry about their public perception. No need to do that here because I agree with youj 100% on the subject. My only disagreement was with your unnecessary and irrational slurs on this forum. OK, that was the 1% disagreement, so I really only agreed 99%.
No, you did not state the facts in a "kind" way. LOL. Be serious. It is never "kind" to call people stupid and crazy, and that's basically what you did (implied). You didn't say it in humor or jest. You can go ahead and blame it on Mixed Nutz if you want, because, yes, he was taunting, but he's only responsible for his own actions, which I am not defending.
It's not that big of a deal to me, Collin. Just like you, I was only pointing out some factual information.
I have no problem with you deleting or changing the post. I was merely noting that I was curious what the changes were as I had typed a response to the first draft. Looking back at the cached copy of the first one, I'm not sure I find either of them particularly harsh. The biggest issue I take with either version is over the claim that I have directly questioned Mixed Nutz's sanity with some sort of direct slur anywhere in this thread. I admitted to my tone being pedantic with a subtle hostility not atypical for an internet forum a few posts back, and that much was intentional and completely premeditated. I'm also OK with that. It seems as though Mixed Nutz is a good sport about it. Hell, I'd buy him a beer. Just one, and I guarantee we'd start arguing before he finished it. We might even call each other crazy. At least one of us would be right.
Irrational slurs against this forum? I fully admit that I may be blind, but all I can find is that one sentence in my first post, and I'm not sure whether I'd classify that as a slur or not. You can place as much value in that one sentence of mine as you'd like, I suppose. You're giving me the impression that you take particular issue with it. Fact is, past threads and common behavior around here leads me to expect to be dismissed as a heretic for what is sure to be perceived by more than a couple folks as support for the unpopular current administration. I've seen threads of less consequence easily slip through the grasps of reason and devolve into internet forum insanity and pandemonium. With the antagonistic nature of the original post and title, it was hardly unreasonable to have expected this to go similarly.
You misunderstood my contention with the phrase "popular myth". I wasn't taking issue with calling it a myth. I was attempting to draw attention to the fact that it is in no way popular. Thankfully, most dismiss it as wild conspiracy instead of passing it around.
All that aside, we agree on the facts at the core of this issue, and I suppose that's the relevant part. |
| Big Wes |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 5:09:09 PM
Dang...I wasn't even in this one.
The more we just complain...the more things stay the same. |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 4:26:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by capntang
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
No offense to my internet friend, Mixed Nutz, but Capntang is correct about this. The article admitted that the land situation up there, and our supposed inaction, long predates President Obama. That's why I didn't respond to this earlier. The artile, along with SDW, also incorrectly cited the 1867 treaty (per my reading of the Treaty, anyway). I looked up the treaty text itself, as the only reliable, original source to resolve the dispute, and it says the bounday goes between Copper Island and Attou (Attu), which places Copper and the other islands on Russia's side (unless I'm reading it incorrectly; I didn't read the whole Treaty, but only the small part where it addresses the boundary). On the other hand, I see no call for Capntang to insult your sanity or that of the whole forum. That's another matter. Admittedly, quite a few people are fooled by the popular myths, but that's not a forum or Mixed-Nutz problem. That's a human/internet problem, and it happens all over the world. It's called propaganda. People have used it for ages. Now, if 15 people had jumped on the bandwagon of this thread, calling for Obama's stripes, then maybe Tang would have more grounds on this one, but this thread got zero replies at the point Tang declared the forum insane; so, I say it's just a simple case of a guy reading a WND article and believing that it was accurate when it wasn't.
Well, I had a response typed out earlier, but I see you've changed your post. It threw me off for a minute since no edit notice appeared at the bottom, but I guess you just deleted the old one to post the current revision.
To address the new bit at the end there - people have jumped on the bandwagon, calling for Obama's stripes over this. Folks on this forum may not have posted in this particular thread prior to my involvement, but the issue has been making its way around various circles recently. This is not the first time I've seen this disseminated as gospel in the past few days. That said, this is far from a "popular myth". Basic history and geography refute the entire issue, so the concept of the US somehow giving away these islands seems to be relegated generally to the realm of conspiracy theorists and the like until it's picked up by an extremist blog or similar outlet and impressionable folks decide to run with it.
Perhaps it wouldn't be so easy to dismiss if 15 people had jumped on this particular bandwagon, but let's be honest, there's enough rash judgment and more-than-momentary lapses of reason (any Pink Floyd fans?) in the rest of this forum to compensate.
As for my tone, I don't see a huge problem. Perhaps it would be most accurate to call my posts "pedantic with a subtle hostility not atypical for an internet forum".
Antagonism meets antagonism. You can't deny the antagonistic nature of the original post (it's pretty clear in the title), and I would bet that Mixed Nutz hit the "post" button with a certain sense of how the post might be interpreted. I responded in kind and with correct information. I say if someone wants to take that tone from the get-go and blatantly call out someone (or several folks, in this instance) using an argument they have gleaned from fringe sources and neglected to research or fact check in any real way, then perhaps a similarly antagonistic response should be of little surprise. Equal and opposite reaction, and all that jazz.
I never directly and explicitly insulted Mixed Nutz's sanity that I can see, so let's not paint this as a personal attack. I would suggest that my questioning of the sanity and logical capabilities of the entire forum may not be entirely without merit, though you may call it premature in this case. I would call it preemptive, as it wouldn't have been the first time for someone correcting a majorly flawed attack on the current administration (or really just going against the generally approved grain 'round these parts) to be dismissed as an "Obama supporter" or "liberal commie such and such" or similar heretical term. Given the tone of the original post and the fact that several had already been called out with its first sentence, I didn't hold high hopes.
I simply cannot stand to see information like this consumed as truth at face value and regurgitated all over the place. It happens on both sides, but it does nothing to help the credibility of either. People need to start taking a little more personal responsibility for the information they provide and defend as fact.
This is an internet forum, after all. I don't take it too seriously. I actually don't take it seriously at all anymore. I honestly regret every time I click on that "Politics" link. I'm not sure why I did yesterday morning. Boredom before the beer festival, maybe? Morbid curiosity in search of the proverbial train wreck? Who knows.
Collin,
I deleted one of my posts because, after I posted it, I reposted the same thing, but with the last line changed (the line where I addressed your slur on Mixed Nutz and the forum as insane). I did not change anything of substance, or anything with regard to any fact or positions presented. I only changed my address to your slur, and I did so to soften the statement as to not present it as a slap or challenge to you. In other words, I thought the line in my first post was a little too harsh, and I didn't want to slam you so hard, so I changed it.
Yes, I'm sure that plenty have jumped on the bandwagon against President Obama over this specific issue elsewhere on the internet, but that has not happened here, so it's irrelevant and is no basis to judge this forum. Only one post was made here in that regard, and no one even responded to it, so it is irrational for you to attack this forum over that. As for other similar threads where more people jump in to give credence to myths, false propaganda, or conspiracy theories--which ever term you like best--that does happen, but it happens all over the internet, not just here.
As for the term "popular myth", that's what it is. It's a little silly to me for us to quibble over whether it's more of a myth or a "conspiracy theory". My use of "myth" was to point out that it's ONLY a myth, NOT a factual account of history. In other words, I was agreeing with you about the inaccuracy of the WND article. I also refer to it as false propaganda, conspiracy theory, or simply false information. So, don't read too much between the lines there. Read what I actually wrote. I took your side on the facts--namely, that what the WND and SDW articles said about the land deal is false.
As for hating to see false information propagated, I agree. That's why I decided to chime in and agree with you. If the tide is so strong here, as you say, then maybe you ought to acknowledge that going against that grain you spoke of is not an easy thing to do. I spoke up in defense of Obama here because the articles were unfactual. However, I could not agree with calling the whole forum--or even just Mixed Nutz--stupid or crazy.
The reason forums like this devolve is because people argue forever just because someone doesn't agree 100%. They can agree 99%, but that 1% sticks in the craw because people worry about their public perception. No need to do that here because I agree with youj 100% on the subject. My only disagreement was with your unnecessary and irrational slurs on this forum. OK, that was the 1% disagreement, so I really only agreed 99%.
No, you did not state the facts in a "kind" way. LOL. Be serious. It is never "kind" to call people stupid and crazy, and that's basically what you did (implied). You didn't say it in humor or jest. You can go ahead and blame it on Mixed Nutz if you want, because, yes, he was taunting, but he's only responsible for his own actions, which I am not defending.
It's not that big of a deal to me, Collin. Just like you, I was only pointing out some factual information.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| Mixed Nutz |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 3:00:52 PM
Oooops, not sure why that got posted as a link. It was only a reference to Charlestonfishing.com.
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!! |
| Mixed Nutz |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 2:57:31 PM
No hard feelings here. I've enjoyed the debate! And while having spent the better part of the day trying to find whether the U.S. ever officially claimed these islands, I've come up empty.
I did however find some data stating that the U.S. never recognized Russia's sovereignty over them, for what it's worth.
Sorry capntang, the dog ate my debate class book. So I'll look forward to you and Big Wes to furthering my education here on CF.COM!!
I'm off to light the grill, and burn some burgers, and HOPE the rain stops in Daytona. You folks have a great afternoon.
Seeya, Scott!!
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!! |
| capntang |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 2:23:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mixed Nutz
I don't see where the Supreme Court of Alaska is surrendering?
You keep referring to the 1867 treaty, but there no maps that can be produced by either side to confirm the boundary line. Another treaty was proposed in 1990 but Russia never signed (ratified) it.
You use wikipedia as a source for information, then call my sources dubious and unreliable?
You have quoted a quote. Go back and read it again. The Supreme Court's decision appears before the indented portion containing your excerpt.
Here:
quote:
The State moved to dismiss, claiming that it lacks
authority to designate recording districts for the Arctic
Islands. The State's motion was granted. DeNardo appeals. We
affirm.
The Arctic Islands are not located within the Nome
recording district or any of the State's other thirty-three
recording districts. Under AS 40.17.020(a), DeNardo's documents
may not be recorded in any recording district in Alaska.1
Moreover, the State has no duty to create a recording district
for the Arctic Islands, as it is not governing them. The
question of sovereignty over the Arctic Islands is a subject
committed to the executive and legislative branches of the United
States government. See United States v. Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1,
35 (1960). Until and unless the United States government
indicates that the Arctic Islands are part of the State of
Alaska, the State has no duty to accept for recording documents
affecting title to real property on the islands.2
You are very correct that Russia never actually re-signed the 1990 USSR-USA Maritime Boundary Agreement after the fall of the Soviet Union (who had actually signed it), but they have also never officially contested it. This is all irrelevant, as the US still recognizes and chooses to abide by the boundary line reaffirmed by the 1990 agreement (which in turn was based upon the original agreement made in 1867) and makes no claim to the islands in question. Again, the US government has never laid claim to any of these islands. A few guys in boats may have landed on some of them from time to time, perhaps sticking a flag in the sand (or such as the case may be snow, rock, or ice), but that simply does not equate to an official governmental claim. There really is no argument here, unless you are seriously arguing that Obama should go to war with Russia to claim these islands and is a failure for not having done so.
There is a basic map of the State Department's accepted boundary line at the link I provided earlier, if you'd prefer a visual aid. You may read through the 1990 agreement in its entirety at the following link, courtesy of the US State Department. There is a map in there for you as well.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/125431.pdf
The text of the original 1867 treaty is available from the Library of Congress site at the link below. I do not believe it contains a visual aid, but you should feel free to read through it and draw your own map should you feel inclined to do so.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=576
Wikipedia was used as a source for information regarding logical fallacies, yes. I read through the information in that article and found it to be accurate enough to provide to you as light reading. Unfortunately, the best sources I have on such matters are English language manuals, and I don't believe that any of them are available online. If you have any middle school debate class text books lying around, they are likely to contain similar information on logical fallacies and should be a sufficient primer.
|
| mcvlbound |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 2:22:19 PM
The important thing is does this mean that Sarah Palin can really see Russia on a clear day? |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 1:56:44 PM
Sounds like Alaska has a valid beef, but the treaty boundary is clear. You can read it at, http://www.alaskool.org/projects/ancsa/treaties/russia1867/rustreat.html.
In addressing the land ceded to the United States, the 1867 treaty says, "The same western limit, beginning at the same initial point, proceeds thence in a course nearly southwest, through Behring's Straits and Behring's Sea, so as to pass midway between the northwest point of the island of St. Lawrence and the southeast point of Cape Choukotski, to the meridian of one hundred and seventy-two west longitude; thence, from the intersection of that meridian, in a southwesterly direction, so as to pass midway between the island of Attou and the Copper Island of the Kormandorski couplet or group, in the North Pacific Ocean, to the meridian of one hundred and ninety-three degrees west longitude, so as to include in the territory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian Islands east of that meridian."
If you look on the maps below, you can see that Attou (Attu) is part of the Aleutian island chain, and that Copper Island is just west of it. The treaty says that the boundary goes between those two islands. It even gives coordinates.
Therefore, the WND and SDW articles were wrong where they said that Copper Island (along with its surrounding islands) was ceded to the United States in the treaty.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| capntang |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 1:48:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
No offense to my internet friend, Mixed Nutz, but Capntang is correct about this. The article admitted that the land situation up there, and our supposed inaction, long predates President Obama. That's why I didn't respond to this earlier. The artile, along with SDW, also incorrectly cited the 1867 treaty (per my reading of the Treaty, anyway). I looked up the treaty text itself, as the only reliable, original source to resolve the dispute, and it says the bounday goes between Copper Island and Attou (Attu), which places Copper and the other islands on Russia's side (unless I'm reading it incorrectly; I didn't read the whole Treaty, but only the small part where it addresses the boundary). On the other hand, I see no call for Capntang to insult your sanity or that of the whole forum. That's another matter. Admittedly, quite a few people are fooled by the popular myths, but that's not a forum or Mixed-Nutz problem. That's a human/internet problem, and it happens all over the world. It's called propaganda. People have used it for ages. Now, if 15 people had jumped on the bandwagon of this thread, calling for Obama's stripes, then maybe Tang would have more grounds on this one, but this thread got zero replies at the point Tang declared the forum insane; so, I say it's just a simple case of a guy reading a WND article and believing that it was accurate when it wasn't.
Well, I had a response typed out earlier, but I see you've changed your post. It threw me off for a minute since no edit notice appeared at the bottom, but I guess you just deleted the old one to post the current revision.
To address the new bit at the end there - people have jumped on the bandwagon, calling for Obama's stripes over this. Folks on this forum may not have posted in this particular thread prior to my involvement, but the issue has been making its way around various circles recently. This is not the first time I've seen this disseminated as gospel in the past few days. That said, this is far from a "popular myth". Basic history and geography refute the entire issue, so the concept of the US somehow giving away these islands seems to be relegated generally to the realm of conspiracy theorists and the like until it's picked up by an extremist blog or similar outlet and impressionable folks decide to run with it.
Perhaps it wouldn't be so easy to dismiss if 15 people had jumped on this particular bandwagon, but let's be honest, there's enough rash judgment and more-than-momentary lapses of reason (any Pink Floyd fans?) in the rest of this forum to compensate.
As for my tone, I don't see a huge problem. Perhaps it would be most accurate to call my posts "pedantic with a subtle hostility not atypical for an internet forum".
Antagonism meets antagonism. You can't deny the antagonistic nature of the original post (it's pretty clear in the title), and I would bet that Mixed Nutz hit the "post" button with a certain sense of how the post might be interpreted. I responded in kind and with correct information. I say if someone wants to take that tone from the get-go and blatantly call out someone (or several folks, in this instance) using an argument they have gleaned from fringe sources and neglected to research or fact check in any real way, then perhaps a similarly antagonistic response should be of little surprise. Equal and opposite reaction, and all that jazz.
I never directly and explicitly insulted Mixed Nutz's sanity that I can see, so let's not paint this as a personal attack. I would suggest that my questioning of the sanity and logical capabilities of the entire forum may not be entirely without merit, though you may call it premature in this case. I would call it preemptive, as it wouldn't have been the first time for someone correcting a majorly flawed attack on the current administration (or really just going against the generally approved grain 'round these parts) to be dismissed as an "Obama supporter" or "liberal commie such and such" or similar heretical term. Given the tone of the original post and the fact that several had already been called out with its first sentence, I didn't hold high hopes.
I simply cannot stand to see information like this consumed as truth at face value and regurgitated all over the place. It happens on both sides, but it does nothing to help the credibility of either. People need to start taking a little more personal responsibility for the information they provide and defend as fact.
This is an internet forum, after all. I don't take it too seriously. I actually don't take it seriously at all anymore. I honestly regret every time I click on that "Politics" link. I'm not sure why I did yesterday morning. Boredom before the beer festival, maybe? Morbid curiosity in search of the proverbial train wreck? Who knows.
|
| Mixed Nutz |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 12:41:16 PM
Denardo vs. State of Alaska
WHEREAS the continuing trespass by the Soviet government deprives the State of Alaska and its people of their fundamental right to use the islands of Wrangel, Herald, Henrietta, Jeannette, and Bennett together with the surrounding continental shelf and its valuable resources; and WHEREAS unlike the governments of Canada and Great Britain, the United States has never surrendered its claims of sovereignty over these islands; and WHEREAS the State of Alaska does not believe that agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union, whether they be secret or otherwise, can affect American claims to these islands until they have been ratified by the United States Senate; BE IT RESOLVED by the Alaska State Legislature that the Government of the United States assert and reassert American sovereign ty over Wrangel Island, Herald Island, and the De Long Islands of Henrietta, Jeannette, and Bennett, their resources, and their territorial shelf in behalf of the American people; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED that the Government of the United States make satisfactory compensation and restitution to the State of Alaska and its people for the loss of this territory resulting from the neglect of the United States Government to protect American lives and property when the lands were seized in 1924.
I don't see where the Supreme Court of Alaska is surrendering?
You keep referring to the 1867 treaty, but there no maps that can be produced by either side to confirm the boundary line. Another treaty was proposed in 1990 but Russia never signed (ratified) it.
You use wikipedia as a source for information, then call my sources dubious and unreliable?
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!! |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 11:27:21 AM
No offense to my internet friend, Mixed Nutz, but Capntang is correct about this. The article admitted that the land situation up there, and our supposed inaction, long predates President Obama. That's why I didn't respond to this earlier. The artile, along with SDW, also incorrectly cited the 1867 treaty (per my reading of the Treaty, anyway). I looked up the treaty text itself, as the only reliable, original source to resolve the dispute, and it says the bounday goes between Copper Island and Attou (Attu), which places Copper and the other islands on Russia's side (unless I'm reading it incorrectly; I didn't read the whole Treaty, but only the small part where it addresses the boundary). On the other hand, I see no call for Capntang to insult your sanity or that of the whole forum. That's another matter. Admittedly, quite a few people are fooled by the popular myths, but that's not a forum or Mixed-Nutz problem. That's a human/internet problem, and it happens all over the world. It's called propaganda. People have used it for ages. Now, if 15 people had jumped on the bandwagon of this thread, calling for Obama's stripes, then maybe Tang would have more grounds on this one, but this thread got zero replies at the point Tang declared the forum insane; so, I say it's just a simple case of a guy reading a WND article and believing that it was accurate when it wasn't.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| on a fishin mission |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 10:49:22 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mixed Nutz
...Here you go, fishinmission, MCV, and the rest of you Liberals:http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/obamas-giveaway-oil-rich-islands-to-russia/
...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!!
Way to go, thats showing us! 
"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so." Thomas Jefferson |
| capntang |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 08:35:28 AM
Why don't we play a game? There's a blatant historical inaccuracy in my last post. It's relatively minor, mostly immaterial in this particular argument, and has no effect on the validity of my point. That said, it's there nonetheless.
I was going to edit it, but I think I'll leave the post as-is. Can you find the error in question?
Take note that there could be other errors. I encourage you to fact check everything I write for yourself, just as you should fact check chain emails in the future. The error we're looking for here should stand out more than any others, though. |
|
|
