Ad hominem attack against minor off topic point=par

Post #55,945 by bepatient 10/10/02 8:08:14 AM Reply	Ad hominem attack against minor off topic point=par for those keeping score. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #55,964 by dmarker2 10/10/02 10:27:42 AM Reply	Re: TIME FOR ALL OF US TO COOL IT - We all ... come here in the hope we can learn. I have no doubt that you folk in the US are up to your eyeballs in the hype & bluster & pain of what is taking place. Some of y'all truly believe that Iraq is a threat that only military action can solve - other of us fear what this admin's policies are doing to the world at large. Let us all try to agree that emotions are running high & try to cool it - I for one promise to avoid putting the boot into opponents of my own views. I think that in balance we all mean well in our own ways. These are bad times for what was brought to a head on 9/11 & where it is leading us. Cheers Doug Marker (Interesting bit of info - 2,400 died in the attack on Pearl Harbour - many more were killed on 9/11 - but lets us try to put 9/11 into perspective)
Post #55,966 by Brandioch 10/10/02 10:38:24 AM Reply	Deal with it. Said "minor off topic point" is, in fact, an indicator that Screamer does NOT have the background he claimed he had. When presented with photographic evidence that contradicted his claimed experience, he retreated into semantic games (much the same as you do). Of course you'd leap to his defense. You are two peas in a pod. I'm just surprised that Marlowe hasn't also jumped in. Maybe he will later.
Post #55,971 by Silverlock 10/10/02 11:07:34 AM Reply	Lighten up It wasn't a literal "iron curtain" either, but it was there. Wall, fence or curtain, the impediment to movement was there. "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Post #56,013 by Brandioch 10/10/02 1:56:18 PM Reply	That would be valid, except I provided a physical example. It wasn't a literal "iron curtain" either, but it was there. Wall, fence or curtain, the impediment to movement was there. I specifically pointed to the Berlin Wall. Now, your "Iron Curtain" example would be valid if I had not referenced a physical wall. As I did. The Berlin Wall. Or, if the Berlin Wall had only been a fence with guard towers.
Post #55,974 by deSitter 10/10/02 11:22:35 AM Reply	Note I know screamer personally - he's anything but a chickenhawk like bogie. In fact he's rather liberal in the strict sense, i.e. liberTARIAN in the loose sense. He's not one to advocate global adventures. When he says he's concerned about Iraq, there MUST be a really good reason for him to think that way. So you needn't attack him, I'm sure he's plenty torn up over the whole matter as it is. And you can take for gospel what he says - he has no reason to stretch the truth. If you two disagree, then it must be a matter of language and not fact. -drl
Post #55,996 by bepatient 10/10/02 12:58:04 PM Reply	Rules for the home game... Wall means wall...not barrier...not "fence with guard towers". While they all meet the same "fitness for purpose"...they have a differing dictionairy definition and will invite a tirade of small minded language attempting to belittle the poster and invalidate the entire argument based upon vocabulary and not content. And >you< will be guilty of playing semantic games...heh heh heh. Richer than triple chocolate mousse You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!