I was misled

Kevan Smith wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:53:45 -0500, Tom Sherman from
Mostly Disorganized wrote:

The primary targets are collaborators, who are necessary for the
occupation to succeed. By collaborating, they become part of the
occupation, and therefore are legitimate targets for an occupation
resistance.

I'm afraid this is one of those moments more rare than a harmonic convergence
of the planets: Mark Hickey and I agree on something. The overwhelming
majority of the people killing civilians in Iraq are foreign insurgents
rightly called terrorists. The "legitimate" resistance, those people from Iraq
attacking troops and larger strategic targets, have renounced the terror
tactics. I've read recently how the puppet government and the resistance are
holding secret talks to coordinate efforts to fight the foreign insurgency
together. I hope that is true, because it opens the door to wider negotiations
and the possibility of peace for the Iraqi people.

Did I just see a pig fly by my window? ;-) Well said.

The Iraqis are smart enough to know the best way to get rid of the
coalition forces is to not NEED the coalition forces. And let's all
not forget that the "puppet government" (harsh term, though not
entirely untrue) has a January expiration date. The only Iraqis
likely to want to really stir things up before then are those who want
a bigger piece of the action than they're likely to get based on their
numbers.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tom Sherman wrote:

A Muzi wrote:

Mark Hickey sloppily quoted:
-snip-

The text immediately below my name in this excerpt was not written by
me, nor do I agree with it.

Correct attribution of quoted material in Usenet posts is probably the
one policy we can all agree on.

Well, that and greasing tapers...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 00:53:34 GMT, "S o r n i"
wrote:
Sauce too blue?
Bill "ode to ZZ Top" S.

Remind me to listen to more ZZ Top.
--
Rick Onanian

"S o r n i" wrote in message . ..

[snip]

I'll try to say this as clearly as possible.

[snip]

LOL. I love the irony. See, when you come into the discussion in the
middle, sometimes you don't know what was said previously.

See, Bill, this is not the first time Mark and I have discussed this
issue, and it always comes down the same way.

Mark hems and haws about his views, throws down the PC version, then
comes back at some point and gives away the real game. Just like in
this thread.

Bill "no doubt in my mind you already know all that and are just arguing to
hear your own keyboard clicks" S.

Wow. Talk about "pot, kettle black." Stick to double-entendres and
puns, Bill.
--
Jonesy

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

[snip]


Mark wrote:
Y'know, this may come as news to Jonesy, but I have some bad news for
him. I don't think he knows what "news" means... (I suggest
www.dictionary.com for a starting place...

LMAO!

See? After all this ****ing and moaning and whining about it, you go
and prove my point for me.

Precious.

So you HAVE figured out what "news" means (and doesn't mean). Don't
worry - not everyone learns the easy stuff the first few tries.

I guess, then, my real problem is with gutless folks who just can't
admit how they feel in the first damn place.

Grow some stones and come back and talk about your mealy-mouthed
defense of the Shrub's Torture Machine. Look up the Sermon on the
Mount first, but be careful your head doesn't explode from cognitive
dissonance. Read the whole thing, not just the parts that happen to
agree with your political hero's stance on issues.
--
Jonesy

Jonesy wrote:
"S o r n i" wrote in message
. ..

[snip]

I'll try to say this as clearly as possible.

[snip]

LOL. I love the irony. See, when you come into the discussion in the
middle, sometimes you don't know what was said previously.

See, Bill, this is not the first time Mark and I have discussed this
issue, and it always comes down the same way.

Mark hems and haws about his views, throws down the PC version, then
comes back at some point and gives away the real game. Just like in
this thread.

Bill "no doubt in my mind you already know all that and are just
arguing to hear your own keyboard clicks" S.

Wow. Talk about "pot, kettle black." Stick to double-entendres and
puns, Bill.

Or maybe I'll call someone out and then cower in a cafe when THEY actually
have the stones to show up.

Bill "you're getting too mean-spirited lately, Spider" S.

"S o r n i" wrote in message .. .
Jonesy wrote:
"S o r n i" wrote in message
. ..

[snip]

I'll try to say this as clearly as possible.

[snip]

LOL. I love the irony. See, when you come into the discussion in the
middle, sometimes you don't know what was said previously.

See, Bill, this is not the first time Mark and I have discussed this
issue, and it always comes down the same way.

Mark hems and haws about his views, throws down the PC version, then
comes back at some point and gives away the real game. Just like in
this thread.

Bill "no doubt in my mind you already know all that and are just
arguing to hear your own keyboard clicks" S.

Wow. Talk about "pot, kettle black." Stick to double-entendres and
puns, Bill.

Or maybe I'll call someone out and then cower in a cafe when THEY actually
have the stones to show up.

Wow, again. You call *me* mean-spirited, then throw this in my face?
On top of that, it is a complete non sequitur. You know, has nothing
to do with anything in this thread. You're a real class act, Bill.

Bill "you're getting too mean-spirited lately, Spider" S.

Yeah, sure. And your opinion is meaningful in what way? No, really -
I have been honest, sarcastic, caustic and quick to poke fun at the
self-important. In addition, I'm always willing to eat crow when I
screw up. That hasn't changed at all.

If all that doesn't pass muster with you, who gives a ****, really?
And if you have to bring up personal failings, I'm sure your's are
available to mention as well. But at least I was kind enough to
explain to you that you don't have all the context of the
Rush/Mark/"news source" argument, instead of my usual "buy a clue,
asshat."

If you don't like my posts, or me personally, or whatever, use your
newsreader in an appropriate manner.

Regards,
--
Robert F. Jones

P.S. You, too, may wish to follow the anatomically-challenging
directive that our vice-president issued to Senator Leahy. *smooch*

Jonesy wrote:
"S o r n i" wrote in message
.. .
Jonesy wrote:
"S o r n i" wrote in message
. ..

[snip]

I'll try to say this as clearly as possible.

[snip]

LOL. I love the irony. See, when you come into the discussion in
the middle, sometimes you don't know what was said previously.

See, Bill, this is not the first time Mark and I have discussed this
issue, and it always comes down the same way.

Mark hems and haws about his views, throws down the PC version, then
comes back at some point and gives away the real game. Just like in
this thread.

Bill "no doubt in my mind you already know all that and are just
arguing to hear your own keyboard clicks" S.

Wow. Talk about "pot, kettle black." Stick to double-entendres and
puns, Bill.

Or maybe I'll call someone out and then cower in a cafe when THEY
actually have the stones to show up.

Wow, again. You call *me* mean-spirited, then throw this in my face?

But...but...you posted BRAGGING about it! And I never said a single word.

On top of that, it is a complete non sequitur. You know, has nothing
to do with anything in this thread. You're a real class act, Bill.

Ah, but it does, because in your reply a few posts down to Mark you mention
his "stones" (or supposed lack thereof). Mean, nasty, choose your own term
for it; I've seldom seen Mark resort to personal attacks.

Bill "you're getting too mean-spirited lately, Spider" S.

Yeah, sure. And your opinion is meaningful in what way? No, really -
I have been honest, sarcastic, caustic and quick to poke fun at the
self-important. In addition, I'm always willing to eat crow when I
screw up. That hasn't changed at all.

If all that doesn't pass muster with you, who gives a ****, really?
And if you have to bring up personal failings, I'm sure your's are
available to mention as well. But at least I was kind enough to
explain to you that you don't have all the context of the
Rush/Mark/"news source" argument, instead of my usual "buy a clue,
asshat."

If you don't like my posts, or me personally, or whatever, use your
newsreader in an appropriate manner.

I liked you a lot better when you were friendly and funny. Lately you've
been caustic, full of yourself, and WAY too long-winded. (But that's just
me; maybe everyone else enjoys your lengthy diatribes on every subject under
the sun.)

When I was a kid, I was called "contrary"; my mother even said I'd argue
with Jesus Christ Himself. Guess they shamed it out of me, but I just don't
like long, drawn-out arguments any more. That's why I usually keep it to
"double entendres and puns" -- short and sweet beats mind-numbingly long and
sour (again, just IMO)...

Bill "promise to let Mark defend himself from now on, though" S.

(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

[snip]


Mark wrote:
Y'know, this may come as news to Jonesy, but I have some bad news for
him. I don't think he knows what "news" means... (I suggest
www.dictionary.com for a starting place...

LMAO!

See? After all this ****ing and moaning and whining about it, you go
and prove my point for me.

Precious.

So you HAVE figured out what "news" means (and doesn't mean). Don't
worry - not everyone learns the easy stuff the first few tries.

I guess, then, my real problem is with gutless folks who just can't
admit how they feel in the first damn place.

Well at least you've gotten the first point down it seems. Whew.
This is going to be a long process. My position didn't change an
inch, nor should it. You finally seem to have gotten worn down by the
undeniable logic of it all.

Grow some stones and come back and talk about your mealy-mouthed
defense of the Shrub's Torture Machine. Look up the Sermon on the
Mount first, but be careful your head doesn't explode from cognitive
dissonance. Read the whole thing, not just the parts that happen to
agree with your political hero's stance on issues.

Show me where I "defended" the torture. It was a mistake on almost
every level - but there's been NO (none, nada, zilch) connection back
to the White House so calling it "Shrub's Torture Machine" is wild
conjecture on your part. Of course if you can show any REAL evidence
to the contrary... LOL.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

(Jonesy) wrote:

See, Bill, this is not the first time Mark and I have discussed this
issue, and it always comes down the same way.

Mark hems and haws about his views, throws down the PC version, then
comes back at some point and gives away the real game. Just like in
this thread.

Heh heh heh. I didn't have to change my position at all... your wild
accusations just kept getting (of necessity) worn down to the point
you're now resorting to ad hominem attacks. Last gasp, I hope... this
is tiresome.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame