I have 2 competing conspiracy theories

[sirs]

FLAWLESS means "without a flaw"

And if the goals were to take out bin Laden and return with no casualties, the mission was flawless          Frelling amazing the bandwidth and posts that have been used to try and counter this concept

At this point your arguing with me just to argue, since I haven't yet disagreed with the issue of other components, such as budgets, going into analysis and planning

Are you claiming immunity to challenge?

lol....I'm claiming this obsession you have in argueing with me is pretty transparent, since I'm not disagreeing with your other points

[Xavier_Onassis]

And there you have it: sirs redefines "flawless".

=========================
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."
===================================
sirs is what resulted from the flawless reconstruction of Humpty Dumpty by the all the King's horses and all the King's men. Humpty was reincarnated from an omelet by the Demiurge, it appears in a metephysical moment gone horribly wrong.


The King's men were impaired by their aversion to physical labor.
The King's horses were impaired by a lack of opposable thumbs.
Or so they say...
 

[sirs]

And there you have that I did no such thing.  You taking lessons from Bt?  How is performing an act, (goal of taking out Bin Laden and returning without any death to American soldiers), and accomplishing that act, with the goals stated, achieved, redefining flawless??

Please, educate us Professor

[Kramer]

And there you have that I did no such thing.  You taking lessons from Bt?  How is performing an act, (goal of taking out Bin Laden and returning without any death to American soldiers), and accomplishing that act, with the goals stated, achieved, redefining flawless??

Please, educate us Professor

Sirs, I am a reasonable guy and fully understand your point. XO is being exact and for a guy that is in no way flawless is just splitting hairs. Stop following his lead and drop this. I agree that the Seals were flawless but the pilot did make a mistake in damaging the aircraft so the whole mission wasn't flawless. XO is messing with your head!

[sirs]

And there you have that I did no such thing.  You taking lessons from Bt?  How is performing an act, (goal of taking out Bin Laden and returning without any death to American soldiers), and accomplishing that act, with the goals stated, achieved, redefining flawless??

Please, educate us Professor

Sirs, I am a reasonable guy and fully understand your point.

I figued some rational folks understood.  The problem I was having is when Bt and/or Xo are claiming things I never did, like "redefining flawless".  But yea, you're right, time to stop this ridiculous tangent

[Xavier_Onassis]

For the mission to have been flawless, the pilot, who was clearly a member of the team carrying out the mission, would not have crashed the multimillion dollar secret stealth helicopter.

By saying that the mission was flawless despite this, you are redefining the word "flawless".

[sirs]

Based on YOUR goals.  Again, IT DEPENDS on what the goals are, thus NO REDEFINING

So endeth

[Xavier_Onassis]

You claim that the definition of the mission defines the definition of a word, and that is untrue.

[sirs]

Sorry, we're not going to now try to define "depends"

[Kramer]

For the mission to have been flawless, the pilot, who was clearly a member of the team carrying out the mission, would not have crashed the multimillion dollar secret stealth helicopter.

By saying that the mission was flawless despite this, you are redefining the word "flawless".

That wasn't necessary!

[BT]

For the mission to have been flawless, the pilot, who was clearly a member of the team carrying out the mission, would not have crashed the multimillion dollar secret stealth helicopter.

By saying that the mission was flawless despite this, you are redefining the word "flawless".

That wasn't necessary!

But it most certainly is true.

The only way the mission could be construed as flawless is to redefine the parameters of the mission, omitting any part of it that had a snag.

[sirs]

The only way the mission could be construed as flawless is to...

...Have the goal of taking out bin Laden, and returning with no loss of any american soldiers.  If you have different goals (referencing the it depends part), you may or may not have a flawless outcome.  And at no time does that redefine any term

Why the hell is this so hard for you and Xo to understand or accept??  (much less spend all this bandwith on something so trivial)

[BT]

The only way the mission could be construed as flawless is to...

...Have the goal of taking out bin Laden, and returning with no loss of any american soldiers.  If you have different goals (referencing the it depends part), you may or may not have a flawless outcome.  And at no time does that redefine any term

Why the hell is this so hard for you and Xo to understand or accept??  (much less spend all this bandwith on something so trivial)

Why the hell is it so hard for you to admit when you are wrong.

BTW it's my bandwidth, i'll do with it as i please.

[sirs]

Because I'm not......if the goal is getting bin Laden and returning with no loss of life, the mission was flawless.  If you have different goals, you'll have a different conclusion on if the mission was flawless or not.  meaning, NO ONE IS WRONG

So, I have to ask 1 last time...Why the hell is this so hard for you and Xo to understand or accept??  (much less spend all this bandwith on something so trivial)

[BT]

The mission was not flawless. The post mission message control was just far worse.

You stated the goal was just to get Bin Ladxen and return with no loss of life?

This is based on what mission statement? Who set those goals? Who signed off on them?

Otherwise it is YOU who are inserting YOUR goals to match YOUR desired outcome of a flawless mission.

And that would be wrong.