On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:53:40 -0400, Sis
<sister72@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Phil Earnhardt wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:24:22 -0400, Sis
<sister72@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Phil Earnhardt wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:42:16 -0400, Sis
<sister72@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-08-powell-iraq_x.htm
Do you think that document clearly and cogently makes the case for the
so-called lies of the Bush administration, Sis?
--phil
Well Phil, it seems nothing makes you happy!
It has nothing to do with me. It has to do with whether or not *you*
are happy. All you did was post the URL with no explanation.
Do you think that document provides a "proof" of the "lie"?
You asked for ONE
document. There you go!
And you stake your reputation on that one document? You think it
provides clear and irrevocable proof that Bush lied?
If you wanted more than one,
Nope. One is fine. I just have no idea why you were posting the URL.
you should have said so instead of changing
the rules after the game had started,
I'm just asking you to clarify why you posted the URL to the document.
You think that provides clear and complete "proof" that Bush lied?
but then, you've been doing that
right along haven't you? ;-)
No.
My point is to demonstrate that, just maybe, the Emperor Wears No
Clothes. The "proof" of a "lie" should not be accomplished with
innuendo; it should be provided by facts.
If you think the document you referenced is sufficient to "prove" that
-- if you stake your reputation behind it -- please say so.
I think Colin Powell's statements are quite impressive. Don't you?
Perhaps. If you want to hear my reaction to the document, you'll first
have to say something far stronger than that. See above.
Jackie
Will you stop playing games and just talk. I'm getting tired of your
demands.
I am not a psychic. I've been talking primarily with our peace wagerer
and Jim -- asking them to provide a document that succinctly says what
they think the "lie" is and the "proof" of the lie. I wasn't even
directly talking with you; you post a random URL with no explanation
why.
You're not holding hostages, you're having a discussion.
Exactly! If you post a URL, you should say why you are posting the
URL.
Just
say what you want to say and be done with it.
Say what from the document you think the lie was.
Say what from the document "prooves" that Bush was lying.
What Colin Powell said was
significant.
That's very good.
Very much so.
Gosh. That's even better!
Get on with it.
Again: I have no idea what your rols is in this discussion.
If you thinks the Powell document meets my criteria, please address
the two requests:
1. Say what from the document you think the lie was.
2. Say what from the document "prooves" that Bush was lying.
If you were just posting it to share what you felt was a significant
document, thank you for posting it.
Jackie
--phil
