Upon further reflection,wring, I realize that the above may not be clear enough for you. Let me spell it out for you, you stupid fuck: my comment was not a reference to any particular action or behavior on the part of RT at a Dopefest or anywhere else. It was a general reference to the boozy nature of SDMB get-togethers.
Missed your last post, wring. Charming.
Listen goddammit: It was not a jerky thing to do. What was a jerky thing to do was to take my remark and spin it into something nasty. You are the asshole here, not me.
Hmm - your comment was directed at a specific person, not a ‘general’ one, and it used a personal reference from a RL social encounter to try and make points off of him in an on line debate.
I point it out to you and suggest that it wasn’t a nice thing to do, and you keep cussing at me and now add ‘stupid fuck’ to the mix.
Yep. You’ve convinced me now. I bow down to your superior grasp of proper behavior.
Good. Here’s a lesson: don’t assume the worst possible explanation is the correct one. Ask yourself if a comment can reasonably be read as benign. Consider the possibility that you, having not attending many of these events, may not have sufficient evidence to evaluate a particular comment. Don’t run off half-cocked accusing people of taking personal, cheap shots until you’re sure that’s actually what happened.
In short, don’t be an asshole.
I actually know RT reasonably well; at least, better than most folks on these boards. In addition to meeting at Dopefests, we’ve played Diplomacy by email and have had generally pleasant exchanges. We throw some sharp elbows at each other in political threads, but we get along otherwise. I am absolutely certain that he would not interpret my remarks as you have. He’s smarter than that.
Frankly, I’m flabbergasted that anyone would put that kind of spin on my remarks, especially someone who’s been around these boards as long as you have. You really, really should be ashamed of yourself.
(And complaining about cussing in the Pit is like complaining about nudity in Playboy, frcryinoutloud…)
Good. Here’s a lesson: don’t assume the worst possible explanation is the correct one. Ask yourself if a comment can reasonably be read as benign. Consider the possibility that you, having not attending many of these events, may not have sufficient evidence to evaluate a particular comment. Don’t run off half-cocked accusing people of taking personal, cheap shots until you’re sure that’s actually what happened.
In short, don’t be an asshole.
I actually know RT reasonably well; at least, better than most folks on these boards. In addition to meeting at Dopefests, we’ve played Diplomacy by email and have had generally pleasant exchanges. We throw some sharp elbows at each other in political threads, but we get along otherwise. I am absolutely certain that he would not interpret my remarks as you have. He’s smarter than that.
Frankly, I’m flabbergasted that anyone would put that kind of spin on my remarks, especially someone who’s been around these boards as long as you have. You really, really should be ashamed of yourself.
(And complaining about cussing in the Pit is like complaining about nudity in Playboy, frcryinoutloud…)
Look sweetums. You posted something that I felt was low and uncalled for. I pointed it out. Politely. Yes, we’re in the pit, but the only one calling names and cussing is you (in this exchange).
I find it particularly distasteful that some one would use a real life social encounter to take a pot shot in an unrelated argument. Obviously, YMMV, since that’s what you did.
Odd that you say now that you 'actually know RT reasonably well, when in the exchange I cited began when you posted something about ‘anonymous’ (resulting in RT reminding you that you’d actually met etc.).
anyhow. You go ballistic on my rebuke to you, and then want to tell me the proper way to act? Miss Manners will be so proud of you.
IT WASN’T A POTSHOT!!!
That’s the whole fucking point! If you’re wondering why I’m calling you stupid, this is it. I wasn’t insulting RT. My comment was not a reference to anything in particular he did. I was making a benign wisecrack. I think that’s reasonably clear.
Let me explain in small words: Dopefests involve alcohol. Most participants are nicely buzzed throughout the evening. There is much drunken revelry – dancing on bars, the whole nine yards. Therefore, it is surprising that anyone would remember a face-to-face encounter the next day. Hence my wisecrack: I’m impressed at anyone who retains a modicum of sobriety at a Dopefest.
You accused me of something that I did not do. And you wonder why I’m annoyed at you? **
Not odd at all, as my response to RT’s pointing out that we’d met makes clear.
FWIW, I gasped out loud when I read that nasty remark, wondering how anyone could sink so low to have taken such a low blow at a person they’d met IRL from the boards. I think it is you who should ask yourself if your comment could reasonably be read as outrageous and insulting. Here’s a hint: the answer is yes.
And for the record, not only have I attended many, many, many, MANY dopefests (in fact, I believe I attended the very first one, ever), I’ve also planned, single-handedly, one of the biggest ones ever (we had over 80 people at Dopetoberfest, 2001). I trust that makes me qualified to tell you that that remark was completely out of line, crass, rude, and an uncalled-for personal attack.
So don’t run off half-cocked accusing people of being stupid fucks for merely pointing out their offense at your rude remarks.
In short, don’t be an asshole.
Dick Cheney, involved in some sort of Lebanese orphan, man boy love organization? What a perfectly horrible thing to imply Coldfire.
You should be ASHAMED ! 
IT WAS A POTSHOT!!!
Let me explain in small words: Dopefests don’t all involve alcohol. Many participants attend without even drinking a single drop, let alone becoming nicely buzzed throughout the evening. There can be drunken revelry, but it’s not a given. And not everyone has attended the particular dopefests you’ve attended (duh!), so reading your amazement that a fellow board member could have been sober enough to possibly remember you, comes across as extraordinarily offensive to those of us who conduct ourselves with decorum when we get together.
Shayna, while I respect your efforts, this kind of stuff is why I avoid Dopefests; once you’ve met me in person, I’m damn-near flame proof.
And another thing, ain’t nothing wrong with Dewey’s comment. If he’d said that to me after a Dopefest, I’d probably shoot back with “yeah, but when I woke up the next morning, my wife was still sexy.” Or some other silly, duck-back quip. It was a party. Shit happens at a party.
Oh, and while I’m here, I’d like to honor a couple of people. One’s from Minnesota and is more florid than Charles Dickens on Ecstasy, the other has six heads and says his “Giant Blimp” has a mind of its own. elucidator and Scylla, I’m sure you’ll have beautiful children. Is it possible to keep your love affair out of this kind of thread? I’m trying to learn, as are others here.
In this stage of my life, this particular subject is very important to me, not to mention the livelihoods of my employees and the people who own my company. Would you please knock it off?
Finally, I’d like to say God Damn. Just a little while ago, I had the urge to get out a ruler and run to the John. What the fuck is that? We’re talking about the sizes of our “pee-pees” now?
Is it possible to return to the specifics of the cross-charging and mis-allocations?
Coldfire, could you pop in as a Moderator and get us back on track?
Well, what can I say, people are calling each other names over Dewey’s remark, which may or may not have been a pot shot. Dewey alludes to knowing RT in the flesh, so he’s bound to understand it as a friendly jab. RT’s repsonses so far seem inclonclusive, as he’s stated he thought he met Dewey, but wasn’t sure anymore now.
Am I still on the right track?
At any rate, wring and Shayna seem to be attacking Dewey over a remark which can only be properly evaluated by RTFirefly, I’m afraid. Pretty pointless, but I can’t really say it’s out of bounds for the forum, Mr. B. If the thread comes back on track, then great, if it doesn’t, it might get closed eventually. But as is, leaving it open until RTF has a chance to post seems reasonable at least.
f33r my l33t google skillzz, Squink
A google on “Altanmia” turns up the credit report you mentioned (which I’m not going to buy):
Report ID 268895 Company ALTANMIA COMMERCIAL MARKETING CO WLL
Building Street Ahmad Al Jabal Street
Area PO Box 616
Town Safat 13307 Postcode
Country Kuwait Report Date 10 February 1998
A google on “PO 616 Safat” turns up this list of stockists for a brand of horse-feed:
A search on “Walidh A-Humaidi” turns up nothing, but the spelling “Walid Al-Humaidi” gives this rather curious hit:
Note that the phone number matches.
Something’s fishy, but I can’t work out what it is.
Doesn’t sound like a front for Halliburton or Chalabi. Maybe it’s a kickback from the U.S. taxpayer to some pals in Kuwait.
Mr. B nailed it. My remark wasn’t a potshot. Period.
If you go looking for offense, you will surely find it.
I will not cease ribald joking just because a some people are too foolish and thin-skinned to see that joking for what it is. Grow up, you bunch of ninnies!
I am particularly offended by the accusation precisely because I studiously avoid attacking the person rather than the argument in political discussion (replying to personal attacks is, of course, quite another matter). It would never in a million years occur to me to smear RT, or anyone else on the other side of a political discussion, as a way of winning cheap points. I just don’t do that. My jaw dropped to the floor when I read the initial accusation – it literally bewildered me that anyone would interpret my words in that fashion. It was the board equivelant of a rabbit punch – I never saw it coming.
I’ve been a frequent poster on these boards for a long time now, and I have a track record that can be evaluated quite easily. I have every confidence that anyone who bothers to look at that track record would find this accusation baseless and completely without merit. Indeed, I challenge my accusers to do so. You guys really should be ashamed of yourselves.
Has no one ever heard of a kickback? It’s a very simple concept, but i haven’t seen it mentioned yet in this thread (but i admit i only skimmed a few of the posts). I’ll use this Halliburton case as an example.
Mind you, this is only a possible scenario, not a fact. Halliburton overpays a sub-contractor, say $61 million, using the U.S. Government’s money. The sub-contractor then gives some of this money (say $30 million) to a certain individual or individuals who either set up this deal and/or have control over this deal. Everyone profits, except the U.S. Government. This type of deal would take a bit of digging in a criminal investigation to unravel, unless the sub-contractor already made the pay-out to the Halliburton individuals. And i would imagine that intelligent people would wait to see if they could get away with a crime, before making extremely incriminating evidence. Again, this is only a possible scenario.
Now, my major beef isn’t with the situation, because i don’t think we’ll ever really know what happened. I am flabbergasted by Bush’s reaction to it, and am suprised that Democrats haven’t made a big deal about his quote.
“If there is an overcharge, like we think there is, we expect that money to be repaid,” President Bush said. Well, no shit. No, go ahead, keep the money, it was an honest mistake. It was a comment that seems designed to sound tough, but is actually incredibly obvious. Why did he not threaten a criminal investigation on so sensitive a matter? Whether or not there was a crime involved is not relevant here. Relevant is that it could possibly be a criminal act.
Now, i’m not saying that Halliburton officials committed a crime, nor that if they did that Bush was involved. But in the very least, Bush (or Bush and his advisors) thought that someone from Halliburton may have been stealing, and was trying to cover it up by downplaying the situation.
Up until this point, i thought that Bush had good intentions concerning this war. Now i’m not so sure.
And just for a quick clarification, when i said i only skimmed a few of the posts, i meant i read most of them, but skimmed a few.
Geez, can’t a guy leave a thread for 29 hours without all hell breaking loose? Sheesh. 
Well, first things first:
Hey, by the next morning, I was even sober enough to remember your mother’s face. Even if by then it was mostly covered with my precious bodily fluids. 
Yeah, folks, Dewey and I have met, at the NYC shindig two years ago, IIRC. And we’ve butted heads in Diplomacy as well as debate. He isn’t a half bad player.
As far as the assorted personal comments go, I see it in reverse: the insult I just quoted, I regarded in the same manner as Dewey did: just friends throwing shit back and forth for fun. Thanks, wring and Shayna, for sticking up for me, but no need in this instance.
But the ‘anonymous’ comment does kinda puzzle me, Dewey. In a board as large as this one has become, I’m sure there’s posters who don’t know or care who I am, which is fine. But the debate’s right here, between me and you - nobody else is really participating in this particular exchange - and I’m hardly anonymous to you.
Nor am I anonymous to others here. In the debate fora here, we are the reputations we have built up. Anyone who’s been debating Iraq on the SDMB this past year knows who I am, whether or not they know my real name. They may or may not like me or respect me, but I’m not anonymous to them.
I’m sure I’m anonymous to many posters in the SDMB at large, since we’ve grown as much as we have. But that’s not particularly relevant.
Now that we’ve addressed that, let’s see if we can get this thread back on track.
Are ‘contracts with US companies’ and ‘expenditures by the CPA’ mutually exclusive? That’s an interesting claim. On what basis do you make it? Seems that that would be a significant part of the CPA’s role there.
You’re confusing parties, time periods, and the whole nine yards.
I don’t know how much the Administration is willing to let Halliburton get, but probably a great deal. I suspect they’ll do their level best to give them as much as possible legally (e.g. no-bid contracts), and will do what they can to look the other way if Halliburton takes a little extra, as long as they’re not too blatant. Including relaxing oversight that might better catch some of that activity.
Why not? What did they have to lose? This was “heads, Halliburton wins; tails, they break even.” If you’re right and the only likely consequence of being caught is that they’ve got to give back the money they weren’t entitled to, then trying to take a little extra is the way to play.
To use a baseball analogy, suppose they change the rules so that a player caught stealing merely gets sent back to his previous base. Every player would steal on every pitch, because there would be no consequences for doing so. Indeed, the consequence would only be for not attempting to steal. Same for Halliburton. Of course they’d test the limits, given the lack of consequence.
I could potentially believe the nefarious, moustache twirling evilness of Halliburton if 93+% of the overrun didn’t go straight to a Kuwaiti oil company. A Kuwaiti oil company that apparently is the only one to meet government requirements, whose profits do NOT go to Halliburton execs or shareholders, AFAIK.
The way I see it, we have a company (Halliburton) forced by their client (US Gov’t) to use a specific subcontractor (Altanmia), passing the high costs of that subcontractor to their client. Could Halliburton have done a better job of negotiating? Perhaps, but if they didn’t have a choice of subcon, their negotiating position is awfully weak.
At worst, Halliburton was lazy because the gov’t guaranteed them a margin on their subcon costs.
Let’s assume it was an honest mistake, which is still quite a leap of faith in my book, but assuming.
Doesn’t anyone feel weird about this subcontracted company? From what we’ve seen, it is anything but a major player in the international oil market. In fact, it looks like a relatively anonymous (and therefore small?) trading company (as pointed out, they are listed as a supplier of a particular brand of horse feed, as well). Yet, one of the quoted reasons for not choosing other companies is that they would not have had the necessary trucks to transport the necessary gasoline.
Are we supposed to believe there is no oil company in Kuwait that could have handled this (admittedly large) deal? And that the one company that could provide the necessary trucks to transport the oil is a near anonymous trading company without any web presence?
Their location, Safat, appears to be a part of Kuwait city from what I quickly researched, so that doesn’t tell us anything. But how in the hell would a small trading company be able to provide more trucks to transport gasoline than, say, Kuwait Oil? Or any other company on this list?
Not enough trucks, my ass.
Paul Krugman from the NYT must have read my post.