2aHawaii
General Topics => Strategies and Tactics => Topic started by: macsak on July 14, 2024, 04:07:16 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1DD-zWlDh8
-
All I know is that I did the Scooby Doo "WUH???!!" when one of the female officers said "What are we doing?" "Where are we going?".
Why didn't she know what the security evacuation protocol was for that particular event?
Did the Secret Service give Donald Trump the Scrape the Bottom of the Barrel Brigade? :rofl:
-
Most secret service agents aren't permanently assigned to protection details. They basically do detective work most of their career and get bumped into protection roles once in a while when a dignitary comes to town. I would bet this lady was not assigned regular protection duty.
-
Most secret service agents aren't permanently assigned to protection details. They basically do detective work most of their career and get bumped into protection roles once in a while when a dignitary comes to town. I would bet this lady was not assigned regular protection duty.
She shouldn't be assigned protection duty at all.
That's the point, not that she ought to do 'other things."
-
Most secret service agents aren't permanently assigned to protection details. They basically do detective work most of their career and get bumped into protection roles once in a while when a dignitary comes to town. I would bet this lady was not assigned regular protection duty.
That's wonderful. If I was a high echelon politician needing protection I would feel so secure.
I bet Trump made a note to himself: "Check if Secret Service needs an overhaul...." once he takes office.
-
Females have their role, like when protecting other females. They can go into say the womens restroom and it's not as obvious that they're SS or there's no need to clear the entire restroom because male SS will be entering.
I forgot the YT channel, but there was a female SS agent talking about it. Business Insider or GQ something like that.
-
Females have their role, like when protecting other females. They can go into say the womens restroom and it's not as obvious that they're SS or there's no need to clear the entire restroom because male SS will be entering.
I forgot the YT channel, but there was a female SS agent talking about it. Business Insider or GQ something like that.
BS.
A man is more than capable of going into a women's restroom. Just tell anyone there, "I identify as a woman." It's how it's done now.
But seriously, if a male janitor needs to clean a restroom, they open the door, announce they are coming in, and wait for anyone to respond they need a minute.
Not necessary to provide a government salary and benefits to lots of women just to clear a restroom.
I disagree with the view that you don't need to clear the restroom. Too many directions for a threat to come at you. Plus too many places for someone to hide (stalls). One female agent protecting someone in a busy restroom is a huge risk to take.
I can think of 4 scenarios off the top of my head, each having to do with a busy restroom vs. an empty one. Empty is so much easier to manage. And, yes, there can be a female agent to make it less embarrassing for the protectee to pee as opposed to a man listening. But a male ought to be stationed right outside telling people to use another restroom or wait.
:crazy:
Regardless of the restroom excuse, they still need to provide capable protection agents.
Consider this: don't assign protection detail members based on gender. do it based on what type of threats they might encounter.
Even if the women assigned can physically shield the principle from a gun fired near them, can they take on an assassin via hand-to-hand combat?
21 foot rule should apply to these situations. You can't rely on a firearm all the time. Need time to draw, clear line of sight, etc. In a crowd of people (shaking hands, asking for autographs...) the principle needs someone capable of protecting them from immediate threats within a few feet. Might need to strong arm a person trying to shove a knife in the protectee's ribs.
Seems like common sense to me.
-
BS.
A man is more than capable of going into a women's restroom. Just tell anyone there, "I identify as a woman." It's how it's done now.
But seriously, if a male janitor needs to clean a restroom, they open the door, announce they are coming in, and wait for anyone to respond they need a minute.
Not necessary to provide a government salary and benefits to lots of women just to clear a restroom.
I disagree with the view that you don't need to clear the restroom. Too many directions for a threat to come at you. Plus too many places for someone to hide (stalls). One female agent protecting someone in a busy restroom is a huge risk to take.
I can think of 4 scenarios off the top of my head, each having to do with a busy restroom vs. an empty one. Empty is so much easier to manage. And, yes, there can be a female agent to make it less embarrassing for the protectee to pee as opposed to a man listening. But a male ought to be stationed right outside telling people to use another restroom or wait.
:crazy:
Regardless of the restroom excuse, they still need to provide capable protection agents.
Consider this: don't assign protection detail members based on gender. do it based on what type of threats they might encounter.
Even if the women assigned can physically shield the principle from a gun fired near them, can they take on an assassin via hand-to-hand combat?
21 foot rule should apply to these situations. You can't rely on a firearm all the time. Need time to draw, clear line of sight, etc. In a crowd of people (shaking hands, asking for autographs...) the principle needs someone capable of protecting them from immediate threats within a few feet. Might need to strong arm a person trying to shove a knife in the protectee's ribs.
Seems like common sense to me.
The restroom example is one of an "unplanned stop" for the principal. So there's less time to secure it compared to a planned stop where they have the time before hand to secure or at least make a threat assessment. It's much easier for a female SS to go in and take 20 seconds to make sure there's no wacko in there and then wait in there with her. All while not bothering the other women who are already there.
There was minimal way of knowing the principal would stop to use that specific restroom, so threat is low, but still need to secure.
Now a male agent would have to do like you stated, announce they're coming in and wait for all the women to leave. This takes much more time, which means the principal is outside waiting in the open longer than they need to be.
This doesn't mean that majority of the detail is female, but when the principal needs to pee, they call the female agent who's near. Like how cops do when needing to frisk a female suspect. Sometimes they wait for another female officer to arrive.
In the video, the way the woman was speaking, she sounded much more XP'd and capable than the holster lady. The vid was years old, so before all this DEI BS. She got in probably cause she's a badass.
-
The restroom example is one of an "unplanned stop" for the principal. So there's less time to secure it compared to a planned stop where they have the time before hand to secure or at least make a threat assessment. It's much easier for a female SS to go in and take 20 seconds to make sure there's no wacko in there and then wait in there with her. All while not bothering the other women who are already there.
There was minimal way of knowing the principal would stop to use that specific restroom, so threat is low, but still need to secure.
Now a male agent would have to do like you stated, announce they're coming in and wait for all the women to leave. This takes much more time, which means the principal is outside waiting in the open longer than they need to be.
This doesn't mean that majority of the detail is female, but when the principal needs to pee, they call the female agent who's near. Like how cops do when needing to frisk a female suspect. Sometimes they wait for another female officer to arrive.
In the video, the way the woman was speaking, she sounded much more XP'd and capable than the holster lady. The vid was years old, so before all this DEI BS. She got in probably cause she's a badass.
Two questions:
1. Why is "easier" even a consideration? Either it makes more sense to do it that way because it provides better protection, or it doesn't. If you want "easier", then only assign females to females and males to males -- because going to the bathroom is easier.
2. In a busy restroom with women coming and going, how can the agent tell if one of them is a wacko? Do they all look like wackos so they are easy to spot? Unless she's vetted them all and they all have ID badges showing they've been cleared, an agent has no idea who the people in the restroom are. A wacko could be pretending to take a dump, reach under the stall wall and inject the protectee with a poison, or shoot over or through the wall, etc.
If the attacker doesn't mind dying in the process (as is the case it seems for wackos), then there's no telling who is being allowed to be within inches of the principle.
Sorry, but I'm not convinced. And in the same vein as "easier", since when has inconvenience of others been a higher priority than safety of the protectee? Either the practice makes them safer, or it puts them at potentially higher risk. Pick the one that helps keep the person alive.
-
Two questions:
1. Why is "easier" even a consideration? Either it makes more sense to do it that way because it provides better protection, or it doesn't. If you want "easier", then only assign females to females and males to males -- because going to the bathroom is easier.
2. In a busy restroom with women coming and going, how can the agent tell if one of them is a wacko? Do they all look like wackos so they are easy to spot? Unless she's vetted them all and they all have ID badges showing they've been cleared, an agent has no idea who the people in the restroom are. A wacko could be pretending to take a dump, reach under the stall wall and inject the protectee with a poison, or shoot over or through the wall, etc.
If the attacker doesn't mind dying in the process (as is the case it seems for wackos), then there's no telling who is being allowed to be within inches of the principle.
Sorry, but I'm not convinced. And in the same vein as "easier", since when has inconvenience of others been a higher priority than safety of the protectee? Either the practice makes them safer, or it puts them at potentially higher risk. Pick the one that helps keep the person alive.
I should have used the word quicker instead of easier. Speed is their best weapon against threats.
Threat indicators are 1 thing that help ID a wacko. Again, an unplanned stop to a restroom has a lower threat as even the person who plans an attack wouldn't have much time to set up. So a quick look around with a trained eye, regardless if the restroom is full or not. Hence also the female SS staying in the restroom, with the standard male SS agents right outside if backup is needed as wackos can evade the best trained eyes. So it's more acceptable to have a fellow woman inside the woman's restroom.
Another example is POTUS children who are girls. I'm sure it's much easier on them to have a female in the restroom with them, compared to have a male. And I'm sure threats aren't as high to the children as POTUS, 1st lady or other government positions receive.
I will not try to further convince you that female SS have their place. As long as they're qualified and not a DEI hire or standards lowered for them to graduate or advance.
Now 1 downfall to having female SS is can they carry their principal or drag them quickly if needed by themselves. Or do they have the mass to separate a crowd.
-
I should have used the word quicker instead of easier. Speed is their best weapon against threats.
Threat indicators are 1 thing that help ID a wacko. Again, an unplanned stop to a restroom has a lower threat as even the person who plans an attack wouldn't have much time to set up. So a quick look around with a trained eye, regardless if the restroom is full or not. Hence also the female SS staying in the restroom, with the standard male SS agents right outside if backup is needed as wackos can evade the best trained eyes. So it's more acceptable to have a fellow woman inside the woman's restroom.
Another example is POTUS children who are girls. I'm sure it's much easier on them to have a female in the restroom with them, compared to have a male. And I'm sure threats aren't as high to the children as POTUS, 1st lady or other government positions receive.
I will not try to further convince you that female SS have their place. As long as they're qualified and not a DEI hire or standards lowered for them to graduate or advance.
Now 1 downfall to having female SS is can they carry their principal or drag them quickly if needed by themselves. Or do they have the mass to separate a crowd.
I have to disagree again.
Speed is only a factor if there is an active threat. Move and keep moving. But it's not their best weapon against threats.
Their best weapons against a threat is training, experience, ability and powers of observation. You can't stop what you don't see until after it's too late.
Agents do a sweep inside hotel rooms and people's homes their protectees visit. They don't use speed. They use careful, deliberate and structured methods to search out and identify possible threats. If something doesn't look right, they simply pull the plug and avoid the area.
And how much time is needed to "set up" having a weapon on them as they enter the bathroom just ahead of the agent? Weapons can be a hypodermic needle or anthrax powder -- easy to conceal or stash in fixture.
As for the children, i'm sure the President's team can handle the restroom situation. Not everywhere they go is low rent shopping malls. Most high level restaurants and hotels where they speak or have events will have already been cleared. If it's an unscheduled stop, i'm sure there are more than enough people in the combined security teams to handle a potty break.
-
She shouldn't be assigned protection duty at all.
That's the point, not that she ought to do 'other things."
After that performance I don't think they will put her in that role again, at least I hope....
-
After that performance I don't think they will put her in that role again, at least I hope....
Depends on which side she plays for, she would get a promotion.
-
After that performance I don't think they will put her in that role again, at least I hope....
Really? Based on what? Common sense?
If they had any sense, she'd have never been "in that role."
This is not a "role" in a play where you have to "perform." This is a job - a duty or responsibility - where if you fail, people can die. People who trusted you with their very lives.
It's not a "role."
And this is what you haven't taken the time to look into:
https://30x30initiative.org/about-30x30/
(https://i.imgur.com/AwGdZLu.png)
-
Really? Based on what? Common sense?
If they had any sense, she'd have never been "in that role."
This is not a "role" in a play where you have to "perform." This is a job - a duty or responsibility - where if you fail, people can die. People who trusted you with their very lives.
It's not a "role."
And this is what you haven't taken the time to look into:
I figured you would know this but sometimes you don't know how someone will perform until the doo doo actually hits the fan.
-
I figured you would know this but sometimes you don't know how someone will perform until the doo doo actually hits the fan.
I know how someone who's 5' 6" trying to shield a 6' 4" protectee from gunfire using their body will perform. There's video of it if you need to see it.
We are talking about someone's physical ability to protect the president/other protectee, not whether they have the intestinal fortitude to take a bullet for someone else.
I figured you would know this.
-
check the video of JD Vance going up to Kamela's plane yesterday
looks like the chick who couldn't holster is guarding him
and i think she's the one who was in charge of the site too
i posted a video (or someone else did) i think it's in the big assassination thread...
-
check the video of JD Vance going up to Kamela's plane yesterday
looks like the chick who couldn't holster is guarding him
and i think she's the one who was in charge of the site too
i posted a video (or someone else did) i think it's in the big assassination thread...
Glad I wasn't the only one noticing that.
JD probably looked at her and when he realized she's attached to his security detail he probably said to himself "Awww sh*t....."
"No A-Team for me....." :rofl:
-
There was a joke going around that JD Vance is 5' 7".
From what i can find, he's actually 6' 2".
If the security detail includes significantly shorter agents, they should also include enough agents that are tall enough to shield his body if necessary.
Let the shorter ones work crowd security and look for threats near the walkway and around the stage, but the ones assigned to form a barrier need to have the physicality to do so.
-
There was a joke going around that JD Vance is 5' 7".
From what i can find, he's actually 6' 2".
If the security detail includes significantly shorter agents, they should also include enough agents that are tall enough to shield his body if necessary.
Let the shorter ones work crowd security and look for threats near the walkway and around the stage, but the ones assigned to form a barrier need to have the physicality to do so.
I found the vid I was talking about when I mentioned that some females can do better than holster fumbling lady.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxDVAd_N5nI
I'd trust her over the current holster fumble lady.
-
I found the vid I was talking about when I mentioned that some females can do better than holster fumbling lady.
I'd trust her over the current holster fumble lady.
Being better than fumble lady is not exactly the standard. That's a relative comparison.
How many times did this former agent protect GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush or Obama? That's the test.
In Trump's case, the Secret Service failed. I would agree it's not a gender issue if the Service only hired Amazon Women above 6 feet tall.
Also, not all threats require presentation of a firearm, particularly around a crowd of innocent people. Those Amazon women should be able to take down and subdue a nut job who's just trying to run up on stage to make a statement during the protectee's speech.
Standards should be established for the success of the mission, not based simply "at least not as bad as that other person."
-
I know how someone who's 5' 6" trying to shield a 6' 4" protectee from gunfire using their body will perform. There's video of it if you need to see it.
We are talking about someone's physical ability to protect the president/other protectee, not whether they have the intestinal fortitude to take a bullet for someone else.
I figured you would know this.
You totally miss my point. You can have a massive 7' agent freeze in an emergency
-
You totally miss my point. You can have a massive 7' agent freeze in an emergency
Obviously you're relying on the minority to argue your point whereas standards are meant to apply to everyone.
Have you ever trained in realistic situations to know what to expect and how to react? Repetition takes the emotion and turns it into a conditioned response.'
"Freeze" could be used to describe someone balled up under a table in the fetal position to someone who takes 2 seconds to register what just happened before they react. Maybe you need to be more specific about what your point is, since it's not very clear.
-
Obviously you're relying on the minority to argue your point whereas standards are meant to apply to everyone.
Have you ever trained in realistic situations to know what to expect and how to react? Repetition takes the emotion and turns it into a conditioned response.'
"Freeze" could be used to describe someone balled up under a table in the fetal position to someone who takes 2 seconds to register what just happened before they react. Maybe you need to be more specific about what your point is, since it's not very clear.
My comment was clearly talking about performing under pressure, not something unchanging such as the height of an agent. Yes, good training helps to reduce people freezing under pressure or going code black but it doesn't eliminate it entirely.
We have no idea whether this agent was trained well and just performed poorly or whether the training was inadequate or if she was a DEI hire, etc. so we should stop making stupid assumptions.
-
My comment was clearly talking about performing under pressure, not something unchanging such as the height of an agent. Yes, good training helps to reduce people freezing under pressure or going code black but it doesn't eliminate it entirely.
We have no idea whether this agent was trained well and just performed poorly or whether the training was inadequate or if she was a DEI hire, etc. so we should stop making stupid assumptions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-R7zEa3tA
-
My comment was clearly talking about performing under pressure, not something unchanging such as the height of an agent. Yes, good training helps to reduce people freezing under pressure or going code black but it doesn't eliminate it entirely.
We have no idea whether this agent was trained well and just performed poorly or whether the training was inadequate or if she was a DEI hire, etc. so we should stop making stupid assumptions.
is it your belief that poorly trained Secret Service agents are assigned to protect our top political candidates and officials?
Is it your belief that all DEI hires are unable to perform the duties of an agent assigned to a protection detail?
-
You totally miss my point. You can have a massive 7' agent freeze in an emergency
You missed flapps numbers. Numbers don't lie. But I guess if we use whataboutism, the shorter agent can jump to fill the gap. Or wear 7 inch platform shoes. Or have the protectee constantly bend their knees to be shorter.
-
My comment was clearly talking about performing under pressure, not something unchanging such as the height of an agent. Yes, good training helps to reduce people freezing under pressure or going code black but it doesn't eliminate it entirely.
We have no idea whether this agent was trained well and just performed poorly or whether the training was inadequate or if she was a DEI hire, etc. so we should stop making stupid assumptions.
And here's the problem with DEI or any like hiring. People will question if the individual earned their spot, or was it given to them, rules bent or standards lowered.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-R7zEa3tA
I wonder if this HSI agents had actual protective roles or whether they were just perimeter security type roles?
If they had active protective rolls then this is terrible administration.
-
You missed flapps numbers. Numbers don't lie. But I guess if we use whataboutism, the shorter agent can jump to fill the gap. Or wear 7 inch platform shoes. Or have the protectee constantly bend their knees to be shorter.
I was talking about performance under pressure, not height. Obviously taller agents would be preferable to a tall protectee.
You are right that DEI creates a situation where people will question. The problem I am pointing out is that we shouldn't jump to unsupported conclusions. It is fine to ask whether standards were lowered to achieve DEI goals but it is not fine, in my opinion, to assert that any particular agent's performance was due to a lowered standard because that is something we do not know at this point.
-
is it your belief that poorly trained Secret Service agents are assigned to protect our top political candidates and officials?
I have no belief on this because I have no evidence to make a conclusion. A video of an agent performing poorly is not conclusive evidence as to her training level.
Is it your belief that all DEI hires are unable to perform the duties of an agent assigned to a protection detail?
I don't make such blanket statements.
-
I was talking about performance under pressure, not height. Obviously taller agents would be preferable to a tall protectee.
You are right that DEI creates a situation where people will question. The problem I am pointing out is that we shouldn't jump to unsupported questions. It is fine to ask whether standards were lowered to achieve DEI goals but it is not fine, in my opinion, to assert that any particular agent's performance was due to a lowered standard because that is something we do not know at this point.
And at the same time, shorter agents won't be able to reach said height. So why take the gamble? Eliminate/reduce that variable by having agents the same height, or very close to that of their protectee. I mean Shaq would give them a hard time.
Well, the director of the SS said that she wants more women to be in the SS. Maybe she held a SS recruit drive and held a huge sign outside on a main road that's travelled to get the word out. That's possible right? If this wasn't a DEI hire, then that means the SS is even more incompetent. At least they can blame "pushing students through and lowering standards" as an excuse.
-
I was talking about performance under pressure, not height. Obviously taller agents would be preferable to a tall protectee.
You are right that DEI creates a situation where people will question. The problem I am pointing out is that we shouldn't jump to unsupported questions. It is fine to ask whether standards were lowered to achieve DEI goals but it is not fine, in my opinion, to assert that any particular agent's performance was due to a lowered standard because that is something we do not know at this point.
I wonder if this HSI agents had actual protective roles or whether they were just perimeter security type roles?
If they had active protective rolls then this is terrible administration.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
UNSUPPORTED QUESTION
What if it wasn't a tragedy but part of a plan?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
UNSUPPORTED QUESTION
-
And at the same time, shorter agents won't be able to reach said height. So why take the gamble? Eliminate/reduce that variable by having agents the same height, or very close to that of their protectee. I mean Shaq would give them a hard time.
Well, the director of the SS said that she wants more women to be in the SS. Maybe she held a SS recruit drive and held a huge sign outside on a main road that's travelled to get the word out. That's possible right? If this wasn't a DEI hire, then that means the SS is even more incompetent. At least they can blame "pushing students through and lowering standards" as an excuse.
I am not saying you are wrong about the height, I would certainly prefer tall body guards around me. There are needs for women agents on protection details and women tend to be shorter so a balance would have to be struck on the minimum height. 6' and you will have too few female agents, 5' and too much exposure for the asset.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
UNSUPPORTED QUESTION
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
UNSUPPORTED QUESTION
My apologies, that is a typo, I meant unsupported conclusions, not unsupported questions.
-
My apologies, that is a typo, I meant unsupported conclusions, not unsupported questions.
LOL!
Goal post moving is FUN!!
-
LOL!
Goal post moving is FUN!!
Sorry to deflate your balloon, I know you need it to troll.
-
Sorry to deflate your balloon, I know you need it to troll.
I'm still trying to see how using "question" vs. "conclusion" can be excused as a "typo."
typographical error
noun
1. A mistake in printing, typesetting, or typing, especially one
caused by striking an incorrect key on a keyboard.
2. A mistake made during the process of typing, especially
one caused by a slip of the fingers; often shortened to typo.
I don't think I've ever accidentally used an entire word in place of another and called it a "typo."
-
I'm still trying to see how using "question" vs. "conclusion" can be excused as a "typo."
Then you aren't trying very hard. Of course you have no incentive to try because then it wouldn't give you something to troll with.
-
Then you aren't trying very hard. Of course you have no incentive to try because then it wouldn't give you something to troll with.
Another butt hurt, nonsensical, incoherent reply.
:geekdanc:
Nothing you said supports your false "typo" excuse.
-
Another butt hurt, nonsensical, incoherent reply.
:geekdanc:
Nothing you said supports your false "typo" excuse.
You are under some sort of false assumption I have to prove anything to you. Not to mention there is no way for me to ever prove it to you either. Then there is the fact you are just going to believe what you want to believe so you can keep on trolling.
-
I am not saying you are wrong about the height, I would certainly prefer tall body guards around me. There are needs for women agents on protection details and women tend to be shorter so a balance would have to be struck on the minimum height. 6' and you will have too few female agents, 5' and too much exposure for the asset.
Since you're not saying I'm wrong, then are you saying i'm right? So why post additional hypotheticals about freezing?
-
Since you're not saying I'm wrong, then are you saying i'm right? So why post additional hypotheticals about freezing?
Because he needs to be argumentative.
Once he starts arguing, he needs to be right even when he knows he's hyper-focusing on a small facet of the question.
Nobody here brought up "freezing" of agents except him. Yet, here we are explaining that to him and him pushing back like reactions and physical size and strength are the same conversation.
He just has to be part of every discussion.
-
Because he needs to be argumentative.
Once he starts arguing, he needs to be right even when he knows he's hyper-focusing on a small facet of the question.
Nobody here brought up "freezing" of agents except him. Yet, here we are explaining that to him and him pushing back like reactions and physical size and strength are the same conversation.
He just has to be part of every discussion.
In fact, the female agent/agents didn't freeze. They just weren't tall enough to protect Trump sufficiently, reached down to grab his hat (even more reduced their height and exposed Trumps mid section), had trouble re-holstering, heard on mic saying "what are we doing?".
So, yeah, IDK why freezing was even brought up as a whataboutism.
Inb4 a taller SS agent can also run away. No female agent ran away either.
-
In fact, the female agent/agents didn't freeze. They just weren't tall enough to protect Trump sufficiently, reached down to grab his hat (even more reduced their height and exposed Trumps mid section), had trouble re-holstering, heard on mic saying "what are we doing?".
So, yeah, IDK why freezing was even brought up as a whataboutism.
Inb4 a taller SS agent can also run away. No female agent ran away either.
A six foot 4 inch tall agent, male or female, might have a problem running or with any other physical exertion depending on their age, genetics and overall fitness. The more above the average height a person is, the more difficult it is for the circulatory and respiratory systems to support such a large frame. Larger muscles and bones and more weight require more oxygen supplied to function well. Often the internal organs are not sized to do that for a very tall person.
Therefore, very tall agents might be more prone to suffer a heart attack under stress.
Let's let the shorties do protection so they don't suffer a heart attack running away from danger.
That, or only hire tall agents that will freeze. It doesn't take much oxygen to stand still.
/sarc/
-
Since you're not saying I'm wrong, then are you saying i'm right? So why post additional hypotheticals about freezing?
My comments were about the overall performance while under fire, not about an innate trait of the agent beyond their control. BTW I never claimed she froze so nice strawman.
Height can make you better at catching a bullet but it isn't going to make you perform better under fire.
-
Because he needs to be argumentative.
Once he starts arguing, he needs to be right even when he knows he's hyper-focusing on a small facet of the question.
Nobody here brought up "freezing" of agents except him. Yet, here we are explaining that to him and him pushing back like reactions and physical size and strength are the same conversation.
He just has to be part of every discussion.
Sounds like you are writing an autobiography.
-
My comments were about the overall performance while under fire, not about an innate trait of the agent beyond their control. BTW I never claimed she froze so nice strawman.
Height can make you better at catching a bullet but it isn't going to make you perform better under fire.
Please show me where I stated you claimed she froze.
Your reply was as expected. A simple "yes, you're right" would be sufficient. But instead, you double down on performing better under fire and height. Which no one but yourself is mentioning and unrelated to the original height post. Thanks for playing again.
-
Sounds like you are writing an autobiography.
Owie! Get the aloe! Such a burn!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Really? That's your best shot?
:geekdanc:
-
Owie! Get the aloe! Such a burn!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Really? That's your best shot?
:geekdanc:
Sounds like you yearn for conflict. I could do better but what is the point in giving you what you want since most the other people here get annoyed with your antics anyway?
-
Please show me where I stated you claimed she froze.
Your reply was as expected. A simple "yes, you're right" would be sufficient. But instead, you double down on performing better under fire and height. Which no one but yourself is mentioning and unrelated to the original height post. Thanks for playing again.
You don't have to mention it, freezing was my comment, I brought it up. If you can't understand why freezing was brought up then you need to work on your reading comprehension because it fit within the nature of my comment.
-
You don't have to mention it, freezing was my comment, I brought it up. If you can't understand why freezing was brought up then you need to work on your reading comprehension because it fit within the nature of my comment.
most the other people here get annoyed with your antics
-
You don't have to mention it, freezing was my comment, I brought it up. If you can't understand why freezing was brought up then you need to work on your reading comprehension because it fit within the nature of my comment.
THe "nature" of your comment about freezing had no contribution to a logical discussion. You need to work on your comprehension of what a topic that's being discussed, so you don't post unnecessary things.
InB4 a taller agent has bigger feet, so they may trip easier over a cord or rock compared to a shorter agent who has smaller feed. We see in football all the time that less than an inch in foot size can mean the difference between in bounds or out of bounds.
-
most the other people here get annoyed with your antics
Yet your behavior is the one that causes threads to degenerate and go to crap and have to be locked.
-
THe "nature" of your comment about freezing had no contribution to a logical discussion. You need to work on your comprehension of what a topic that's being discussed, so you don't post unnecessary things.
It was relevant because one of the criticisms of the female in question was that she failed to perform. If it had been merely about her height then you would be right but it wasn't so you aren't.
-
It was relevant because one of the criticisms of the female in question was that she failed to perform. If it had been merely about her height then you would be right but it wasn't so you aren't.
There is no way to measure if someone would "freeze". The obvious height gap can be. Which is why I stated your argument about freezing holds no weight.
This is why the height thing was brought up, and so can other measurable factors as females often lack upper body strength compared to men, hold less muscle mass and more body fat.
Only you brought up freezing and now trying to CYA about the issue instead of just saying "yeah, me stating freezing was wrong. Thank you CMO for noticing it and setting me straight".
-
There is no way to measure if someone would "freeze". The obvious height gap can be. Which is why I stated your argument about freezing holds no weight.
This is why the height thing was brought up, and so can other measurable factors as females often lack upper body strength compared to men, hold less muscle mass and more body fat.
Only you brought up freezing and now trying to CYA about the issue instead of just saying "yeah, me stating freezing was wrong. Thank you CMO for noticing it and setting me straight".
I wasn't talking about height so pointing out height can be measured it irrelevant. I was talking about her performance under fire. There is no point in keep going on about this when it is clear you talking about height is not the same thing as me talking about her performance.
-
I wasn't talking about height so pointing out height can be measured it irrelevant. I was talking about her performance under fire. There is no point in keep going on about this when it is clear you talking about height is not the same thing as me talking about her performance.
Now you think numbers, which are based on fact are irrelevant. Thanks for admitting I was right.
BTW, IDK if you saw the video, but we saw her performance under fire. No one "froze". So even with this, freezing isn't relevant to the convo.
Maybe there should be no movement outside a climate controlled environment in case someone freezes due to the cold weather. But what if that climate control fails. Maybe a 24/7 fire burning is the only option to make sure that agents don't freeze due to the weather.
-
Now you think numbers, which are based on fact are irrelevant. Thanks for admitting I was right.
BTW, IDK if you saw the video, but we saw her performance under fire. No one "froze". So even with this, freezing isn't relevant to the convo.
Maybe there should be no movement outside a climate controlled environment in case someone freezes due to the cold weather. But what if that climate control fails. Maybe a 24/7 fire burning is the only option to make sure that agents don't freeze due to the weather.
It was irrelevent to my point.
Do you not understand that within the same overall subject I can make a point that is different than the point you are trying to make.
I didn't say she froze, I spoke generally about the ability to predict how people will perform under fire. Freezing is just an example of the way some people fail to perform under fire. Don't fixate on the word freeze so much. You need to go back and read the intial conversation again because you keep swooshing yourself.
-
It was irrelevent to my point.
Do you not understand that within the same overall subject I can make a point that is different than the point you are trying to make.
I didn't say she froze, I spoke generally about the ability to predict how people will perform under fire. Freezing is just an example of the way some people fail to perform under fire. Don't fixate on the word freeze so much. You need to go back and read the intial conversation again because you keep swooshing yourself.
Yes it is irrelevant to your point. You once again are making stuff up that doesn't apply to the convo at hand. Which is why I did what you did and explained other plausible variables that sound good, but cannot be factored in. Like the taller means bigger feet, which means more likely to trip on stuff due to feet being 4 inches bigger than a womans foot.
I know you didn't say she froze, you said with regard to a taller agent, they can freeze. You shouldn't fixate on freezing and admit it had nothing to do with the convo and should have never been brought up as it's a waste of space, time, and typing. But yes, lets keep it going to try to dig yourself deeper. Your turn.
-
Yes it is irrelevant to your point. You once again are making stuff up that doesn't apply to the convo at hand. Which is why I did what you did and explained other plausible variables that sound good, but cannot be factored in. Like the taller means bigger feet, which means more likely to trip on stuff due to feet being 4 inches bigger than a womans foot.
I know you didn't say she froze, you said with regard to a taller agent, they can freeze. You shouldn't fixate on freezing and admit it had nothing to do with the convo and should have never been brought up as it's a waste of space, time, and typing. But yes, lets keep it going to try to dig yourself deeper. Your turn.
My turn? This is a pointless conversation to continue. I made a comment about how you cannot always tell about how someone will perform under fire. You keep trying to beat around the bush with irrelevant comments while never actually proving what I said incorrect. No more turns needed, there is nothing else to extract fromt his.
-
My turn? This is a pointless conversation to continue. I made a comment about how you cannot always tell about how someone will perform under fire. You keep trying to beat around the bush with irrelevant comments while never actually proving what I said incorrect. No more turns needed, there is nothing else to extract fromt his.
Yet here you are commenting on a dead thread. I don't have time to re-read everything that went on, but lets just assume that you still refuse to admit you're wrong again.
You're turn.
-
Yet here you are commenting on a dead thread. I don't have time to re-read everything that went on, but lets just assume that you still refuse to admit you're wrong again.
You're turn.
He needs the last word, even if his last word is accusing you of wanting the last word.
He can't help himself.
-
He needs the last word, even if his last word is accusing you of wanting the last word.
He can't help himself.
Yeah, commenting on dead threads is really a waste of time, unless it's super important. Which none of these are. Maybe he's hoping we would forget what we were discussing and post wrong info and then he goes "gotcha, I never said that".
I'm not going to re-read just so he can figure stuff out on dead threads. I'll just reply to the recent post if it warrants an reply.
-
Yeah, commenting on dead threads is really a waste of time, unless it's super important. Which none of these are. Maybe he's hoping we would forget what we were discussing and post wrong info and then he goes "gotcha, I never said that".
I'm not going to re-read just so he can figure stuff out on dead threads. I'll just reply to the recent post if it warrants an reply.
His comments are a waste of time whether or not it's an old or dead thread.
He's trying to make himself relevant by dredging up weeks or months old comments. The threads are no longer relevant, because all he's posting are insults and argumentative BS.
You'd think after being away for so long. he'd have collected at least one new fact to use. But. alas, nothing new to add.
-
... you cannot always tell about how someone will perform under fire.
