> You make statements of opinion and I inquired how
> you could possibly come to
> them from the material at hand. You attempted to
> explain it, but I simply
> can't see how the conclusions follow the facts. I'm
> actually pretty good,
> usually, at understanding how people come to believe
> things whether I agree
> with that belief or not. However in this case I
> can't see how the facts
> support your conclusions.
Stop beating around the bush, what name do you want to
call me? Idiot? Ignorant? Right-wing nut job?
Why always the personal attacks from your kind?
All�s I said was:
�What a coincidence. I knew back then there were no
WMDs but didn't tell anyone.�
And you started attacking me.
I still stand by that statement. The article claims
that if they knew then what they knew now they
wouldn�t have buried the WMD articles. I heard about
the doubts back then also but didn�t believe them. I
can now say I shouldn�t have doubted them and I would
have been right. What�s the point of that?
> Whether we chalk that up to an inability to
> comprehend on my part, an
> inability to inform on yours, a combination of both
> or blindness caused by
> preconceived notions on one or both our parts I'm
> not sure.
>
> I do know however that you have a very reliable
> habit of accusing those that
> disagree with you of
>a) being liberal (as if that were an insult)
Only one person on this list claims to be Liberal and
say�s so only because conservatives call him that.
There are a couple of Liberal extremists on this list
that call themselves to the center. I don�t mind being
called a Conservative and people that are Liberal
shouldn�t be ashamed of their label. But if you can�t
admit what you are than there�s a problem.
>b) not understanding the material pertinent to the
> discussion and
Actually I accuse them of spinning the facts.
>c) not even reading the material pertinent to the
>discussion.
Happens a lot. Mostly they pretend they didn't read
it. Problem is a few days after I prove my point
someone pretends it never happens and uses it for
there facts checklist.
Examples:
1) Gorelick memo. I prove that Gorelick herself
acknowledged the wall and two days later I read that
the memo prevented the wall. I post the proof again
and get no response. I know in a week or two it�ll
come out that Gorelick brought down the wall.
2) Niger uranium. We now have pretty conclusive
evidence Saddam tried to purchase uranium from Niger.
I provide the proof and a few days later people use it
as a reason to define Bush as evil and a liar.
> You argue aggressively, which is fine, but also
> destructively, which is
> tiresome.
Thanks, I'm glad to be such a bore to you.
To recap: You accused me not understanding what I
read. Then you say I don�t understand simple phrases
like Monday Morning Quarterback. Then when I supply a
definition you change it to try to make me look
foolish. Then after I clearly state my case you say
I�m incoherent, annoying and tiresome.
I see you as depressing because you made me spend all
this time typing a response to your ridiculous
accusations.
If you can�t have conservation like an adult than
please don�t bother me.
Have a nice day!
-Samuel Morris
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
