The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml ?type=politicsNews&storyID=4106493
Page:
Light wrote:
> Now, are you finally going to answer the questions? Or are you going
> to try and squirm and slither your way out of answering questions
> that it's increasingly clear you don't know the answers to?
---------
*raises hand*
I'd also like a question to the topic you let sink faster than the Belgrano please Belldandy:
Why was my post a "nice little Ignatious thing btw, but to little end if any"?
You still haven't answered me despite repeated, calm and explanatory questions for you to do so.
In case you've forgotten, I'll remind you
"Nice little Ignatious thing btw, but to little end if any"
My question is: Why is it a 'nice little Ignatious thing'?
Not what did I mean, but why is it a nice little Ignatious thing *TO YOU*
Got it? Not what did I mean or what was I implying, but why did you think it was a nice little Ignatious thing.
Y'see, I believe that you didn't have a clue what I was talking about but felt the need to try and appear superior - without actually understanding the point.
You have repeatedly dodged and refused to answer that simple question, using lexicon and phrasealogy employed by myself, Light and Mr Snuggly in an effort to distract and not answer.
So, even thought you've already proved yourself a halfwit dangling in the wind with his stars'n'stripes undies twisted, I'll ask once more:
What was it about my comment to you that made you think it was a "nice little Ignatious thing", and why was it to no end?
And in case you think anything else or think anybody is taking your words seriously:
The failure to answer my perfectly reasonable question is an admittance that you didn't in fact understand the comment, and stubbornly refuse to answer because to do so is to realise that you've been recognised as a man of bluster.
Halofan.
> Now, are you finally going to answer the questions? Or are you going
> to try and squirm and slither your way out of answering questions
> that it's increasingly clear you don't know the answers to?
---------
*raises hand*
I'd also like a question to the topic you let sink faster than the Belgrano please Belldandy:
Why was my post a "nice little Ignatious thing btw, but to little end if any"?
You still haven't answered me despite repeated, calm and explanatory questions for you to do so.
In case you've forgotten, I'll remind you
"Nice little Ignatious thing btw, but to little end if any"
My question is: Why is it a 'nice little Ignatious thing'?
Not what did I mean, but why is it a nice little Ignatious thing *TO YOU*
Got it? Not what did I mean or what was I implying, but why did you think it was a nice little Ignatious thing.
Y'see, I believe that you didn't have a clue what I was talking about but felt the need to try and appear superior - without actually understanding the point.
You have repeatedly dodged and refused to answer that simple question, using lexicon and phrasealogy employed by myself, Light and Mr Snuggly in an effort to distract and not answer.
So, even thought you've already proved yourself a halfwit dangling in the wind with his stars'n'stripes undies twisted, I'll ask once more:
What was it about my comment to you that made you think it was a "nice little Ignatious thing", and why was it to no end?
And in case you think anything else or think anybody is taking your words seriously:
The failure to answer my perfectly reasonable question is an admittance that you didn't in fact understand the comment, and stubbornly refuse to answer because to do so is to realise that you've been recognised as a man of bluster.
Halofan.
No, I'm not interested in answering your questions because anything I say will make no difference to you either way. You can't even stick to your stupid little questions, questions I might add that I have not even voiced any actual opinion on, though no doubt in your mind I have "hinted" at an opinion...
Belldandy wrote:
> Ha ha, how do you know "government insider" is the same
> person?
>
Erm...because 'government insider' is my choice of words referring to Paul O Neill, who's comments about Bush being a blind man...etc started this thread.
Bell, you've actually forgotten what this thread was even about, haven't you? Yet you still post to try and look clever. And the effect? You look like a fool.
> Again your only source of criticism is the usual bunch of negative
> counters. You'll go far.
No Bell, I'm afraid my source of criticism this time is...well, I believe I'll use the link you posted first of all;
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html
Where Paul O'Neill says that his comments about plans to invade Iraq were taken out of context. As he's a former treasury secretary, I think you'd agree that 'government insider' describes him well, no?
Now, the original article that started this thread;
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml ?type=politicsNews&storyID=4106493
refers to the comment, made by Paul O'Neill, that "Bush is a blind man in a room full of deaf people"
I'd call that fairly conclusive proof that they're the same person, wouldn't you?
Now, are you finally going to answer the questions? Or are you going to try and squirm and slither your way out of answering questions that it's increasingly clear you don't know the answers to? C'mon Bell, I'm intrigued to see how you're going to try and twist yourself out of this knot.
