OT: Cathy - remedial reading help needed for Shmuckland

Dear Cathy: I figured this would get faster attention if I separated it from the other thread about Iran's missiles. Please help Shmuckland with his reading comprehension skills. I know you're off for the summer, and wish you could forget about work at the moment. But, poor Shmuckland is up to his nose in sewage and needs someone to throw him a rope.

======================== I said: The question is "Do they REALLY have those missiles?", or are they playing the exact same game Saddam played with them? ========================

======================== Shmuckland said: TRANSLATION Joe said, Iran has no missiles.

Now, Joe is saying he did not say that. Joe needs to adjust his meds, again. ========================

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom
Loading thread data ...

Your question is one of those leading ones as usual. It clearly implies you doubt they have missles. The only variable is whether you meant the missles that were fired which they don't have anymore, or whether you questioned if they have any missles at all.

Reply to
badgolferman

I'm not going to get into this - haven't even read that thread - not that I can remember at any rate, & am not in the mood right now for tediousness.

But... here's a (true) anecdotal story, sort of involving missiles. Sort of...

One afternoon- many years ago - a friend's friend, who taught 1st grade, told the class that it was "time to get ready for dismissal." One little boy in the class looked aghast at that simple statement & yelled, "Missile?!

*What* missile?!? ;-)

Cathy

Reply to
Cathy F.

Keep waiting.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

What was Saddam's motive in claiming he had weapons which he did not have?

I'll give you a hint, Special Ed: Joseph Wilson

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

You don't need to understand the issue. I'm asking you to help him diagram a sentence, and then interpret its meaning!!! It's right up your alley, although I don't recall whether you ever mentioned if your expertise included special ed kids.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

It appears you need a lesson in remedial reading also, Bubba. That is Cathy's way of telling you she doesn't want to make you look bad. She's just too polite for a New Yorker and you can't understand that kind of consideration.

You tried the same thing with me last week and she never got involved either. Stop trying to get a woman to fight your battles for you, little boy.

It would behoove you to stop digging any farther and really looking foolish.

Reply to
badgolferman

There are always other reasons that we don't know. One such reason may be to placate or warn internal groups. US/Israel may have already been warned what they were up to and all this is just a show. Others may say Iran and Bush Administration are in cahoots to keep oil prices high and must continue to keep tensions high so speculators are kept spooked constantly. Maybe Iran is trying to pull a North Korea stunt in hopes of getting a golden carrot.

Who knows what the real reason is, but we know for sure it's not JoeSpareBedroom.

Reply to
badgolferman

Of course saddam had WMD, AND he used them, ON his own people. Why would you not think he would have used them on others, like you for instance?

Reply to
dbu

Lots of NY-ers are plenty polite. You're just prejudiced.

and you can't understand that

Nope, it meant what it said - I simply didn't feel like dealing with it, & still don't.

You guys can now take my name out of the subject line if you'd like, please.

Cathy

Reply to
Cathy F.

You've let 8 years go by without caring enough to read theories about why Saddam bluffed about his weaponry. These theories came from American military leaders, politicians, diplomats and scientists. Somehow you missed them all.

Keep waiting. If you wanted to understand the subject, you would understand it by now simply from reading.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Pro

>
Reply to
Bruce L. Bergman

When? There were two different time periods involving what he said and what he did.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Let's dissect this. Maybe you're right. Here's the sentence that's been such a stumbling block for the class. I've placed a short line of asterisks before & after the sentence to be sure it's distinct from everything else, and we know we're discussing the same words.

********************* "The question is "Do they REALLY have those missiles?", or are they playing the exact same game Saddam played with them?" *********************

Is that the assertion you're referring to?

Same benefit Israel gains by being obtuse about its nuclear capabilities, something even our own intelligence services claim they're not sure of.

See above. Let's first agree on the nature of the assertion.

Oh no. Plonked. A fate worse than running out of vanilla yogurt.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

See other response posted a few moments before this one.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

What year did he gas his own people?

Separate question:

In what other years did he deny having certain weapons, and in fact, we found he did not?

You can't say "Something happened in 1988, which means some type of weapon was in a certain place in 1999". Not logical. That's like saying you painted your kitchen, but you still have 100% of the paint in the can you started with.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

Can you guys please take my name out of the subject? Thanks.

Cathy

Reply to
Cathy F.

Can you guys please take my name out of the subject? Thanks.

Cathy

Reply to
Cathy F.

Can you guys please take my name out of the subject? Thanks.

Cathy

Reply to
Cathy F.

Sure, but why?

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.