Viewing Thread:
"An overview of this Dossier"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3049868.stm

--

Report due today.
Mentions the facts in nice, concise and clear points.
Of course, you could argue that the BBC is biased thanks to Alistair Campbell's comments.
Or you could argue that Campbell's tactics are to divert attention and interest away from the fundemental issues and get everyone concentrating on 45 mins and "sexed up".

I'll only say that Campbell is not an elected official, merely an independantly appointed advisor for Blair. A Spin Doctor who's job it is to minimise damage and put government in a favourable light.
He certainly deserves a raise, whatever the result.

Stryke wrote:
> Isn't it more fun to mock each other for being apprentices of each
> other?
>
> Never mind then.

Shut up apprentice Hedfix. :D

Isn't it more fun to mock each other for being apprentices of each other?

Never mind then.

Goatboy wrote:
> Ok, you seem to be doing the same thing again Bell, not understanding
> (deliberately or by mistake) what I am saying:
>
> You were wrong about the gardening in iraq thread. You said "this
> proves that Iraq is pursuing a nuclear programme", when in fact
> that link states that they had not the means nor the scientists to
> pursue a programme since the early nineties. "at some point"
> is a ridiculous comment, that could mean 1845.
>
> As for the Kapo thing.
> Your error, as well you know because I explained it in my response
> that you chose to not reply to (but have chosen to reply to each and
> every post in this thread), that it wasn't the translation I objected
> to - and I'll state it here - but your comments about what a Kapo was,
> their relation to Nazis and the treatment/feelings by prisoners.
> You said "calling someone a Kapo does not mean they're a
> Nazi".
> And as I explained, you were and are wrong.
> Not the translation but your comments about what a Kapo was and did.
>
> Yet you have chosen to not respond to that thread, if you look back
> (or I'll pop it), my comments were the last one.
> Same as your "Gardening in Iraq" thread, you chose not to
> respond to the links, information or questions I posed to you.
>
> And as my last post to you in this thread Bell, I explained why I get
> annoyed at you - because with areas that you feel you are correct
> then, as with here, you will reply to each and every single reply.
> But in threads were you are on shaky ground, you choose to ignore that
> thread and let it sink - hence me popping politely.
> I could take you a lot more seriously if you stuck to your dogmatic
> approach to arguing and responded to threads that post serious
> questions instead of choosing to ignore and move on.
---

This is what you are steadfastly refusing to acknowledge, twice today.
Which kinda proves the point.

*laughs knowingly*

Carry on gentlemen.

Miserableman wrote:
>
>
> There are thousands of Tories more clueless than you, you'll never get
> to the top.

Oh damn that's right. I have to be a stupid Tory...

Hedfix wrote:
> Excellent.
>
> Pointless arguments: check
> No hope of getting into government: check
> No clue on how to run the country: check
>
> I think I'll run for leader of the Tory party. :D


There are thousands of Tories more clueless than you, you'll never get to the top.

Excellent.

Pointless arguments: check
No hope of getting into government: check
No clue on how to run the country: check

I think I'll run for leader of the Tory party. :D

Hedfix wrote:
> I want in on this.
>
> *posts pointlessly*

No problem, you seem to have the general gist of the argument here :)

I want in on this.

*posts pointlessly*

Goatboy wrote:
> No, not obvious reasons.
> My post about 5 or 6 down.

Obvious reason = pattern of posting on this topic.

1.decent point posted by me or Goatboy.
2.response by the other
3.pointless post by Light/Blank
4.pointless post by Light/Blank
etc