[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Sorry in advance to be redundant, toopid.

I was reading the SF Chronicle on my way back into the country
yesterday. I read an interesting article. While I'm very, very sure
that toopid, with his high-road morality, his infinitely wise and
ultimately fair 'mind' (not to mention considering his unbiased, non-
agenda-driven viewpoint), has already posted about this, I couldn't
find it.

Anyway, it seems that the AP reported a contradictory story to one put
out by the military. Our very own military. And do you know what? It
seems the AP was correct!

"The U.S. military confirmed a report earlier Friday by The Associated
Press that three of the soldiers were dead and one was mortally
wounded with a gunshot to the head when they were found in a
neighboring province, about 25 miles from the compound where they were
captured. A fifth soldier was killed in the initial attack on the
compound."

"The new account contradicted a U.S. military statement on Jan. 20,
the day of the raid on an Iraqi governor's office, that five soldiers
were killed "repelling" the attack."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...international/
i143920S96.DTL

In a fast-paced and dangerous environment, it seems that the AP is not
the only one to screw up once in a while.

As I said, I'm sure that toopid was all over this one.

toopid, you're a moron.

Just in case you've forgotten...;-)

[ScottW]

On Jan 28, 6:01 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
Sorry in advance to be redundant, toopid.

I was reading the SF Chronicle on my way back into the country
yesterday.

Only thing interesting, i.e., mildly surprising is that you were
able to get back in.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 28, 8:33 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
On Jan 28, 6:01 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
Sorry in advance to be redundant, toopid.

I was reading the SF Chronicle on my way back into the country
yesterday.

Only thing interesting, i.e., mildly surprising is that you were
able to get back in.

It figures that you would (again) avoid the topic. So how do you feel
about the AP now, toopid? Does new evidence change your 'mind,' or do
you discard new evidence in order to hole on to your flawed paradigm?

Why would I have a problem getting back in to the country? Is this
your "If you're not for us, you're treasonous and do not deserve
citizenship" line of 'logic'?

LOL! What a moron.

As I've said, you are a truly substandard being.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jan 28, 8:33 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
On Jan 28, 6:01 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
Sorry in advance to be redundant, toopid.

I was reading the SF Chronicle on my way back into the country
yesterday.

Only thing interesting, i.e., mildly surprising is that you were
able to get back in.

It figures that you would (again) avoid the topic. So how do you feel
about the AP now, toopid? Does new evidence change your 'mind,' or do
you discard new evidence in order to hole on to your flawed paradigm?

So the AP got an article right. That shouldn't be much of a story,
but apparently you think it is.


Why would I have a problem getting back in to the country? Is this
your "If you're not for us, you're treasonous and do not deserve
citizenship" line of 'logic'?

Just shows how ineffective the do not fly list really is.


LOL! What a moron.

As I've said, you are a truly substandard being.

Takes a truly tolerant and liberal mind to think so.
What's next? Molotov cocktails at the peace rally?

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 28, 9:39 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in oglegroups.com...

On Jan 28, 8:33 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
On Jan 28, 6:01 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
Sorry in advance to be redundant, toopid.

I was reading the SF Chronicle on my way back into the country
yesterday.

Only thing interesting, i.e., mildly surprising is that you were
able to get back in.

It figures that you would (again) avoid the topic. So how do you feel
about the AP now, toopid? Does new evidence change your 'mind,' or do
you discard new evidence in order to hole on to your flawed paradigm?

So the AP got an article right. That shouldn't be much of a story,
but apparently you think it is.

Duh.

You really are a dishonest POS.

Can you please post more about your high 'morals' soon? I need a good
laugh: you have none.

Why would I have a problem getting back in to the country? Is this
your "If you're not for us, you're treasonous and do not deserve
citizenship" line of 'logic'?

Just shows how ineffective the do not fly list really is.

I know. At customs they asked if I was RIP.

I lied and told them, "No." That, of course, is why they let me
through. I smuggled a bunch of Cuban cigars in, too.

LOL! What a moron.

As I said.

As I've said, you are a truly substandard being.

Takes a truly tolerant and liberal mind to think so.

No, anybody capable of rational thought sees what a substandard moron
you are. Face it: you're an idiot. Politics has nothing to do with
that fact.

And we've already discussed the garbled definition of 'tolerant' that
you use. Making up word definitions is just another substandard trait
of yours, toopid. You do not even know how to communicate with adults
in your native tongue. I'd place your English at about the second-
grade level.

What's next? Molotov cocktails at the peace rally?

Now there's a leap of 'logic.' It's fascinating to see how your 'mind'
works, toopid.

toopid, I have to imagine that you rewrite your posts several times.
You must go through several drafts before catching the exact tone of
idiocy that you're after.

Why do I think this? Because I don't believe that anybody could be so
stupid without trying.

Moron.

[ScottW]

On Jan 28, 10:15 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jan 28, 9:39 pm, "ScottW" wrote:

As I've said, you are a truly substandard being.
Takes a truly tolerant and liberal mind to think so.
No, anybody capable of rational thought sees what a substandard moron
you are.

You go Adolf.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Witlessmongrel licks his wounds.

As I've said, you are a truly substandard being.

Takes a truly tolerant and liberal mind to think so.

No, anybody capable of rational thought sees what a substandard moron
you are.

You go Adolf.

Your Idiotship, I don't recall anybody calling for the extermination of
Terrierdorks. You may, of course, correct me if I'm wrong.

You're much more fascistic than Shhhh or any other current RAO poster. Are
you going to put yourself on trial for war crimes?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 29, 11:02 am, "ScottW" wrote:
On Jan 28, 10:15 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jan 28, 9:39 pm, "ScottW" wrote:

As I've said, you are a truly substandard being.
Takes a truly tolerant and liberal mind to think so.
No, anybody capable of rational thought sees what a substandard moron
you are.

You go Adolf.

You lose. Godwin's Law.

Sorry, toopid. but that's a standard Usenet rule, not some made-up
definition.

:Godwin's Law: /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows
longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once
this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis
has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's
Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on
thread length in those groups.

Moron.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 29, 11:07 am, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote:
Witlessmongrel licks his wounds.

As I've said, you are a truly substandard being.
Takes a truly tolerant and liberal mind to think so.
No, anybody capable of rational thought sees what a substandard moron
you are.
You go Adolf.

Your Idiotship, I don't recall anybody calling for the extermination of
Terrierdorks. You may, of course, correct me if I'm wrong.

You're much more fascistic than Shhhh or any other current RAO poster. Are
you going to put yourself on trial for war crimes?

No, toopid'll likely invoke tRNO* which states: "If you are not an
ignorant, intolerant, thoughtless, extremely conservative bushie
supporter, then you are a treasonous traitor deserving of death (or
"at least" deserving of having your citizenship stripped)."

*"toopid rule #1."

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

You're much more fascistic than Shhhh or any other current RAO poster. Are
you going to put yourself on trial for war crimes?

No, toopid'll likely invoke tRNO* which states: "If you are not an
ignorant, intolerant, thoughtless, extremely conservative bushie
supporter, then you are a treasonous traitor deserving of death (or
"at least" deserving of having your citizenship stripped)."

*"toopid rule #1."

Another entry in your sigfile? ;-)




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.