Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Follow up to the BS War Stories Post (Update)
Posted by: McQ on Friday, July 20, 2007

From The New Republic via their blog "The Plank" in reference to this:
Several conservative blogs have raised questions about the Diarist "Shock Troops," written by a soldier in Iraq using the pseudonym Scott Thomas. Whenever anybody levels serious accusations against a piece published in our magazine, we take those charges seriously. Indeed, we're in the process of investigating them. I've spoken extensively with the author of the piece and have communicated with other soldiers who witnessed the events described in the diarist. Thus far, these conversations have done nothing to undermine—and much to corroborate—the author's descriptions. I will let you know more after we complete our investigation. —Franklin Foer
Anyone surprised? Just a guess but I'm betting Franklin Foer wouldn't know the front end of a Bradley from the back, if you get my drift.

UPDATE: Is "Scott Thomas" a guy named Clifton Hicks?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Why do I get this feeling that "Scott Thomas" et al is doing for The New Republic what the House pages did for Mark Foley.

"Fool" comes to mind.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Whenever anybody levels serious accusations against a piece published in our magazine, we take those charges seriously. Indeed, we’re in the process of investigating them.
They’re admitting that that are going to fact check the article now, after it’s published?

Isn’t that what the editors are supposed to do before they run trash like this?

I hope it’s more than the Urban Legend checking type with three guys saying "Yea, I heard that story too"
 
Written By: Jay Evans
URL: http://
I can believe some idiot putting something gross on his head and *telling* people it was a piece of human skull. I can’t believe any unit not reporting human graves.

I can’t imagine a guy being so publically rude about a woman with really bad scars without some *other* guy, or several other guys, calling him out for it, most likely in a rather physical manner.

It’s not the behaviors that are unbelievable since there is always someone that tasteless and depraved... it’s the behaviors of everyone else they supposedly are doing this in front of with no consequences that defy logic.

But in the end it’s *romantic* and people have been wanting to hear stuff like this... slumming second hand at the shivery edge of barbarism.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
I hope it’s more than the Urban Legend checking type with three guys saying "Yea, I heard that story too"
That was my point about Foer not knowing one end of the Bradley from another. How hard will he be to BS?

Let me in that room with ’em and we’ll see how well their story holds up.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
OK, are you seriously saying that they know they are wrong, and are simply protecting frauds pretending to be soldiers? Or, since clearly the editors can speak to people, check their credentials and background, that a group of soldiers are making up stories to undercut support for the war? I mean, we’ve had things in the past from Mai Lai to Abu Ghraib and other times where things get out of hand. Is it impossible that the story is true? The culture of journalism is that journalists take their reputation seriously, and I can’t just dismiss the credibility of a story because a number of conservative military folk say "that can’t be true." I’ve heard stories from Vietnam vets which are gruesome. I know you’re on the look out for fake stories about military excesses, and that’s good — I’m not going to dismiss your skepticism either. I can dismiss the "I can’t believe that could happen..." because in war, especially the kind of war going on in Iraq, people do things you otherwise might not imagine. But I take seriously the opinion of people like McQ ho have been in combat...so I’ll accept your call to be cynical, but I’ll withhold judgment.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I can’t just dismiss the credibility of a story because a number of conservative military folk say "that can’t be true."
You can if those conservative military folk tell you that the technical details of the story are impossible. The story about the Bradley isn’t merely implausible; it seems to be something Bradley drivers cannot do, for about a dozen reasons.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
The key is that it "seems to be." There are various ways errors can be made in stories, you can get details wrong (have the wrong people at a conversation, put an event in the wrong city), or you can just make stuff up. I’m serious that I accept the need to be cynical given the nature of the accusations. And if it is made up, and the The New Republic wasn’t able to figure it out, that’s pretty damning against the paper.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The various ways errors can be made in stories is sort of the point to me.

Firstly, if a soldier lies about a story to a particular audience he or she will most likely lie to make it worse, not better. More colorful. A better *story*.

Killing animals for the fun of it? Sure. Someone killed a squirrel with a rake at my tech school while the base commander’s wife was driving by and saw it. No doubt an entire chain of command, including the base commander, wished his wife had spent a few more minutes getting into her car, but while crap like that happens it doesn’t happen openly because once "someone who must do something about it" loses the ability to pretend they didn’t know, the sh*t hits the fan for *two* reasons. First, the violation itself. Second, the PITA factor. Beginning with the lowest ranked "someone who must do something about it" every single person up the chain of command has better things to do with their non-existent time and they will take every single bit of their irritation out on the person responsible.

I read a story (I think it was actually a first hand account from a blog) of a soldier who had killed someone attacking a gate with a car bomb. A chunk of skull was involved. Some amount of crudeness was involved. The information that there are strict rules about "trophies" was also involved. Would our soldiers play with human parts? Some of them, I’m sure. But I’d believe it of dead terrorist parts long *long* before I’d believe even the crudest would play with the parts of dead children. Lie about it, oh absolutely. But lie that they did it when they really didn’t. Particularly if someone is known to reliably rise to the bait. The main problem with the child skull and hair story is that at some point "someone who must do something about it" would be forced to notice. The sort of badness that comes down in those situations is the *creative* sort. Unless the joker can pull off his helmet and say, "It’s only a... something" he’d have an extreme case of a lack of military survival skills. Possible, but highly unlikely. (Unless he *likes* when his NCO has an excuse to get creative.)

The chow hall rudeness isn’t believable to me at all. Not that soldiers aren’t reliably rude but the idea that they’d be rude about something that seemed to be a combat injury, an IED injury, seems utterly contrary to the military culture. Does any soldier *at all* look at someone who was maimed and not see his or her own face? Maybe someone who has been there can tell me.

I suspect second hand embellished stories, misrepresentations of real events and simply writing the prose to tell one of the possible stories that the events could tell.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
Foer does a great impression of the southern end of a north-bound horse...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Also, I’m hardly surprised that Erb is in the "I choose to believe" camp.

Erb, no soldier would be able to walk away if anyone everheard them mocking a burn victim if those burns are from enemy actions.

Yes, horrible things happened in Vietnam.

One of those that didn’t happen was people openly, loudly mocking wounded soldiers.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
One of those that didn’t happen was people openly, loudly mocking wounded soldiers.
Well, not other soldiers.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
My point in the first posting is that The New Republic is firmly in the "I choose to believe" camp, and they are being played for fools .. just like the House pages played with Mark Foley in the IMs.

Somewhere out there, there, most likely, are a bunch of guys (or at least one guy) who is laughing his ass off at The New Republic. What a bunch of "professional" fools.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
So, perhaps Scott Thomas is German.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
"Beginning with the lowest ranked "someone who must do something about it" every single person up the chain of command has better things to do with their non-existent time and they will take every single bit of their irritation out on the person responsible"

Amen. That is one of the reasons God invented 1st sergeants.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
." I’ve heard stories from Vietnam vets which are gruesome."

And some of them might even be true. You will also hear stories from veterans of WWII, Korea, etc., some of which are also true.

" The culture of journalism is that journalists take their reputation seriously, and I can’t just dismiss the credibility of a story because a number of conservative military folk say "that can’t be true."

Because the conservative military folk just don’t take their credibility, honor, or reputation seriously.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Also, I’m hardly surprised that Erb is in the "I choose to believe" camp.
Read more carefully. I have chosen neither to believe nor disbelieve at this point.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Should we ignore outright, the fact that you alone leapt in, in derisive tones, defending that which you’ve ’not decided to believe’? I’ll bet that I can count on one finger or less, the number of people who believe you, there.


In any event, it seems clear that Franklin Foer is the new Stephen Glass. This stuff never changes from these people. The left, I mean, not just the publication.

Look; it should surprise nobody that the avidly leftist New Republic is against our actions in Iraq. The reasons are clear; a Democrat isn’t in the White House. Has the depth of their need for political victory gone so far as to pass along slander wrapped in lies as “news”? If they disagree with the war in Iraq, it is certainly their right to say so, I have no problem with that at all, though I think the position foolish. Their right to that position however does not give them the right to fraud and slander in pursuit of the political goal.

Unfortunately, those two commodities, fraud and slander, would appear to be the main weapons in the quiver of the left, these days. Indeed unless I miss my guess, that’s all they’ve got.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I’ll bet that I can count on one finger or less, the number of people who believe you, there.
I’ve got a finger for him...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
How long before Erb posts the Rush lyric, do you think?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Should we ignore outright, the fact that you alone leapt in, in derisive tones, defending that which you’ve ’not decided to believe’? I’ll bet that I can count on one finger or less, the number of people who believe you, there.
Since I didn’t defend anything, you’re post is based on a false premise. Also, unfortunately, a lot of people won’t share my skepticism and just believe it because it fits their anti-war agenda. I’m against the war, and while I don’t know enough to dismiss the stories outright, I also take the critiques seriously and don’t accept them either. I don’t play the game of "just believe what fits your agenda."
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"I don’t play the game of "just believe what fits your agenda."
Very clever. You don’t "play the game of...". Perhaps you don’t "play the game of" ...whatever that means to you. Believing what fits your agenda? Oh, I think you do that very well.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Very clever. You don’t "play the game of...". Perhaps you don’t "play the game of" ...whatever that means to you. Believing what fits your agenda? Oh, I think you do that very well.
Oh please, Bob ... that boob is another who wouldn’t know the front end of a Bradley from the back yet he feels qualified enough to be "skepitical".

Of what?

This is a guy who still won’t admit to not knowing the rules of the Senate even while he claims to have worked there. Why would you care what he thinks about something of which he has absolutely no knowledge or experience, that being the military.

In fact, his only demonstrated ability (and perhaps knowledge) so far is he seems to know how to connect to the internet and post on this blog, and I’m not sure he’s able to do even that by himself.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ, your lies are getting a bit bizarre. Don’t know the rules of the Senate? You’re the one who seemed to ignore that the the 1991 war was approved 52-47, proving that in many controversial issues they don’t need 60 votes. That was Reid’s point, and I think you know that. In fact, I know you know that. And I don’t trust your blog to convince me completely a story is wrong because you’re biased. So are anti-war blogs. I’ll retain a healthy skepticism, you haven’t always been correct in your analysis of military and political affairs. No one is. I prefer to get more information before jumping to a conclusion. You should perhaps learn to do that.

Of course, you can’t even admit you were wrong in saying Reid lied, or that his point made sense given the history of and rules of the Senate. That speaks volumes.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
proving that in many controversial issues they don’t need 60 votes
Christ Almighty...UNANIMOUS CONSENT is MORE than 60 votes.
That was Reid’s point
You must be calling Reid a liar and claiming HE doesn’t know the rules. Here is Reid from his own website (emphasis mine):
The Senate rules are part of the genius of the American political system. By requiring super-majorities to overcome opposition to major bills, the rules naturally lead to policies that bring Senators together across party lines, and that appeal to a broader majority of the American people. The rules promote unity, moderation and bipartisanship.
[...]
The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority. I’m sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of the Majority Leader next year. But I recognize this requirement as a tool that serves the long-term interests of the Senate and of the American people.
Erb, you continue to prove yourself a pathetic hack. You do it time and time again.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
BTW — I’m only responding to Erb at this point about his hilarious ignorance about Senate rules throughout these threads so that anyone not familiar with his classic Erb Logic will have access to the actual evidence.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG, you’re dancing around trying to grease your way out of this but the point is clear: by demanding 60 votes in favor of the bill to pass it, Reid said he was being obstructionist. Back in 1991 they agreed that the minority would not be obstructionist and let the will of the Senate decide. Reid said that’s what should happen here.

But you know that. It’s funny watching how, when caught being obviously wrong, you are so unable to admit it. Insecure?

Oh please, Bob ... that boob is another who wouldn’t know the front end of a Bradley from the back yet he feels qualified enough to be "skepitical".
Note the logical fallacy here. Supposedly only people with military expertise are allowed to question the report, and then the rest should simply bow to what someone who claims to be an expert says. That’s so obviously silly it would be considered to be too easy an example of a logical error to be on a logic test.

Bottom line: someone who claims to be in the military says X. Some noted pro-war people who claim to have military experience say X is not true. Absent proof, all I have is two different claims. Ergo, the logical thing to do is to wait for more evidence and the journalist investigation.

But in a world of emotion, logic doesn’t count, eh McQ?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
by demanding 60 votes in favor of the bill to pass it
Once again (does this make a baker’s dozen yet?) you are a complete ass. Point to ONE person who has used your qualifier of "support" or "in favor" or anything similar. McQ didn’t. I didn’t. McConnell didn’t. Reid didn’t.

This is EXACTLY what is meant by ERB LOGIC and I love having you repeatedly put it on display for all to see.

Erb will NEVER provide evidence that his (twisted) version of reality is valid. He will merely distort the original point over and over and claim it is what everyone else believes.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"...the logical thing to do is to wait for more evidence and the journalist investigation."
Professor Erb is no doubt still waiting for the completion of the journalistic investigation of whether or not Senator Kerry spent Christmas in Cambodia wearing his magic hat.
"Thus far, these conversations have done nothing to undermine—and much to corroborate—the author’s descriptions. I will let you know more after we complete our investigation. —Franklin Foer"
Any doubt about what this "journalistic investigation" will determine? Is it logical to wait for their results? The only result will be finding out how they have come up with a way to stonewall this story until the news cycle encounters some fresh meat.

 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
I can’t just dismiss the credibility of a story because a number of conservative military folk say "that can’t be true."
You can if those conservative military folk tell you that the technical details of the story are impossible. The story about the Bradley isn’t merely implausible; it seems to be something Bradley drivers cannot do, for about a dozen reasons.
The key is that it "seems to be." There are various ways errors can be made in stories, you can get details wrong (have the wrong people at a conversation, put an event in the wrong city), or you can just make stuff up. I’m serious that I accept the need to be cynical given the nature of the accusations. And if it is made up, and the The New Republic wasn’t able to figure it out, that’s pretty damning against the paper.
Come on, Erb, don’t seize on the "seems to be". This isn’t "Oops, I was east of the city, not south of the city, my bad." This is fabrication.

Just try to wrap your mind around the idea that a driver can throw a 30-ton Bradley (top speed: about 41 mph) around like a Honda Civic, and see dogs hanging out on the right side of the tank like he has a big rear-view mirror pointing down toward his tracks. Look at the thing, Erb, think this through, and make up a plausible story for how that driver viewing port over there on the left side of the vehicle allows the driver to see a dog sitting very close to the right side of the vehicle. Even if the commander’s leaning way over to the side and giving the driver instructions, it’s still highly implausible: if you’re at all familiar with dogs, think about how slow that dog would have to be to get caught in the treads, to not hear or see the vehicle turning fast enough to get its leg out of the way, and what angle the dog would have to be relative to the vehicle to get caught like that. And think about the perspective the story-teller would have to have to see all this happening in such gory detail.

Never mind the implausible "would this happen in any military unit" stuff if you want to, it’s still ridiculous. And severing a dog in half, and the "front end" smiling and staring at the sun like nothing had happened? This is Hollywood-style incredible, Scott, and they’d have to change a lot more than "details" for me to believe these stories.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
Bryan, even the military briefing cited said that such driving would be wreckless, but he didn’t say impossible. You claim ridiculous. That’s your opinion. I’ve seen other opinions. I have no reason to think yours better than many others I’ve seen. So I’m not going to remain agnostic, I don’t have the information, I just see assertions and opinions, and claims to expertise from all sides.

JWG: You’re posting, but not trying. Tell me what I have wrong here:

Very often on controversial items the Senate chooses to limit debate and let the Senate majority vote. That happened in 1991 before Desert Storm, when a 52-47 vote approved, even though clearly the dissenters knew if they had tried to filibuster they could have.

If you have over 40 votes opposing something you can choose to filibuster, or choose to limit debate. Reid was criticizing the GOP for doing the former rather than the latter, which was done, among other times, in choosing to go to war in 1991. You may disagree with Reid’s criticism, but in all your dancing, twirling, slipping and sliding, you’ve never once shown anything wrong in what I’m claiming. Not once. And you know that.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Tell me what I have wrong here
Easy to do
Senate chooses to limit debate and let the Senate majority vote
This should more accurately read "Senate chooses to limit debate through UNANIMOUS CONSENT and let the Senate majority vote on the legislation."

In this possibility, 100 senators have agreed beforehand to allow the legislation to move to the next procedure (the vote on the actual legislation). I note for the mathematically challenged that 100 > 60.

Without the unanimous consent, a cloture motion would be required which would require 60 senators to allow the legislation to move to the next procedure (the vote on the actual legislation).

In BOTH possibilities (there are no other possibilities if a final vote is to happen) at least 60 senators must give permission for the legislation to move forward. NO LEGISLATION can get out of the Senate under ANY circumstances without permission from at least 60 Senators.

McConnell and Reid are both on record stating the same thing.

The obvious question and answer for your 1991 example:
Q: Did the resolution require and obtain permission from at least 60 senators?
A: Yes

Debate settled.
Reid was criticizing the GOP for doing the former rather than the latter
*ALERT* Erb Logic *ALERT*
You’re trying to change the nature of the debate again. This argument started with you claiming that it was correct to claim that it was a "GOP demand" that 60 votes were needed for the legislation to pass the Senate.

Unless you’re going to also claim that it is correct to say that:
1) A criminal defendant "demands" that a jury unanimously find him guilty, and
2) A president "demands" that Congress needs a 2/3 majority to override his veto

then it is INCORRECT to claim that a Senate rule requiring 60 votes (or unanimous consent) before anyone can vote on the actual legislation is ever a "GOP demand" (or a demand by any minority). It is a rule — a requirement — a necessary activity that cannot be avoided under any circumstances.

60 senators MUST choose to allow legislation to move forward, or it is dead.

Reid can complain that republican senators are choosing not to give permission — that was NEVER the debate.

The rule has nothing to do with how the senators choose to vote. The GOP isn’t demanding either unanimous consent or 60 votes for cloture. The RULES demand either unanimous consent or 60 votes.

Did the Colts demand that the Bears had to win the NFC conference before they would face them in the Superbowl? Of course not. It was already a requirement.
you’ve never once shown anything wrong in what I’m claiming. Not once.
Well, besides teaching you the rules of the Senate, I also previously demonstrated the error (over and over and over) of your use of Erb Logic to twist the original claim into it being necessary for 60 senators to "favor" or "support" the legislation. No such claim was ever made.

And I demonstrated that your claim that cloture was "rare" was factually in error (to put it nicely).

To summarize:
1) "GOP demand" in error
2) 60 senators must "favor" legislation in error
3) cloture motions "rare" in error

There are probably more errors of yours that I corrected, but these are the main ones.

Nighty Night, Dr. "Poli-Sci"
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG: A lot of words, but you don’t point to one thing I got wrong. Face it, you’re just trying to spin, weave, grease and slither, but the reality is, you can’t counter what I say. Oh well, you are not in a position where you can do any harm. A minority of over 40 can filibuster, or can choose to leave it to the majority. In 1991 they chose to leave it to the majority of the Senate, the GOP in 2007 chose to filibuster. Reid was critical of that choice. You’re dodging, weaving, and using a lot of words, but you can’t deny reality. Pathetic. But, again, you’re not in position of responsibility, so you’re harmless.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
But, again, you’re not in position of responsibility, so you’re harmless.
I teach almost 400 (different) students per year.
JWG: A lot of words, but you don’t point to one thing I got wrong
Heh...he never changes. His argument changes three or four times, but that Erb Logic never stops. I am so pleased that I have another example to point out next time I see Erb write "Who, me?"
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Erb, just for the record (and because I think Erb Logic is hilarious) I have a few questions. I doubt you’ll have the courage to answer them:

1) Did you state repeatedly that it was a "GOP demand"?
2) Did you state repeatedly that McQ’s argument was that 60 senators must "favor" or "support" legislation?
3) Did you state that cloture was "rare"?

Make sure each answer begins with a Yes or No.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Professor Erb = toast
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
"Make sure each answer begins with a Yes or No."

Pointless. It may start with a simple yes or no, but it will end with a hundred or so words(starting with but) redefining them. Amazing how complex simple words like ’is’ can be.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Pointless.
Oh, I knew the weasel wouldn’t actually respond. I just wanted it clearly documented so that the next time someone asked why we don’t actually engage Erb in a reasonable manner I can point to this.

It’s a good example of how Erb tries to shift the actual debate and then declare that no one has proven him wrong.

I came up with a little fictional dialog to demonstrate Erb Logic while I was driving this morning:
McX: The earth orbits the sun.

Erb: No, McX, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The earth is not in orbit around Alpha Centauri. In addition, there is no moon around the earth.

McX: Umm, my statement is accurate. Here is evidence. You’re talking about a different star. Plus, your statement about the moon is completely wrong. Here is more evidence.

Erb: You need to take an astronomy class. I know the earth does not orbit Alpha Centauri. I should know since I own a telescope.

McX: You are insane.

Erb: You really shouldn’t resort to emotion. Your insults prove that I’m right and you know it.

McX: Didn’t you claim that I had no idea what I was talking about in stating the earth orbits the sun? Didn’t you state that earth has no moon?

Erb: The reality is that earth and Alpha Centauri have no significant relationship in orbital matters. You just can’t accept reality.

McX: OK, you really are insane.

Erb: The band Rush has a quote involving rage. Rush Rulz!

McX: You’re talking about Alpha Centauri while the rest of us are talking about the sun. You stated there is no moon.

Erb: Nothing you have written contradicts what I said. You know it.

McX: Everything I have written proves that you are wrong. I even linked to evidence.

Erb: Your evidence is irrelevant. It had nothing to do with earth’s moon orbiting Alpha Centauri.

McX: What are you talking about?

Erb: Your claim that earth’s moon orbit’s Alpha Centauri is obviously wrong. You just can’t admit it. It’s not hard to admit you made a mistake. You should try it sometime. No one will think less of you.

McX: Just answer these questions: Didn’t you state that I "had no idea what I was talking about" after I wrote that the earth orbit’s the sun? Didn’t you state there is no moon around the earth? When did I ever say anything about Alpha Centauri?

Erb: [crickets]
And, yes, I will freely admit that I spent way too much time thinking about Erb this morning.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
And, yes, I will freely admit that I spent way too much time thinking about Erb this morning.
LOL! Hey JWG, that was priceless. More importantly though, you covered any interaction with Erb with your first word: "Pointless".

And yes, you have him down pat.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Yes, his particular responses are very predictable and even amusing in a weird sort of way. While Erb Logic is not based on any standard logic the rest of us understand, there is a pattern to the madness. I feel like an anthropologist who has immersed himself deep into the Erbian culture and has begun to recognize a few rules of Erb Logic that the inhabitants of this bizarre society use when interacting with others.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I feel like an anthropologist who has immersed himself deep into the Erbian culture and has begun to recognize a few rules of Erb Logic that the inhabitants of this bizarre society use when interacting with others.
"Others?" Oh please, not others. Given your example could you imagine an exchange of two of these types?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
We need a poster of that "conversation"...

And we need to put it up all over his classrooms...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
"And, yes, I will freely admit that I spent way too much time thinking about Erb this morning."

Understandable. That itching, burning sensation does tend to monopolize your thoughts when the old hemorrhoids flair up.

"I feel like an anthropologist who has immersed himself deep into the Erbian culture and has begun to recognize a few rules of Erb Logic that the inhabitants of this bizarre society use when interacting with others."

Uh, oh! This sounds like the beginning of a horror movie.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Save your time, please.
furniture office online design furniture interior vancouver discount home office furniture atlanta furniture office home office furniture store business to business office furniture furniture houston office furniture home london office discount furniture office furniture office discount home office furniture home office furniture online home office furniture discount office furniture canada furniture office office furniture discount store furniture office business office furniture value city furniture credit card
 
Written By: Tzannas
URL: http://wess.lib.byu.edu/images/0/08/depot-furniture-office.html depot furniture office

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider