Subject:
|
ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:52:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
668 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > >
> > > > > > > What about the "evidence" the USA had when it bombed Sudan?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not convinced that we didn't get snookered on that, and that it wasn't
> > > > > > actually his plant after all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you justify this in any way?
> > > >
> > > > Well can you? Over the weekend that has been used as an example of how
> > > > things can go wrong. Can you justify your words?
> > >
> > > For the 3rd time : Can you justify this in any way?
> >
> > Justify that I'm not convinced of something? How am I supposed to do that,
> > exactly?
>
> Tell us what your basis for that opinion is.
My basis for "not being convinced that we didn't get snookered" is lingering
doubt that maybe, just maybe, bin Laden actually *was* the owner or part
owner of that plant through some twisted chain, whether or not it was
completely harmless or not.
He, after all, has significant investments in Sudan and elsewhere, many of
which are quite legit... date farms, water companies, and the like. Part of
his MO is to actually do good works/provide legitimate employment in the
country he wants to set up in as a way to look better. Certainly a pharma
plant is a good work and employment provider so it's not beyond the realm of
possibility to think he might have been the owner.
So "not being convinced" is satisfied as far as I am concerned. I have
lingering doubts. That's it.
Note that I never said "I am sure we DID get taken on this". If you could
actually read for comprehension you would have figured this out from the
first. But you have more fun bludgeoning than paying attention, I guess.
> > Get a grip on yourself and your frothing.
> I have a firm grip on reality. I'm not so sure you do. I'm not the only one
> who thinks that either.
Should we take a poll on who has a firmer grip?
Or perhaps on who is a more valuable contributor?
Or perhaps on who is more annoying?
Or more clueless?
Heck, I'd even accept the outcome of a poll with these three choices:
- Ban Scott from .debate, he is low value add and annoying
- Ban Larry from .debate, he is low value add and annoying
- Ban neither of them, they're both fine enough
(although I won't accept "ban both", sorry, it's me OR you that has to go)
with votes restricted to those who have posted to this forum in the last two
years that choose to vote.
Would you accept such an outcome?
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GKzyrx.D4z@lugnet.com... (...) What about a fight to the death? Via webcam of course. Or better still Ban lugnet.off-topic.debate, so we can get back to discussing Lego. regards (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
| (...) I doubt most o-t-debators would choose seriously from any of the above options other than the 3rd, though maybe that's just me. I can't see actually wanting to ban either of you based on your previous content. A poll to the first set of (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
