[LtdGovt]

Yes, I was responding to one of your comments, that much is true. What isn't true and is obvious for all to see is that I wasn't responding to the comment you reference above. And all anybody has to do is read post 32 and the post to which I replied to see your obfuscation for what it is.

There would be no reason to being about that matter, unless you were referring to what I have said. You had probably read my comment and decided to say something about it.

Your continued failure to reference specific flaws in anything I've posted is quite telling.

I believe imitation is an indication of weakness. As for the specific flaws, I have already pointed them out - your failure to respond to my points does not make them less real.

[scripter]

You've called the material I posted propaganda (post 42). You told dcnd9 you were not reading propaganda pieces (post 88) and now you're saying you've pointed out flaws in propaganda you haven't read. You are mixing obfuscation with inconsistency.