«

Eric Sosman <> writes:
> On 1/29/2010 3:14 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Tim Streater<> writes:
>>> On 29/01/2010 19:13, Antoninus Twink wrote:
>> [nonsense snipped]
>>>
>>> What lies do you think Blair has uttered?
>> [snip]
>>
>> Can we *please* not have discussions of controversial and utterly
>> irrelevant political topics here?
>
> Most especially, discussions fomented by people who are
> obviously ignorant of those very topics? People, for example,
> who cannot identify the Prime Minister of Great Britain?

Eric, I'm afraid there's an inaccuracy in your followup. In my
attempt to cut off this thread, I'll only mention that without further
elaboration.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Christopher Bazley <> writes:
[...]
> This is way off topic, but
[...]

So please take it somewhere else and stop feeding the troll.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

In message <4b6371ba$0$14130$>
Sjouke Burry <> wrote:

> Antoninus Twink wrote:
>> On 29 Jan 2010 at 23:05, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 29/01/2010 19:26, jacob navia wrote:
>>>> Tim Streater a écrit :
>>>>> What lies do you think Blair has uttered?
>>>> Weapons of mass destruction anyone? Where are they? Wasn't that the
>>>> reason for the war as announced by blair/bush???
>>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Yes, indeed.
>>
>> As I see it, there are two lies of monumental significance that Blair
>> has refused to back down from.
>>
>> 1. He knew that there were no WMD, but he fabricated a dossier to claim
>> that there were. A lie.

> Now I have a very big problem:
> what did The Saddam regime use to gas the Kourds with?
> What did Ali Cyancali use to gas them?
> According to you they never had the means, and they did not do it???
> Explain please.....

This is way off topic, but some people would describe those munitions
as battlefield weapons rather than weapons of mass destruction. (In
the first world war nobody called poison gas 'WMD'.)

Also, the fact the Baath regime had chemical weapons in the past
doesn't necessarily mean that they had them immediately before the
second gulf war.

--
Chris Bazley
Star Fighter 3000: http://starfighter.acornarcade.com/

In message <>
Antoninus Twink <> wrote:

> On 28 Jan 2010 at 9:39, Nick Keighley wrote:
>> On 27 Jan, 19:58, Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> The rest of us just saw a stupid piece of dishonesty from a serial liar.
>>
>> have you considered taking a break? you seem to be getting quite
>> bitter.

> You may be right, Nick. Sometimes the bullshit of this group, and the
> swaggering arrogance of Heathfield and Thomson just grinds you down.

> I thought of Heathfield just now while watching Prime Minister Blair on
> TV. Is it something about the British that makes them such bare-faced
> liars? I like to think that dishonest Americans at least feel some shame
> about their lies.

As a Briton, I find that generalisation offensive. But presumably it
was supposed to be.

--
Chris Bazley
Star Fighter 3000: http://starfighter.acornarcade.com/

Keith Thompson <kst-> writes:

> Eric Sosman <> writes:
>> On 1/29/2010 3:14 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Tim Streater<> writes:
>>>> On 29/01/2010 19:13, Antoninus Twink wrote:
>>> [nonsense snipped]
>>>>
>>>> What lies do you think Blair has uttered?
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Can we *please* not have discussions of controversial and utterly
>>> irrelevant political topics here?
>>
>> Most especially, discussions fomented by people who are
>> obviously ignorant of those very topics? People, for example,
>> who cannot identify the Prime Minister of Great Britain?
>
> Eric, I'm afraid there's an inaccuracy in your followup. In my
> attempt to cut off this thread, I'll only mention that without further
> elaboration.

Trying to cut off an off-topic thread by contributing to it would seem
to be a doomed tactic; especially when the contribution is mysterious.
I can't see the the inaccuracy to which you refer and that piqued my
curiosity. You are welcome to reply by email, it you want to try
cutting off the thread by not contributing to it further.

--
Ben.

(Richard Harter) writes:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:15:49 -0800, Keith Thompson
> <kst-> wrote:
>>Christopher Bazley <> writes:
>>[...]
>>> This is way off topic, but
>>[...]
>>
>>So please take it somewhere else and stop feeding the troll.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> The marked phrase is the point at which your post no longer was a
> civil request and instead became a bit of name calling that made
> a mockery of your "please".

The "please" was addressed to Christopher Bazley. The word "troll"
was directed at "Antoninus Twink". If you have a problem with me
referring to "Antoninus Twink" as a troll, I'll be glad to discuss
it with you in e-mail.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Christopher Bazley <> writes:

> In message <>
> Antoninus Twink <> wrote:
>
>> On 28 Jan 2010 at 9:39, Nick Keighley wrote:
>>> On 27 Jan, 19:58, Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> The rest of us just saw a stupid piece of dishonesty from a serial liar.
>>>
>>> have you considered taking a break? you seem to be getting quite
>>> bitter.
>
>> You may be right, Nick. Sometimes the bullshit of this group, and the
>> swaggering arrogance of Heathfield and Thomson just grinds you down.
>
>> I thought of Heathfield just now while watching Prime Minister Blair on
>> TV. Is it something about the British that makes them such bare-faced
>> liars? I like to think that dishonest Americans at least feel some shame
>> about their lies.
>
> As a Briton, I find that generalisation offensive. But presumably it
> was supposed to be.

I didn't, because I didn't read it, because I've killfiled the troll.
Quoting him doing his usual crap is bad enough. Quoting him spewing
racist garbage is worse. Please, just ignore the idiot.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk

On 29 Jan 2010 at 23:39, Sjouke Burry wrote:
> what did The Saddam regime use to gas the Kourds with?
> What did Ali Cyancali use to gas them?
> According to you they never had the means, and they did not do it???

No. They had the means in the 80s and early 90s.

Those means were destroyed after the first gulf war.

They no longer had the means in the runup to the second gulf war.

Hans Blix confirmed it, everybody knew it.

On 30 Jan 2010 at 2:14, Keith Thompson wrote:
> If you have a problem with me referring to "Antoninus Twink" as a
> troll, I'll be glad to discuss it with you in e-mail.

If you have something to say about me, why not say it openly to my face
instead of sneaking behind everyone's back?

On 30 Jan 2010 at 0:42, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> You are welcome to reply by email, it you want to try cutting off the
> thread by not contributing to it further.

If he does email you, it would be good if you could post the reply here
to explain the mystery to those of us who aren't in Kiki's inner circle.