th, 2008 at 1:37pm:

My God, Lethe you really are on a different planet aren't you? Let me clarify a few things for those of us on this planet, if not for you.



1. I have made no statement whatsoever about the accuracy of the PCASS on this site or anywhere else.



I'll assume that is technically correct. But there are three possibilities:

(1) you think the PCASS accuracy is acceptable to justify its use;

(2) you do not think the PCASS accuracy is acceptable to justify its use; or

(3) you are not sure if the PCASS accuracy is acceptable to justify its use.

If (2) is your position, then you're for giving military people a tool that you don't think is accurate enough to justify it's use. If (3) is the case you are doing what is not as bad: giving them a tool that only might not be accurate enough to justify its use. But the vigor with which you attacked George makes me think that you are not agnostic about the usefulness of the device.



Which is the case, Mr. Webb? Is it accurate enough to use or not? If it is not accurate enough to use, why do you want it to be used? If you do think it is accurate enough to be used, why complain that I say you think it is accurate enough to be used?



on May 6th, 2008 at 1:37pm:



4. As for those damnig admissions you attribute to me, you must be hearing or seeing things the rest of us don't.



I am just looking at the consequences of what you're saying--I'm actually taking you seriously, sir. You are obviously upset with George for posting critical material on the PCASS online and say that he is giving aid and comfort to our enemies (the definition of treason, which you accused him of). How? By merely saying that the PCASS is not very accurate? Or by giving information on how it can be beaten? From your statements it seems the later is more likely to be your position.



But if the information does not in fact help bad guys (or anyone else) beat the PCASS, why be upset about it? If I posted a thread saying you could beat the PCASS by eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for breakfast the day you are tested, would that be treason? No, because it doesn't give any help to our enemies; it is a ridiculous claim. Only if you think the information really can be used to diminish the accuracy of the PCASS would you claim he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.



Your colleague, Sackett, also is not very good at logic. It's a common failing among members of your guild. Anyway, did you vote today? If so, I hope you put more thought into casting your ballot than you do about arguments and claims that you post here.



Best wishes. skip.webb wrote on May 6, 2008 at 1:37pm:I'll assume that is technically correct. But there are three possibilities:If (2) is your position, then you're for giving military people a tool that you don't think is accurate enough to justify it's use. If (3) is the case you are doing what is not as bad: giving them a tool that only might not be accurate enough to justify its use. But the vigor with which you attacked George makes me think that you are not agnostic about the usefulness of the device.Which is the case, Mr. Webb? Is it accurate enough to use or not? If it is not accurate enough to use, why do you want it to be used? If you do think it is accurate enough to be used, why complain that I say you think it is accurate enough to be used? skip.webb wrote on May 6, 2008 at 1:37pm:I am just looking at the consequences of what you're saying--I'm actually taking you seriously, sir. You are obviously upset with George for posting critical material on the PCASS online and say that he is giving aid and comfort to our enemies (the definition of treason, which you accused him of). How? By merely saying that the PCASS is not very accurate? Or by giving information on how it can be beaten? From your statements it seems the later is more likely to be your position.But if the information does not in fact help bad guys (or anyone else) beat the PCASS, why be upset about it? If I posted a thread saying you could beat the PCASS by eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for breakfast the day you are tested, would that be treason? No, because it doesn't give any help to our enemies; it is a ridiculous claim. Only if you think the information really can be used to diminish the accuracy of the PCASS would you claim he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.Your colleague, Sackett, also is not very good at logic. It's a common failing among members of your guild. Anyway, did you vote today? If so, I hope you put more thought into casting your ballot than you do about arguments and claims that you post here.Best wishes.