And you've merely shown how you can assemble random definitions and produce incomprehensible gibberish.

Again, I guarantee that everyone else figured out what is obviously meant when I first say "A and B share common selection criteria," then say "A and B are the same, not coincidentally." That you can't figure this out is revealing, but ultimately not important.

No, the fact is that you are whining to gain sympathy, and trying to translate disagreement into "baiting," which provides a nice cop-out.

If, time and again, you DO fail, in fact, to parse simple sentences, then you DO have a reading comprehension problem. This is simply a fact, not an insult. Truth is a 100% viable defense against charges of libel. If you're not reading sentences correctly, then I get to decide that life is too short to waste time on this.

Again I point to:
In one case, you run oil; in the other, trucks, supplies, etc.

This does not denote having the same thing happening at the same time, but rather it deals with having one or the other, which would fit with my opinion on what the not coincidentally would mean.

If you don't agree with that then perhaps you'd like to explain how, exactly, how it's wrong?

It has to do with the common selection criteria (moving heavy things), which are the reason that the two sites are NOT COINCIDENTALLY the same. They're the same because they're selected on the same basis, for much the same reason. Hence, IT'S NOT A COINCIDENCE, they're much the same places.

How many times must one repeat the obvious?

In one case you run oil;

Dun dun dun...this means that at one point you will be running the oil.

in the other, trucks, supplies, etc

So in the other case, or rather situation, you'd be running trucks, supplies and such.

This means they don't run along the same time, nor does it specifically mean that they're the same themselves. The term case is used here, and can be used to relate to the situation, or location, and as such when it's one type of location you do one thing, and when it's another type of location you conduct activity relating to that type of terrain.

Which in turn links back to the previous statement and makes it out to be how they don't always end up being the same, rather than both being there by anything but coincidence(How can they be in the same place if only one type is allowed pertaining to one type of case/situation?).

How many times do I have to repeat the obvious?

Of course not. It means that, based on their transportational similarities, the sites are chosen from the same criteria, so -- NOT COINCIDENTALLY -- the sites are the same.

Gibberish.

None. It's already obvious you don't get it -- no need to repeat.

Again, it's very simple: no one other than you has this difficulty, so I can't afford to waste time on the statistical outlier -- you. No offense, but there it is.

I continue in THIS thread in the vain hope you may learn something.

So you'd disagree with the opinion of an English teacher?

I've already done these types of conversations with actual English teachers, I've written up opinions, theories and ideas and the English teacher pointed out contradictions and grammatical errors.

How do you think I know what I know?

I was taught that while one sentence might say something, another sentence part of the same paragraph is capable of deciding what a potential two-way definition actually is, thus helping to solidify what it all means.

You like to call what I say as pure "gibberish", and automatically disagree with whatever I say, thinking that it's all "obvious" that you're "right", because god forbid you make a grammatical error.

If you made an error that's okay..you can admit to it, and I won't hate you any less.

You stated a sentence containing a potential double definition. When this was pointed out you said it was one definition while I said it was another. I had previously read the whole thing and thus due to what lay afterward decided on what the sentence meant.
So I brought in the sentence that helped me to decide my opinion as to what exactly it all meant, and you instantly say that it merely helps your point.

The problem is that it helps to prove there's a difference, or rather two potential events that may occur depending on a situation, while you say that in the previous sentence there "is no coincidence that the two things are the same".

If they are the same then you would've stated that the two events may occur at the same time, although instead you stated that in ONE CASE(Or rather ONE SITUATION) something happens, and in the OTHER CASE(Or rather OTHER SITUATION) something else happens.

This means there IS a difference.

And you extrude another torrent of gibberish to cloud the obvious.

Not true at all.... though it makes a nice ploy....

Saudi Arabia hosts terrorists.... this is a known fact..... GW Bush stated that any country which hides or supports terrorists were our enemies.... what he did not mention was his "except".... except the one country which produces 10% of all the worlds oil and has carte blanche on almost all the rest.....

""(71) The hijacked planes crashing into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon have provided an additional rational for the unilateral action to the US administration to increase its political/military control in this region. Anti-terrorism has replaced anti-communism as the new millennium's all-purpose rationale for providing US military/ political and economic expansion over the globe.
Therefore the key to understand the events of the recent developments after September 11 lies in the post-Cold War realities and dynamics of US global hegemony. The defence of American economic and geopolitical interests worldwide was the main underlying reason for the American "war against terrorism".

Bulent Gokay is senior lecturer in International Relations of Southeast Europe, Keele University.
This article was first published in "Alternatives -- Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol.1, No:2, Summer 2002, Special Issue on September 11". ""

""(64) Real risk of military confrontation continues in south Asia, as India and Pakistan simultaneously mass soldiers at their border and escalate the conflict in Kashmir. Since the end of the Cold War, Washington has deliberately contributed to fuelling the India-Pakistan conflict.
The US has military cooperation agreements with both India and Pakistan, and keeps selling weapons to both countries. Sanctions against both Pakistan and India -- imposed after their nuclear tests in 1998 -- were dropped by President Bush immediately after September 11. While India and Pakistan are moving along the dangerous line of a nuclear war, the US and its allies are quietly laying gas pipelines, selling weapons and pushing through their business deals.
From the collapse of the former Yugoslavia and various post-Yugoslav wars, to American/NATO responses to numerous political and economic crises in the post-Soviet space, and more recently to America's "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan, there is an important underlying thread. Although these various wars and conflicts have /had certain regional dimensions, they are primarily the US response to the opportunities and challenges opened by the demise of the Soviet Union.
All have been connected to one big central course of action: the manoeuvres of the US, and its allies in Europe, over the division of resources and political/ military control of Eurasia. All these interventions have enabled the US to gain a strong foothold in the lands between Europe to the west, Russian Federation to the north, and China to the east, and turn this strategic region increasingly into an American "sphere of influence".""

And you are wrong.... it is not a conspiracy....

"""In the words of Zoltan Grossman, "it is not a conspiracy; it is just business as usual." """

Similar occurences in History... where we throw someone into power without any thought to the consequences toward the population....

"""August 19, 1953 A CIA coup in Iran overthrows the government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and re-installs Reza Pahlavi as Shah of Iran. Over 300 people are killed and many hundreds are wounded in the nine hours of fighting. [Plans had been brewing to oust the nationalist Mossadegh ever since he and his party had passed a bill in 1951 to nationalize the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The coup, however, was increasingly proclaimed in the years following as essential to prevent "the obvious threat of Russian takeover." Its cost to the US taxpayers was about $19 million.

The future cost to the people of Iran was incalculable. Thousands were executed during the next twenty-five years of the Shah's reign. SAVAK, the secret police created and trained by the CIA, was described by Amnesty International in 1976 as having a "history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran." Matchbox, Fall, 1976.

The United States got many military installations in Iran, bases for surveillance flights over Russia, and radar and electronic listening posts that completed the encirclement of the USSR. American oil firms gained a 40% interest in the new international consortium for Iranian oil. The US would spend over a billion dollars to support the Shah's regime and the military in Iran. (The CIA distributed about $400 million a year to placate the ayatollahs and the mullahs from 1953 until President Carter ordered a stop in 1977, a move that undoubtedly contributed to the 1978 revolution.) Blum, William, The CIA: A Forgotten History (1986), pp. 67-76.]
""""""

Some facts which lead to the summation that we may have brought about 9/11 unto ourselves......

"""July 3, 1979 President Carter, at the urging of his national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, signs a secret directive for clandestine assistance to enemies of the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan. Cooley, pp. 13, 19-22. [This, of course, was six months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Brzezinski admitted this in 1998 to a rather shocked French interviewer: "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we consciously increased the probability that they would .... Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap. You want me to regret that?" When the interviewer asked if he regretted having supported the Islamic fundamentalists and given arms and advice to future terrorists, Brzezinski replied: "What is more important to the history of the world... the Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" Interview with Vincent Javert in Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, January 15-21, 1998, p. 76, translated from the French by Bill Blum.]"""

Need more----

"""January 20, 1981 Ronald Reagan is inaugurated as the 40th president. (Television gives the American public the split-screen spectacle of the inauguration ceremony plus the arrival of the Embassy captives just released by Iran.) William Casey, the new head of the CIA, enthusiastically adopts the covert operation in Afghanistan started by Brzezinski, Carter, and Carter's DCI, Stansfield Turner. [The Black Budget cost of the first year under Carter had been $100 million. Rep. Charles Wilson (D-T of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee called this "peanuts" and, with several other anti-communist hawks, saw to it that Black Budget funds for the covert operation in Afghanistan quickly quadrupled. More weapons and better weapons were procured. Under a super-secret SOVMAT program (probably unknown to Pakistan's Zia) phony corporations bought huge quantities of weapons from Eastern European governments, including latest-model Soviet tanks and radar systems for fighter planes. The New York Times has estimated that the US and Saudi Arabia supplied nearly $6 billion worth of weapons to the Afghani "freedom fighters." (Other countries supplying funds or arms were Egypt, France, Israel, Great Britain, Iran, China and Japan.) Large sums went to the recruitment, training and maintenance of Muslim zealots from many countries including Algeria, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Great Britain, Morocco, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, and the United States. An early and enthusiastic recruit was the wealthy Saudi national, Osama bin Laden, who had been suggested to the CIA by the head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki Ibn Faisal Ibn Abdelaziz. Bin Laden's organization, Al Qaeda, set up recruitment centers in the major Arab countries. He paid for the transportation of these recruits to training centers in Pakistan and Afghanistan and subsidized their support. His construction and engineering skills were utilized to build roads, tunnels, hospitals, storage depots and secure bases hollowed into the mountains. Most of the training was done by Pakistan's ISI in camps built by the CIA in Pakistan and border areas of Afghanistan. The trainers were trained at the CIA "farm" in Virginia where they learned the latest techniques of arson, demolition, and assassination.] Cooley, pp. 60, 106-119; New York Times, 24 August 1998; Reeve, Simon, The New Jackals: Ramzi Yousef, Osama bin Laden and the Future of Terrorism. """"

this is also a bit fishy----

""July 4-14, 2001 Osama bin Laden is a patient in the American hospital in Dubai receiving treatment for his kidney disease. During this period he is visited by the CIA station chief who is summoned back to Washington on July 15th. Le Figaro, October 31, 2001. One wonders why this man, indicted in the US for conspiracy in the attacks on the East African embassies and the USS Cole and the subject of a targeted attack by the US in 1998, was not apprehended in Dubai or his private jet forced down (or shot down) on the way back to Afghanistan."""

Another hint missed and no investigation----

"""September 6-10, 2001 Activity on Wall Street: An abnormally high number of "put" options are purchased on stock of United and American airlines. (A put option is a speculation that the stock price will go down.) United Airlines put options were 90 times the normal rate for these days. On September 6th UA put options were 285 times the average. No other airlines experienced abnormal put activity in this period. CBS News, September 26, 2001;www.fromthewilderness.com. Morgan Stanley, the brokerage firm occupying some of the top floors of the north tower of the World Trade Center, and another WTC occupant, Merrill Lynch, also experience abnormally large put option purchases. [Some of the United puts were purchased through Deutschebank/AB Brown, a firm formerly managed by the executive director of the CIA, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard. New York Times, September 21, 2001. Who were these buyers, what did they know, and HOW did they know? Why has there been no investigation? ]""""

Why no explanation???

""""9/11/01---8:38 AM: The Boston air traffic controllers notify NORAD that American Airlines Flight # 11 has been hijacked. [Standard Operating Procedure dictates that fighter jets be scrambled immediately to intercept any hijacked plane, indeed any plane that has deviated from its flight plan, as in the case of the doomed plane of golfer Payne Stewart in 1999. As of May 11, there has been no explanation why SOP was not followed on September 11.]"""

Saudi Arabia-----""9:25 AM: The Federal Aviation Administration orders all planes grounded immediately. No further takeoffs will be allowed until noon the next day. [There was one interesting exception. Prince Bandar Bin-Sultan, the ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States, was allowed to use his private jet to take twenty-four members of the bin Laden family residing in the US back to Arabia. The FBI provided their escort to Logan Airport with no questions asked, no interrogation. And in the days following, Saudi Arabia would neither supply any information on the fifteen of its citizens believed to be among the nineteen alleged hijackers nor close down the bin Laden charities suspected of funding Al Qaeda. The prince (on Larry King's program, October 1st) described one of his benefactees who suddenly understood the injustice done to the Japanese-Americans in 1942. The privileged young man said, "I'm a rich man, I'm in Harvard, and I have to leave my school, not because I was guilty, but because the emotions are high." Could the ambassador possibly have been unaware of the arrogance involved in this anecdote? Christopher Hitchens, The Nation, January 21, 2002.]"""

Actually he made a good deal of sense..... but of course you would see it as gibberish..... this is to be expected of you.....

Don't forget: burden of proof is on YOU, the rebutter.

If we let reality intrude, we all should understand that you can't declare war on a dozen countries at once. But you want to influence their behaviour, just the same. So you identify which countries might change on their own without interference (Iran), which countries can be pressured to change by implied threats (Libya, Saudi Arabia), and which countries are so implacable as to require real military action (Iraq).

The point is, all terrorist harboring nations are candidates for war, but if the same end results can be achieved through credible threat of war, that's preferable.

Was it really necessary to say all this?

Again, mere assertion. 9/11 WAS the "rationale," but conspiracy theorists have their own, unalterable preconceived notions.

The refutation is obvious: the installation of the Shah of Iran happened over 50 years ago. The much more recent and relevant example was when the Shah was overthrown, the US did exactly nothing to keep him in power.

Another inconvenient fact for you is that the mullahs killed far more people than the Shah ever did, not to mention led their country away from affluence and secularism, right back into the middle ages.

This is typical conspiracy theory nonsense. Why nonsense? Because it ignores plain realities. What is the author trying to say? That the US authorities knew a plane would be flown into a building and deliberately let it happen? Does that even pass the laugh test among sane adults? Note first the casual insinuation of mind-boggling evil, that staple of all conspiracy theories: we're to believe that some cabal of Dr No's decided to let thousands die for some nefarious purpose. Notice also the failure of other sanity checks on the conspiracy theory: this, like all the other such theories, requires that thousands of evil people are capable of enacting and collaborating on this wide-scale conspiracy without even a hint of any news of it leaking out. In the real world, no group of people larger than a dozen can keep a secret of any importance. The White House and the Pentagon have leaks all the time. It is completely inconceivable that something of this magnitude, which has to be known by thousands of people to operate, could be kept secret.

Another obvious rejoinder is that it is absolutely impossible that the anti-Bush US media would ignore any viable theory that blames Bush or the administration for 9/11. You've seen, I'm sure, how the media gave endless, absurdly imbalanced coverage to the recent 9/11 hearings (really a partisan witchhunt) or the 24/7 prison abuse issue. If there was any real conspiracy, do you really think they would ignore it?

A little common sense is the best antidote to such foolishness. Believing in conspiracy theories requires Orwellian levels of Doublethink, the ability to believe in wild stretches of imagination while simultaneously suppressing the obvious contradictions.

Equally revealing is that you think it "good sense."

Be honest here: did you, even for one second, fail to understand what I meant by the sentence in question?

Too bad 'that's too absurd