Jihad needs scientists

[JoeBloe]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:33:13 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

Daniel Mandic wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Thompson and Terrell are amongst the lowest forms of life posting
here. JoeBloe beats them hands down though.

Graham

Ermm, is Terrell not an electronic guru?

Guru ? You have to be kidding !

As if a twit like you would know, or a twit like the idiot you
responded to could assess.

 

[YD]

On 7 Oct 2006 07:42:23 GMT, jasen <jasen@free.net.nz> wrote:

On 2006-10-02, Homer J Simpson <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:6ln0i296ogmudnj5hhpl3nl9gadkfo6o9c@4ax.com...

Of course. What you don't hear about is the clandestine work that's
being done. You're not supposed to.

And yet the Israelis get what they need done in a far more competent manner
with only a few errors.

do they?

I saw an interesting photo of a tank parked on its "snout", I forget the URL.

Bye.
Jasen

Maybe this:

http://www.micom.net/oops/Nosedive.jpg

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:06:28 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:29b8i2hsic1aohfjan0703vugt8mk480re@4ax.com...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:55 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



T Wake wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote
Jim Thompson wrote:

I should know shortly what low-life job Eric has at Battelle... my
guess is janitor ;-)


Are you sure they would give him that much responsibility?


It is interesting that instead of disagreeing with Eric's comments and
explaining why, the general response has been to criticise his imagined
work
status.

Nothing I have seen in this thread seems to relate to his job and he has
not
claimed professional authority based on his employment so what, on
Earth,
does his job matter?

Unless this really is a pathetic attempt to "one up" on someone you
think is
in a lower paid / less "exalted" job. If it is, you really should be
ashamed
of yourselves.

Thompson and Terrell are amongst the lowest forms of life posting here.
JoeBloe
beats them hands down though.

Graham


At least we're not impotent like you.


Soon Teacher will turn up to put a stop to this playground fight.

T Weak sets us all straight again.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 10:03:20 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:g6udi2h3s876tsd4igje6qo10872ndlq2t@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:09:56 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

You would never know if you had 15 seconds as I very, very much doubt you
can count that high.

I can juggle 15 imaginary numbers around, while you piddle fart

I can juggle imaginary elephants. Beat that.

around with counting the digits of one hand.

Wow. Good comeback.

Try again, asswipe.

Ok, what other imaginary things shall we pretend we can juggle?

I knew that you wouldn't get it, dumbfuck. Oooops! One of your
elephants just fell on you. Shame it was unable to crush that geode
skull of yours.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:07:04 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

You are a living stereotype.

You are a living retard. There should be a law.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 04:42:49 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

That's obvious...neither on the way in nor on the way out. Nothing you say
is ever filtered through any actual thought processes.

Dang, this really is too easy.

Do you actually think you have accomplished something?

You're a true idiot if you do.

 

In article <KStVg.13889$7I1.2829@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg57ru$8ss_012@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45253AD1.1CA92D09@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
JoeBloe wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Essentially a stupid jerk is all he amounts to.

Let him be one. He is merely doing the popular action in
blaming the US to assuage his fear.

I have no fear of these issues. It's the damn Americans who are
afraid
you clot !

America hating blind bastard. That's all you are, ass, and why
does
it smell like unkempt livestock in here?

It's what Bush has done to America that's horrible. It's brought the
very
worst out in eveyone there. It was fine under Clinton.

No. It was not fine at all.

It looked a heck of a lot better to me and least he was an intelligent and
articulate man, something that could never be said of Bush.

So you prefer people who can spin you a line of bullshit to
people who deal with real problems?


You call the Federal response to Katrina "deal[ing] with real problems"??

What are you talking about? The fact that federal response cannot
happen until the governor requests it? The fact that a
hurricane is going to make a big mess and hoping it won't when
it is approaching is rational? The fact that it took sending in
the US Army before the locals in New Orleans started to clean
up their mess? 9/11 happened years ago. By last summer, all
major cities should have had evacuation plans and tested them.
New Orleans has always been in a hurricane zone; so all of
those local politicians should have had ample experience dealing
with hurricanes, before and after they occur. Yet, it's
the Federal government and Bush who are getting blamed for
local mismanagement. Furthermore, the voters of that area
reelected the same people who fucked up. This is an astounding
example of stupidity.

All we've done in Iraq is create one big, huge problem that, luckily for
Bush, *he* won't even have to deal with. I will grant you that Bush dealt
with 9/11 reasonably well--but what evidence do you have that Clinton
wouldn't have done just as well

Because he didn't do as well. You seem to keep forgetting that
9/11 was the SECOND bombing of those building. The first one
happened while Clinton was president and he did not deal with
the problem. He just gestures and pretended it won't happen again.
He let the Arab coalition, established by Bush from the invasion
of Kuwait, falter.

--or is it just your inability to admit that
Clinton was capable of doing anything good just because he got a blowjob?

The fact that he eschewed national security just to get that blowjob
was my concern.

Clinton was verifiably trying to go after bin Laden--obviously he wasn't
successful, but he was trying.

No he wasn't. he was making a half-hearted gesture to show
that he was doing something. He was not serious about
dealing with this security threat.

And I do clearly remember the Republicans
using the phrase "wag the dog" in relation to the effort to discredit
Clinton for even trying. (Back then, I was still reasonably happy with the
Republican party, so this isn't just a matter of me having selectively heard
something just because it made the Republicans look bad. Heck, back then, I
kind of agreed, because it was not clear to the average citizen what sort of
threat bin Laden was.) By contrast, there is solid evidence that
Condoleeza Rice was briefed with a plan to continue going after bin Laden.
Do you know how important she considered that meeting? She doesn't even
remember it happening! There was a good reason Colin Powell resigned. He,
as a skilled and level-headed diplomat,

Diplomat? He was a general. How did he get diplomatic skills?

was sick of the Administration's
cowboy foreign policy, including being made to lie to the public to justify
invading Iraq. Before he gave that speech, he *told* the President that the
intelligence was wrong...and he was forced to give the speech anyway.

If Bush had given his January, 2006 speech before going into Iraq,
would you have understood his reasoning? I don't think so because
you don't seem to comprehend it today.

/BAH

 

In article <4_idnbX0z-W0FLrYRVny2w@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg7t54$8qk_003@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <zuWdnToy_6qB6rvYRVnytA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg5e55$8qk_007@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <452633ED.B02A967A@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

another possibility is
the goal is to cede to these extremists

Are you really that monumentally stupid ?

Listening to their greivances isn't 'ceding' btw.

Arafat used this tactic. He kept people at the table talking
about peace to give his side time to accumulate weapons. He
even got all these rich countries to fund his efforts.

You're suggesting that because one person did this then we must never
again listen ? That's a very blinkered view indeed.

It is a tactic that worked.

Is it? Has Israel ceased to exist now?

Those people have not acquired an instant gratification addiction.
They think in terms of decades and centuries.

So sying it "worked" is inappropriate, "working" is as much as you can
assume. Even then it is tenuous as the working / not working argument has
equal support.

Arafat got billions
of dollars by talking peace while actually doing the opposite.

Don't you think others will try
the same thing if it succeeds in fooling all of the Democrats
all of the time?

Logical fallacy.

Apparently.

You can't change attitudes with bullets.

My attitude changed. And the trigger was two little airplane
missles.


Yet, you think doing the same to the other side will change their attitude
in a different manner? Ok, that makes sense.

Not little missles. Clinton lobbed a couple of little missles and
it didn't stop them. These people do not care who nor how many
die. It is their stated goal to kill millions.

Who is this they of which you speak?

Islamic extremists. Bin Laden has declared it. Iran has
declared this goal. Clerics wish to remove all vestiges
of Western civilzation; this includes no freedom of the press,
TV and probably all computers (anything with a picture of a human
being), all women in chattel (this is 50% of the labor force),
public schools will shut down, private property will no longer
be allowed, banks will be closed so trade will have to revert
back to person-to-person bartering.

/BAH

 

In article <4N8Vg.19635$Ij.6104@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2nr4$8qk_001@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <sxVUg.13307$7I1.4380@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:wo6dnaYdAMyDh7nYRVny3w@pipex.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:efvu0c$8ss_002@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

Well, I'd like to have a few less crapolas posts so I can find
the ones were posted by thoughtful people.

Reasonable enough wish, although it carries the risk that you only read
posts which say things you already agree with.... Always seems kind of
pointless to me.

Seems that's what most people in this discussion want...and if you don't
give it to them, they'll swear at you, insult you, and even threaten
physical violence and assault.

Yes, I know. I'm trying to figure out how to quell this useless
behaviour. I don't seem to have figured it out yet.

Me neither, but thanks for trying.

I'm not finished trying yet .

Shame doesn't work

No. That would have never worked.

(silly me, should
have known that one.) Stolidly attempting reasoned discussion with both
sides of the issue doesn't work. (Side comment--isn't it also sad that such
a complex issue seems to have only two sides bashing at each other? George
Washington saw the problems inherent in and spoke against the two party
system, and it's a real shame the country chose to ignore him.)

It's a complex problem that has not been getting any attention paid
to it for a century. Getting this problem stated in such a way
that there is two side is what is happening right now in Iraq,
in Iran, in our media, in Arabic media, in Europe, in Asia,
everywhere.

It is
a part of the overall solution the extremists' danger, though.

I can't parse that sentence as is, I think you're missing a "to", correct?

Yes, my apologies. I proof everything I read and manage to see
the words that are missing. It's an odd aberration my brain has
been acquiring lately.

If so, the extreme polarization in American politics since 2000 has been a
stone in my craw for a long time. What the hell ever happened to the art of
compromise?

The voters have not said no loud enough for the deaf Decmocrats to hear.
This is my complaint about the current Democrat leadership. Despite
a presidential loss and other defeats, they are still avoiding
this national threat. They will not talk about it; they say it
doesn't exist (Kennedy); they insist on going back and refighting
wars that are already done (Kerry); they arrange things that invite
big massacres possible (2004 Democrat Presidential convention in
Boston).

This party is 100% ignoring the problem. All I want is to
start thinking and talking out loud about it. Their national
chairman actually thinks that replying to questions about
this problem with a "Trust me" is a sufficient answer.

Everybody is so set on making their "enemy" (odd concept, no?)
look wrong/bad/stupid/etc., that nobody is willing to sit down and discuss
differences. I used to think it was a symptom of the maxim of human
behavior, "The less important an issue, the louder and more vehement the
argument", but that's clearly not the case with foreign policy. I didn't
especially like Clinton, but the one thing he was good at was compromise,

He wasn't even good at that. He would take a fucking poll out of
the White House's back door and make his based on that. This means
that there was no public dialogue about anything. He just chose
on the public's gut reaction who had no data nor spent any time
thinking about the question. This is irresponsible. Not even
a supervisor does this and President of the USA did.

and working with his political adversaries. Things got done despite the
potential gridlock of a Democrat President and a Republican Congress for
most of his term in office. It really rankles me that Bush and his
supporters used the soundbite taglines "the Great Uniter" and "Uniter not
Divider" to describe him and his cronies. I think Dick Cheney best
expressed the Administration's contempt for those who think differently than
they do: "Fuck you."

The new Democrats do not walk across the aisle and talk to their
opponents. It's been reported here that only Kennedy does this
and he is getting eliminated oout of the Democrat power circle.

You do understand that the ones who cannot (and I mean that they
are incapable) think objectively and discuss all aspects of a
problem have to speak this way. They also have to appear to
be a member of what is currently perceived as the majority.

I'm perhaps a little more sanguine (some would probably call it naive) about
human nature, and hope that "cannot" is wrong.

I don't think I'm wrong.

Sadly, I'm starting to
become cynical about that issue--you may be right, they may be incapable.

Oh, I think this kind of thinking is hardware. It has nothing to
do with cynicism. If your piece of gear cannot add 2 and 2, then
figure out a way around never asking it add two and two.

In order for me to tweak out my hidden assumptions, I need
to have discussions with people who have a different perspective.

There have been times in my life when I have spent too much time inside my
own head, or too much time with people who think like I do. The problem is
that you start to take your ideas too seriously, and in your mind, they
start to morph into "The Truth". That's a *very* dangerous place to be.

Sure. The way to avoid morphing into the The Truth is to constantly
examine your assumptions. I use this forum (newsgroups) to poke
me with reason whenever I get on the wrong track.

/BAH

 

In article <4526B159.9B15DA36@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

What exactly is it that you're afraid of ?

Loss of enough knowledge of how to do things that it will
take another 1000 years to reinvent the wheel.

Are you actually serious ?

Yes. I'm working on a 1000 year scenario and trying to shortcut
the cold start so that it will only be 500 years.

In 500 years Islam will have 'grown up'.

They are at the age that Christianity was in the 1500s.
I've been studying that era. Assuming (this is a big
assumption) that religions follow similar growing paths,
take the same time for each growing pain, there is going
to be quite a bit of mess before things gets settled down.
The key is to contain the mess-making so that enough
of the human race is left to continue the current
civilization.

I don't think there will be enough time. Five years is
needed.

/BAH

 

In article <p6adnUf13uDVN7vYRVnyrg@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg57vi$8ss_013@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45253CB2.A36CCD05@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

You can't accept that Islam isn't a threat to your lifestyle ?

Not only is it a threat, but it has already begun to
alter my lifestyle. My goal is to ensure that it
alter 100% of my lifestyle, if I'm allowed to exist.

Tell me more about this threat you perceive.

What exactly is it that you're afraid of ?

Loss of enough knowledge of how to do things that it will
take another 1000 years to reinvent the wheel.

Then we need to have a War on Faith Schools in the west. We can add a War
against the Arts and Humanities departments as well.

Your facetious answer so you can ignore the issue is noted.

/BAH

 

In article <5dfVg.62$45.46@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <eg2paa$8qk_011@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <PsRUg.57$45.150@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <4523844C.CA22EFDF@hotmail.com>, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:


mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <4522F8DE.C46161BD@hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that
historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the
population is *dead*. Does this make it clear?

So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ?

I didn't say, at the moment, what we need (or need not) to do. I
pointed what empirical data for past conflicts shows. Go argue with
history if you don't like it.

But you still mainatain we'd need to kill that many to have an effect ?

Graham

Not that "we'd need" but that, as a worst case scenario, we may need.

The oddity of this, which I cannot find in past history, is that
the extremists are already doing this to themselves.

It is not that odd. Extremists are striving for a very high degreee
of coherence, in their own camp. This involves "purifying" your side
from "dubious elements".

This is premature viewing and we won't know until 10-80 years from
now but...

It seems like they are not purifying but self-emolating. Isn't
there a difference? This self-emolation as part of their
ritual practice is what seems odd. And I don't think I've
written this well at all.

/BAH

 

In article <udydnWLuFcYHN7vYRVnytQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg57ru$8ss_012@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45253AD1.1CA92D09@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
JoeBloe wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Essentially a stupid jerk is all he amounts to.

Let him be one. He is merely doing the popular action in
blaming the US to assuage his fear.

I have no fear of these issues. It's the damn Americans who are
afraid
you clot !

America hating blind bastard. That's all you are, ass, and why
does
it smell like unkempt livestock in here?

It's what Bush has done to America that's horrible. It's brought the
very
worst out in eveyone there. It was fine under Clinton.

No. It was not fine at all.

It looked a heck of a lot better to me and least he was an intelligent and
articulate man, something that could never be said of Bush.

So you prefer people who can spin you a line of bullshit to
people who deal with real problems?


Sorry, aren't you the person who advocated spending billions to get Usma Bin
Laden because he _may_ kill more people as opposed to spending billions
solving the problems which _are_ killing people?

If the mindset of the religious extremists are not changed and
they become successful in destroying Western civilization, the
problems that _are_ killing people today will no longer exist.
I believe you mentioned those killed in automobile accidents.
Those accidents won't happen because there won't be any autos
on the roads.

/BAH

 

[JoeBloe]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:59:40 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

Yep. And isn't it also ironic that the ouster of those very commies has
been one of the destabilizing forces in the world that may well have
furthered the current mess?

You're an idiot.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 10:05:23 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:sludi21v218aau83uue1nhpk001333skb4@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 19:26:17 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

Sadly, you are a...

Sadly, you are still no more than an idiot.

IKYABWAI.

Even being an idiot I am orders of magnitude above you.

Only on the idiot ranking board.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 04:42:31 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:aasdi21rrd3aj4cj4va9rh5vtdn25lgb9n@4ax.com...

Yes, as good as Iraq had WMD.

They did, you ditzo.

Uhh...no...not since 1991. You really do need to get yourself educated, and
not just listen to Bush soundbites.

Since '91, you dumbfuck, he was spending ALL of his time starving
the masses and feeding ONLY his military arm while having them build
"palaces" that he would not allow UN inspectors into. "Palaces" in
which he continued his chemical and biological arms programs in.

You could be a bit more retarded, but not in this life.

 

[YD]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:00:01 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

YD wrote:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 15:37:56 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

YD wrote:

Clue to what, exactly? This far all you have done is rant about
exterminating everything outside US borders.


You really do have reading comprehension problems don't you?

So you confirm your wish to exterminate everything outside US borders
then?


Only those who want to die.

Which of course is how you define any nation or persons not suckering
up to your goose-stepping ideology.

Feel free to reply with another ignorant remark like you always do.
After all, its all we expect from you anymore.

Feel free to come over and try to kill me if you wish. Come on, pussy
boy, come on! Oooops, you can't, hee-hee.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 10:18:24 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:XeGVg.11929$6S3.5416@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:aasdi21rrd3aj4cj4va9rh5vtdn25lgb9n@4ax.com...

Yes, as good as Iraq had WMD.

They did, you ditzo.

Uhh...no...not since 1991. You really do need to get yourself educated,
and not just listen to Bush soundbites.

Sadly, you've asked for something impossible. It would be easier to invent a
perpetual motion device than get JoeBloe and education.

You cannot even construct a sentence properly, and you declare that

not only do I need an education, but that I would not be able to
garner anything from it.

How rich.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 04:42:58 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:h1vdi2t5quk2uvbtcogbq0nburnajq4356@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:09:43 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:


"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
newsabbi21hj1om31j3avpn3mm32vdur9mo0n@4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:22:17 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

You're in a fantasy land. ONE SENTENCE of the NIE report was
leaked by the Democrats to try to discredit Bush. The four pages
around that one sentence, later released, say exactly the opposite.
Please get your "news" from someone other than Franken.

Good one.

Sycophant.

Agreeing with someone does NOT make me a sycophant, you Usenet total
retard.

Sycophant.

ERic Lucas, the Usenet retard from Battelle

I bet they'd rid themselves of your retarded ass after seeing the
CRAP you post on Usenet.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 10:19:05 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:h1vdi2t5quk2uvbtcogbq0nburnajq4356@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:09:43 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:


"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
newsabbi21hj1om31j3avpn3mm32vdur9mo0n@4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:22:17 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

You're in a fantasy land. ONE SENTENCE of the NIE report was
leaked by the Democrats to try to discredit Bush. The four pages
around that one sentence, later released, say exactly the opposite.
Please get your "news" from someone other than Franken.

Good one.

Sycophant.

Agreeing with someone does NOT make me a sycophant, you Usenet total
retard.

No, it doesn't. There are lots of people here I agree with. Because you cant
see the different, it makes you an idiotic sycophant.

You declaring that I can't see or know something has all the

markings of the oldest type of troll in Usenet.

They were wrong then, and you are wrong now, troll boy.