Re: Oh, you know what I am referring to

Post #110,669 by johnu 7/21/03 8:43:30 AM Reply	Re: Oh, you know what I am referring to Note carefully which posts you didn't respond to. My opinion is that you don't have so little credibility left on the subject of integrity that I pretty much discount anything you have to say. Of course you haven't much shown that you care about my opinion, making us basically even. Feel free to point out which posts in that thread which you feel it was important for me to respond to and I gladly will. Regards, John
Post #110,672 by jake123 7/21/03 8:48:53 AM Reply	I expect he was looking for a response to the direct question aimed at you about what Bush said he was going to do before invading Iraq, and what he actually did do before invading Iraq. You didn't respond, but instead responded to a response from another poster, without addressing the original question. ... and hey, I didn't even have to go look at the exchange to figure out what he was talking about; it was a pretty glaring attempt to avoid the issue on your part. Hence, no credibility; you didn't want to answer because it shows that you're wrong about Bush's willingness to deceive the public, and his willingness to go back on what he said he'd do in the name of expediency. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #110,679 by johnu 7/21/03 10:48:26 AM Reply	Re: I expect he was looking I expect he was looking for a response to the direct question aimed at you about what Bush said he was going to do before invading Iraq, and what he actually did do before invading Iraq. I did [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=109772\|respond]. It was late, but I did respond to his question. If you guys are talking about something else, please point it out. Regards, John
Post #110,701 by ben_tilly 7/21/03 1:37:58 PM Reply	Yes, you responded..eventually After how many rounds of consistently not responding to the point? And with a response which left the question of whether or not Shrub ever lied on anything an unprovable question to be settled by religious belief. As I commented, Nice goalposts there. Anyways I would carry this discussion on further, but I am in the process of moving. After tonight I won't be very available for over a week, and today is pretty busy as well... Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #110,705 by johnu 7/21/03 1:52:58 PM Reply	Re: Yes, you responded..eventually And with a response which left the question of whether or not Shrub ever lied on anything an unprovable question to be settled by religious belief. It's certainly provable. Just show he knew before hand the statement he was about to make was false. For example, if he directed his UN group to only call a final vote if they had the votes, then went on T.V. and said: "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council." then you would have a lie. Anyways I would carry this discussion on further, but I am in the process of moving. After tonight I won't be very available for over a week, and today is pretty busy as well... Hope the move goes well. Feel free to respond when you have time. Regards, John

Welcome to IWETHEY!