PDA

View Full Version : Queston: Could Money For War Be Spent More Constructively?



Prakosh
09-19-2006, 08:55 PM
Cost of the War in Iraq as of 7 minutes ago $315,933,456,984! Is this the best possible use we could have maqde of this money? Or could we could have spent it more constructively than in a successful effort to kill 2,700 Americans and wound many for life, 50,000 more. Is this a wise inventment of taxpaer funds? If yes, why; if not, why???

Damocles
09-19-2006, 08:58 PM
Right. The sole goal was to wound Americans...

Yes, we could have spent the money better. Imagine the intel we could gather if we spent the money on humint!

Prakosh
09-19-2006, 09:16 PM
Right. The sole goal was to wound Americans...

Yes, we could have spent the money better. Imagine the intel we could gather if we spent the money on humint!

It looks to me like so far the dead and wounded Americans and Iraqis, which of course I didn't mention, but their numbers, according to one of my favorite Broadcasters, Johhn McLaughlin, are over 100, 000 Dead and hundreds of thousands more wounded, have been our biggest accomplishment. So what, other than the dead and wounded, would you say are our major acccomplishments there?

Imagine what a world we could have had if we had spent all that money on repairing America's infrastructure, building schools and equipping them with the best computers and making teachers and educators salaries commensurate with other professions. Imagine if we had spent that money on solar, wind and renewable energy sources rather than on the failed effort to secure and insure a supply of high priced gasoline.

Imagine if we had used that money to even pay down the national debt instead of ballooning it. Imagine if we had a president who really did use the military as a last resort in any conflict. And didn't define "last resort" as the first thing that popped into his head upon taking office.

Damocles
09-19-2006, 09:19 PM
It looks to me like so fr the dead and wounded Americans and Iraqi which of course I didn't mention, but their numbers are according to one of my favorite Broadcasters Johhn McLaughlin are over 100, 000 Dead and hundreds of thousands more wounded. So what other than the dead and wounded, would you say are our major acccomplishments there?


I didn't say we had accomplished anything. I said it wasn't the goal to accomplish that... Ahhh... I see you are being fascetious. :rolleyes:



Imagine what a world we could have had if we had spent all that money on repairing America's infrastructure, building schools and equipping them with the best computers and making teachers and educators salaries commensurate with other professions. Imagine if we had spent that money on solar, wind and renewable energy sources rather than on the failed effort to secure and insure a supply of high priced gasoline.

Imagine if we had used that money to even pay down the national debt instead of ballooning it. Imagine if we had a president who really did use the military as a last resort in any conflict. And didn't define "last resort" as first thing that popped into his head upon taking office.

Duh. And imagine if we had decided to spend the money on the "WOT"... Like on Humint (as I stated before and you ignored). See how I tied it in there? The money should have gone to the WOT... Did you notice?

Damocles
09-19-2006, 09:36 PM
Where'd he go? I guess agreement wasn't what he was looking for. He'll have to come back!

IHateGovernment
09-19-2006, 10:09 PM
100,000 is a nice round number. The thing is I heard it tossed around two years ago.

A site that I usually reference www.iraqbodycount.org put the total around 43 to 48 thousand killed.

This is nothing to cheer about but lets not be so careless in the use of numbers.

Prakosh
09-19-2006, 11:45 PM
100,000 is a nice round number. The thing is I heard it tossed around two years ago.

A site that I usually reference www.iraqbodycount.org put the total around 43 to 48 thousand killed.

This is nothing to cheer about but lets not be so careless in the use of numbers.

I would like you to post a source which claimed 2 years ago, that 100,000 Iraqi's had already died. I know you can produce that! You're right though, I shouldn't have rounded the number off. Here is Mr. McLaughlin in his own words from the September 8th Show:

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Okay, human toll: U.S. military dead in Iraq, including suicides, 2,662; U.S. military amputeed, wounded, severely injured, injured, mentally ill, all now out of Iraq, 63,500; Iraqi civilians dead, 130,890.

This is seriosly over the number many people are using and McLaughlin has been higher than this site you quoted since the war began. I don't know where he gets his number but it seems to increase every time he gives it and for some reason he is higher than the other site.

Besides he's a good conservative, why would he want to ramp it up???

Full Transcript (www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=543)

Prakosh
09-19-2006, 11:51 PM
I didn't say we had accomplished anything. I said it wasn't the goal to accomplish that... Ahhh... I see you are being fascetious. :rolleyes:=


Duh. And imagine if we had decided to spend the money on the "WOT"... Like on Humint (as I stated before and you ignored). See how I tied it in there? The money should have gone to the WOT... Did you notice?

Well, according to Bush the War on Terror's main front is the War in Iraq. So are you saying the WOT has nothing to do with the War in Iraq or are you saying that we should have captured more innocent people and constructed more secret jails in foreign countires and filled them with more terror suspects and tortured them to get them to tell us more lies about what al Qaeda was up to so Bush could claim that he has foiled even more plots by the use of torture. So which is it? Or do you have some other way to get humint? And other ways to spend that money on it or not?

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 12:01 AM
Well I guess the money could have been spent on about anything else and it would have been more constructive than spending it on a war that has been mostly destructive Based on a false/incorrect premise of WMD presence, and is pretty much devolved into a civil war.
The reconstruction effort has only accompolished about 1/4 of what it was expected to at this point. Oil output is about 1/4 of pre war levels if that high, and gasoline is still being imported from Kuwait I believe.

All in all a very high accompolishment considering Bush is running it ;)

Cypress
09-20-2006, 07:34 AM
100,000 is a nice round number. The thing is I heard it tossed around two years ago.

A site that I usually reference www.iraqbodycount.org put the total around 43 to 48 thousand killed.

This is nothing to cheer about but lets not be so careless in the use of numbers.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

BodyCount and the Lancet study measured different things.

Bodycount is a survey of the actual, reported civilian deaths. They don't count iraqi solider deaths, coalition deaths or insurgent deaths. Their own website says the number of dead probably far exceed their survey of actual reported deaths. Because in a war zone, not all deaths are reported to hospitals, morgues, or the media.

The lancet was a statistical, probabalistic estimate of ALL deaths in iraq - an attempt to statistically estimate all deaths, not just reported ones. Inlcuding civilians, police, and military.

A common quoted estimate of all deaths in World War Two is 20 million people. But those are estimates, since not all deaths could possibly have been formally reported to hospitals and morgues in that war. All formally reported deaths in World War Two might have been closer to five million, rather than the 20 million estimate.

IHateGovernment
09-20-2006, 10:04 AM
First of coalition deaths are below 5000.

In the invasion most of the Iraqis surrendered so I doubt their casualties are that high.

For the sake of a shorthand let us say that 5000 coalition have been killed.

Lets also take the upper end of the civilian body count which is 48000

This brings us to 53000. Are we really to believe that we have killed 47000 insurgents and Iraqi army.

I doubt the Iraqi army casualites in the invasion exceeded 15000. I also would say that the insurgency doesn't number more than 50000. Have we managed to kill 2/3 of the insurgency I doubt it.

Cypress
09-20-2006, 10:09 AM
First of coalition deaths are below 5000.

In the invasion most of the Iraqis surrendered so I doubt their casualties are that high.

For the sake of a shorthand let us say that 5000 coalition have been killed.

Lets also take the upper end of the civilian body count which is 48000

This brings us to 53000. Are we really to believe that we have killed 47000 insurgents and Iraqi army.

I doubt the Iraqi army casualites in the invasion exceeded 15000. I also would say that the insurgency doesn't number more than 50000. Have we managed to kill 2/3 of the insurgency I doubt it.


Lancet statitically estimates ALL deaths. Including unreported civilian deaths.

IraqBodyCount only counts formally reported civilian deaths.

Surely, you recognize that in rural Anbar province, civilians are dying in sectarian violence that isn't neccessarily reported to the media, or at the city morgue?

IHateGovernment
09-20-2006, 10:42 AM
Of course there are undocumented deaths. I doubt though that 50% of the deaths are undocumented. The Lancet report stated 100000 deaths when the official count was around 20000. So then it was a 5 to 1 relationship.

Cypress
09-20-2006, 10:45 AM
Of course there are undocumented deaths. I doubt though that 50% of the deaths are undocumented. The Lancet report stated 100000 deaths when the official count was around 20000. So then it was a 5 to 1 relationship.

The very source you cite - IraqBodyCount - states in its methodolgy, that many or most death in iraq are probably unreported. And that they are only tabulating formally reported deaths from media sources.

This is a historical fact of war, especially in third world countries. Many of the deaths in the conflict are not reported formally in the media or at the city morgue. I doubt iraq is any different from other conflicts.

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 10:58 AM
Of course there are undocumented deaths. I doubt though that 50% of the deaths are undocumented. The Lancet report stated 100000 deaths when the official count was around 20000. So then it was a 5 to 1 relationship.

umm I think we only started keeping official count of the deaths less than one year ago....

IHateGovernment
09-20-2006, 11:00 AM
I know that Cypress but how do we infer that the deaths are five times greater than that reported. Many projections can be greatly skewed and erroneous.

I don't find the study strong enough to use it as a point of debate.

Oh well I find it kind of macabre to debate about how many lives have been destroyed by this war. The main point is that it is too many but I fear that when people use numbers that do not have strong backing behind them it undermines the main message.

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 11:06 AM
The lack of strong backing behind the /any numbers of deaths is a problem in itself....

IHateGovernment
09-20-2006, 11:19 AM
50000 dead is what is needed to protect our freedoms USC.

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 11:24 AM
Perhaps no / few dead would have worked as well IHG, but we will never know now.

Cypress
09-20-2006, 12:10 PM
I know that Cypress but how do we infer that the deaths are five times greater than that reported. Many projections can be greatly skewed and erroneous.

I don't find the study strong enough to use it as a point of debate.

Oh well I find it kind of macabre to debate about how many lives have been destroyed by this war. The main point is that it is too many but I fear that when people use numbers that do not have strong backing behind them it undermines the main message.

What's wrong with using or citing credible, peer-reviewed estimates

Certainly, we always cite the fact the Stalin killed twenty million peopal, and that fourty million civilians died in world war two. These are not based on actual, quantitative tabulations of formally reported deaths in newspapers and hosptital morgues.

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 12:16 PM
hmm do we have actual verified death totals ifrom the jewish persecution by the nazi's ?

Cypress
09-20-2006, 12:23 PM
hmm do we have actual verified death totals ifrom the jewish persecution by the nazi's ?

I doubt it. Good point.

The germans are fanatics about keeping good records. There's probably a good count of actual jews killed at Auschiwitz.

But, who knows how many jews were simply gunned down in the Warsaw Ghetto, or simply executed on the spot by German soldiers. Or killed in the riots

IHateGovernment
09-20-2006, 12:26 PM
Certainly, we always cite the fact the Stalin killed twenty million peopal, and that fourty million civilians died in world war two. These are not based on actual, quantitative tabulations of formally reported deaths in newspapers and hosptital morgues.

Because when we cite them we have a good amount of posterity behind them to gather all the facts to forumulate a very good estimate. This war is still going on and the means to use all that we could use to know for sure is limited.

Cypress
09-20-2006, 01:25 PM
Certainly, we always cite the fact the Stalin killed twenty million peopal, and that fourty million civilians died in world war two. These are not based on actual, quantitative tabulations of formally reported deaths in newspapers and hosptital morgues.

Because when we cite them we have a good amount of posterity behind them to gather all the facts to forumulate a very good estimate. This war is still going on and the means to use all that we could use to know for sure is limited.


No one complained about estimates of total dead iraqis from sanctions, or from Saddam's human rights abuses.

In fact, the Lancet report is probably much more rigourous statistically and statistically, than many other "guesses" about human death tolls. Due to the dangerous nature of their work, they freely admit there were limitations in how much polling they could do. That is dealt with statisically in their report.

I have no problem making a distinction between "reported" dead, and "estimated" dead. As long as the estimate isn't some wild-ass guesss. that it comes from a techincally credible analysis.

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 01:34 PM
No one complained about estimates of total dead iraqis from sanctions, or from Saddam's human rights abuses.
//

That is a darned good point.

IHateGovernment
09-20-2006, 01:38 PM
Well given my demand that we have at least the ability to ascertain these things I would equally object to using those numbers for policy making as well.

The number seems a bit incredible to me given the nature of limited war vs. total war.

Cypress
09-20-2006, 01:42 PM
Well given my demand that we have at least the ability to ascertain these things I would equally object to using those numbers for policy making as well.

The number seems a bit incredible to me given the nature of limited war vs. total war.

I'm not suggesting we make policy decisions, based on statistical estimates of casualities.

I'm suggesting we recognize reality: IraqBodyCount says that, formally, there have been around 50,000 civilian deaths. Formally reported by media sources. IraqBodyCount also says the actual death toll is probably far higher than that, since many or most deaths go unreported.

