Subject:
|
Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:10:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
786 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
Nothing tangible then?
>
> > > 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?
Don't be a fool. The truth is not about a popularity contest.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
| (...) I reminded readers it was a hunch, then gave my justification for my hunch, but you are still not satisfied. Whatever. Are we going to replay the statistics/hunch argument again but with even less basis? You have more fun bludgeoning than (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | ScottFroth(tm) answered
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
