BS: Are facts shite?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Keith A o Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 09:43 AM

I thought that ,of the posts I have seen, Terribus's facts were highly pertinent.
I would not know if he was making them up but could not imagine such intelligence setting itself up for humiliating debunking. Why is he being called a liar? Which 'facts' are lies?
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Bert
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 09:56 AM

Thanks for the info Ake. I used to be a boilermaker so I have great respect for anyone who uses a hammer. One of Mankinds first tools and still one of the most difficult to master.

Hi DougR, How are you these days? And you know how I just love to argue with you so I'll say, just for fun. How about on a rainy day in Missouri?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: freda underhill
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 09:59 AM

"facts" are glorious things which can vary depending on who issues them, and upon what basis they're calculated.

When the current party came into power in Australia, they changed the calculation of unemployment statistics. Prior to this government, people who worked one day of casual work instead of collecting the dole, were still able to register as unemployed in order to seek better work. They didnt cost the govt anything as they were self supporting, yet still sought fulltime work. Previously they were counted in our unemployment statistics, in recognition of the fact that they were subsisting and needed a proper income. This government removed them from the records of unemployed people, and then said that the level of unemployment reduced under their government (when in fact it went up).

Our former Minister of Immigration has published statistics saying we're the third most generous country in the world in our treatment of refugees, in fact according to UN stats we rank 32nd or something.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Not that I'm saying all statistics are wrong, or that all people quoting them are being misleading, but it does pay to examine comparative sources (not that I'm ever going to do that here on Mudcat!)

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 10:13 AM

Well Kendall, it is possible, I know we've got ex-aircraft ground crew, we've got ex-signals branch/radio operators, we've got ex-artillery. All of whom would have come across such munitions had they existed - so far not one response to say that they did.

Chemical/biological weapons are terribly unreliable, totally indiscriminate and as much a danger to your own troops as the enemy. Very early on in the "Cold War", NATO discounted their use, but the Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries did not. To counter the threat of them using such weapons the strategic and tactical response was use of tactical nuclear weapons which were much more reliable. The "opposition" was made aware of what the response would be.

In the time I spent in the forces, I never once saw any instruction, or procedure for the storage , handling, arming and deployment of any type of chemical/biological ordinance or munitions. Working in NATO that meant we handled ammunition for all member countries. All munitions are colour coded, I can tell you the codings for passive EM, Armoured piercing, High Explosive, smoke munitions - I cannot tell you the colour coding for chemical/biological munitions because NATO did not have any - that goes back to the 1960's.

We did receive plenty of training in how to operate under chemical/biological attack, which is totally understandable as we knew the opposition definitely had such weapons - that is where Saddam Hussein got his technology from - Not the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: freda underhill
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 10:23 AM

Saïd K Aburish, a former government Minister under Saddam Hussein, has written several books, one of them "Saddam Hussein, The Politics of Revenge" published by Bloomsbury in 2000. Pages 136 - 138 describe how in 1975 the US Government knowingly helped Iraq obtain the technology to build its first chemical warfare plant. The author was involved in these negotiations, and documents meetings, officials and companies involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: mooman
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 11:11 AM

The facts...though interesting...often seem to be considered irrelevant in today's society.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 11:20 AM

I've debunked Teribus' "facts" on several occasions, Keith A of Hertford. I'll send links to some of the pertinent threads to you in a PM if you want me to.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 11:21 AM

freda underhill,

A couple of points

1. "facts" do not solely consist of "statistics". Example: it is a fact that it was only due to the efforts of the United States of America, that United Nations Security Council tabled Resolution 1441, and got it adopted unanimously, thereby allowing the return to Iraq of the United Nations weapons inspectors when they did. Even Kofi Annan and Dr. Hans Blix concede that - I personally don't give a damn if anyone else in this forum does, or not, it is however a fact.

2. Re Saïd K Aburish, and his book, pages 136 - 138 where he describes how, "...in 1975 the US Government knowingly helped Iraq obtain the technology to build its first chemical warfare plant." Ever heard the phrase "dual use" in relation to chemical/biological weapons and research? I think it applies or Mr. Aburish would have said, "...in 1975 the US Government knowingly helped Iraq build its first chemical warfare plant" - not quite the same thing. Unlike the French, who did knowingly help Iraq build its first nuclear power plant - ultimately rendered safe courtesy of the Israeli Air Force.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 11:23 AM

CarolC,

Please PM them to me while you're at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 11:26 AM

Ok. It won't be today though.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: freda underhill
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 11:35 AM

It's either brave or foolish to debate with authority on a book you've never read, Terribus!! read pages 136-138..

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 11:51 AM

The thing about having any strong opinion on any subject whatsoever is this...

That opinion will tend to strongly influence which facts a person seeks out in the first place, which references that person consults in marshalling those facts, and so on.

This is why people of opposing opinions sometimes get involved in deluging each other with competing facts, while not really caring to give much weight to the facts that don't support their position.

It becomes very subjective.

Then there's another phenomenon I have personally witnessed on a number of occasions:

A person who is a good talker or a good writer can appear to win a debate with someone who is not so good at either...and yet...can still be wrong! Yes, wrong. Despite the numerous facts that he has just peppered his argument with. Mind you, I'm not saying that his facts are wrong. No indeed. I'm saying that the conclusions he draws from his facts may be wrong in the greater context.

Not speaking of you specifically here, Teribus, just about what sometimes happens in a debate. A person who is wrong can easily win a debate if he has superior debating skills.

I am more concerned about people's inner intentions at this point than I am about their debating skills. Some people are of good intention, some are not. Some people are just out to win. I prefer not wasting too much of my time on people who are basically just out to win. It doesn't matter anyway if they do. It's meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,weerover
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 01:10 PM

Are shites fact?

wr.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 01:10 PM

...and to add to what Little Hawk just said, it is seldom that you encounter a 'fact' presented in totally neutral, un-colored way. Since people are usually USING facts to make some point, they present them in language designed to impress, convince, distort or otherwise shape a discussion.

Witness the simple statement being used by Republicans these days..."John Kerry voted FOR the war in Iraq".....the 'fact' is, that on a certain date, Kerry cast a affirmative vote on a particular resolution, but the 'fact' is presented out of context with other facts, and does not convey the total implications of what Kerry did, meant, thought,,,etc...

Anyone of us could cite 'facts' which, stated in certain combinations and using loaded language, tend to give the opposite import to what the 'truth' really is. (Statistics are merely one way in which that is done)[Did you know that at one time there was an almost perfect correlation between the consumption of alcohol in the US and the rise of salaries of college professors???]

Why, next we'll be hearing that "jobs are being created" in the US.....oh, wait...

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 01:18 PM

Thanks for the offer Carol, and please pm when you have a moment. I note that T has asked for the same info, and would guess that many others have been following this discussion and would like to see it too. Perhaps you could just post it here, reopening if necessary.
Anyway, thanks again,
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 01:20 PM

Ah hah!!!! Definitive proof that college professors are behind the decline of western civilization!

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 01:21 PM

Carol said Teribus was easy to debunk.

Teribus asked her to supply evidence.

CarolC,

Please PM them to me while you're at it.


From the Keyboard of the fact maven Teribus.....

__________

A couple of points

1. "facts" do not solely consist of "statistics". Example: it is a fact that it was only due to the efforts of the United States of America, that United Nations Security Council tabled Resolution 1441, and got it adopted unanimously, thereby allowing the return to Iraq of the United Nations weapons inspectors when they did. Even Kofi Annan and Dr. Hans Blix concede that - I personally don't give a damn if anyone else in this forum does, or not, it is however a fact.
_________

The above contains facts

"United Nations Security Council tabled Resolution 1441"

But it also contains unsubstantiated opinion

"it is a fact that it was only. due to the efforts of the United States of America"

It is certainly a fact that Britain Spain and others made efforts on behalf of the resolution. Who in his right mind would be arrogant and stupid enough to posit that ONLY the efforts of the United States were effective?


_________

2. Re Saïd K Aburish, and his book, pages 136 - 138 where he describes how, "...in 1975 the US Government knowingly helped Iraq obtain the technology to build its first chemical warfare plant." Ever heard the phrase "dual use" in relation to chemical/biological weapons and research? I think it applies or Mr. Aburish would have said, "...in 1975 the US Government knowingly helped Iraq build its first chemical warfare plant" - not quite the same thing. Unlike the French, who did knowingly help Iraq build its first nuclear power plant - ultimately rendered safe courtesy of the Israeli Air Force.
____

#2, is just rambling gibberish. I'm sure it is a fact that the book has pages 136 - 138, but the rest of the paragaraph is simply hyperbole and conjecture.

