Viewing Thread:
"Tony Blair "very angry" that Prime Minister leaked Hutton Report"

Well, it looks like he got away with it, anyway.

I don't think anybody is too surprised that a Tony Blair appointee didn't find fault with Tony Blair but, still, it's annoying.

Roll on a proper inquiry into Iraq.

Now, as much as I'd love to respond to Light, I fear that the majority of you would simply skip pass it and mark it down as another one of these customary spats.

So instead I'll keep it short and simple.

Light - no in fact anybody - find me where I say that the Hutton report validates the war. Light says that is what I am saying. So someone please find where I said it.

Come one Light, no more messing around, find where I say it and quote the reply.

Just as soon as you answer my "Ignatious" question and where you get "as Goatboy is doing with anime"

Works both ways chum.

Okay so one person can't find it. Next.

And Anime? You call them cartoons, enough said.

Ignatious, well to be honest it could be a number of references and the context you use it in means the meaning is vague. At a guess it is either

1)Dogma reference - the nutty priest
2)Religious reference - doubtful
3)This nutty english guy Ignatious
4)Office reference - never watched the program so that's a guess.

Failing any of the above an obscure pop culture reference which you can share with us all...

Belldandy wrote:
> Okay so one person can't find it. Next.
>
> And Anime? You call them cartoons, enough said.
---

"Next"? My dear deluded Bell, I haven't said anything at all about the Hutton enquiry nor your comments about it, so don't try that one on me.
And "enough said", is yet again ducking your original comment, clown.

I'll pop it for you if you like, "As Goatboy is doing with anime" when Light asked you to justify your comments on a subject you were holding forth in detail about (cannabis) but offering nothing but repeated info and banner-headline moronity.

Go down a few and read what I said, and you have clumsily co-opted to give yourself some weight and intelligence:
"Find the post where I discuss anime in any kind of depth"

Really, you *are* floundering aren't you.

Belldandy wrote:
> Ignatious, well to be honest it could be a number of references and
> the context you use it in means the meaning is vague.

---

Nope, you are avoiding the point of my question. Yet again.
You said "Nice Ignatious line", and I have asked you what *you* think I meant by it in order for you to smugly toss it aside with
"Nice Ignatious line, with little if any relevance" - or words to that effect, I'll pop it so you can be certain.
I didn't ask what I meant by it, I asked what you thought I meant so that you felt compelled to acknowledge it.
In order for you to award it some minor sarcastic relevance, you must have an idea of what it means *to you* when you said that.

So, just so there's no confusion:

What does Belldandy think I mean with my "Ignatious" reference that you felt you had to acknowledge it and then dismiss out of hand?

Here is your exact post:
"(nice little Ignatious thing BTW but to little end)"
-------

So, in what way was it a "nice little Ignatious thing BTW" and how was it "to little end"?

Y'see your statement implies that you fully understand what I was saying and why, to the extent that you are able to negate my comment.
Which can only be achieved through complicit understanding of my intent and the context in which the word was used.
Which isn't the avoiding answer you have provided with multiple choice options and the disclaimer that I would dismiss it out of hand and therefore you "can't win".

I've got until the stars burn out to patiently point out the flaws in your half-wit attempts to be sarcastic and flippant.
And, as with "I was wait for it, wrong", I will continue to highlight the fact that rather than say "Yeah, whoops!", you will concoct all manner of replies that would befit a Mission Impossible plot for twists and turns.

Simple question that you *still* haven't answered.
I'll wait because I'm nice like that.

Do you chaps never get typer's cramp?

Belldandy wrote:
> Ignatious, well to be honest it could be a number of references and
> the context you use it in means the meaning is vague.
--------

Which is a strange answer given your original comment:
""(nice little Ignatious thing BTW but to little end)"

Your original comment doesn't allow for "a number of references", and it certainly appears that you understand "the context you use it in", which renders absolutely no vagueness in meaning, as you clearly understood what I meant, otherwise your "nice little Ignatious thing BTW but to little end" would suggest that, actually, you had absolutely no idea what I meant - but would not allow yourself to appear like you didn't understand.

And your utter pettiness at trying to prove to everybody that you're the bestest ever and picked on by a hateful cabal of smoking communists that are trying to destroy democracy, truth, justice and the American Way means rather than simply ignore a comment you didn't quite understand, you had to preen and sneer to suggest "Well actually Goatboy, I got that and it was rubbish"

Except...well...you don't actually know what I meant and are now frantically trying to find a way to come out smelling of victory instead of, once more, shameful ignorance.
This is what happens when you make a comment you think will indicate your staggering intelligence, common sense and inner-fantasticness - but it always, always comes back to bite you on the ass.

If you only had the humility to say "I don't know/I don't read that/I don't watch that", then you wouldn't constantly be picked apart like this.
But you don't.
You have to appear as the Oracle of Everything, hence your googling for facts and figures to back up a stance you take immediately and stick to, even when it becomes untenable.

That's why you're a laughing stock here Bell.
It's not that you are this vilified seeker of truth, decency and saneness that is hunted and bullied by nasty boys (despite what you may tell yourself).
It's that you are a blowhard that postures and presents an initially impressive font of knowledge, but lacking any experience or personal thoughts to a topic, you are unably to support any ideas you present.
Because they're not your ideas, simply recycled propaganda from The Daily Mail/The Prime Minister and you don't actually understand the arguments.

But you'll never admit that (Michael Moore, Cannabis, Kapos etc etc) and turn in ever decreasing circles until even you cannot untie yourself, and promptly disappear until you think it's all forgotten.
Then come back and it all repeats.

Insane Bartender wrote:
> Do you chaps never get typer's cramp?
----------

Nah, it's just automatic pilot. My eyes glaze as I run through the bi-monthly "Why Bell is a tool" post, and Bell lays his Pokemon-masked face on the keys and headbutts in some bizarre Pickachu attack impression