IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Politics Forum / Ah, since I slammed your "secret wisdom of the ancients"...
Post #32,323
by Brandioch
3/15/02 10:58:50 AM
Reply
New Ah, since I slammed your "secret wisdom of the ancients"...
you're, once again, retreating to extremes and strawmen.

I tell you what is required by law and supported by regulated industries.
Yes, we've established that. Look backwards to find the point where I started my speeding analogy. It is the law.

NEWSFLASH: People break the laws!

You find an example or 2 of people breaking the requirements.
That is right. I have supported my position that PEOPLE BREAK THE LAWS. Even the EPA laws.

That means that ALL COMPANIES operate that way.
Umm, no. Where did you pull THAT statement out of? I've already given you an EXAMPLE of a company (Ben & Jerry's) that operates at a MORE RESTRICTIVE level than required by the government.

So, there, I've just slammed ANOTHER of your arguments.

Your a human. Humans commit murder every day. Brandioch's a murderer.
Maybe that makes sense in YOUR world. Or is that another example of your twisted attempt at "logic"?

So get out there and kill somebody...times a wastin.
That's a great rebuttal of my points.

So, why does it appear that you are working for a governmental agency writing policy to control poluters in one post, but in another post, you seem to be working for a company that manufactures hazardous materials?

Your filters are working overtime. You can't even parse my posts.

Did you miss the part about Ben & Jerry's.

Or does the above sentence appear, to you as:
Did you miss the part about blah blah blah leftist blah.

I give you an example of a company that holds itself to higher standards than required by the government.

You say that I said all companies break the law.

I, once again, give you an example of a company that holds itself to higher standards than required by the government.

You, once again, say that I said all companies break the law.

Now, this is the third time I'm giving you the example of Ben & Jerry's. I'm going to bet that the repetition of this has FINALLY gotten past your filters and you'll ignore this as the concepts are just too alien for your current mental state OR you'll reply with some pathetic excuse for a barbed witticism.

For everyone else, I will restate your ORIGINAL position.

That the EPA >SHOULD< get the input of companies who are breaking the environmental laws (or that have found loopholes) so that they can write "better" laws (or "close" the loopholes).

My counter to that was that no speeders turn themselves into the cops. Nor do they call the cops and tell them of areas that are under-patrolled. It doesn't happen.

Again, my process for writing "good" laws.
#1. The officials write the laws.
#2. Monitoring is done (by someone other than than those being monitored).
#3. If violations are found, the lawyers are sent in.
#3a. If it is a violation, the company is fined (etc).
#3b. If it is a loophole, go to #1 as a re-write.
Post #32,326
by bepatient
Picture of bepatient
3/15/02 11:08:21 AM
3/15/02 11:09:42 AM
Reply
New Just applying your "logic"
Sorry you can't seem to follow.

I tell you how the law and industry actually work.

You point to an example where a company breaks the law and try to establish that example as defacto.

Then you point to a largely non regulated (EPA) company as someone who does it "better".

So. Most people don't murder others. But a couple do. That makes everyone a murderer...(your logic...not mine)...except that Ben guy.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Expand Edited by bepatient March 15, 2002, 11:09:42 AM EST
Expand All History
Post #32,339
by Brandioch
3/15/02 12:39:08 PM
Reply
New Another successful application of filtering.
Thanks for, once again, proving that I'm right.

Then you point to a largely non regulated (EPA) company as someone who does it "better".
Nope. I gave Ben & Jerry's as an example of a company that holds themselves to higher standards than those required by the government.

So, I did NOT say that, just because one company breaks the law, ALL companies break the law.

But I expected this from you as your filters are working overtime in an attempt to spin the facts into something you can accept as "reality".

I tell you how the law and industry actually work.
Yet you still have trouble with whether you work for a governmental agency writing the laws or whether you work for a company that manufactures hazardous materials. And you expect me to believe that you have any real idea of how the industry works?

You don't even know who monitors the companies to ensure that they're complying with the regulations.

You point to an example where a company breaks the law and try to establish that example as defacto.
No, I point out TWO examples of companies that have LIED on their required reports to the EPA.

This establishes that some companies BREAK THE LAW.

But that conflicts with YOUR religion so you can't accept it.

Whatever.

Which brings me back to the ORIGINAL point that you're advocating having CRIMINALS help write the laws because you think they want to have their criminal activities shut down.

And, like all religions, your's only makes sense if you buy into the initial fantasy.

Whereas, in my experience, criminals do NOT want their activities shut down. To support my position, I have pointed out that speeders do NOT self-report themselves to the cops.
Post #32,371
by bepatient
Picture of bepatient
3/15/02 3:22:50 PM
3/15/02 3:25:52 PM
Reply
New I can see...
...that you have no interest in how things actually work.

Even after I referenced the law and its requirements.

And you continue to extend your examples to the entire landscape of industry (except of course the vaunted B&J) by insisting that I advocate >criminals< assist in writing laws and policy. (but I'm not supposed to notice that you're doing this...since I'm illiterate).

I also pointed out the fact that a company had an employee and allowed him to partake in the drafting of a major treaty that effectively eliminated sale of very profitable products. Somehow this is less relevent than Ben & Jerry's exceeding government requirements...even though the act undertaken was, in essence, to draft stricter requirements than already existed...and doing so at considerable cost.

But no company in your world would ever do such a thing.

By the way. Drivers are not required to record and report the speeds they drive to the DMV. So if you want to use something as a comparison...try to find something a little better.

Post edit---

On second thought. Don't bother. You're being combative with me just because it somehow inflates your sense of self. No one else here cares...or they would probably have posted by now.

So..

EOD

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Expand Edited by bepatient March 15, 2002, 03:25:52 PM EST
Expand All History
Post #32,382
by Brandioch
3/15/02 3:55:04 PM
Reply
New I can see you're still filtering.
Even after I referenced the law and its requirements.
Bill, it is >YOU< that doesn't understand how "things really work".

You can pass all the laws you want.

People will still break them.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's the fact.

And you continue to extend your examples to the entire landscape of industry (except of course the vaunted B&J) by insisting that I advocate >criminals< assist in writing laws and policy. (but I'm not supposed to notice that you're doing this...since I'm illiterate).
Bill, that is your original position. Shall I quote one of your posts back at you?

Here it is:
Part of my job is to write policy. In writing policies, I've found it very effective to have the worst offenders offer their advice on how the policy should be written. I ask very specific questions about their violations and how they would recommend the policy be changed to stop further violations or "rulebending".


I also pointed out the fact that a company had an employee and allowed him to partake in the drafting of a major treaty that effectively eliminated sale of very profitable products. Somehow this is less relevent than Ben & Jerry's exceeding government requirements...even though the act undertaken was, in essence, to draft stricter requirements than already existed...and doing so at considerable cost.
Actually, you said "coworker". And I never said that there weren't companies that would do that. >YOU< were the one that claimed I said that. I said the the companies in VIOLATION would not do that. Which, if you read your above quoted post, was what you said they would do.

But no company in your world would ever do such a thing.
Once again, Ben & Jerry's. A company that holds to higher standards than the government requires. My example. Yet you >STILL< keep trying to claim that I'm saying that NO companies would do that.

People, do I need to present >ANY< more evidence for mental filtering? Really? This is the 4TH time I've mentioned Ben & Jerry's and Bill >STILL< wants to claim that I say that NO company would do that.

Mental filtering, people. It real. It exists. Watch Bill and you will see it in action.

By the way. Drivers are not required to record and report the speeds they drive to the DMV. So if you want to use something as a comparison...try to find something a little better.
It's called an "analogy". You say the companies that violate EPA standards want to help toughen those standards. I say that this doesn't happen ANY PLACE ELSE. For an example, I said that speeders NEVER self-report themselves. And they don't.

Again, people who violate the rules do NOT work to toughen those rules.

On second thought. Don't bother. You're being combative with me just because it somehow inflates your sense of self. No one else here cares...or they would probably have posted by now.
Bill, >YOU< are the one who's job mysteriously changes from post to post.

>YOU< are the one that keeps trying to re-phrase my position. Even after I clarify it. Even after I give examples of how you're attempting to re-phrase it.

Bill, I really don't care what you think. I'm just illustrating how someone (you) with a pre-set agenda will filter any available "facts" to support your position.

I'm not going to convince you that you're wrong on this. You "know" you're right.

Even though I have years of experience in companies that also have to deal with the EPA. And I can NAME the companies I worked for. Your exact job is still undefined. Did you write policy or were you employed by a company that had to follow EPA policy?

Your filters are operating so fast that you've managed to convince yourself that your industry is COMPLETELY different than any other facet of life.

You can't explain this. You just KNOW that it is true.

Like I said, religion, filters, beliefs.
Post #32,391
by bepatient
Picture of bepatient
3/15/02 4:33:56 PM
3/15/02 4:36:45 PM
Reply
New No.
Fact - I work in a regulated industry. Yes...we make hazardous materials.

Fact - I write policies. Its line 3 under "Responsibilites" in my job description.

Fact - The person involved in the Protocol is a co-worker. 2 floors down.

Fact - EPA law requires >companies< to monitor and self report.

Your car analogy is a poor one because speeders are NOT required by law to monitor and self report.

I have used people who bend the rules successfully to offer advice and assistance in writing new policy to close those loopholes. They are not >criminals< because what they were doing was perfectly legit. It isn't any longer.

Again, people who violate the rules do NOT work to toughen those rules.


I work for a company that has assisted in tougheniing rules a great expense to itself. That would seem counter to your assertion.

I'm not filtering. You're doing your level best to misrepresent me.

Have fun. You are now truly on your own here.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Expand Edited by bepatient March 15, 2002, 04:36:45 PM EST
Expand All History
Post #32,470
by Brandioch
3/16/02 8:30:22 PM
Reply
New Strange......
URL:
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=31878|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=31878]

Part of my job is to write policy. In writing policies, I've found it very effective to have the worst offenders offer their advice on how the policy should be written. I ask very specific questions about their violations and how they would recommend the policy be changed to stop further violations or "rulebending".
Please compare that with this quote taken from the immediately prior post.

Fact - I work in a regulated industry. Yes...we make hazardous
materials.

Fact - I write policies. Its line 3 under "Responsibilites" in my job
description.

Fact - The person involved in the Protocol is a co-worker. 2
floors down.

Fact - EPA law requires >companies< to monitor and self
report.
So, you're writing policy for your own company and you think that the wordst violators in your own company can give you good input on writing that policy?

Here's a term for you....

Masterbation.

Who gives a FUCK what your INTERNAL policies are and how they're generated?!?

Your car analogy is a poor one because speeders are NOT required by law to monitor and self report.
That is true. But that wasn't the point I was making. My point was that people who break the rules do NOT report themselves.

The speeders was an easy analogy.

Since you seemed to have trouble with that (and still seem to) I gave you TWO examples of companies that LLIED on their REQUIRED reports to the EPA.

Violators do NOT report their violations.

Even if they are REQUIRED to.

I have used people who bend the rules successfully to offer advice and assistance in writing new policy to close those loopholes.
Do you UNDERSTAND why I said that was masterbation? Do you? No one >CARES< what your INTERNAL policies are! You don't have any AUTHORITY over anyone else.

What you do or do not do has NO IMPACT on what other companies do.

They are not >criminals< because what they were doing was perfectly legit. It isn't any longer.
You see? This is where the confusion comes in.

You say >YOU< re-wrote the policy to change a previously LEGAL act into an ILLEGAL one.

But you do NOT have that authority NOR is that the office you hold.

Yet you >STILL< claim to have done that.

I've put up the two companies I've worked for. I still don't see you doing the same.

You're operating under another masterbation fantasy, Bill. You did NOT do what you claimed you did.

Again, people who violate the rules do NOT work to toughen those rules.


I work for a company that has assisted in tougheniing rules a great expense to itself. That would seem counter to your assertion.
Okay, let me put this in very small words for you......

Are you saying that your company was in violation of EPA policy?

Yes/No?

Think >VERY< carefully about your answer there. You know what happens if you answer "yes".

If not, then my point (allow me to quote it back to you "Again, people who violate the rules do NOT work to toughen those rules.") is valid as your company did NOT meet the criteria for that statement (note the part about "violate the rules").

Now, if your company did NOT violate the rules, then your company does NOT match my criteria and, once again, you have proven my point about your inability to read with comprehension (due to the vast quantity of filters you have running in your head).

If your company DID violate the EPA rules (well, well, what was that about "moral" companies the other day?) then >YOU< did NOTHING to strengthen the EPA rules, only your INTERNAL policies.

Either way, your original hypothesis has been disproven (based upon this example).

Unless your company DID violate the EPA policy AND self-reported it AND worked to toughen the EPA's policy.

If so, please provide the name of your company for verification. You seem more than a bit confused on whether you write EPA policy or not and whether your company is/was in violation or not. In fact, your "facts" seem to change from post to post.

Not that I would EVER doubt your veracity.

Never ever.
Post #32,476
by bepatient
Picture of bepatient
3/16/02 8:53:07 PM
Reply
New Nope. You can't read.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Post #32,481
by Brandioch
3/16/02 9:26:19 PM
Reply
New When pressed for actual facts.....
Bill Patient will (as most Republicans) run and hide.

I gave the names of both environmental companies I worked for.

Bill refuses to name the company he works for.

Bill also refuses to state whether said company was actually in violation of EPA policy or was not.

Bill Patient, a model Republican and working for a moral company.





(I'll just bookmark this thread for reference in future discussions, okay, Bill?)
Post #32,486
by bepatient
Picture of bepatient
3/16/02 10:18:54 PM
3/16/02 10:20:09 PM
Reply
New Sure...no sweat.
We won't be having any.

And I'm not a Republican.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Expand Edited by bepatient March 16, 2002, 10:20:09 PM EST
Expand All History
Post #32,507
by Brandioch
3/17/02 11:54:02 AM
Reply
New Why so fact aversive?
What are you afraid of?

Why can I detail my experiences and you try to hide behind a veil of secret ancient wisdom?

Hmmmmmmm???????

What are you trying to hide?

And I'm not a Republican.
Oh, sorry, I really meant "conservative compassionate".

Not "Republican".

Never "Republican".

Or whatever you want to call yourself these days.

Looks like a
Walks like a
Quacks like a
Post #32,509
by bepatient
Picture of bepatient
3/17/02 12:24:01 PM
3/17/02 12:25:55 PM
Reply
New this space left blank
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Expand Edited by bepatient March 17, 2002, 12:25:55 PM EST
Expand All History
Post #32,512
by Brandioch
3/17/02 2:33:01 PM
Reply
New Again, why are you afraid of the facts?
Why can't you answer a simple question?

Hmmmmm?

Claim illiteracy all you want.

But it's hard to read when you won't write the answer.

Does this make my third request for a response?

You fear is what makes you weak.
Post #32,525
by mmoffitt
3/17/02 6:34:53 PM
Reply
New Clarification please.
In my world, (a place requiring a much more Left-jaded field of vision than I suspect you're capable of ;0),
a person who knowingly violates "the spirit of the law" is as culpable as some one who violates the law literally.

You seem to be here:

>>They are not >criminals< because what they were doing was perfectly legit.

drawing a distinction that I, and I suspect Brandioch, does not draw.
Post #32,529
by Brandioch
3/17/02 7:24:14 PM
Reply
New Technically not criminals.
But I'm still wondering why someone who seeks to use a loophole to advantage his/her company would work to close said loophole.
Post #32,531
by mmoffitt
3/17/02 7:38:38 PM
Reply
New That is indeed a fascinating notion.
Post #32,539
by a6l6e6x
Picture of a6l6e6x
3/18/02 12:50:51 AM
Reply
New Perhaps competing companies are better at working a loop...
hole. In other words, "This rule would hurt us, but it will hurt XYZ a lot more".

Is you deviousness mode switch turned off? :)
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
Post #32,679
by Brandioch
3/18/02 9:46:51 PM
Reply
New Possibly.
But it requires a great deal of knowledge of your competitor's business.
     White House: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. - (Silverlock) - (88) - March 11, 2002, 09:35:20 AM EST
         The part I don't understand..... - (Brandioch) - (86) - March 11, 2002, 11:13:55 AM EST
             My lack of understanding is different - (Silverlock) - (85) - March 11, 2002, 11:34:36 AM EST
                 Here's the theory - (drewk) - (1) - March 11, 2002, 11:45:12 AM EST
                     Good insight -NT - (SpiceWare) - March 11, 2002, 12:33:58 PM EST
                 Dates, names, topics of discussion - (bepatient) - (82) - March 11, 2002, 12:07:15 PM EST
                     We do NOT have a right to know. - (mmoffitt) - (80) - March 11, 2002, 01:16:10 PM EST
                         Well golly... - (bepatient) - (78) - March 11, 2002, 01:33:46 PM EST
                             Exactly how stupid are these executives? - (mmoffitt) - (76) - March 11, 2002, 02:51:38 PM EST
                                 The policy is a part of the public record. - (bepatient) - (75) - March 11, 2002, 03:10:15 PM EST
                                     Sorry, thought that was rhetorical. - (mmoffitt) - (72) - March 11, 2002, 03:22:41 PM EST
                                         Well then... - (bepatient) - (71) - March 11, 2002, 03:51:31 PM EST
                                             Huh? How does that follow? - (mmoffitt) - (70) - March 11, 2002, 04:02:58 PM EST
                                                 Are you actually... - (bepatient) - (69) - March 11, 2002, 05:08:45 PM EST
                                                     You mean.... - (Brandioch) - (1) - March 11, 2002, 05:14:12 PM EST
                                                         No. I don't. -NT - (bepatient) - March 11, 2002, 05:25:04 PM EST
                                                     I knew the bias would come out if I waited long enough. - (mmoffitt) - (66) - March 12, 2002, 09:07:21 AM EST
                                                         That's not the problem - (drewk) - (12) - March 12, 2002, 10:33:50 AM EST
                                                             I don't see the problem. - (Brandioch) - (11) - March 12, 2002, 12:20:13 PM EST
                                                                 During the years when the dems had the house - (boxley) - (10) - March 12, 2002, 12:23:44 PM EST
                                                                     If you accept what they hand you, you deserve what you get. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (8) - March 12, 2002, 01:08:42 PM EST
                                                                         each according to my needs of their abilities? -NT - (boxley) - (7) - March 12, 2002, 01:52:32 PM EST
                                                                             No. each according to THEIR needs ;-) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (6) - March 13, 2002, 09:58:38 AM EST
                                                                                 who decides? commisar=ceo same diff :) -NT - (boxley) - (5) - March 13, 2002, 10:51:41 AM EST
                                                                                     How about letting me decide? :-) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (4) - March 13, 2002, 12:33:11 PM EST
                                                                                         equals each according to my needs of their abilities :) -NT - (boxley) - (3) - March 13, 2002, 12:41:30 PM EST
                                                                                             No, I am more equal than you are :) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2) - March 13, 2002, 01:04:39 PM EST
                                                                                                 thats why (communism-people=works)(communism+people=doesnt) -NT - (boxley) - (1) - March 13, 2002, 01:50:22 PM EST
                                                                                                     How do you know? It's never been tried. -NT - (mmoffitt) - March 14, 2002, 01:28:39 PM EST
                                                                     That's why we should do it in public. - (Brandioch) - March 12, 2002, 02:48:44 PM EST
                                                         Absolutely, completely and uttlerly wrong. - (bepatient) - (5) - March 12, 2002, 03:26:21 PM EST
                                                             So, part of your job is accommodation. - (mmoffitt) - (1) - March 13, 2002, 09:43:29 AM EST
                                                                 Bzzzt...wrong again. - (bepatient) - March 13, 2002, 01:41:28 PM EST
                                                             And in your world, criminals write the laws? - (Brandioch) - (2) - March 13, 2002, 12:56:48 PM EST
                                                                 Why do I bother? - (bepatient) - (1) - March 13, 2002, 01:49:01 PM EST
                                                                     Crime is not "advice". - (Brandioch) - March 13, 2002, 01:59:28 PM EST
                                                         Keeping my example...and to illustrate other answer. - (bepatient) - (46) - March 12, 2002, 03:34:20 PM EST
                                                             Counter example. - (Brandioch) - March 12, 2002, 03:42:45 PM EST
                                                             You want to "discuss" this? - (mmoffitt) - (44) - March 13, 2002, 09:52:04 AM EST
                                                                 applause - (Brandioch) - (7) - March 13, 2002, 12:53:28 PM EST
                                                                     Real example - (ben_tilly) - (6) - March 13, 2002, 05:07:33 PM EST
                                                                         Good example. - (Brandioch) - (5) - March 13, 2002, 05:59:11 PM EST
                                                                             Well said. Concur completely. -NT - (mmoffitt) - March 14, 2002, 08:50:00 AM EST
                                                                             Do you have reading problems? - (ben_tilly) - (3) - March 14, 2002, 09:39:35 AM EST
                                                                                 No worse than your's. - (Brandioch) - (2) - March 14, 2002, 12:43:09 PM EST
                                                                                     One of us has more free time... - (ben_tilly) - (1) - March 15, 2002, 12:49:58 AM EST
                                                                                         Full circle. - (Brandioch) - March 15, 2002, 11:42:18 AM EST
                                                                 How are you going to know about the problem? - (bepatient) - (35) - March 13, 2002, 01:44:27 PM EST
                                                                     Again, an interesting world you live in. - (Brandioch) - (33) - March 13, 2002, 02:04:17 PM EST
                                                                         Not much of a reader are you. - (bepatient) - (32) - March 13, 2002, 02:08:49 PM EST
                                                                             You say "balance". - (Brandioch) - (31) - March 13, 2002, 02:19:18 PM EST
                                                                                 I'll try once. - (Ric Locke) - (30) - March 13, 2002, 10:27:46 PM EST
                                                                                     And what color is the sky in your world? - (mmoffitt) - March 14, 2002, 09:14:28 AM EST
                                                                                     Higher speeds cause more deaths. - (Brandioch) - (28) - March 14, 2002, 12:56:55 PM EST
                                                                                         And you have never seen... - (a6l6e6x) - (27) - March 14, 2002, 02:48:23 PM EST
                                                                                             The order of those events is the key. - (Brandioch) - (26) - March 14, 2002, 03:11:41 PM EST
                                                                                                 Who do you think monitors the laws? - (bepatient) - (25) - March 14, 2002, 05:57:23 PM EST
                                                                                                     The eco-freaks do. - (Brandioch) - (24) - March 14, 2002, 06:19:04 PM EST
                                                                                                         Why do I think they do? - (bepatient) - (23) - March 14, 2002, 07:20:09 PM EST
                                                                                                             You use that phrase, but I do not think you understand it. - (Brandioch) - (22) - March 14, 2002, 08:00:27 PM EST
                                                                                                                 You don't know what you're talking about. - (bepatient) - (21) - March 14, 2002, 08:45:42 PM EST
                                                                                                                     Ah, the old "I have secret wisdom and you don't" ploy. - (Brandioch) - (20) - March 14, 2002, 09:48:21 PM EST
                                                                                                                         Courtesy request - (ben_tilly) - March 14, 2002, 11:48:55 PM EST
                                                                                                                         Ah...I see. - (bepatient) - (18) - March 15, 2002, 08:20:52 AM EST
                                                                                                                             Ah, since I slammed your "secret wisdom of the ancients"... - (Brandioch) - (17) - March 15, 2002, 10:58:50 AM EST
                                                                                                                                 Just applying your "logic" - (bepatient) - (16) - March 15, 2002, 11:09:42 AM EST
                                                                                                                                     Another successful application of filtering. - (Brandioch) - (15) - March 15, 2002, 12:39:08 PM EST
                                                                                                                                         I can see... - (bepatient) - (14) - March 15, 2002, 03:25:52 PM EST
                                                                                                                                             I can see you're still filtering. - (Brandioch) - (13) - March 15, 2002, 03:55:04 PM EST
                                                                                                                                                 No. - (bepatient) - (12) - March 15, 2002, 04:36:45 PM EST
                                                                                                                                                     Strange...... - (Brandioch) - (6) - March 16, 2002, 08:30:22 PM EST
                                                                                                                                                         Nope. You can't read. -NT - (bepatient) - (5) - March 16, 2002, 08:53:07 PM EST
                                                                                                                                                             When pressed for actual facts..... - (Brandioch) - (4) - March 16, 2002, 09:26:19 PM EST
                                                                                                                                                                 Sure...no sweat. - (bepatient) - (3) - March 16, 2002, 10:20:09 PM EST
                                                                                                                                                                     Why so fact aversive? - (Brandioch) - (2) - March 17, 2002, 11:54:02 AM EST
                                                                                                                                                                         this space left blank -NT - (bepatient) - (1) - March 17, 2002, 12:25:55 PM EST
                                                                                                                                                                             Again, why are you afraid of the facts? - (Brandioch) - March 17, 2002, 02:33:01 PM EST
                                                                                                                                                     Clarification please. - (mmoffitt) - (4) - March 17, 2002, 06:34:53 PM EST
                                                                                                                                                         Technically not criminals. - (Brandioch) - (3) - March 17, 2002, 07:24:14 PM EST
                                                                                                                                                             That is indeed a fascinating notion. -NT - (mmoffitt) - March 17, 2002, 07:38:38 PM EST
                                                                                                                                                             Perhaps competing companies are better at working a loop... - (a6l6e6x) - (1) - March 18, 2002, 12:50:51 AM EST
                                                                                                                                                                 Possibly. - (Brandioch) - March 18, 2002, 09:46:51 PM EST
                                                                     You changed your hypothesis. - (mmoffitt) - March 14, 2002, 08:58:27 AM EST
                                     Hmmmm..... - (Brandioch) - March 11, 2002, 03:26:10 PM EST
                                     Well..it does happen with ever administration... - (Simon_Jester) - March 11, 2002, 08:09:07 PM EST
                             Rant for rant... - (jb4) - March 12, 2002, 02:12:27 PM EST
                         Just ask JacksonLee - (boxley) - March 11, 2002, 03:22:06 PM EST
                     I say they should release the names... - (marlowe) - March 11, 2002, 02:44:02 PM EST
         We all know that the President is but a mear puppet - (nking) - March 11, 2002, 05:23:34 PM EST

Powered by divine intervention!
544 ms