__________

Facts may or may not be shite but what Teribus does has little to do with Facts. His posts are stew with the main ingredients being bluster and B.S. with the odd "fact" thrown in for flavor.
Think of his "facts" as bits of parsnip in a stew and you'll have a good analogy for his methods.

For instance does the fact that the French sold Iraq the nuclear plant make up for the fact the the US supported the chemical weapons program? Of course not. Mr. T is simply playing a shell game and trying to change the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: kendall
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 02:04 PM

If I believe it, it's a fact. If Doug believes it, then it's shite. period.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 03:31 PM

Thus it is revealed:   Teribus, like the emperor in the story, has no clothes.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Amergin
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 04:12 PM

Facts to some one who knows he's right are unnecessary annoyances.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 04:32 PM

Here's a fact.

this thread is boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: mooman
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 04:32 PM

This may be purely subjective on my part but from the years I've observed and participated in this forum (and I read a great many more threads than I post to), I'm much more inclined to support CarolC's contributions on a variety of matters than those presented by certain others. At least Carol does her homework.

As I said earlier, the objective facts appear to be an increasingly disposable commodity in today's society.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 04:50 PM

If you're bored, go somewhere else... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 04:58 PM

I'm not going anywhere.

and CarolC's facts are most often, propaganda to further her own agenda.

If you believe everthing this broad references such as the websites that justify that agenda, you have crap for brains. I am so glad for you mooman, that you get your facts from this website via way of CarolC's trailer court.

Nothing like a view of the world from the trailer court.

Getting more interesting now, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 05:09 PM

Thanks for all the responses folks ,but isnt a bit of "lateral thinking" a good thing? If we stick to parroting established "facts"
we end up in a straight jacket.
Reading through the posts Im beginning to think that there's no such thing as a fact,just lots of opinions, some given a false authenticity to serve a particular purpose (usually political)
It seems to me possible to make a case against any supposed "fact", if you allow yourself to view that "fact" from different perspectives.
Martins' post is a good example. He states that his opinion is a fact,whereas it is in fact, an opinion.
Bert...I liked your comment on the hammer,and I know exactly how you feel.In this phony system its wonderful to be able to do something real.When Im working I sometimes feel a link with the old ones.
Moo...I too think Carol is a star, she does tend to deal in "facts",
but she is so brave in dealing with the hordes of Philistine, that I always forgive her.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 05:22 PM

There's Martin Gibson again, the loudest monkey in the mango tree, jumping around, yelling, and throwing his dung at the passersby. You're a spectacle, Martin. An ugly one. You oughta see if you can get a job for Howard Stern, harassing celebrities, grossing out people, and generally raising shit. You'd be a natural. I bet they'd hire you in a flash.

Can you see me Martin? I have just pulled down my pants and am mooning you with my little chimpy ass. Ook! Ook! Ook! Kiss my coconuts, meatball!

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: SINSULL
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 05:30 PM

Fact: I am always gratified by the quality of the debates and discussions on Mudcat.SIGH. "Kiss my coconuts"?????

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 05:42 PM

I am just tryin' to deal with Martin on his own level, SINSULL, so he understands me.

Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 06:08 PM

Sorry Carol..... I used Philistine in the moronic sense...Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 06:25 PM

kendall,

"If I believe it, it's a fact. If Doug believes it, then it's shite. period. "

And if he agrees with you on something?

Not likely, but always possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 06:35 PM

If Doug agrees with anybody....It must be shite !!

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 06:41 PM

So,if Doug says that wurder is wrong, you will all agree that it must be a great thing? Can I get this in writing- then I can instruct Doug to vote for Kerry, and you will all elect Bush by a landslide...

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Amergin
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 06:42 PM

Well but first you must define "wurder".

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 06:48 PM

I meant to type "murder"... but what is this? Requesting a fact????


It seems to me that there are people on both ends of the political spectrum that have no use at all for facts. The problem is that any theory that does not match the facts does not pertain to the real world. If you do not want to believe in gravity, fine- just let me know when you walk off tall structures, so I can be elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 06:53 PM

BB I supported you when I though you were being wrongly attacked in another thread, but your lack of a sense of humour is enough to make all the Mudcats commit Hari Kari.
Conspiracy theories abound, could this be some fiendish plot by the right to snatch power?....Surely not...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: kendall
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 07:15 PM

It is written that the first to raise his voice has already lost the argument. It should also be written that the first to resort to name calling has lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Me only
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 09:22 PM

The truth is only true facts are facts and others are not!!!!! so what is a true fact????? A true fact is something that can be PROVED beyond doubt........Work on that and you have your answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 10:07 PM

Ake, opionions can be fact. It is a fact that anyone who has the monkey nuts to call himself Chongo Chimp and make monkey sounds on a web forum probably and factually is a smegma brain rhino rectum in real life and a complete loser.

This Chongo idiot falls for my bait like a fucking banana. By far, he is one of the most uncleverest posters here. This moron, imitating a chimp, should have his fucking head examined or at the very least be paraded around with his self proclaimed "chimpy ass" on a porno site featuring octogenerian drag queens making it with well lubricated monkeys.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 11:06 PM

Thanks mooman and akenaton.

Martin, you're in the wrong thread. This thread is for pseudo-intellectuals only. The pro-wrestling threads are here.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: mooman
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 01:05 AM

As a matter of fact Martin Gibson, I always get my facts through my own sources, not from this website. I also manage to hold down a very senior scientific position in the medical sector with the "crap for brains" that I and others here apparently have and have also worked as a forensic scientist for many years for the UK government.

I have read many of your posts, although I couldn't really be bothered to reply in the majority of cases. The fact that you use language like you have above to decribe someone you don't know at all simply confirms the fact that you are an excellent troll and I for one am not going to take the bait.

In my opinion, CarolC is one of the better informed people around here and, where she does pursue an issue, it is because she is both well-informed and committed about it.

I am more than happy to debate any "facts" with you and anybody else on the 'Cat in an objective way without resorting to coarse language. For example, Wolfgang, who is a university professor, and extremely well-informed, and I sometimes do not agree on some issues but in such cases we always manage to disagree with politeness and some sense of decorum and I consider him a personal friend.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 01:38 AM

Akeneton, Obviously you know more about facts than you implied in your first post. As you pointed out, Martin Gibson's post clearly demonstrates the level of his ability for factual debate.


Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Martin Gibson - PM
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 04:32 PM

Here's a fact.

this thread is boring.

A man is ill equipped for intelligent discourse when he can't tell his own opinion from objective fact. Could he be equally wrong in his evaluation of the intelligence of other Mudcatters?

I must say I am tickled by his exchange with our friend Chongo.
Anyone who would rant like this..

Ake, opionions can be fact. It is a fact that anyone who has the monkey nuts to call himself Chongo Chimp and make monkey sounds on a web forum probably and factually is a smegma brain rhino rectum in real life and a complete loser.

This Chongo idiot falls for my bait like a fucking banana. By far, he is one of the most uncleverest posters here. This moron, imitating a chimp, should have his fucking head examined or at the very least be paraded around with his self proclaimed "chimpy ass" on a porno site featuring octogenerian drag queens making it with well lubricated monkeys.

...and say that his OPONENT has taken the bait, cannot be very self aware. Anyone who can post twice in a few hours right after he has pointedly announced that a thread is boring and then claims that someone else should have his head examined, must be some kind of an idiot savant, a veritible genius in the field of unintentional comedy.

It seems that he is uncleverister than his oponent, but are he?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 05:19 AM

OK, here are two sentences, please come back to me if you can see any difference in what those two sentences say:

1. In 1975 the US Government knowingly helped Iraq obtain the technology to build its first chemical warfare plant.

2. In 1975 the US Government knowingly helped Iraq build its first chemical warfare plant.

The first sentence is what Saïd K Aburish, the former government Minister under Saddam Hussein, actually wrote.

The second represents the message freda underhill was trying to put across.

Oh, by the bye Jack the Sailor, the resolution that eventually acquired the number 1441 was proposed by the United States of America. It was seconded and supported by the United Kingdom and Spain in the Security Council when proposed. Er, that is how resolutions are tabled, it is also how motions are normally proposed in most formal meetings, first it has to be formally proposed and then seconded before the "chair" can recognise it as a subject for discussion. The above, I believe, should be common enough knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 06:27 AM

Akenaton:

Conspiracy theories abound, could this be some fiendish plot by the left to snatch power?....Surely not... Just as valid a statement.


kendall:

"It is written that the first to raise his voice has already lost the argument. It should also be written that the first to resort to name calling has lost. "


I agree... Please look at who started the name calling.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: kendall
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 08:08 AM

An empty vessel makes the loudest noise.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 08:17 AM

Again, I agree... I seem to always be outshouted, on most of these threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 09:03 AM

OK, here are two sentences, please come back to me if you can see any difference in what those two sentences say:

1. In 1975 the US Government knowingly helped Iraq obtain the technology to build its first chemical warfare plant.

2. In 1975 the US Government knowingly helped Iraq build its first chemical warfare plant.

The first sentence is what Saïd K Aburish, the former government Minister under Saddam Hussein, actually wrote.

The second represents the message freda underhill was trying to put across.

Actually I don't see a difference at all. They couldn't build the plant without the technology. In fact I would think that the technology would have been absolutely required for fucntioning chemical plant. Are you saying that Donald Rumsfeld would have actually had to pick up a hammer to have helped them? You are a most amusing person.

Oh, by the bye Jack the Sailor, the resolution that eventually acquired the number 1441 was proposed by the United States of America. It was seconded and supported by the United Kingdom and Spain in the Security Council when proposed. Er, that is how resolutions are tabled, it is also how motions are normally proposed in most formal meetings, first it has to be formally proposed and then seconded before the "chair" can recognise it as a subject for discussion. The above, I believe, should be common enough knowledge.

Pasnips, parsnips, parsnips......
Do you see what I mean? I say this...


It is certainly a fact that Britain Spain and others made efforts on behalf of the resolution. Who in his right mind would be arrogant and stupid enough to posit that ONLY the efforts of the United States were effective?

Pointing out that it is not "a fact that it was only due to the efforts of the United States of America"

and he counters by agreeing with what I said as if that proves him right when indeed it proves his assertion.

I think that we can now safely say that is a fact that so far Teribus has said nothing to show us that he even has the foggiest notion what a fact is.

Indeed Teribus you have shown that by UN protocols it would have been impossible for the USA to table the resolution "only" by its own efforts. Do you enjoy arguing so much that you feel compelled to argue with yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 09:57 AM

Martin, I looked up "loser" in the Encyclopedia Americana and your picture was there. And, man, are you one ugly sucker! Does your momma know how you act on the Internet?

Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 11:02 AM

1. In 1975 the US Government knowingly helped Iraq obtain the technology to build its first chemical warfare plant.

2. In 1975 the US Government knowingly helped Iraq build its first chemical warfare plant.

actually, there are quite large differences between the two sentences. 2. implies the US actually aided in construction, 1. implies that the US supplied forbidden information....BOTH imply that the US

but both are different from a possible #3...

3. In 1975 the US Government helped Iraq obtain the technology to build a chemical plant, not knowing that it would later be used for chemical warfare.

The complete truth can be obfuscated in many ways with diferent locutions.....I doubt that very many actually KNOW exactly what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Tang the Orangutan
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 11:31 AM

This moron, imitating a chimp, should have his fucking head examined or at the very least be paraded around with his self proclaimed "chimpy ass" on a porno site featuring octogenerian drag queens making it with well lubricated monkeys.

So now we know what turns Martin on. What a pervert. Hey, Martin what makes you so sure that it is a person imitating a chimp? I'm an actual orangutan, why not a chimp? I know he is not as intelligent or as gorgeous as myself but he's not stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 11:43 AM

We've had our differences, Tang, but at least we can agree on Martin Gibson. The guy is a disgrace to bipeds everywhere. I think we may have found the bona fide "missing link" that those anthropologists were looking for all those years, digging up musty old skulls and stuff. Little did they know that the real missing link, a creature way more primitive than either man or ape, was shambling about the streets of Chicago in the person of Martin Gibson, uttering obscenities and scrawling dirty words on washroom walls. The amazing thing is he must know how to type...at least with 2 fingers, I figure...cos he is posting on the Internet. I think we should track him down, toss a net over him and get some photos for the National Enquirer. Whaddya say, Tang?