Who Lost Iraq?

Mac-

Take the Crossman Diaries on and then add 40 years.

Welcome, Monte Cargo. The Right on these threads needs another good writer, because most of them have slunk away, having been proved wrong over Bush and the Iraq invasion.

Cy took me to task on WW11

I thought it American terminology. Sorry. I was being polite.

Mac. Not The Government. I said party members. The fodder. You don't think they know what's going on do you?

The PM only goes to the H of C for the photocall.

Ticomaya wrote:

Setanta wrote:

You laughed your pathetic ass off yesterday, so the reasonable conclusion is that you don't have one to lose today.

This is not an obsession--everyone at this web site who posts regularly knows what's up with trolls. Even if you are not involved, your appearance, spreading your smelly **** all over the site on the very first day has shown you to be a troll, whether or not a recurrent troll.

How is she a "troll," Set?

Before you answer, you must know you spread your **** here on a frequent basis for the rest of us to smell, so that can't be the only criteria you're looking at.

Setanta wrote:

You've been here three days--and you are averaging nearly 50 posts per day--48.33 posts per day according to your profile. You puke it as fast as the nastiest troll.

lol. You've been here roughly 1,490 days, and you average 24 posts a day. That's some industrial strength sustained puking going on there, Set.

No, this is just par for the course. You spotted a poster you dislike, and you're going to do everything you can to make them feel unwelcome, in the hope they will go away.

"...the only criteria..."?

Dear oh dear.

People like Setanta are closed minded, nobodys opinions or views matter or are important unless those opinion or views coincide with his.
I don't take his ramblings seriously because he doesn't know any better, he's to be pitied, really.

Quote:

PC is the culprit & I say that because people refuse to call this war what it is, a religious conflict.
Answer to our third & only, IMO, relative question, it is Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheneys faylt that the war has not been handeled the way it should be.

Iraq was a secular state. The original proposition justifying attacking Iraq was that it held chemical and nuclear weapons. How is this religious?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

People like Setanta are closed minded, nobodys opinions or views matter or are important unless those opinion or views coincide with his.
I don't take his ramblings seriously because he doesn't know any better, he's to be pitied, really.

pity? this then from a troll who returns weekly in disguise? pity?

uh uh. dont forget, stay on the meds before you freak out and start capitalizing when angry and for god' sake don't post any crap from that guy you'd love to teabag, judge posner.

you're a skunk boy, and can't change your scent, 190 posts in three days; you must have been very lonely.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

People like Setanta are closed minded, nobodys opinions or views matter or are important unless those opinion or views coincide with his.
I don't take his ramblings seriously because he doesn't know any better, he's to be pitied, really.

pity? this then from a troll who returns weekly in disguise? pity?

uh uh. dont forget, stay on the meds before you freak out and start capitalizing when angry and for god' sake don't post any crap from that guy you'd love to teabag, judge posner.

you're a skunk boy, and can't change your scent, 190 posts in three days; you must have been very lonely.

Whether casting bait or rising to it, one participates in trolling.

Now, one last time,



AHEM

LoneStarMadam wrote:

People like Setanta are closed minded, nobodys opinions or views matter or are important unless those opinion or views coincide with his.
I don't take his ramblings seriously because he doesn't know any better, he's to be pitied, really.

pity? this then from a troll who returns weekly in disguise? pity?

uh uh. dont forget, stay on the meds before you freak out and start capitalizing when angry and for god' sake don't post any crap from that guy you'd love to teabag, judge posner.

you're a skunk boy, and can't change your scent, 190 posts in three days; you must have been very lonely.

Hey polar bear, lighten up! There's plenty of salmon to catch. Both sides of the igloo are spacious? Hibernation is great!

No, not at all ... just offering observation based on experience; I'd rather not see this discussion get shut down thanks to some folks with difficulty maintaining adult, civil manner of discourse, particularly as regards direct member-on-member ad hominem attack. I would be unsurprised were that to turn out to be a futile, forlorn hope ... also based on experience.

McTag wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Setanta wrote:

You laughed your pathetic ass off yesterday, so the reasonable conclusion is that you don't have one to lose today.

This is not an obsession--everyone at this web site who posts regularly knows what's up with trolls. Even if you are not involved, your appearance, spreading your smelly **** all over the site on the very first day has shown you to be a troll, whether or not a recurrent troll.

How is she a "troll," Set?

Before you answer, you must know you spread your **** here on a frequent basis for the rest of us to smell, so that can't be the only criteria you're looking at.

Setanta wrote:

You've been here three days--and you are averaging nearly 50 posts per day--48.33 posts per day according to your profile. You puke it as fast as the nastiest troll.

lol. You've been here roughly 1,490 days, and you average 24 posts a day. That's some industrial strength sustained puking going on there, Set.

No, this is just par for the course. You spotted a poster you dislike, and you're going to do everything you can to make them feel unwelcome, in the hope they will go away.

"...the only criteria..."?

Dear oh dear.

He proclaimed her a troll based on only that criteria.

timberlandko wrote:

No, not at all ... just offering observation based on experience; I'd rather not see this discussion get shut down thanks to some folks with difficulty maintaining adult, civil manner of discourse, particularly as regards direct member-on-member ad hominem attack. I would be unsurprised were that to turn out to be a futile, forlorn hope ... also based on experience.

Welcome to A2K, Monte Cargo and LoneStarMadam.

What timber is recommending, in a manner of speaking, is that you not rise to the bait of Setanta and kuvasz. Easy (and good) advice to give, but harder to follow. I certainly find myself responding to their nonsense frequently. One thing you will notice is they both often have a difficult time keeping a degree of civility in their posts.

McTag wrote-

Quote:

Welcome, Monte Cargo. The Right on these threads needs another good writer, because most of them have slunk away, having been proved wrong over Bush and the Iraq invasion.

I only came on goaded by that.

I had assumed that the right had given up trying to deal with infantilism rather than it having "slunk" away, having been proved wrong on anything.

We wouldn't want any silly ideas like that getting abroad.

You missed my point, which was a dig.

"Criteria" has a singular, which is "criterion". In the sense in which you used it, the singular form was required. Sorry.