That makes sense to me. I suspect there have been far greater than 50,000 deaths in Iraq. That's just a reality.

IHateGovernment
09-20-2006, 01:48 PM
My guess is that it has not broken 100000 yet. I do believe it will at some point in the near future. However the Lancet report would have us believe this threshold was crossed long ago. If it was that high then given the escalation of civilian killing we would think that perhaps it has gone well over 200000 at this point.

This level of death via terrorist attacks and targeted aerial bombing does not seem likely at all.

Prakosh
09-20-2006, 01:53 PM
My guess is that it has not broken 100000 yet. I do believe it will at some point in the near future. However the Lancet report would have us believe this threshold was crossed long ago. If it was that high then given the escalation of civilian killing we would think that perhaps it has gone well over 200000 at this point.

This level of death via terrorist attacks and targeted aerial bombing does not seem likely at all.


Not to mention the fact that American troops are engaging and shooting people every day too.

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 01:55 PM
I think that there have been 3000 bodies or so a month going thru the Baghdad morgue alone lately.....

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 01:57 PM
And we pretty much wiped out Fallujah didn't we, but kept no count of the dead then. I believe that was the name of the town.

IHateGovernment
09-20-2006, 02:07 PM
Not to mention the fact that American troops are engaging and shooting people every day too.

Yes but it is difficult to kill very large numbers of people by shooting them. The Nazis realized this and moved from firing squads to gas chambers.

Cypress
09-20-2006, 02:13 PM
My guess is that it has not broken 100000 yet. I do believe it will at some point in the near future. However the Lancet report would have us believe this threshold was crossed long ago. If it was that high then given the escalation of civilian killing we would think that perhaps it has gone well over 200000 at this point.

This level of death via terrorist attacks and targeted aerial bombing does not seem likely at all.


From a probabalistic sense, I'm pretty sure its broken 100,000.

The lancet was not a political study. They didn't make disticinction between estimated dead civiliarns, or dead insurgents, or dead iraqi army troops. It was just a statistical estimate of dead human beings in iraq.

IraqBodyNet just counts formally reported civilian deaths.

IHateGovernment
09-20-2006, 02:16 PM
I expect that documented civilian deaths would make for the largest proportion of the dead, followed by undocumented civilian deaths, followed by iraqi army deaths followed by insurgent deaths followed by coalition deaths. I wouldn't expect the number of the other types of deaths to be more than double the documented civilian deaths.

Cypress
09-20-2006, 02:27 PM
I expect that documented civilian deaths would make for the largest proportion of the dead, followed by undocumented civilian deaths, followed by iraqi army deaths followed by insurgent deaths followed by coalition deaths. I wouldn't expect the number of the other types of deaths to be more than double the documented civilian deaths.

That's a reasonable guess.

If someone else wanted to do a rigourous statistical analysis we might be more confident. But, the Lancet is the only one who has. Its to dangerous for researchers to go into iraq now, and conduct polling and research.

Thank you for your consistency. I'm always amazed at other people who rag on the Lancet study, but throw around random guesses for the amount of people that died under Saddam or Stalin. If nothing else, the Lancet was at least a strong piece of techincal work, statistically-rigourous, and peer-reviewed by experts.

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 02:28 PM
Isn't the lancet count a couple of years old as well ?

Cypress
09-20-2006, 02:32 PM
Isn't the lancet count a couple of years old as well ?


The Study was done in Fall of 2004.

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 02:43 PM
yep and it is fall of 2006, so even accounting for inaccuracies in the report.....

IHateGovernment
09-20-2006, 03:02 PM
Truth be told I'm not really so sure about the estimated number of those who died during the Saddam regime I have also heard of numbers over 100000 but if you discount the Iran Iraq war I doubt that number is around there either.

Cypress
09-20-2006, 03:30 PM
Truth be told I'm not really so sure about the estimated number of those who died during the Saddam regime I have also heard of numbers over 100000 but if you discount the Iran Iraq war I doubt that number is around there either.

You're aware that IraqBodyCount only counts the number of people killed in a bomb blast, mortar blast, or other form of attack, right?

And your also aware that ever day we read headlines like:

"20 iraqis killed, 70 wounded in car bomb attack"

Some of those 70 wounded, might die of their injuries a month later, and not be counted in the IraqBodyCount tabulation.

Additionally, somebody driving a car near, but not in the bomb zone, might recieve a concussion from the blast wave, and drive his car into a canal. And drown. That's not counted.

This is also why the US casualty count is much higher than officially reported by the pentagon. Only the dudes directly killed or wounded by an IED are considered "killed or wouned in action".

FUCK THE POLICE
09-20-2006, 06:06 PM
I pretty much consider computers in education worthless. I mean, Mississippi was the first state in the union to have computers in every classroom, and we have several computer labs in every school. Most of the computers are permantly covered by dust covers, except for the ones used by teachers, which are mainly used to replace paper attencdance rolls. An absolute waste of money. It did nothing for our school system and distracted us from more important goals.

IHateGovernment
09-20-2006, 06:39 PM
That is because they weren't utilized Watermark thats hardly an example of the failure of computers but rather an illustration of the failure of the school administration.

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 08:27 PM
Computers, phonetics, and calculators have lessened the development of minds in basic education in my opinion. In higher education computers and calculators are very valuable tools.

Damocles
09-20-2006, 08:35 PM
Computers, phonetics, and calculators have lessened the development of minds in basic education in my opinion. In higher education computers and calculators are very valuable tools.
Phonetics is a superior way to teach a person to read and spell. To say that it has a role in limiting knowledge is saying that learning to read efficiently is literally a bad thing.

Now I would agree with Computers and calculators.

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 08:48 PM
I dunno spelling of the current generation is pretty atrocious.
I was reading some of my granddaughters work last week, the composition was very good, but the spelling.......
I am a horrible typist with old dsylexic finners, but I spell fairly well. others use cite for site and such....

Damocles
09-20-2006, 08:49 PM
I dunno spelling of the current generation is pretty atrocious.
I was reading some of my granddaughters work last week, the composition was very good, but the spelling.......
I am a horrible typist with old dsylexic finners, but I spell fairly well. others use cite for site and such....
True, but long ago they abandoned phonetics in the schools for a more subjective learning experience. The idea that we shouldn't use the alphabet as it was designed, as a phonetic tool is ridiculous.

Damocles
09-20-2006, 08:51 PM
For example, I learned with phonetics and actual phonetic spelling rules. You will find that I use site for site and cite for cite. I will also rarely confuse to, too, two... or They're and their.

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 09:05 PM
I was not picking on you Damo, just had remembered seeing wrong word useage and that was one.
How does the new system differ from straight phonetics ?
Or is it too complicated to go into, guess I could talk to the GC's teachers at PTO which used to be PTA ;)

Damocles
09-20-2006, 09:07 PM
They use word recognition, they expect them to just learn them by memory rather than sounding them out. It limits their actual understading. At least that was how they were teaching my friend's kid... He didn't start excelling in school until I taught him to read.

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 09:11 PM
Hmm I learned by memory and did well enough that I went from 4th to 6th grade. No fifth grade at all for this hillbilly.

Damocles
09-20-2006, 09:12 PM
My mother learned by memory, still can't spell. It is truly sad. Some people have exceptional memory, for those who don't phonetics is the way to go...

I have both... I rarely misspell.

uscitizen
09-20-2006, 09:17 PM
I have terrible memory for numbers, date, etc always have had. But have finished in the top few in spelling bees and such. I am a very avid reader, can finish a jukny scifi novel in an evening.

Prakosh
09-20-2006, 09:42 PM
True, but long ago they abandoned phonetics in the schools for a more subjective learning experience. The idea that we shouldn't use the alphabet as it was designed, as a phonetic tool is ridiculous.

Ok, fair enough. Try this with phonetics: through and threw. How does phonetics tell you the difference between those two words and they way they are spelled???

Damocles
09-20-2006, 09:44 PM
The words are actually pronounced differently according to correct pronunciation rules. If you don't believe me look it up in the dictionary. They "sound" different to my mind, thus the correct spelling comes every time.

Prakosh
09-20-2006, 11:00 PM
The words are actually pronounced differently according to correct pronunciation rules. If you don't believe me look it up in the dictionary. They "sound" different to my mind, thus the correct spelling comes every time.

Really, well just for you, and because I couldn't believe that I had been pronouncing one or both of them incorrectly all these years, I just did look them up in the Dictionary; the Oxford English Dictionary has them spelled phonetically identically. But what would the Oxford English Dictionary know about the correct pronounciation of words, especially English words. There is also the further complication of throughway and thruway, also of couse pronounced differently, no doubt, even though the Oxford again has them phonetically pronounced indentically to each other. Evidently you do not believe in the existence of homonyms. Maybe they are another myth, and like Thor or Zeus such entities simply do not exist in the real world. Of course, one size fits all education is like one size fits all clothing, not all its cracked up to be. It is based on the mistaken notion that everybody learns the same. I'm not sure that holds as well in practice as it appears to in theory. It would imply that we are all the same, I'm not sure that is the case. And even though one can learn to sound a word out and read it somewhat shakily, and this is quite obvious to someone listening to them read, they still have to find the meaning somewhere to make sense of what they have just read, and that is the rub. In the end reading through language (rather than understanding it) is only marginally better than not reading. Personally I don't know how anyone could learn to read just using phonetics or without any phonetics, it seems to me that if one is a reader of various texts from differnt disciplines that one is always running across new words and no matter how much one tries one can always find a context that doesn't necessarily aid in understanding the meaning of the new word. So I just don't believe in the magic key that some people think is phonetics, that must make me something, perhaps a costentious cropticopus to some or to others, a liberal, HUH?

Damocles
09-20-2006, 11:03 PM
Really, well just for you, and because I couldn't believe that I had been pronouncing one or both of them incorrectly all these years, I just did look them up in the Dictionary; the Oxford English Dictionary has them spelled phonetically identically. But what would the Oxford English Dictionary know about the correct pronounciation of words, especially English words.


Does everything have to be an asshat remark for you?

Actually you are right. I too looked them up. However, as I said I keep them separated by making them "sound" differently to my mind while still pronouncing them as I always have during speech.

Unlike those people who say hhhhwat rather than just what I prefer to sound normally when speaking.

Prakosh
09-20-2006, 11:25 PM
Does everything have to be an asshat remark for you?

Actually you are right. I too looked them up. However, as I said I keep them separated by making them "sound" differently to my mind while still pronouncing them as I always have during speech.

Unlike those people who say hhhhwat rather than just what I prefer to sound normally when speaking.

No not everything, but if you are going to make a claim about the dictionary, which, even though I have several in different langauges, I hate to use, you better expect an "asshat remark" if you are wrong...I can tell you from personal experience with foreigners trying to learn it that the English langauge is one of the hardest langauges to learn because of all the different exceptions to every rule.

That and except for the little rule, "i" before "e" except after "c" or as sounded as "a" as in neighbor or weigh---I don't think I remember even one other rule in grammar or anything else that I ever learned. Maybe that is because I am an anarchist and reject all authority.

Damocles
09-20-2006, 11:26 PM
Well goodnight, friend Prakosh... time for rest. I am sure I'll find some remark to respond to tomorrow...

Damocles
09-20-2006, 11:32 PM
No not everything, but if you are going to make a claim about the dictionary, which, even though I have several in different langauges, I hate to use, you better expect an "asshat remark" if you are wrong...I can tell you from personal experience with foreigners trying to learn it that the English langauge is one of the hardest langauges to learn because of all the different exceptions to every rule.

That and except for the little rule, "i" before "e" except after "c" or as sounded as "a" as in neighbor or weigh---I don't think I remember even one other rule in grammar or anything else that I ever learned. Maybe that is because I am an anarchist and reject all authority.
I understand. I stated that I too looked them up and realized I was wrong. Once again... You can't help yourself, can you? You have to pile the most ass possible into your post without regard to even the actual meaning...

I stated it because when usually people ask it is over things like dawn and Don which actually do have different phonetic pronuciation.

Just like with everything there are things one will need to remember. Such as the differences between to, too, two and threw and through... ;) It can be made easier using mnemonic tricks such as making them "sound" differently in the mind while still pronouncing them as one would normally in conversation.

I did say I had one of those memories as well. I have a talent for language, I currently can speak three of them, and that memory as well as the capability to use mnemonic devices has served me well...

Now, let's see if you'll mention one more time how I was wrong about the dictionary even though I have twice stated such myself.

Make it sound as asshat as possible when you do... It brings us such joy!

Prakosh
09-20-2006, 11:33 PM
Well goodnight, friend Prakosh... time for rest. I am sure I'll find some remark to respond to tomorrow...

I'm sure; goodnight!