Anyone can tell within minutes, if not seconds, how someone will react under fire in a training scenario.
-
Yet here you are commenting on a dead thread. I don't have time to re-read everything that went on, but lets just assume that you still refuse to admit you're wrong again.
You're turn.
Sorry I don't spend my every waking minute on this forum waiting to defeat another one of your empty rebuttals
-
Sorry I don't spend my every waking minute on this forum waiting to defeat another one of your empty rebuttals
They're never empty and you still haven't admitted my other one. Thanks for playing.
-
Sorry I don't spend my every waking minute on this forum waiting to defeat another one of your empty rebuttals
No, but you do enjoy digging up old threads to interject a few replies in a topic that nobody else is discussing.
Last word syndrome is real.
-
They're never empty and you still haven't admitted my other one. Thanks for playing.
I guess being full of hot air is technically not empty. You got me there.
-
No, but you do enjoy digging up old threads to interject a few replies in a topic that nobody else is discussing.
Last word syndrome is real.
And yet you reply....
-
And yet you reply....
Thanks for proving us right about you.
:closed:
-
I guess being full of hot air is technically not empty. You got me there.
Still not admitting it huh. I can wait.
-
Thanks for proving us right about you.
:closed:
I guess we suffer the same affliction.
-
I guess we suffer the same affliction.
And here you are adding nothing. But instead trying to get the last word again instead of letting a thread die and everyone seeing you're refusing to admit you're wrong.
-
And here you are adding nothing. But instead trying to get the last word again instead of letting a thread die and everyone seeing you're refusing to admit you're wrong.
Then stop replying
-
Then stop replying
And hes back so he can refuse to admit it. Thanks for playing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
And hes back so he can refuse to admit it. Thanks for playing.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
That's why you came back?
-
That's why you came back?
This is why u come back. And here u are reviving a dead thread.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
This is why u come back. And here u are reviving a dead thread.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
So why do you keep coming back? It's not like I was even continuing the debate. O0
-
How about this woman for the secret service?
-
So why do you keep coming back? It's not like I was even continuing the debate. O0
You cannot continue the debate cause you're wrong and there is nothing for you to do. You realized that you're only digging the hole. I'm back because I know how you think and you just want the last word. So here you are replying even though you stated "It's not like I was even continuing the debate". So why even reply? Oh, we all know why. Thanks for playing.
-
You cannot continue the debate cause you're wrong and there is nothing for you to do. You realized that you're only digging the hole. I'm back because I know how you think and you just want the last word. So here you are replying even though you stated "It's not like I was even continuing the debate". So why even reply? Oh, we all know why. Thanks for playing.
He's doing what Democrats usually do: accusing you of exactly what he's doing. He's the one continuing to come back even though his posts have nothing to do with the topic. Somehow that's only bad if you do it in response to his posts.
-
You cannot continue the debate cause you're wrong and there is nothing for you to do.
You keep telling yourself that.
-
He's doing what Democrats usually do: accusing you of exactly what he's doing. He's the one continuing to come back even though his posts have nothing to do with the topic. Somehow that's only bad if you do it in response to his posts.
You mean what you do?
It's simple, you talk crap I am going to keep calling you out. If you respond like a mature adult and telling me you disagree we can end this circus.
-
You keep telling yourself that.
No, u just dont want to admit im right.
Here we go, reviving a dead thread again. Self control is hard for some, so is admitting theyre wrong.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
You mean what you do?
It's simple, you talk crap I am going to keep calling you out. If you respond like a mature adult and telling me you disagree we can end this circus.
He does respond maturely with facts and u ignore it. So it escalates as no amount of facts can change ur mind, as u dont like to admit when ur wrong majority of the time.
One can only provide so much facts before dead threads are pointless.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
He does respond maturely with facts and u ignore it. So it escalates as no amount of facts can change ur mind, as u dont like to admit when ur wrong majority of the time.
One can only provide so much facts before dead threads are pointless.
In his mind, all threads are about him, so they can't die unless he decides to stop posting about himself -- in that thread at least.
#Narcissist
-
No, u just dont want to admit im right.
You are right because I don't like to lie.
Here we go, reviving a dead thread again. Self control is hard for some, so is admitting theyre wrong.
/quote]
So stop responding then.
-
In his mind, all threads are about him, so they can't die unless he decides to stop posting about himself -- in that thread at least.
#Narcissist
Sounds like you are upset I stand up to you...
-
You are right because I don't like to lie.
Here we go, reviving a dead thread again. Self control is hard for some, so is admitting theyre wrong.
/quote]
So stop responding then.
Annnnndddd he's back. I wonder if the thread needs a DNR bracelet. Or maybe a huge tattoo on the forehead.
-
Sounds like you are upset I stand up to you...
Keep imagining that's what you are doing...
-
Keep imagining that's what you are doing...
He reads minds, don't you know!
:rofl: :geekdanc: :crazy: