GreatWhiteNorth

Your description sparked a reminder of what Japan did at Pearl Harbor. Then all the gloves came off.

C'mon. You choose to make fun of a man with a speech impediment? How is that a good idea for you? Don't act like a turd if you don't want to be thought of as one.

This gathering was organized by a far-right group, not the Israeli government. The Israeli government has made it clear that this is not their intention at all. Doesn't seem quite right that you left that (very important) part out. In today's climate of misinformation and protesters being paid by competing governments, it's impossible to say. That far-right group may be supported by external forces. Maybe some Arab countries, maybe Israeli citizens. Nobody knows just yet. We shall see.

Result - MN 20, Rutgers 12 Gage with the 19-3 prediction was incredibly close... nice job, Gage. 141: #20 Mitch Moore (RU) dec. #21 Vance VomBaur, 4-1 | MINN 0, RU 3 149: #13 Drew Roberts dec. Michael Cetta, 3-0 (RU) | MINN 3, RU 3 157: #6 Michael Blockhus TF Al DeSantis (RU), 18-3 7:00 | MINN 8, RU 3 165: #29 Blaine Brenner dec. Luke Gayer (RU), 2-0 | MINN 11, RU 3 174: #13 Jackson Turley (RU) dec. Andrew Sparks, 7-4 | MINN 11, RU 6 184:Max McEnelly dec. #22 Brian Soldano (RU), 3-2 | MINN 14, RU 6 197: #24 Garrett Joles dec. #9 John Poznanski (RU), 4-1 SV1 | MINN 17, RU 6 285: #7 Yaraslau Slavikouski (RU) dec. #29 Bennett Tabor, 8-2 | MINN 17, RU 9 125: #16 Dean Peterson (RU) dec. #11 Patrick McKee, 6-4 | MINN 17, RU 12 133: #26 Tyler Wells dec. #8 Dylan Shawver (RU), 5-2 SV1 | MINN 20, RU 12

Hmmm... got it.

Whatever happens, Glazier can't get hurt. Do not want to see who might replace him in the lineup.

From what I've seen, a lot of people are low on Riggins too. But he he's performed well. This match will be interesting.

Your reply is welcome. Open and honest discourse is always welcome. Yes, I'm sure about the very specific definition of "peacetime" I'm 100% sure of that - it isn't arguable. Glad you agree. That definition may not be "a useful way for understanding" in terms of what you think might be useful. But, nonetheless, the definition won't change based on your perspective. The definition is etched in stone. Let's get to what's useful: The "attack" on 10/7 was exactly that. Agreed that the ongoing conflict didn't include 'peace' prior to the attack for many years. But the 10/7 attack was so awful, horrible, horrific, and terrible that I couldn't possibly run out of negative adjectives. The 10/7 attack was the spark that lit the current fire. The fire that led Israel to declare war. Does Hamas consider it peacetime? Doesn't matter a single bit. War has been declared on them for their actions. I'm not sure why you want to quibble with the definition of 'peacetime' when it is already in Webster's big book.

No name calling by me. Reading comprehension is always a problem here - even among good posters like yourself. READ IT AGAIN. I did not call you an idiot. I provided an alternative definition (as you've been doing for a few pages.) Per the alternative definition, you'd be the one calling yourself an idiot. Go ahead, read it again. I'm just playing Defense here. You seem to be fixated on trying to win some silly internet argument against the dictionary that you are completely wrong on. Get over it. Or just keep playing Offense.

... paging "Webster"... "Webster"... we have an otherwise respectable poster who is stubbornly opposing your definition of a word. "Webster"... "Please come to the front and address this scoundrel."

No issues. "Sweet dreams" = means you're saying you lost the argument and that you're an idiot. You may think it means something else - but that's just "semantics", right? Semantics, look it up. You may need a refresher before you try to use that word again. [Yes - sarcasm]

No. I'd like to be done here. (I've argued against Trump supporters with their 'alternative facts'... never against 'alternative definitions'. Both suck.)

I didn't need to look up "semantics", because I'm quite familiar with the word. And then I talked to you about your mistakes. Just as you suggested. Your "was the underlining for you...or me?" comment? That is a strange comment. It was obviously for you. If you're trying to be snarky, you're doing it poorly. We all make mistakes. Just let it go. Following it up with snark is a terrible look. Don't be that guy. (Seriously.)

As I've posted at least (3) times now. It isn't semantics, because the definition of the word is 100% clear. peace-time (noun) a period when a country is not at war It's not a gray area, it's not fuzzy, it's not subject to interpretation. It is clear. Don't let your emotions get the better of you and lower you to the level of some other knot heads here. You know better. If you desperately need to not let it go... then keep arguing against the dictionary.

FFS, I already covered this in a previous post AND posted that fact again for you to reference. Read the damn thread. Peace time is all of the time when not at war. Nobody has to declare peace time. (Think pregnancy, you can declare that you are pregnant but there's no need to declare you aren't pregnant.) Worst part of your post: "Your term" in reference to a dictionary word that is clearly defined. It's not my term, dummy. It's an actual word in the dictionary with an actual clear definition. Look it up. Perhaps the term you are searching for is "Conflict", that's a better fit (which I also already posted earlier.) All we have to communicate here is words. The least you can try to do is use them properly and not try to force your own personal definition on words that are already clearly defined. I'll assist with the definition if you don't want to look it up yourself (which I also already posted earlier): peace-time (noun) a period when a country is not at war

Everything else aside, I would hope you don't think it's OK to "warp" clearly written words into something other than they are. You made a mistake. We all make mistakes. Obviously not a big deal. No need to take a dig at me - that was rude... you don't have to admit it, just let it go.

No, not semantics. You seem like an intelligent person from what I've read. Don't purposely feign ignorance. It's beneath you. We are talking about a well-defined term - which I used correctly. There is no peace in Israel and hasn't been in decades, but the term I used was "peace time" and I used it exactly to convey that they were not "at war".... anyone who claims it wasn't "peace time" is just 100% wrong. Period. Words matter. Correct use of them is important.

If we were war had been declared, we'd be "at war" - otherwise, we'd be in "peace time" status. Not "at peace" ... "peace time" and "at peace" are two very different things. Read my previous post, don't be a dope. I already went through this.

"Snubbed"? Looks a lot worse than that. Someone needs to spend time behind bars.

Answer = prior to 10/7 Israel declared war shortly after 10/7 ... prior to that it was "peace time". Which is not at all the same thing as there being "peace" in the region. Two completely different things. Russia has not declared war on Ukraine, so they are - by definition - at peace time status. Yet there is obviously no peace going on there, either. "Special mission" but not at war. Same for Lebanon and Israel - not at war - so peace time status... yet they routinely lob explosives at each other. "In conflict" yet not at war. I'll assist with the definition: peace-time (noun) a period when a country is not at war

No, dummy, when Hamas rats MURDERED INNOCENT CIVILIANS AND TOOK HUNDREDS OF THEM HOSTAGE it was peacetime. You're an idiot to post otherwise. Israel declared war in response. The problem with your post and all of the BS surrounding this war is that people conveniently forget that Hamas combatant rats pretend to be, and hide behind, non-combatants. So bleeding hearts support them. Screw that. Hide in a hospital, you'll get rooted out. Will it get ugly? Maybe. But these rats need to be exterminated. Hide in tunnels, same thing - extermination. Explosions may get ugly. Want to make peace? If you're serious about peace, then release the hostages and we'll talk peace... except all the hostages aren't released, and they aren't serious about peace, and it's just a negotiation ploy by a bunch of f'ing primitive screwheads who are interested in nothing more than continued fighting and chaos, being paid for by Iran and leading nowhere good. Just more chaos while dummies like you make excuses for them. Hamas is nothing more than a group of highly paid thugs who murdered and took hostage thousands of people. Anyone who attempts to defend them and their actions is a puke.

It's a war... war sucks. People die in war consistently. It's not right to blame the result of war on one side or another. Both sides lose human souls in war. The goal needs to be to avoid war. Any group that invites and encourages war (Hamas, here) is the very problem that needs to be addressed.

Exactly what I'm planning to do. Bernie Pragle used to say that we all probably agree on much more than we disagree on. I suspect he was right. It's just that the parts we don't agree on get most of the focus (I'll call it the squeaky-wheel effect - why pay attention to the wheels that work fine?)

Which is so much better than being ... a hateful and angry country. Hateful and angry isn't a good place to be. Not a place anyone should hope for. Maybe best not to pick leaders who are hateful and angry.