Exactly. Some comments just don't warrant a response. Right now my cat is
sitting on my desk. So what?

So you shouldn't let you cat type messages to the newsgroup. I do suppose that
explains some of the "reasoning", however.
(evil grin)

JohnH wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:59:14 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:

And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds" with
the bilious Mr. Kraus?

That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied.

John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that.

Joe Parsons


Sheesh. Most of the crap you righties post isn't worth a comment from a
razor clam. You think because no one stands up to dispute your claim
that that makes it true?

Second-best giggle of the day.

Because you used the plural, and because you left Joe's name in your follow-up,
I assume you are referring to both of us. Upon what do your base your assertion
that we are both 'righties'? What are the criteria by which you judge one to be
right or left? Do you know my position on the issues of relevance? What issues
do you consider relevant for such a judgement?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD


You and Parsons together are about as interesting as watching a freshly
painted ceiling dry...

Beige is good, eh?




--
Email sent to is never read.

Joe Parsons wrote:



Much more sustainable--even *with* the split infinitive[1].

But you'd be opening a whole new can of worms:


Opening a new can of worms might help you, too, Joe, since the ones in
the can you've already opened have stopped wiggling.



Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the
decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain-

Sure there is. Bush simply has to tell the truth.



And I greatly appreciate your pointing out the error of my ways, minor though
they be (at least in this case).

Did your nose hit the pavement on this particular bow, scrape and
shuffle? Sheesh.





ould you have me list
all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa?

You know, I went back quickly to see if I could find cases where that had
happened. I didn't find any instances of Gould supporting Krause. He may be
aligned on certain issues, sure--but that, in my opinion, is a far cry from
"supporting" him, let alone being his "bud."


You need a real hobby, fella. I suggest collecting toenail jam. In fact,
you might consider going to toenail jam meets, where you might compare
your collection of toenail jam with the collections of the toenail jam
of others. I'm sure you'll find the support, alignment and "buds" you so
desperately seek.



I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

Joe Parsons

Wait, wait, the paint on the ceiling *is* starting to dry...and beige
was the right color.



--
Email sent to is never read.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:48:01 -0500, JohnH wrote:


I think your 'sense' is leading you astray. I believe I've made no claims
to the validity of the intelligence. I have stated that I believed that
*Bush* believed the intelligence, and therefore had not lied. At this
point in the game, I certainly would question the validity of the
intelligence as do many others.

It may have been the intelligence process was flawed. I found these
articles interesting.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...512fa_fact#top

"Døn ßailey" wrote in message news:brqeo6$68tq9$1@ID-
The burden of proof was/is on Saddam. Not the inspectors.


db

Oh, horse****! WE were the accusers. WE were the aggressors.

JohnH wrote in message . ..
On 17 Dec 2003 07:52:12 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:35:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:

[snip]

Absolutely, congratulations on spending billions upon billions, upon
billions of taxpayer's money to find a man that posed no harm to us,
except for those pesky cardboard drones he had aimed at us!!! By the
way, news this morning says that Saddam has stated he had NO weapons
of mass destruction before the war.

If you are referring to the money of more than one taxpayer, then the correct
word is *taxpayers'*.

John, spelling/grammar flames are, I believe, *far* beneath you.

Joe Parsons


What did Saddam use on the Kurds?

Nah, he's been throwing those in lately, when he knows he's wrong.
Only for one poster, whose grammar was atrocious and who persists in
name-calling. If one is going to call others 'stupid', then he should at least
do so correctly.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Oh, really?? What is THIS then:
If you are referring to the money of more than one taxpayer, then the correct
word is *taxpayers'*.

"Jack Meholf" wrote in message news:bpJDb.370587$Dw6.1208902@attbi_s02...
Sounds like you have already made up your mind what the truth is, and don't
want anything to change your mind.

At least he made up his own mind, as opposed to goose-stepping to the Bush Reich.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Aljazeera sounds an awful lot like Al Jazirah...a town in Syria that I
suspect you'll be hearing a lot more about in the near future. Can you
say
"WMD's"? ;-)


After enough interrogation, Saddam Hussein will eventually be brought
around to
say anything and everything the administration hopes to hear.

We'll all switch from a position that the lying ******* couldn't tell the
truth
if his life depended on it to believing every syllable he utters that
exonerates our motives for invading Iraq.

They say truth is the first casualty of war.
First causualty of politics too, unfortunately.

On 18 Dec 2003 05:56:54 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Exactly. Some comments just don't warrant a response. Right now my cat is
sitting on my desk. So what?

So you shouldn't let you cat type messages to the newsgroup. I do suppose that
explains some of the "reasoning", however.
(evil grin)

The damn cat split the last infinitive I was working on, damnit!! My cat,
Huguenot, thanks you for the compliment to his reasoning.

How is the snow in Steven's Pass? I wish I could somehow 'teletransport' myself
to your neck of the woods when I wanted. Then I would have a boat on the sound.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:12:07 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:59:14 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:

And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds" with
the bilious Mr. Kraus?

That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied.

John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that.

Joe Parsons


Sheesh. Most of the crap you righties post isn't worth a comment from a
razor clam. You think because no one stands up to dispute your claim
that that makes it true?

Second-best giggle of the day.

Because you used the plural, and because you left Joe's name in your follow-up,
I assume you are referring to both of us. Upon what do your base your assertion
that we are both 'righties'? What are the criteria by which you judge one to be
right or left? Do you know my position on the issues of relevance? What issues
do you consider relevant for such a judgement?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD


You and Parsons together are about as interesting as watching a freshly
painted ceiling dry...

Beige is good, eh?

Solution is easy, Harry. Don't watch.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:22:26 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:



Much more sustainable--even *with* the split infinitive[1].

But you'd be opening a whole new can of worms:


Opening a new can of worms might help you, too, Joe, since the ones in
the can you've already opened have stopped wiggling.



Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the
decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain-

Sure there is. Bush simply has to tell the truth.



And I greatly appreciate your pointing out the error of my ways, minor though
they be (at least in this case).

Did your nose hit the pavement on this particular bow, scrape and
shuffle? Sheesh.





ould you have me list
all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa?

You know, I went back quickly to see if I could find cases where that had
happened. I didn't find any instances of Gould supporting Krause. He may be
aligned on certain issues, sure--but that, in my opinion, is a far cry from
"supporting" him, let alone being his "bud."


You need a real hobby, fella. I suggest collecting toenail jam. In fact,
you might consider going to toenail jam meets, where you might compare
your collection of toenail jam with the collections of the toenail jam
of others. I'm sure you'll find the support, alignment and "buds" you so
desperately seek.



I'm afraid my
ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to
look at *this* thread pretty carefully.)

Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP.

Joe Parsons

Wait, wait, the paint on the ceiling *is* starting to dry...and beige
was the right color.

Harry, you're watching again!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD