beardedbruce,

I apologize that my saying that you were "full of it" came close to an ad hominem attack. I can, of course, qualify this to say that I was really referring to your statements, not you as a person!

The point is, I DID treat your specific assertions and show where you were way off the mark, first at 07 Jul 04 - 12:57 AM and then at 07 Jul 04 - 09:12 AM. I showed them to be both factually incorrect [eg. you asserted that there were months between Rumsfeld saying he knew where the weapons were and our attack on Iraq, and that was flat-out false], and logically fallacious [eg. you challenged us to prove a negative].

And yet you ignore this and claim that

"none of you need to address anything that I might say."

This kind of statement is why people tend to think of you as delusional.

Sorry, buddy, I HAVE addressed the things you say, and you ignore it every time, or else claim somehow that I have not even weakened your argument by showing it to be both factually and logically wrong.