10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You have nothing.

 

Like it or not, defensive systems do not garner as much demilitarization and non-proliferation efforts as offensive systems do. That's a fact. Same goes for offensive systems being considered more of a threat to stability and peace. Doubt that you actually dispute that, apart from the usual argumentative stance. Prevalent approaches and practices do not conform with the declared above "impeccable tactical logic". This may be meaningless for you, I beg to differ.

 

 

 

 

I'm looking in vain for where I wrote or even implied that "defensive systems do not garner as much demilitarization and non-proliferation efforts as offensive systems do".

So it seems you are arguing with yourself and, since you first took issue with me over this, ii's clear that accusing me of the "the usual argumentative stance" is exactly the opposite of the case and is just another example of the kind of persiflage you bring far too often to these discussions.

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I'm looking in vain for where I wrote or even implied that "defensive systems do not garner as much demilitarization and non-proliferation efforts as offensive systems do".

So it seems you are arguing with yourself and, since you first took issue with me over this, ii's clear that accusing me of the "the usual argumentative stance" is exactly the opposite of the case and is just another example of the kind of persiflage you bring far too often to these discussions.

 

The default fallback of quoting a bit out of context and trying to spin things when you've got nothing. Rinse, repeat. Ad nauseam.

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The default fallback of quoting a bit out of context and trying to spin things when you've got nothing. Rinse, repeat. Ad nauseam.

You mean that comment wasn't addressed to my remarks? Then why did you use the quote function? And it was definitely not taken out of context. But if you think you've got a legitimate complaint, you know where to go to get remedial action.

39 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You mean that comment wasn't addressed to my remarks? Then why did you use the quote function? And it was definitely not taken out of context. But if you think you've got a legitimate complaint, you know where to go to get remedial action.

 

You have (twice on this specific topic alone) paint yourself into an absurd position. Rather than coming to terms with it, you engage in irrelevant arguments over out of context bits, and assumed/implied meanings. Nothing new there.

Exactly what's keeping you from explaining exactly what absurd position it is that I've painted myself into. You claim I've distorted your quotes by taking them out of context without explaining exactly how they've been distorted. Do you think your adoption of a Lord Chancellor tone exempts you from offering reasoned arguments backed by evidence. I consistently pinpoint what you say and point out its defects. You just claim my posts are defective without being specific. And the reason for that is clear: you've got nothing.

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Exactly what's keeping you from explaining exactly what absurd position it is that I've painted myself into. You claim I've distorted your quotes by taking them out of context without explaining exactly how they've been distorted. Do you think your adoption of a Lord Chancellor tone exempts you from offering reasoned arguments backed by evidence. I consistently pinpoint what you say and point out its defects. You just claim my posts are defective without being specific. And the reason for that is clear: you've got nothing.

 

That is patently untrue. I have directly addressed your posts, and what I see as faulty positions. That you took bits of my posts out of context is self-evident. Reasoned arguments and counter-arguments were offered, despite claims to the contrary. You have nothing of substance to add, hence you engage in one of your usual petty arguments.