> Ha ha, how do you know "government insider" is the same
> person?
>
Erm...because 'government insider' is my choice of words referring to Paul O Neill, who's comments about Bush being a blind man...etc started this thread.
Bell, you've actually forgotten what this thread was even about, haven't you? Yet you still post to try and look clever. And the effect? You look like a fool.
> Again your only source of criticism is the usual bunch of negative
> counters. You'll go far.
No Bell, I'm afraid my source of criticism this time is...well, I believe I'll use the link you posted first of all;
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html
Where Paul O'Neill says that his comments about plans to invade Iraq were taken out of context. As he's a former treasury secretary, I think you'd agree that 'government insider' describes him well, no?
Now, the original article that started this thread;
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml ?type=politicsNews&storyID=4106493
refers to the comment, made by Paul O'Neill, that "Bush is a blind man in a room full of deaf people"
I'd call that fairly conclusive proof that they're the same person, wouldn't you?
Now, are you finally going to answer the questions? Or are you going to try and squirm and slither your way out of answering questions that it's increasingly clear you don't know the answers to? C'mon Bell, I'm intrigued to see how you're going to try and twist yourself out of this knot.
Ha ha, how do you know "government insider" is the same person?
Again your only source of criticism is the usual bunch of negative counters. You'll go far.
Again your only source of criticism is the usual bunch of negative counters. You'll go far.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> 'Fraid you do dear boy; and you keep avoiding them. So, to make it
> crystal clear...
>
> 1. This thread begins with a quote from a former member of the Bush
> administration. You criticise the man and say that he's only doing
> it
> cos he has a book to sell.
> 2. Yet you then post a link to an article where this man states that
> some of his criticisms (those about advance plans to invade Iraq)
> have been taken out of context. So, therefore my first question
> is....
>
> - Why are you unwilling to believe the man when he criticises Dubya,
> but you believe him without question when he supports him?
>
> erm did I say I believed him?
So can you clarify Bell; do you believe what he said in the article you posted the link to; yes or no?
>
> 3. Nothing in the article you posted addresses the main criticism of
> Dubya; that he is "Like a blind man in a room full of deaf
> people" as a president. So my second question is....
>
> - Have you got anything to rebutt the accusation by a government
> insider that Dubya is inept?
>
> Well my most obvious point would be the lack of "government
> insider's" name because that usually means "journalist made
> it up" or "sandwich run boy"...if a person is not
> willing to put their name to an accusation then it is not worth the
> paper it is printed on. However, 2 other key points-
Really? Because the government insider who made this accusation is the same one named in the article you posted the link to in this thread. So Bell, this would seem to show that you haven't a clue what you're talking about, have you? You don't even know the background to this entire situation, yet you've come up with an instamatic opinion, haven't you?
>
> 1)Removed in 21 days a regime the UN could not deal with in 12
> years.
Yeah, they sure did. And they've got the whole situation under control....oh.
> 2)Gave NASA a new mission following Columbia.
Mm, and in an election year too. Who woulda thunk it?
> That's leaving aside the obvious triumphs of the war on terror and
> the response to 9/11.
Obvious triumphs? Oh yeah...the constant terror alerts that don't even end in arrests, the constant stream of deaths in Iraq....HUGE triumps Bell. And spare me the 9/11 references; you lost the right to get all prissy about the the instant you took the proverbial out of Goatboy for losing a relative in that attack.
>
> 'Fraid you do dear boy; and you keep avoiding them. So, to make it
> crystal clear...
>
> 1. This thread begins with a quote from a former member of the Bush
> administration. You criticise the man and say that he's only doing
> it
> cos he has a book to sell.
> 2. Yet you then post a link to an article where this man states that
> some of his criticisms (those about advance plans to invade Iraq)
> have been taken out of context. So, therefore my first question
> is....
>
> - Why are you unwilling to believe the man when he criticises Dubya,
> but you believe him without question when he supports him?
>
> erm did I say I believed him?
So can you clarify Bell; do you believe what he said in the article you posted the link to; yes or no?
>
> 3. Nothing in the article you posted addresses the main criticism of
> Dubya; that he is "Like a blind man in a room full of deaf
> people" as a president. So my second question is....
>
> - Have you got anything to rebutt the accusation by a government
> insider that Dubya is inept?
>
> Well my most obvious point would be the lack of "government
> insider's" name because that usually means "journalist made
> it up" or "sandwich run boy"...if a person is not
> willing to put their name to an accusation then it is not worth the
> paper it is printed on. However, 2 other key points-
Really? Because the government insider who made this accusation is the same one named in the article you posted the link to in this thread. So Bell, this would seem to show that you haven't a clue what you're talking about, have you? You don't even know the background to this entire situation, yet you've come up with an instamatic opinion, haven't you?
>
> 1)Removed in 21 days a regime the UN could not deal with in 12
> years.
Yeah, they sure did. And they've got the whole situation under control....oh.
> 2)Gave NASA a new mission following Columbia.
Mm, and in an election year too. Who woulda thunk it?
> That's leaving aside the obvious triumphs of the war on terror and
> the response to 9/11.
Obvious triumphs? Oh yeah...the constant terror alerts that don't even end in arrests, the constant stream of deaths in Iraq....HUGE triumps Bell. And spare me the 9/11 references; you lost the right to get all prissy about the the instant you took the proverbial out of Goatboy for losing a relative in that attack.
Light wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> There is also a flaw with your questions, Light. Because if you
> actually look at what I posted, I never even say anything about your
> questions...
>
> 'Fraid you do dear boy; and you keep avoiding them. So, to make it
> crystal clear...
>
> 1. This thread begins with a quote from a former member of the Bush
> administration. You criticise the man and say that he's only doing it
> cos he has a book to sell.
> 2. Yet you then post a link to an article where this man states that
> some of his criticisms (those about advance plans to invade Iraq)
> have been taken out of context. So, therefore my first question
> is....
>
> - Why are you unwilling to believe the man when he criticises Dubya,
> but you believe him without question when he supports him?
erm did I say I believed him?
> 3. Nothing in the article you posted addresses the main criticism of
> Dubya; that he is "Like a blind man in a room full of deaf
> people" as a president. So my second question is....
>
> - Have you got anything to rebutt the accusation by a government
> insider that Dubya is inept?
Well my most obvious point would be the lack of "government insider's" name because that usually means "journalist made it up" or "sandwich run boy"...if a person is not willing to put their name to an accusation then it is not worth the paper it is printed on. However, 2 other key points-
1)Removed in 21 days a regime the UN could not deal with in 12 years.
2)Gave NASA a new mission following Columbia.
That's leaving aside the obvious triumphs of the war on terror and the response to 9/11.
> Belldandy wrote:
> There is also a flaw with your questions, Light. Because if you
> actually look at what I posted, I never even say anything about your
> questions...
>
> 'Fraid you do dear boy; and you keep avoiding them. So, to make it
> crystal clear...
>
> 1. This thread begins with a quote from a former member of the Bush
> administration. You criticise the man and say that he's only doing it
> cos he has a book to sell.
> 2. Yet you then post a link to an article where this man states that
> some of his criticisms (those about advance plans to invade Iraq)
> have been taken out of context. So, therefore my first question
> is....
>
> - Why are you unwilling to believe the man when he criticises Dubya,
> but you believe him without question when he supports him?
erm did I say I believed him?
> 3. Nothing in the article you posted addresses the main criticism of
> Dubya; that he is "Like a blind man in a room full of deaf
> people" as a president. So my second question is....
>
> - Have you got anything to rebutt the accusation by a government
> insider that Dubya is inept?
Well my most obvious point would be the lack of "government insider's" name because that usually means "journalist made it up" or "sandwich run boy"...if a person is not willing to put their name to an accusation then it is not worth the paper it is printed on. However, 2 other key points-
1)Removed in 21 days a regime the UN could not deal with in 12 years.
2)Gave NASA a new mission following Columbia.
That's leaving aside the obvious triumphs of the war on terror and the response to 9/11.
Light wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> There is also a flaw with your questions, Light. Because if you
> actually look at what I posted, I never even say anything about your
> questions...
>
> 'Fraid you do dear boy; and you keep avoiding them. So, to make it
> crystal clear...
>
> 1. This thread begins with a quote from a former member of the Bush
> administration. You criticise the man and say that he's only doing it
> cos he has a book to sell.
> 2. Yet you then post a link to an article where this man states that
> some of his criticisms (those about advance plans to invade Iraq)
> have been taken out of context. So, therefore my first question
> is....
>
> - Why are you unwilling to believe the man when he criticises Dubya,
> but you believe him without question when he supports him?
>
> 3. Nothing in the article you posted addresses the main criticism of
> Dubya; that he is "Like a blind man in a room full of deaf
> people" as a president. So my second question is....
>
> - Have you got anything to rebutt the accusation by a government
> insider that Dubya is inept?
Hello Bell. Still waiting for you to respond to this one.
> Belldandy wrote:
> There is also a flaw with your questions, Light. Because if you
> actually look at what I posted, I never even say anything about your
> questions...
>
> 'Fraid you do dear boy; and you keep avoiding them. So, to make it
> crystal clear...
>
> 1. This thread begins with a quote from a former member of the Bush
> administration. You criticise the man and say that he's only doing it
> cos he has a book to sell.
> 2. Yet you then post a link to an article where this man states that
> some of his criticisms (those about advance plans to invade Iraq)
> have been taken out of context. So, therefore my first question
> is....
>
> - Why are you unwilling to believe the man when he criticises Dubya,
> but you believe him without question when he supports him?
>
> 3. Nothing in the article you posted addresses the main criticism of
> Dubya; that he is "Like a blind man in a room full of deaf
> people" as a president. So my second question is....
>
> - Have you got anything to rebutt the accusation by a government
> insider that Dubya is inept?
Hello Bell. Still waiting for you to respond to this one.
Belldandy wrote:
> There is also a flaw with your questions, Light. Because if you
> actually look at what I posted, I never even say anything about your
> questions...
'Fraid you do dear boy; and you keep avoiding them. So, to make it crystal clear...
1. This thread begins with a quote from a former member of the Bush administration. You criticise the man and say that he's only doing it cos he has a book to sell.
2. Yet you then post a link to an article where this man states that some of his criticisms (those about advance plans to invade Iraq) have been taken out of context. So, therefore my first question is....
- Why are you unwilling to believe the man when he criticises Dubya, but you believe him without question when he supports him?
3. Nothing in the article you posted addresses the main criticism of Dubya; that he is "Like a blind man in a room full of deaf people" as a president. So my second question is....
- Have you got anything to rebutt the accusation by a government insider that Dubya is inept?
> There is also a flaw with your questions, Light. Because if you
> actually look at what I posted, I never even say anything about your
> questions...
'Fraid you do dear boy; and you keep avoiding them. So, to make it crystal clear...
1. This thread begins with a quote from a former member of the Bush administration. You criticise the man and say that he's only doing it cos he has a book to sell.
2. Yet you then post a link to an article where this man states that some of his criticisms (those about advance plans to invade Iraq) have been taken out of context. So, therefore my first question is....
- Why are you unwilling to believe the man when he criticises Dubya, but you believe him without question when he supports him?
3. Nothing in the article you posted addresses the main criticism of Dubya; that he is "Like a blind man in a room full of deaf people" as a president. So my second question is....
- Have you got anything to rebutt the accusation by a government insider that Dubya is inept?
There is also a flaw with your questions, Light. Because if you actually look at what I posted, I never even say anything about your questions...
Belldandy wrote:
> Oh I know it. I quite like it when Light assumes it's him doing it,
> all part of his superiority complex.
Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa!!!!!
Bell, I may be wrong, but aren't you the one who keeps throwing tantrums and stomping off for a few weeks? And aren't you the one who responded with an "IB is GUILTY" rage at being baited? So doesn't that...well, doesn't that make a mockery of your claim?
Incidentally, you STILL haven't answered the two questions on this thread. Y'see, when I made an error, I admitted to it. Nice and simple. But you're just avoiding it...and funnily enough, judging by the cannabis thread, it's led to the majority of posters viewing you as a rather sad joke of a human being.
> Oh I know it. I quite like it when Light assumes it's him doing it,
> all part of his superiority complex.
Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa!!!!!
Bell, I may be wrong, but aren't you the one who keeps throwing tantrums and stomping off for a few weeks? And aren't you the one who responded with an "IB is GUILTY" rage at being baited? So doesn't that...well, doesn't that make a mockery of your claim?
Incidentally, you STILL haven't answered the two questions on this thread. Y'see, when I made an error, I admitted to it. Nice and simple. But you're just avoiding it...and funnily enough, judging by the cannabis thread, it's led to the majority of posters viewing you as a rather sad joke of a human being.
Page: