Well boy, explain.

It's a common phrase in manuals on (very Taoist) Taijiquan.

I didn't ask where you got it. I asked you to explain your understanding of it. If I want to merely read a fuvking stenographers report I'll read the NYT or Wapo.

In which we see that ondelette can read about Taoism in a western academic fashion, but can not understand it at all.

However, ancient wisdom of the middle east would be more appropriate for discussing AfPak, eh? Care to totally screw up Gnosticism, the Kabbalah, or Sufism while you are at it? Perhaps you could give us your understanding of Gautama Buddha as warlord?

Give it up; the subject is the continuing, brutal, expanding occupation of Afghanistan.

or rather all over ondelette like a fvcking rash.

It's quite obvious that despite my numerous (and short) comments requesting that people provide some factual backup of a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, for instance, that no one did, and no one will, BECAUSE. IT. DIDN'T. HAPPEN.

I hope some of UT's old hands who had perhaps offered ondelette to much easy respect in the past are watching this. In the passed couple of months a few of us have steamed in questioned him and pricked this particular puppy's bubble of self deceit. And boy oh boy, he is deflating quicker than a neocon theorist who's lost his mummy's hand to hold.

Now that he's spotted that the jig is up he is with every ever lengthening rambling incoherent post showing us that the episodes that are happening are becoming more virulent and frequent the more quickly he sinks into the pit of utter lunacy of his own making.

Good work lads. Keep it up and soon we can all stick our forks in this sucker and declare him well done.

After arming Afghans (where did you find the term Afghani?) all through the 80s, we (actually **you***, I wasn't an American citizen at the time, and I certainly did not approve of American policy - nothing good can come from arming fundamentalists) got the hell out of there, exactly as you would have wanted; and all hell broke loose.

------

The other day on the radio there was the mention that Brown University benefited greatly from money made from slavery. Which provoked the reflection that to the libertarian type of person (namely you) would argue that simply by stopping slavery the obligation to the former slaves would be done. Libertarianism means sitting there with all the ill-gotten gains and screaming time and again, we don't owe anybody nothing, lower our taxes! lower our taxes! American libertarianism (which uses the Austrian school as cover) is nothing but veiled racism.

A theorem is a working proposition with a high probability of being a fact but which nevertheless never has, nor perhaps ever can be proved beyond any reasonable or even any unreasonable doubt.

No, you are completely confused. Even you can do better than that.

given your Master's degree and how much algebra you know, perhaps you can clue some people in on this forum as to what a theorem is, and why it's not only sorta kinda true and open for debate.

There are people here who, sure as shit, will argue that a squared plus b squared most certainly does not equal c squared. There's probably a website, and a YouTube video, and a guy with a Ph.D. who explains it all.

Seriously, I'd find it interesting to discuss your views on this at more depth. Really, I would. But trying to have an adult discussion on this subject here is like trying to teach geometry at a sports bar with the Sox on.

Two things to say on this one:

No, you are completely confused. Even you can do better than that.

First, if you think I am totally confused about the matter how the frig would you know whether I could do better or not?
And on the more important point why haven't you then disabused me of confusion about the definition of the word "Theorem" then?
It's all mouth and trousers with you lot.

Here is a little hint for you Brainiac. If any given "Theorem" could be proved to be absolutely true in all instances where it might apply could it then still be be accurately described as a "Theorem"?

Now piss off out of my sight. I'm looking for stronger less easy meat than you to tear a strip out of.

It is a shame that one must read Ahmad Rashid’s Descent Into Chaos and Sarah Chayes’ The Punishment of Virtue to be able to see just how unprepared the U.S. was to attempt to administer Afghanistan and how badly we screwed it up.

From Rumsfeld all the way down to the 1st Lt. on the ground, we had no concept of how their culture worked.

I don't think that this is all the product of the bush administration. It is also American Hubris.

You have to learn the meanings of the words yourself. You could begin with hypothesis and theorem.

You might also apply a little common sense. This would involve thinking about how likely it is that Ondelette is so completely wrong as you think. You could then avoid making really stupid mistakes.

Seriously, I'd find it interesting to discuss your views on this at more depth. Really, I would. But trying to have an adult discussion on this subject here is like trying to teach geometry at a sports bar with the Sox on.

Indeed. I get the impression that some find it far more important to initiate an all out war of words against ondelette on almost anything he posits. It doesn't matter what the topic is or whether he may be right or wrong -- if ondelette says it, the reaction is kill it and him with unyielding force. The peace proponents and purveyors of “be friends with all” would do well to examine their own acts of aggression and intervention.

a couple of things. McCrystal thinks his warry shit campaign to fight clear and then hold the ground is a good idea. He is wrong.

A lot has been made of the Taliban's increasing use of "asymmetric tactics", such as booby traps, roadside bombs and suicide attacks. A few hours on an operation with US troops, supported by helicopters, jets and unmanned armed drones, makes it clear why: if the insurgents do not stay out of the way, they will be killed, as thousands have been.

But once coalition troops establish a presence, they become vulnerable. They need supplies, they need to patrol; they are perfect targets for the hit and run tactics of the Taliban. Those tactics have been particularly honed in ambushes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/11/taliban-tactics-analysis

Have you got that? Being ex mil I think its lovely. Let the herd rampage in and get themselves penned down. The wolves having first fvcked off then at their leisure return to harass and chivvy the self trapped Caribou. As one who was a great fan of the Long Range Demolition Squadrons that the Brits ran in the desert harrying Rommel I know which side I'd want to be on right now and it sure wouldn't be McCrystals. All the fun of war to be had is on the Pastun resistance side and all the nail biting anxiety will be on the invaders. And further more the Pashtun is fighting and living off the smell of a dirty oil rag whilst all the while its costing the otherside an arm and a leg every frigging day. Now we begin to watch the slow inexorable death of the Mastodons of Hubris.

God I'm beginning to have fun.

And do please read this excellent article from Britain:

In the fog, remember: victory is impossible in Afghanistan.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article6632876.ece