The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.neilswaab.com/comics/wiggles/images/rehab239.jpg
Hits the nail squarely on the head.
Hits the nail squarely on the head.
Page:
Skarra wrote:
>
> He did say that the claims that the Government had sexed up stuff was
> 'unfounded'.
No; he said that Gilligan's (and therefore the BBC's) claim that Kelly had said the Government had sexed it up was unfounded. He didn't pass any comment on the governments evidence itself. Sounds picky, but the two are very different things.
>
> He did say that the claims that the Government had sexed up stuff was
> 'unfounded'.
No; he said that Gilligan's (and therefore the BBC's) claim that Kelly had said the Government had sexed it up was unfounded. He didn't pass any comment on the governments evidence itself. Sounds picky, but the two are very different things.
Skarra wrote:
>
> He did say that the claims that the Government had sexed up stuff was
> 'unfounded'.
No; he said that Gilligan's (and therefore the BBC's) claim that Kelly had said the Government had sexed it up was unfounded. He didn't pass any comment on the governments evidence itself. Sounds picky, but the two are very different things.
>
> He did say that the claims that the Government had sexed up stuff was
> 'unfounded'.
No; he said that Gilligan's (and therefore the BBC's) claim that Kelly had said the Government had sexed it up was unfounded. He didn't pass any comment on the governments evidence itself. Sounds picky, but the two are very different things.
Belldandy wrote:
> Nice try Snuggly, but no bite this time.
Whatever. Could you addess the points I've raised please.
> Nice try Snuggly, but no bite this time.
Whatever. Could you addess the points I've raised please.
Nice try Snuggly, but no bite this time.
Ah, I see - Bell's adopted the 'I'm too cool to argue with you' approach to paper over the cracks of his rapidly decaying defence. It might have worked, if only we didn't already know he's a coward.
And I thought you liked cartoons?
And I thought you liked cartoons?
Oh, has Light woken up? *yawn*
Light wrote:
> Uh Skarra, the Hutton enquiry was never set up to investigate the
> intel. It was about the death of a scientist,nothing more and nothing
> less. I expected better from you than to try and say it did anything
> other than absolve the government from blame in the death. It made no
> comment at all on the war intel, did it?
He did say that the claims that the Government had sexed up stuff was 'unfounded'.
> Uh Skarra, the Hutton enquiry was never set up to investigate the
> intel. It was about the death of a scientist,nothing more and nothing
> less. I expected better from you than to try and say it did anything
> other than absolve the government from blame in the death. It made no
> comment at all on the war intel, did it?
He did say that the claims that the Government had sexed up stuff was 'unfounded'.
Belldandy wrote:
> unknown kernel wrote:
> Bell, the ellipsis is the last refuge of a scoundrel. If you're
> going
> to make an argument at least have the decency to finish it...
>
> I could post;
>
> *endless testimony given by Iraqi's to the UN
Really? When? Where? Which Iraqi's? How old was the intel they were using? And what about the testimony of the Iraqi's who want the US out?
> *Hutton report
Which was never about the war intel, was it Bell? It was about a death, not a war.
> *Iraq Weapons Survey group announcements
Yeah, announcements that Iraq 'probably' had 'programs that would lead to WOMD'. Not really the same is it?
> *endless testimony of ex-Iraqi scientists
Give us some links to this testimony if you could please. After all, every bit of news I've read concerning Iraqi scientists goes along these lines;
"We got rid of all of our WOMD"
> And more, and it would make no difference.
Well the thing is Bell that I've just rebutted those 4 points. And you're missing the biggest, and most important point of all. Ready?
"We have found no WOMD in Iraq. Nor have we found evidence of WOMD. Nor have we found any evidence of development of WOMD. Nothing. Nada. Zilch."
That's rather important, don't you think? Anyway, I've been away a while so please explain; how comes you've gone back to the autopilot quoting rather than thinking things through?
> unknown kernel wrote:
> Bell, the ellipsis is the last refuge of a scoundrel. If you're
> going
> to make an argument at least have the decency to finish it...
>
> I could post;
>
> *endless testimony given by Iraqi's to the UN
Really? When? Where? Which Iraqi's? How old was the intel they were using? And what about the testimony of the Iraqi's who want the US out?
> *Hutton report
Which was never about the war intel, was it Bell? It was about a death, not a war.
> *Iraq Weapons Survey group announcements
Yeah, announcements that Iraq 'probably' had 'programs that would lead to WOMD'. Not really the same is it?
> *endless testimony of ex-Iraqi scientists
Give us some links to this testimony if you could please. After all, every bit of news I've read concerning Iraqi scientists goes along these lines;
"We got rid of all of our WOMD"
> And more, and it would make no difference.
Well the thing is Bell that I've just rebutted those 4 points. And you're missing the biggest, and most important point of all. Ready?
"We have found no WOMD in Iraq. Nor have we found evidence of WOMD. Nor have we found any evidence of development of WOMD. Nothing. Nada. Zilch."
That's rather important, don't you think? Anyway, I've been away a while so please explain; how comes you've gone back to the autopilot quoting rather than thinking things through?
Skarra wrote:
>
> We've been over this countless times. Does Hutton mean anythin', or
> are you another one who refuses to accept anything but guilty,
> guilty, guilty?
Uh Skarra, the Hutton enquiry was never set up to investigate the intel. It was about the death of a scientist,nothing more and nothing less. I expected better from you than to try and say it did anything other than absolve the government from blame in the death. It made no comment at all on the war intel, did it?
>
> We've been over this countless times. Does Hutton mean anythin', or
> are you another one who refuses to accept anything but guilty,
> guilty, guilty?
Uh Skarra, the Hutton enquiry was never set up to investigate the intel. It was about the death of a scientist,nothing more and nothing less. I expected better from you than to try and say it did anything other than absolve the government from blame in the death. It made no comment at all on the war intel, did it?
Belldandy wrote:
> In addition, anyone who thinks a three box cartoon with six lines of
> dialogue can encompass the war is very shortsighted.
Sense of humour bypass there Bell? It's a CARTOON! A joke. An ironic comment meant to raise a smile. Chill out and calm down for Christ's sake. I mean, what sort of a person feels the need to defend the actions of his ideaological masters from a 3 box cartoon with 6 lines of dialogue?
> In addition, anyone who thinks a three box cartoon with six lines of
> dialogue can encompass the war is very shortsighted.
Sense of humour bypass there Bell? It's a CARTOON! A joke. An ironic comment meant to raise a smile. Chill out and calm down for Christ's sake. I mean, what sort of a person feels the need to defend the actions of his ideaological masters from a 3 box cartoon with 6 lines of dialogue?
Page: