posted
*shrug* BlackBlade's a thoroughly patient guy, and about as committed to the ideal of courteous conversation as can be found around here or on the Internet in general.
But the truth is most people, around here at least, aren't. There are at least half a dozen folks on HR who reliably enjoy these kinds of discussions and can be counted on to participate in them at length...but not very often at all with Blayne.
Which ain't meant as a shot, either, Blayne. Just...man, it'd be nice if you changed something so these discussions didn't feel so much like wars of attrition.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not taking back what I've insisted that I am arguing. But I have been a bit snippy with Blayne. For that I am sorry Blayne.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When I was TAing for a pretty well-known military historian, he said that MacArthur had a plan to reach the Yalu and then seed the riverbed and shore with radioactive isotopes which would make it utterly impassable for decades. I can't remember why it wasn't implemented, probably because of Truman, but that's a pretty interesting plan.
Good grief. That sounds, without exaggeration, like a plot device in the Fallout series. Heh. Didn't expect a reminder of how they modeled their setting after cultural ideas of the 1950s!
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *shrug* BlackBlade's a thoroughly patient guy, and about as committed to the ideal of courteous conversation as can be found around here or on the Internet in general.
But the truth is most people, around here at least, aren't. There are at least half a dozen folks on HR who reliably enjoy these kinds of discussions and can be counted on to participate in them at length...but not very often at all with Blayne.
There's another truth on the matter, though, that I think some people have gotten by now, and that's that at least in this case a well-meaning commitment to patience with him has taught him all the wrong lessons, soo
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what right lessons have your less patient but presumably just as well meaning approach taught him professor Samp?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When I was TAing for a pretty well-known military historian, he said that MacArthur had a plan to reach the Yalu and then seed the riverbed and shore with radioactive isotopes which would make it utterly impassable for decades. I can't remember why it wasn't implemented, probably because of Truman, but that's a pretty interesting plan.
quote:Again, this isn't factually correct, not in the context of initial intervention in 1950. The historical record is that MacArthur wanted to use Korea as a springboard to invade the PRC with the ROC to "liberate" it. Using nuclear weapons in the interior/border was only recorded after the Chinese took Seoul.
Sorry man, if I have to choose between the Blayne-Wikipedia team and the professor who's actually a famous, published military historian, I'm going with the historian. And I didn't say anything about nuclear weapons, just nuclear isotopes. I can't remember what specific elements, but I'm sure I have it in my notes somewhere.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: And what right lessons have your less patient but presumably just as well meaning approach taught him professor Samp?
That's an excellent question.
I personally have worried that Sam and Primal Curve were going to turn Blayne into a school shooter. Of course, Blayne appears to have much thicker skin than that, and is also a more peaceful person than that.
That's not to say he wasn't frustrating to deal with back when he didn't both with the whole "spelling and grammar" thing.
I do think, though, there's something to be said for the "dude, let it go. it's just an internet message board" approach, which several people here could take a page from. If Blayne's misspellings are driving you to personally insult him, maybe it's time to, emotionally-speaking, take a step back from the situation.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: And what right lessons have your less patient but presumably just as well meaning approach taught him professor Samp?
Nothing. I, like rakeesh, lyrhawn, tom, blackblade, mucus, dan frank, and countless others have offered the right lesson over and over again, but it's useless, and parks even caught on pretty quick to the fact that cutting him some slack was more harm than good and had taught him all the wrong lessons.
We even, you and me, specifically already talked about why blayne isn't cut more slack. I can only repeat what I provided as observation then.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please refresh my memory what the "right lesson" is again?
Blayne goes overboard...clearly, but BB's commitment to patience and affiability are hardly a bad thing. Golly I wish I could do it. I'm too hot headed by far, even though I do try.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Yes, and I'm sure the Samprany-Orincolo team has done such a wonderful job at... Teaching me whatever lesson it was you people were intending to teach, I'm sure its led to the optimal result which was...?
Probably for me to stop posting here and post more at Sakeriver, only thing I can logically determine. Where I don't get any of this bullshit from the Troll Brigade.
You don't read what I write and I don't read what you write, what's the point of any engagement, just stop reading my posts, you never do anyways.
quote: Yes it is. You need to accept that. Everything else you said is derivative of your unwillingness to accept that the point you are arguing against is not one I made.
Except it is not, I've passed by other people at other forums and in real life, you are in fact changing your argument, this is a fact. You are saying two entirely different statements between your OP and your follow ups.
quote: Sorry man, if I have to choose between the Blayne-Wikipedia team and the professor who's actually a famous, published military historian, I'm going with the historian. And I didn't say anything about nuclear weapons, just nuclear isotopes. I can't remember what specific elements, but I'm sure I have it in my notes somewhere.
Something you clearly only sorta remember at best and have no evidence to support.
IP: Logged |
quote:radioactive isotopes which would make it utterly impassable for decades
That would be a damn good trick. With radioactivity used as a weapon you always have a tradeoff between deadliness and longevity, because by construction longer half-lives go with lower activities. Maybe MacArthur didn't understand what radio-isotopes can and can't do; maybe he was misunderstood or misquoted; but in any case such a plan is not practical. Make the river uncrossable for a month or two, perhaps, if you had a really enormous amount of a fast-decaying isotope. (Which does leave the question of distributing this horrendously nasty stuff, but I suppose MacArthur would just have ordered his soldiers to do it and damn the radiation poisoning.) But if it's that deadly it's going to decay fast - that's what makes it deadly in the first place. For something to be dead-in-a-few-days effective for decades, you'd basically have to replace the river water with whatever isotope you were using. At that point you might as well use nerve gas or petroleum or something.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Please refresh my memory what the "right lesson" is again?
Do you remember the last conversation people had specifically with you about Blayne in the last thread where you were wondering 'why not cut blayne some slack?' pretty much exactly during blayne requiring moderator intervention for something near the 40th time? We've already been here. I can dig up the relevant bits if you want.
quote:Yes, and I'm sure the Samprany-Orincolo team has done such a wonderful job at... Teaching me whatever lesson it was you people were intending to teach, I'm sure its led to the optimal result which was...?
Why are you asking, even sarcastically, about what's led to the optimal result? We're pretty specifically talking about how you haven't changed. You've even wantonly insulted and talked down to BlackBlade well beyond his patience threshold.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except it is not, I've passed by other people at other forums and in real life, you are in fact changing your argument, this is a fact. You are saying two entirely different statements between your OP and your follow ups.
I don't even know what to say to this. I mean, am I allowed to conjure up people outside the forum to back me up on this? The nice thing about forums is the text is there, for all to see. I've quoted from myself quite liberally, and told you multiple times what argument I am making. This is the last time.
BlackBlade's Argument as told by BlackBlade:
"MacArthur believed that he could successfully turn back the North Korean invasion. He believed that the Chinese most likely would not interfere with these plans, but he did not rule it out. In the event the Chinese did interfere, he had the unbeatable atomic bomb available to him."
Please, I am *begging* you. Can we stick to that argument, instead of endlessly talking about whether that's what I meant? You can even tell yourself I'm shifting the goal-posts, anything to get you to actually talk about what I actually think, instead of what *you* think I believe.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
If you like, or you could just answer the direct question, "What good lesson are you trying to teach Blayne with your impatience, and what is the bad lesson that BB is teaching with his patience?"
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
that's why there's relevant bits I'm talking about. like, discussion was already had with you specifically. The 'good patient' lesson that a lot of people tried was basically trying to lift him up positively and encouragingly the points at which he should not do the things that he does. For six years and change.. Lyrhawn, Rakeesh and I already pretty much explained it all out to you about this when you asked about it, which is why I ask if you remember. I'll, like, dredge that up later when i'm at home.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
On the other hand at Sakeriver I've seen people discuss at length at how your approach just made things worse and the only improvement came from those being patient, I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle.
quote: BlackBlade's Argument as told by BlackBlade:
"MacArthur believed that he could successfully turn back the North Korean invasion. He believed that the Chinese most likely would not interfere with these plans, but he did not rule it out. In the event the Chinese did interfere, he had the unbeatable atomic bomb available to him."
Okay whatever.
A) MacArthur did not believe or intend to turn back the North Koreans, he wanted to completely occupy North Korea in favor of his strongman candidate Syngman Rhee after the United States and the USSR stamped our Korean self determinism and then use it as a spring board to escalate the war and invade China. Using the pretense of needing to cross the Yalu to destroy supply dumps and the inevitable Chinese reprisals as a C.B to force Truman to escalate the war.
B) There is no "most likely" this is entirely supposition with no basis in historical evidence, he entirely dismissed army intelligence that the Chinese were actively engaging US soldiers.
C) He also did not "not rule it out" as you can tell that he made no military contingencies or held back the minimum reserves to deal with such a eventuality, this is on the same level of discredited conspiracy theories that said Hitler was simply striking first and that the Soviets were "really" preparing for the offencive for sometime in 1942. There is nothing** that supports the view point of MacArthur believing that the Chinese *might* attack and have contingencies.
Because, following from (B) if he *did* believe that the Chinese intervening was a however remote a possibility, the second he recieved reports of (i) the Chinese crossing the Yalu and (ii) actively engaging US Soldiers should have logically forced him to halt the US advance to reconsider his position (which was overstretched, exhausted, and under supplied outside of air support in bad weather). Since he didn't, and kept going anyways, either he is immensely incompetent or simply did not believe that the Chinese would intervene whatsoever (which isn't mutually exclusive now that I think about it with his incompetence).
D) "In the event the Chinese did interfere, he had the unbeatable atomic bomb available to him." This is false as in no way did US doctrine or policy at the time give macArthur Nuclear Release authority, it rested solely with the President. MacArthur could not have thought he had such an option until after his psycological breakdown and ego at losing Seoul. The only historical evidence of what MacArthur would due is to use conventional means, but otherwise entirely dismissed the possibility.
As MacArthur was quite overrated commander who lost the Philipines and botched his return it was only luck* that saved the Incheon landing with a history of bad strategic decisions saved only through the superior resources and logistics; nearly all of your arguments are predicated on the assumption that MacArthur was somehow a "skilled" or otherwise "gifted/bright" commander when this is contrary to his actual military record. Since your assumptions are incorrect, so are your arguments.
*The Chinese and the Soviets warned Kim il Sung that this was where the Americans were going to land; Kim il Sung felt that MacArthur would have to be an idiot to land there. Had they headed their advice the American landings would've been botched beyond recovery.
**An invasion of Germany of that magnitude would have had an impossible to hide level of paper trails similar to what the Germans had left lying around regarding the Final Solution; this paper trail simply does not exist and as such likely impossible for the Soviets to have been seriously considering an invasion of Germany for the indefinite future.
You *did* have a massive paper trail of the Soviets making efforts to prepare for the defencive such as Zhukov wargaming a German invasion from occupied Poland through the Kurland gap and the shifting of the Molotov Line forward.
IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand at Sakeriver I've seen people discuss at length at how your approach just made things worse
you've pulled the 'well people at sakeriver back me up in this way ...' card a few times and each time I went over to said perfectly visible forum and looked at what was actually happening versus how you describe it and you were being majorly dishonest (I am not the first to call you out on this) so by now I am appropriately salting that assertion.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne: Thank you for all your major points. Some of them were interesting.
Unfortunately I just don't feel like continuing at this point as I don't feel like even if I said something that was accurate, that you'd concede an inch.
quote:MacArthur did not believe or intend to turn back the North Koreans, he wanted to completely occupy North Korea in favor of his strongman candidate Syngman Rhee after the United States and the USSR stamped our Korean self determinism and then use it as a spring board to escalate the war and invade China.
Every single one of those actions would have to be preceded by MacArthur *turning back* the North Korean invasion, as that is what incited hostilities in the first place.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Blayne: Thank you for all your major points. Some of them were interesting.
quote:MacArthur did not believe or intend to turn back the North Koreans, he wanted to completely occupy North Korea in favor of his strongman candidate Syngman Rhee after the United States and the USSR stamped our Korean self determinism and then use it as a spring board to escalate the war and invade China.
Every single one of those actions would have to be preceded by MacArthur *turning back* the North Korean invasion, as that is what incited hostilities in the first place.
Your making it sound like MacArthur had at any point the intend to be contented with merely pushing the Norks back to the border and staying there, I am point out he never intended to be content with any such thing. Your coaching military and political actions and intentions together, in a discussion that requires a great deal of precision. Thus anything you say that you do not explicitly carefully describe knowing those differences is inaccurate at best.
There is a distinction between "Okay first we thing we need to do is stop them." Versus "We are going to stop them and then see what up." Because the first implies there are additional actions.
Besides its a derail anyways because again what matters is what is historically factual regarding your statement, you *added* in that line and it isn't relevant to the discussion to whether MacArthur had contingencies to deal with the PVA and thus why he didn't have contingencies to deal with the PVA, ergo why you are arguing he felt he had access to nukes...? Do you see why your arguments aren't making any sense?
quote: Unfortunately I just don't feel like continuing at this point as I don't feel like even if I said something that was accurate, that you'd concede an inch.
You haven't said anything accurate yet and haven't had a single valid argument, so yes, of course I am under no obligation to concede an "inch" because concession requires that I find your logic and evidence to be persuasive. Assumptions predicated on suppositions that conflict with the historical record coached in apologia are not the least bit persuasive.
You are free to abandon the discussion whenever, but it won't stop my feeling of disappointment in the fact that you asked me to compromise on an issue, which I did, but choosing to abandon the discussion regardless. Nor change the fact that it won't be because "I was unreasonable unable to be persuaded by sound arguments"; because again, if your assumptions are wrong (which I have shown they are) then so are your arguments so why is it unreasonable for me to not be convinced?
Since you broke our compromise I'll be remiss to not point out:
quote: MacArthur believed that he could successfully turn back the North Korean invasion.
Is not what you said originally here:
quote: You aren't proving me wrong. You are actually agreeing with me. The Chinese were openly stating their intention to be involved in Korea, MacArthur a top tier commander would have certainly been aware of this possibility. He may have gambled on it not happening, but to say he didn't even have a contingency plan for his contingency plan is to under estimate one history's brightest leaders.
You do not mention the North Koreans at all so how could it be your argument here:
quote: BlackBlade's Argument as told by BlackBlade:
"MacArthur believed that he could successfully turn back the North Korean invasion. He believed that the Chinese most likely would not interfere with these plans, but he did not rule it out. In the event the Chinese did interfere, he had the unbeatable atomic bomb available to him."
Ergo why I am saying you've changed your argument without acknowledging that you've done so, this is a really simple thing.
Has Tom read this thread? I'll believe his analysis as to what is going on.
quote:Your making it sound like MacArthur had at any point the intend to be contented with merely pushing the Norks back to the border and staying there, I am point out he never intended to be content with any such thing.
Nope. I never made that argument either, so I'm going to ignore the rest of your post.
quote:You haven't said anything accurate yet and haven't had a single valid argument, so yes, of course I am under no obligation to concede an "inch" because concession requires that I find your logic and evidence to be persuasive.
It also involves being able to be persuaded in the first place, which you have steadfastly refused to be. I can't persuade you, nobody on this board, or any other I'm aware of can persuade you. Either you are just flat out more correct than all those people on every single topic you choose to engage in, a feat of amazing prowess, or you are full of pride, and it precludes you from letting others correct your misconceptions as to do so would be weakness to you, a common human failing.
So, go ahead. Live in your world where the North Koreans were just trying to unite a weak South Korea that had to be propped up by the West, whereupon bumbling old MacArthur with his dastardly plans of total Asian dominance, just got lucky with his invasion spot in Korea because the Chinese had scouted him out, and tried their darndest to clue the North Koreans in. Finally as the UN forces pressed their advantage, the mighty Chinese army, like an unstoppable sea pushed stupid old MacArthur all the way back to the original boundary between the Koreas, then benevolently doffed their hats, and retreated back to China.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: Nope. I never made that argument either, so I'm going to ignore the rest of your post.
The *rest* of the post provides context why because regardless of *why* you think it isn't what you said there is an obligation for me to respond to it. So go ahead ignoring it, doesn't change anything really.
quote: It also involves being able to be persuaded in the first place, which you have steadfastly refused to be.
We will never know. You don't get to *not* put up logical arguments under the assumption that the person you are arguing with won't agree; you put up a reasonable argument first, which you haven't.
Like not once have you actually responded to my criticism that your arguments have predications based on assumptions (except to say "Nuh-Uh!", you are only responding to the only the shallowest resemblance of what I am saying not to anything that actually structurally matters in context.
For example your counter argument to that MacArthur made no contingencies to deal with the PVA is that "Well MacArthur was a bright general so WHat Would MacArthur Do?" and then assumed everything out of thin air based on that assumption that MacArthur would've been "bright" enough to avoid falling into the very traps that he had fallen into anyways! With only the weakest rationalizations of "WELL HOW COULD HE HE DIDNT HAVE THE RESERVES! HE CANT PLAN WITH RESOURCES HE WASNT GIVEN!(sic.) http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-saddowns.gif" To which to your egregiously unsound argument I counter argue with the obvious Military Truism of "Yes. Yes I can blame him for not coming up with a solution for that. Many other generals have pulled off more with less, why should I hold him to a lower standard when you obviously consider him to be very skilled? It is the least he should have considered and done, you say he did consider it, but obviously not to the point to actually DO anything about it but somehow he *must* have had contingencies that he never used or have any record of implementing?
Remember, if logically he made no conventional contingencies ergo he must have had planned for a nuclear initiation release. However since there is no historical evidence that he ever intended nuclear release in the event of China intervention until AFTER the fall of Seoul ergo it is logical to conclude he must have merely been incompetent hence why your original statement is historically inaccurate.
quote: ive in your world where the North Koreans were just trying to unite a weak South Korea
Lolz, like holy shit that's low, since I didn't actually say this its pretty immature of you.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne you need to go through these posts and edit them. Forget arguments, even your basic readability is really lacking right now.
Like: "Your making it sound like MacArthur had at any point the intend to be contented with merely pushing the Norks back to the border and staying there, I am point out he never intended to be content with any such thing."
What?
"With only the weakest rationalizations of "WELL HOW COULD HE HE DIDNT HAVE THE RESERVES! HE CANT PLAN WITH RESOURCES HE WASNT GIVEN!(sic.) http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-saddowns.gif" To which to your egregiously unsound argument I counter argue with the obvious Military Truism . . ."
Huh?
Take a freaking breath, man.
You're so incoherent I honestly can't even tell what your argument is. Are you saying Macarthur didn't want to use nukes to stop the Chinese from crossing the Yalu? Or that he didn't plan to do so earlier than that? Or... what?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: SW, in case you're wondering that right there is what we're talking about.
yesh.
to recap the essence of it, sw, from last time:
quote:You haven't spent sufficient time here to appreciate how the heart sinks when Blayne decides he's going to make a point on something. Or possibly to know the type of weary, deep regret that he has not grown up in all these years. Or to feel tired at the prospect of wading through a series of posts, never really knowing when the material will have been copy pasted from unknown and uncredited sources. Or to feel powerless and defeated at the prospect tht, should you engage with it at all, you will be the target of vociferous abuse and insinuations and paranoid persecution fantasies.
quote:. Slack, consider slack, copious amounts of slack, has been cut.
quote:Yeah, that's the essence of it, stone wolf. For five years now, probably more, this has been what Blayne has done. You disagree with one of his Trigger Issues, no matter what, you get a ceaseless slew of poorly-worded, pseudo-erudite garble that
(1) ceaselessly dismisses your position as just being prattle, and get subject to multiple comments where he decides your intent for you
(2) fails to or refuses to acknowledge your real position at all (see what he's doing to rakeesh) and gives no indication that he will ever try to
(3) is usually copy-pasted, in whole or in part, uncredited, from whoever Blayne is plagiarizing that week, and
(4) reliably expresses Blayne's ingrained tendency to never deviate from a given assurance of how true and right he is on his trigger issues, and to only get more crude and irrationally dismissive (see him in the China thread, or six billion other examples).
corollary is (5) that this always happens no matter as to whether someone's got him dead to rights on a subject that he is obsessed over.
quote:When are you people going to learn not to engage Blayne? He's never going to learn, and you people thought for years that you should nanny him and try to play nice and to "ease up" like Stone_Wolf_ suggests and all he did with this extra niceness and leniency was train himself to blame others for when he flips his lid in response to being called out for the way he uncontrollably acts.
He has done one smart thing, though. He has figured out what he did here? He's allowed to do it. that he can just keep hurling swear words and direct abuse towards other posters and just going ahead and violating the TOS blatantly whenever he really gets in a snit. You have all trained him that he gets to get away with it over and over and he has at least learned that lesson well.
quote:You know, BlackBlade treats you with remarkable respect given your not-uncommon descent into shrill tantrums, Blayne, and he is not exactly an ignorant provincial with respect to China either. Yet you sneer at him and suggest he's naive because he expresses confidence that something will happen that the very government you're defending is surely wary of too, popular discontent with its rule and a major political upheaval from the bottom up. You do it without batting an eye, either. Kind of pissed me off. Is he now another person whose opinions you get to just write off and roll your eyes at in your usual pompous, unjustified manner?
I don't speak for him, it was just intensely irritating to see someone who makes such a point of demanding apologies for slights and demands as much unwarranted respect as you sneer like that.
But I'm sure that as usual, your points and style scintillate while those who disagree are idiotic ignorant bullies.
quote:This is an honest not-joking not-snarky statement: I would be very appreciative for someone to take Blayne's post and essentially translate it to a pretty coherent version so that I am sure of what he is saying.
I mean, yeah.
I don't even have to say anything anymore. Look at all this text about how much this is all repetition of the same things.
There's your answer, stone wolf. There, and again here.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Pretty sure (3) Is an outright lie and at best references when I would simply quote Yahtzee or Jon Stewart to be witty.
That the whole spat with Orincoro started when he decided to insult me over me believing it isn't necessary to *live* in Russia to write a story with Russian characters prompted me to goad him to using reverse psychology by insinuating he never actually went to the Czech republic in a poorly thought out attempt to trick him into giving me advice is what started his vendetta is pretty hilarious in a sad little way in hindsight.
Much like how those posts are also rather sad and pathetic as the authors who wrote them.
I guess we have an answer as to how every single thread from here on out is going to end up.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Blayne you need to go through these posts and edit them. Forget arguments, even your basic readability is really lacking right now.
Like: "Your making it sound like MacArthur had at any point the intend to be contented with merely pushing the Norks back to the border and staying there, I am point out he never intended to be content with any such thing."
What?
Autocorrect for typo's: "Your making it sound like MacArthur had at any point the intended to be contented with merely pushing the Norks back to the border and staying there, I am pointing out he never intended to be content with any such thing."
That's plenty understandable.
quote:
"With only the weakest rationalizations of "WELL HOW COULD HE HE DIDNT HAVE THE RESERVES! HE CANT PLAN WITH RESOURCES HE WASNT GIVEN!(sic.) http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-saddowns.gif" To which to your egregiously unsound argument I counter argue with the obvious Military Truism . . ."
Huh?
Take a freaking breath, man.
I'm mocking BB's argument which has been quite circular and inconsistent. Let me rephrase without the img url.
quote: With only the weakest rationalizations of:
"WELL HOW COULD HE HE DIDN'T HAVE THE RESERVES! HE CANT PLAN WITH RESOURCES HE WASN'T GIVEN!(sic.)"
To which to your egregiously unsound argument I counter argue with the obvious Military Truism . . .
Again, plenty readable.
quote:
You're so incoherent I honestly can't even tell what your argument is. Are you saying Macarthur didn't want to use nukes to stop the Chinese from crossing the Yalu? Or that he didn't plan to do so earlier than that? Or... what?
There's several posts where I restate my argument again and again, it isn't funny how it can be this badly misunderstood.
My argument comes from a few perspectives:
1) That history has a lot of "common conventional understandings" that have some level of value as a "short hand" for complex historical events. "Curtis LeMay was a crazy motherf*cker", "MacArthur wanted to nuke China", "The Holy Roman Empire was dominated by the Hapsburgs", "America won WWII" that seem true enough, but are far more complicated and actually require a lot of precision to be "accurate".
Thus, BB's OP that I quote below is one of those "truisms" that I merely point out isn't actually correct when properly studied.
2) That Blackblade's argument actually changes, he adds information to his argument in future posts, but insists that his original argument, and his clarification are the same and no new information was added. This is clearly false with even the most basic understanding of the english language. There's literally more words and new assertions are made, they are impossible to be the same.
3) That even if we agree, and let his argument be "consistent" for the purposes of discussion, it is still historically inaccurate, and his reasonings are predicated on assumptions about what macArthur would or would not do based on the supposition that he was a "bright commander".
The point, is that is not conventionally regarded as being true, it is at best personal opinion and not one widely held among military historians and if his predicate is incorrect so is his conclusion which is a mathematical proof in propositional formal logic.
To reiterate:
quote: WHAT BLACKBLADE ORIGINALLY SAID BY BLACKBLADE
Also, MacArthur didn't think the Chinese to come, but he also believed if they did, we'd just use our nukes, which was why he operated the way he did. Unfortunately for him, Truman was not on the same page.
Which I'll divide up:
quote: Also, MacArthur didn't think the Chinese to come,
So far, this is true. But understates the actual level of dismissal MacArthur felt.
quote: but he also believed if they did, we'd just use our nukes,
Here's where we swerve into fantasy land. Because:
i) Even if we grant "we" to be the US military as commanded by Truman as a whole there's no way he would have known if Truman would be willing to use nuclear weapons in Korea, not in 1950.
ii) He actually believed that American air superiority in the form of heavy bombers would be sufficient to carpet bomb exposed Chinese land forces.
iii) MacArthur only decided the need to use nuclear weapons after Seoul was lost a second time.
quote: which was why he operated the way he did.
Here's where the suppositions eventually come in, he operated as dictated by the historical record:
a) Overextended his supply lines, exhausted his troops and, b) ignored Army intelligence of PVA forces operating in Korea and engaging US troops. c) Made no contingencies to deal with or prepare for a Chinese intervention. d) Intended, by all accounts, to keep going and invade the PRC with land forces.
Blackblade assumes that because he felt that MacArthur was a "bright" General that MacArthur must have prepared contingencies, and yet when prompted about why these were never deployed he responds that MacArthur simply didn't have the troops or assets to do so.
This is a contradiction, when you make contingencies you find the assets and put them in reserve, even if it means being less effective in ongoing operations. If he did not have the assets, and did not act to organize his OOB to give him even the minimal reserves or assets to deal with a Chinese eventuality, then ergo he must not have had any actual contingencies, because a good commander would have managed something, not the "nothing" that MacArthur came up with.
What a "good" commander would do is also a supposition, but born out more times then not, by the historical record, then the supposition that MacArthur was a "bright" commander.
Additionally we know that if he *did* plan or have a contingency for Chinese intervention, he would logically not dismiss and ignore Army intelligence; a contingency to react to a threat is afterall, worthless if you ignore the threat.
This is behaviour consistent with someone whose Ego and racism clouded his military judgement, he believed he understood the "asian mind" and that the Chinese would not intervene for a "number of reasons" some of them maybe even valid, but none of these reasons translated into an actual contingency backup plan in case he was dead wrong.
The claim is that MacArthur did not even seriously think to use nuclear weapons to respond to the Chinese for a number of reasons born out by the historical record; not that MacArthur would not.
Because, this claim is a supposition which as previously pointed out is predicated on MacArthur being a in BB's words a "bright commander" and thus he must have "obviously" thought that he might need to use nuclear weapons to respond to China... If they invaded, thus why they would not invade.
Again, I repeat myself: Since MacArthur is NOT a bright commander, and because there is no historical record of him saying or planning for it at the time, it isn't reasonable to conclude that MacArthur believed that the United States would respond with nuclear initiation should the Chinese intervene in Korea.
Thus, MacArthur did not believe the Chinese would intervene for different reasons.
And because he did not believe the Chinese would invade, he made no preparations to deal with the eventuality; BB's assertion he MUST have made contingencies is contradicted by the historical fact that he did not act in a way that assumed he did.
IP: Logged |
posted
not a dig, it just took me a while to find a smattering of quotes that were basically all about how history has been repeating itself for six years and all are known quantities here
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
That the whole spat with Orincoro started when he decided to insult me over me believing it isn't necessary to *live* in Russia to write a story with Russian characters prompted me to goad him to using reverse psychology by insinuating he never actually went to the Czech republic in a poorly thought out attempt to trick him into giving me advice is what started his vendetta is pretty hilarious in a sad little way in hindsight.
I can't speak to what *you* may think happened. I can only assure you, my objections were not to the idea of you writing a story about a place you have never been. That is not an undertaking I find objectionable.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Blayne...you could have skipped the last page and a half and simply said, "I disagree." and accomplished more.
Without a time machine AND a mind reader, there won't be a definitive, provable answer.
And antagonizing people here is not worth trying to prove the unprovable.
There is however a *more likely* answer and well this is a forum and I'm opinionated; do you actually expect me to *not* actively pursue and argue my position so long as I have valid grounds and warrant to stand on? Should we not have arguments at all? People are always going to be upset in a heated enough discussion as a byproduct no matter what steps you take to not step on peoples toes because popular topics of discussion are also the closest to peoples hearts.
This is just a bizarre situation of where what I am seeing if not conforming to reality and that's jarring. Two things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. BB's posts are neither equal to the point he is making, nor to each other. This is as clear as day and night to me and I cannot understand how he views them as equivalent. I had another friend look at it, his opinion is that we're talking past each other.
IP: Logged |
posted
And I don't mean that in a "you're wasting your time on someone so foolish as..." I mean you're literally wasting your life away arguing over a small historical point.
You want to argue this, you go back to the sources, you tackle all the primary documents available and you write a blog post, a thesis or a book on what was going through MacArthur's mind and then you post your thesis, fully cited, to BlackBlade with clear indications of exactly what makes you think such and such and not the reverse, and with all the stacks of appropriate bibliography-- and at least get a freaking PhD out of it.
Otherwise, it's just another night in which you fight over WIkipedia's wording and some PhD friend that you may or may not have citing a book or other text that you may or may not have actually read.
That the whole spat with Orincoro started when he decided to insult me over me believing it isn't necessary to *live* in Russia to write a story with Russian characters prompted me to goad him to using reverse psychology by insinuating he never actually went to the Czech republic in a poorly thought out attempt to trick him into giving me advice is what started his vendetta is pretty hilarious in a sad little way in hindsight.
I can't speak to what *you* may think happened. I can only assure you, my objections were not to the idea of you writing a story about a place you have never been. That is not an undertaking I find objectionable.
Do you think you can find the argument he's talking about? Because I would like to see how different what you were actually arguing was.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote: do you actually expect me to *not* actively pursue and argue my position so long as I have valid grounds and warrant to stand on?
Yes. It doesn't matter, and you are wasting your time.
Then forums should not exist by your definition. It's dumb because you're limiting the scope of what is "acceptable" based on whether you get a discreet result, that's madness.
IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's fine to argue for a short while. If agreement is not forthcoming, I don't see the point of torturing yourself over trying to get someone to agree, especially over the internet.
For example, I could post another post after this, and another, way into the middle of my night and long after my delirious brain makes any sense. However, I have made my argument and apparently it is both "dumb" and "madness" according to you. I, of course, do not agree with this assessment.
So, in my view, with this kind of start, there is little point in me pushing the point further. If you wish to come back to my argument later, you may, but unless you have something new to say there is no point in me using up further time.
And now I get to sleep at a reasonable hour and use the remaining time to accomplish various things. Ta-daa.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Your point was absolutist in nature, as such your assessment was objectionable.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: .
That the whole spat with Orincoro started when he decided to insult me over me believing it isn't necessary to *live* in Russia to write a story with Russian characters prompted me to goad him to using reverse psychology by insinuating he never actually went to the Czech republic in a poorly thought out attempt to trick him into giving me advice is what started his vendetta is pretty hilarious in a sad little way in hindsight.
I can't speak to what *you* may think happened. I can only assure you, my objections were not to the idea of you writing a story about a place you have never been. That is not an undertaking I find objectionable.
Do you think you can find the argument he's talking about? Because I would like to see how different what you were actually arguing was.
I found the thread after some googling, he starts out with some good advice that I should've responded better and in a less aggressive way; but very quickly abandons constructive criticism to criticising my life choices and states flat out that I should not bother writing at all while being judgemental about my personal life or 'lack thereof'.
Obviously I got angry and said somethings I shouldn't have but I was less mature then. The tangent drops and an interesting discussion on physics starts up and then a little later (a few months to a year?) I post a bunch of world building ideas I've had that was distracting me from writing and developing any one idea.
A side note, I've actually written several tens of thousands of words since then.
Then Orincoro said he was going to deliberately withhold information, he really shouldn't have said that, or even posted. So I posted an angry post, which Orincoro escalates from there. "And I love that you think your now an expert in slavic languages", and Orincoro just looses his shit and flips out.
Such as glorious tidbits like "No Blayne, I would like you to go away." Plus other direct insults, and hey look, more insults, and some more insults, lets see if we can fit some patronizing derision, yup, there it is.
Then he looses his shit again, and it just escalates and escalates until Blackblade intervenes because well my behavior was unacceptable but Orincoro's was worse, he got email warnings after all.
IP: Logged |
quote:I found the thread after some googling, he starts out with some good advice that I should've responded better and in a less aggressive way; but very quickly abandons constructive criticism to criticising my life choices and states flat out that I should not bother writing at all while being judgemental about my personal life or 'lack thereof'.
Obviously I got angry and said somethings I shouldn't have but I was less mature then. The tangent drops and an interesting discussion on physics starts up and then a little later (a few months to a year?) I post a bunch of world building ideas I've had that was distracting me from writing and developing any one idea.
A side note, I've actually written several tens of thousands of words since then.
Then Orincoro said he was going to deliberately withhold information, he really shouldn't have said that, or even posted. So I posted an angry post, which Orincoro escalates from there. "And I love that you think your now an expert in slavic languages", and Orincoro just looses his shit and flips out.
Such as glorious tidbits like "No Blayne, I would like you to go away." Plus other direct insults, and hey look, more insults, and some more insults, lets see if we can fit some patronizing derision, yup, there it is.
Then he looses his shit again, and it just escalates and escalates until Blackblade intervenes because well my behavior was unacceptable but Orincoro's was worse, he got email warnings after all.
if you found it you can link me to it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
For the record, since its propably a good idea to take the initiative, I do largely disavow most of my terrible responses in that thread and for whatever its worth I'm sorry. But Orincoro did say various horrible things to another poster that he had no right or standing to say and ultimately should apologize for. No one should have said the things he did.
For the record, say please, or "can you link it to me."
IP: Logged |
posted
My first thought at reading that thread was "Well, couldn't the Russian just be...drunk? 'Cause, you know...".
Also, Blayne, I'm curious, did you ever actually write that novel, or even start on it? Have you even written anything that you've let other people read? Apologies if you've started threads about it, etc., I lurk pretty infrequently here.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
No it wasn't. It was specific and particular to you, yesterday. And still today, incidentally. You asked a specific question, I gave you a specific answer. If you're not happy continuing this argument, stop.
If you're happy arguing in this way and this is the way you'd rather do it, then be happy. Otherwise, my advice for improvement of your argument is to go forth and find more information. You could plot your arguments like this:
- Some basic substantiation, like Wikipedia - More Wikipedia referencing in counter to your argument
- Other websites on the internet with relevant information, your friends, reddit. - More countering.
Now here's where we cross over into new territory. If you have not resolved your argument and you still feel you have one, repeating your data, now is the time to do serious research such as read a book or an article on the subject that you can directly cite. If you've already read a book or an article on the subject (as I presume you have in order to make a confident assertion) go and GET the book and start quoting. If that book's not enough, get another book.
If this is too much time, drop the argument. If it's not too much time, go and do it cheerfully. You might learn some interesting stuff in the process that you didn't know before.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: There is however a *more likely* answer and well this is a forum and I'm opinionated; do you actually expect me to *not* actively pursue and argue my position so long as I have valid grounds and warrant to stand on?
A large part of the problem is that you don't possess the critical reasoning skills yet to determine the difference between valid and invalid, nor are you EVER open to being swayed from whichever end of an argument you start from. You think you're arguing logically, but logic never enters into it, so it obviously has no choice but to devolve into namecalling.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
