Of course Shaw - "your" instead of "you're" - truly worthy of comment.

Now in your socks and open-toed sandal wearing teacher mode Shaw what do you make of this:

"Even if I id get the denialo of the license being issued - which I didn't, there are half a dozen more excuses you have offered and have been admitted to by your silence on them." - Jim Carroll

It appears our paragon of the UK's educational system simply gave that a pass.

Guess I'll just have to start correcting Jim's papers whenever he posts eh Shaw? He has never liked me doing that in the past and accused me of talking down to him.

Now Jim asks me "Will this do?" - Do for what?

Now the Homs Thread where you started out by stating that the United Kingdom {As in the UK Government} had supplied Assad with weapons.

This was a gross misrepresentation, or in other words a lie, that Keith A of Hertford, 999 and myself pulled Jim up on.

So as the thread progressed Jim changed his story - He then changed it to the United Kingdom {As in the UK Government} had supplied Assad with ammunition - ANOTHER LIE that he was pulled up on by Keith A and myself.

Finally towards the end of the thread we get the admission from Jim:

Subject: RE: BS: Homs horror
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 07:18 AM

"The total of my evidence is that Britain licensed an order of small arms ammunition.......

Now that is one hell of a change of story from the UK Government supplying Assad with weapons being used to kill Syrian civilians in Homs in 2012 to the British Department of Trade granting an export licence to a private individual for £30,000 worth of small arms ammunition in 2009 without one shred of evidence that the order ever went through or that the goods were ever delivered. Only took a thread of about 750 posts to convince the gormless lying prat to tell the truth, but he still keeps trying to resurrect his myths and lies.

Carroll is not very good at arguing against hard fact, but there again neither are you Shaw, in Jim Carroll's own words {paraphrased} your argument is so poor you have to resort to picking up typo's.