Jody Gomez

Members
  • Content Count

    253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Jody Gomez

  • Rank
    $$$

Profile Information

  • Location
    atlanta
  • Interests
    literature, lyrics, objectivism, Lydia, Chris, friends, cross-wind landings, honeybees, life, sangiovese, dusk, orion,
  1. Jody; I haven't seen the latest information on Heath's case. For that reason I am not going to condemn him and stand by my statement that the story is sad. The last line of Brokeback Mountain is "Jack I swear". The Heath Ledger story is still sad whatever he died of. Watching Brokeback again less than an hour ago I was reminded what a wonderful performance Heath's was. Chris, I agree the story is sad. I have a child, so I guess I just get pissed off at the fact that this may have been self-inflicted. Heath was a talented actor. I'm still up in the air as to whether he was a despicable human being.
  2. Chris, I debated this with my wife tonight. He had a child. How do you define coward? I define it , "Heath...whatever his name is."
  3. Michael, You're right. I owe Wolf and Martin an apology, and I'm offering that now. This thread started with someone I've always admired taking a sucker-punch at me. That put me in a hell of a state. Thanks Michael. I mean that sincerely. You know me too well! Fortunately you know when I'm being an asshole.
  4. Care to cite any evidence for that claim? Wolf is wrong... --Brant I'm an exploration insider. Cheney's 2000 secret energy commission concluded that 25% of future US oil imports had to come from Iraq because of declining production in the North Sea, Kuwait, etc. In 2003, I saw a map of Iraq's fields and known reserves at a major oil company's office in Houston. There was a team assigned to develop it as soon as Bremer had it sewed up. I said Exxon because I didn't want to name the company in question, but it was one of the top five, and certainly Exxon had similar maps and plans. You shouldn't be so eager to dismiss the facts. Had nothing to do with Saddam or democracy or WMD or terrorism. W. Okay Captain Nemo. When you can cite sources other than the voices in you head, you just let me know.
  5. Quoting Martin: You are correct-Iraq had nothing directly to do with 9/11. They did however have something directly to do with al-qaeda. The 9/11 Commission even discovered that. So should we just appease the nations that support the terrorists groups which attack us? You are correct again. Iran had nothing to do with 9/11, but what is your solution to a radical Islamic regime(or as I say Islamo-fascists filth) which is enriching Uranium while calling for the destruction of Israel? Pick up a history book and in the index look up Chamberlain and Hitler.
  6. Michael, Thanks for seeing how I took this as an insult. Arguments I can handle, but "vapid" insults fire me up.
  7. Quoting Martin: So what kind of dishonest ass does it take to inflate "the most recent figures" of 78,000-85,000 and inflate them to "several hundred thousand?"
  8. Quoting Martin- Look at the cease fire agreement from the 1st Gulf War...look at the numerous U.N. resolutions. The U.S. had every right to keep its promises.
  9. Well, Brant, with that one you managed to provoke me into saying something further. I haven't been in any argument with Jody "from the get go." Jody wasn't the addressee of my post which started this interlude. Bob Kolker was. I was objecting to his presumption. Please get clear why I said anything at all. I hadn't even read most of the other posts on this thread. I always read Bob K.'s posts because he says a certain amount about scientific issues which I find of interest. On the other hand he can irritate me with his blanket pronouncements. It was Bob K. who was the target of my remarks, not Jody. Near as I can tell, what Jody is upset about is my description of the particular remarks to which Bob K. was responding. I'm sorry if Jody's feathers have been as badly ruffled as it seems they have been. Maybe if I'd said "empty" instead of "vapid," he wouldn't have been as miffed. I debated between "vapid" and "empty." Whatever. I'm not going to argue with Jody about Islamists, national defense, etc. To repeat -- and then, I hope, I won't feel called on to re-re-re-repeat: it was Bob K.'s post to which I was objecting. Ellen ___ Ellen, The first post I responded to tonight was Brant's, but I see this has went much further, and I have yet to read them all. Honestly, I was offended by your comments. I'm willing to discuss it intellectually with you, and to respect your opionion, but you tossed out the empty pejoratives against me. I respected you, so it just kind of cut me a bit. A lot of people here know that I don't mince words, but I will listen...and if I listen and hear something of value, I'll admit it. The best example of this is Rich, who is someone I attacked dedicatedly on SoloHq, but someone that I now admit I was mostly ;) wrong about. He now holds my deepest respect. Quite simply Ellen, I was taken aback by you, because I've always respected you...even when I disagreed. When I have disagreed with you, I have never assumed ignorance or maliciousness on your part, which is what you intimated about me...at least in my opinion.
  10. Brant- So you think the victory is hers for the taking? Very well. Let her fight for it. No Jody. I think she's been in an argument with you from the get go, but I'm glad she's not going any further with this. And I sincerely wish you'd cut it out also. It's true I consider her my friend, so I addressed her instead of you. That's all. I'm sick and tired of good people cutting each other up on Internet forums. --Brant Brant- I respect you and your opinion. I also respect Ellen. I got a little hot under the collar because of such. I wish she had respected me and my sincerity. Thanks for calming me down.
  11. Brant- So you think the victory is hers for the taking? Very well. Let her fight for it.
  12. Chris, This is a great find! Thank you.
  13. Ellen, Okay, I've heard enough rambling by you as to what does and does not constitute an argument. Let's avoid countless posts arguing semantics. Define argument.
  14. Care to cite any evidence for that claim? Wolf is wrong. However, when one delves beneath the superficial skein, you find the Bush people historically involved with oil and their good buddies the Saudis and one begins to understand the Iraqi War a little better. Never mind that the Saudis have more to do with Islamo-fascist terrorism than any other people, government and group, going back at least decades to an extremist assault on Mecca in 1979. The Saudis beat the extremists by agreeing to propagate the extremists' thought enacted in deed world-wide by adherents. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. I thought at the time it was a brilliant setup, but now I don't. --Brant I know that the Bush people have been involved in oil, but that means nothing regarding the war. I've heard a lot of talk about the Saudis, and I'll admit that I'm not in the know about that. I'm going to do some research on it though, as I do believe you and others have a valid point.