Posted on 12/10/2005 10:42:38 PM PST by Big Bad Bob
Edited on 12/10/2005 11:05:40 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
This has to be terrorists!
You really should look up the word "proof" in the dictionary before using it any more. You used a form of it in your false accusation, and another form of it in your denial. LOL - rather ironic, don't you think?
This can't possibly be terrorists!
No, you quoted me out of context, claimed I meant something other than what I clearly meant, and attributed an additional statement to me which I never made. And since your second lie "proves" that your first lie was the truth, it all balances out, right? That's not quite as ingenious as "I never had sex with that woman," but with some more practice, you'll get there.
Now, since you've made it plain that you have no point other than to irritate Freepers who believe the investigation should come before the final report, I'm done with you. Please refrain from subjecting me to any more of your childhood antics.
I hardly think I need english lessons from someone who treats "statement" and "conclusion" as synonyms.
I'm sorry you're incapable of seeing the difference. There is nothing I can do for someone who is either incapable of or unwilling to learn. Now go away.
Actually, this is really very amusing. I do, in fact, enjoy watching you scramble about searching for some rhetorical angle that provides you with 'plausible deniability,' like Elizabeth Taylor looking for a camera angle that won't make her look old and fat.
The simple fact is *you* are the one that drew that parallel between 9/11 and the current disaster, not me.
As much as I know you'd like to be able to take it back, consider the last clause of the first sentence I put in boldface, as well as the ensuing sentences.
I've no doubt your cognitive dissonance has started to kick in, so you will get a sort of 'swimmy' view of what you wrote as your mind tries to make it say what you want it to while your eyes just won't go along with the program. Don't worry though. The rest of us aren't as invested in what you wrote, and will be able to read what you said quite clearly ;o)
I have asked you to stop lying to and about me, and to leave me alone. Yet you continue to harass me. Knock it off now. I am growing weary of correcting your lies about me. I did not parallel 9-11 with anything. Two events were mentioned in a previous conversation that I had with a different freeper. At no time did I suggest that any other event was the same as 9-11.
Let me make this clear to even you. Do not lie about me. Do not slander me. Do not post to me.
You know you really should read "Odd Girl Out" by Rachel Simmons. You are a textbook case for the 'alternative aggression' used by girls on the schoolyard.
It may not do anything to help you grow out of your petulance, but it might teach you how to obscure it better.
What part of "Do not lie about me. Do not slander me. Do not post to me." do you fail to understand?
I understand all of it. The part I'm having trouble with is exactly how it applies to me.
As for the last sentence in the quote, I hardly think I can be asked not to post to you when you continually post to me.
A review of the posts will reveal that you introduced yourself to me by picking an argument over nothing. You did the same thing to MikeinIraq. You attempted to pit us against each other for you own entertainment, because you thought we had opposing views. You have done nothing but lie and harass. Now back off!
You and Mike are polar opposites.
Just as I took Mike to task for improperly claiming some freepers (before you, that is) were allowing for no other cause but terrorism for the disaster, so I took you to task for the absurd claim the initial statements made by authorities "shows" there was a cover-up in the making.
My position has been nothing but consistent. While you have tried to position yourself as being in common cause with Mike.
Furthermore, I haven't repeatedly used the "sheeple" slur as the only alternative to accepting your claims.
Tonight, you're gung-ho on investigation. Last night, you were trying to impugn conclusions that haven't even been made yet.
I really see very little difference between your arguments, and those denying we ever made it to the moon.
I do not claim to be identical to Mike, but we were both in agreement that it was too early to draw conclusions. Until you began insulting us and trying to pit us against each other, you claimed to hold the same position we do. You changed your position when you began harassing others who held the same view. So explain your real reason for harassing me, and lying about me. I see now that it has nothing to do with anything I've said on this thread. What previous thread are you carrying a grudge over? Does this have anything to do with some other site that you may be a member of?
Don't you think the most obvious question should be "why are you and Mike the ONLY ones on this thread I've had a disagreement with?"
You keep scrambling around looking for a way out of this without losing face, whether it's pinging the Lead Mod to come to your rescue, or accusing me of every manner of malfeasance but the kidnapping of the Lindberg Baby, and you don't see you've *already lost* face.
You were not the first to say the authorities shouldn't try to draw conclusions without a proper investigation. You were the first to say they ARE making conclusions without a proper investigation.
Canard already pointed out you have no basis to be critical of the authorities decision to dismiss the "ear-witness" reports, but other than your not liking it, I can find no reason for you to question that decision.
TX. agree w/ reply. also, heard/read 'bout this scenario before now.
this is the basis for my cynical original comment. we gotta DO MORE than an after the fact "band aid" approach to terrorism....
I arrived a little late for the party. Nothing was mentioned on Fox News, or local channels about this.
There is an Arco refining facility near where I grew up. It catches fire, or explodes every once in a while. I wonder what the track record of the facility in question is. Questioning anything that blows up these days is prudent, not knee jerk. The authorities seem frantic in their determination to label everything an accident. We're living in a post 9/11, Madrid, London subway bombings world. There was a thread here about a pilot flying out of LAX, who saw a "vapor trail" pass by his airplane. The usual ostriches pulled their heads out to deny any possibility that it could have been a botched "hit".
Christmas/Hannukah season is upon us. Terrorists love symbolism, and there have been warnings issued. If something happens, the usual gang of idiots will jump up and down insisting that terrorists had nothing to do with it. Really.
Bottom line is that England and the US will have to rethink our benevolence regarding our Muslim brothers and sisters living in our countries. This is what our governments are afraid of. They've been neutered by their own political correctness, and our sworn enemies are taking advantage of it.
If this was a terrorist attack, the terrorist organisation will be claiming responsibility by now.
There is no valid reason why a group will blow up a target and not claim responsibility especially a economic target such as this.
yeah lets keep this under wraps and continue to report about natalie holloway
Keep what under wraps and who is natalie holloway and what does she have to do with the subject in hand
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.