More shooter harassment

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:19:14 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Nobody beats American ingenuity, you pretzel-pushin' piker!

I wouldn't be so confident. From where I sit, the American patent
system seems to be doing it just fine.

Wouldn't you like to name the person who wrote what you
quoted instead of naming me, who didn't?

-Wolfgang

PeterN wrote:
On 1/31/2012 2:37 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:
On 2012-01-18 15:19:14 -0800, Wolfgang Weisselberg

"Es gibt nichts, was ein deutscher Offizier nicht kann!"

Not without being given an order they can't.

Hmmm. I cannot claim I'm knowledgeable in that area, but I
have 2 impressions:

a) The US Army method versus the German Army (whatever it's name)
method. The US Army is very procedure taken. It has quite
intelligent and resourceful people spell out every step to
be taken, written down in triplicate. Works very well until
something goes wrong. (No plan survives contact with the
enemy.) The German Army, AFAICT, is more "capture that hill"
than telling you exactly when to start and stop the motars.

b) As I understand it, the fact that the US Army is by procedure
hampers individual thinking and lower levels deviating from
procedure, even if they think and *know* the procedure is
wrong for this specific situation.

The exception in the last 97 years, being the ability to sign an
unconditional surrender.

BTW, you should look up the film cite. It demonstrates very well
*why* being procedure-locked does allow untrained personell to
do things, but also the drawbacks.

Having been in the Army, which I daresay you have not been, I
affirmatively state that:

Your impression is just plain wrong.

I stand corrected: the US Army does not live by procedure.

-Wolfgang

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:46:34 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:19:14 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Nobody beats American ingenuity, you pretzel-pushin' piker!

I wouldn't be so confident. From where I sit, the American patent
system seems to be doing it just fine.

Wouldn't you like to name the person who wrote what you
quoted instead of naming me, who didn't?

Wouldn't it have been easier to write and say that those were John
Turco's words, not yours?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:46:34 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:19:14 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg

Nobody beats American ingenuity, you pretzel-pushin' piker!

I wouldn't be so confident. From where I sit, the American patent
system seems to be doing it just fine.

Wouldn't you like to name the person who wrote what you
quoted instead of naming me, who didn't?

Wouldn't it have been easier to write and say that those were John
Turco's words, not yours?

Nope. It *would* have been easier if you hadn't deleted the
attributions which were there, though. Then I'd not needed
to disavow words I did not write.

-Wolfgang

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:32:02 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:46:34 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:19:14 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg

Nobody beats American ingenuity, you pretzel-pushin' piker!

I wouldn't be so confident. From where I sit, the American patent
system seems to be doing it just fine.

Wouldn't you like to name the person who wrote what you
quoted instead of naming me, who didn't?

Wouldn't it have been easier to write and say that those were John
Turco's words, not yours?

Nope. It *would* have been easier if you hadn't deleted the
attributions which were there, though. Then I'd not needed
to disavow words I did not write.


I can't understand how the first line of the attributions came to be
deleted, leaving the second line, your name, at the top of the
article. My news reader shouldn't behave in this way and I certainly
wouldn't have done it deliberately.

In any case, it still would have been easier for you to merely point
out that they were not your words and leave to me the job of
straightening it all out. I would have been quite happy to do that.

I know the real reason: you love an argument and are prepared to
create one where none would otherwise exist, simply by being
difficult. :-)

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:32:02 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:46:34 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:19:14 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg

Nobody beats American ingenuity, you pretzel-pushin' piker!

I wouldn't be so confident. From where I sit, the American patent
system seems to be doing it just fine.

Wouldn't you like to name the person who wrote what you
quoted instead of naming me, who didn't?

Wouldn't it have been easier to write and say that those were John
Turco's words, not yours?

Nope. It *would* have been easier if you hadn't deleted the
attributions which were there, though. Then I'd not needed
to disavow words I did not write.

I can't understand how the first line of the attributions came to be
deleted, leaving the second line, your name, at the top of the
article. My news reader shouldn't behave in this way and I certainly
wouldn't have done it deliberately.

Ah, OK.

In any case, it still would have been easier for you to merely point
out that they were not your words and leave to me the job of
straightening it all out. I would have been quite happy to do that.

So I should have said "I didn't write that!"?

I know the real reason: you love an argument and are prepared to
create one where none would otherwise exist, simply by being
difficult. :-)

Hmmm, that's bad. Real bad. Now that you have found out The
Truth About Me, I'll have to kill you, quick, before you tell
anyone else.

And I planned to have a nice evening of programming instead.
*sigh*

-Wolfgang