BS: Are facts shite?

Subject: BS: Are facts shite?
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 08:03 PM

Just survived, (by the skin of my teeth),a small altercation with Teribus over debating styles,see (Blair on Channel 4).It has got me thinkin.
Teribus carries about his person,a large book of facts, which he uses to batter people into submission. Im sure most of you have suffered this unpleasant experience at some time or other.
Teribus believes that this book can cause him to win any argument, on any subject large or small. I on the other hand believe that these "facts" or statistics (grain quotas, unemployment figures,infant mortality rates ,(it goes on ad nauseum)have almost always been engineered by politicians of all persuasions, to shine as good a light as possible on their devious shenanigans.so when I write here I like to think for myself and let my own opinions come through, no matter how stupid they may seem to others.
I have always admired the effort and time which Teribus expends on creating his diatribes, even if they may be a bit pedantic at times.
Teribus of course thinks me a wooly minded wanker,butis not completely correct in that assumption,as I only become "Wooly minded" in the Scottish Blackface sheep shagging season....Any facts/opinions on debating styles would be very welcome....Ake
PS..funnily enough,Teribus is one of the strongest supporters of a war that was based on no facts at all,and entirely on the opinions of cretins...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 08:19 PM

There are Lies , Damn Lies , and Statistics !

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 08:26 PM

Figgers don't lie, but liars figger.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 08:26 PM

Facts are only useful if ya can sort through 'em intelligently and find the central meanin' behind 'em. Otherwise, they are just a lot of noise, calculated to impress some poor bozo who ain't so sharp with words. Politicians use facts like a pitcher uses a bean ball, to knock over the opposition. They will use just those facts that seem to support whatever axe they got to grind, and ignore those that don't.

Remember, facts can be misinterpreted. You can use facts selectively to prove just about anything you want. Ask any sharp lawyer about that. Ask O.J.'s crumby lawyers about it.

In such a case of deliberate misuse of snippets of truth to support a dishonest position...yeah! Facts are "shite" ta use the British expression.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 08:52 PM

Since you asked, Ake-- I find it easier to sort the facts when posts have well spaced-out paragraph divisions. My eyes are too old and tired to wade through text that is hard to read.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 09:10 PM

Well sor..ee Miss Sue, takes me all my time to think up words ,never mind setting them down properly...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 09:14 PM

Akenaton, if you don't care enough about your argument to put it in a form that can be digested by your audience, you might as well not post an argument at all. Maybe it takes a little longer, but it's MUCH more effective.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 09:19 PM

No way, akenaton. He just makes it all up as he goes along. He sure had you fooled.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 09:25 PM

Look Dave...I was trying to make a reasonably serious point ,maybe in a slightly humourous way.   My work does not involve the use of a typewriter,but a rather large and heavy hammer.

I thought the content might be more important than the presentation.
I have apologised to Sue for hurting her eyes,but as I am unaware of any physical impediment in your case ,you'll just have to like it or lump it...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 09:28 PM

That's right. I know for a fact that teribus uses an automated internet software program to compose his political essays within seconds. It will churn out a diatribe on any subject, riddled with facts of all kinds, made up on the spot and dredged at random from its extensive database. You can specify these parameters:

1. basic subject of debate
2. chosen bias (conservative, liberal, communist, redneck, Harvard professor, right wing talkshow host, religious leader, anarchist, or pothead)
3. number of paragraphs
4. degree of aggression and personal insult (moderate, average, or extreme)

The really cool thing about this is it saves so much time. In a mere few seconds teribus can overwhelm his debating opponents with a flood of verbiage that will waste hours of their time.

Thus he is winning!

I've used it back on him too, by the way, but I cannot reveal the address where it is found. It wouldn't be wise to do that. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 09:34 PM

Thats really interesting LH.
You are an absolute gold mine of helpfull information.
Do you think this programme would help me to write proper?..as i fear for Sues' eyes and Daves blood pressure...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 09:45 PM

Oh Ake, but it's easy-- just go back once it's composed, and as you prufried it, add in the extree line breaks!

See:

Thats really interesting LH.

You are an absolute gold mine of helpfull information.

Do you think this programme would help me to write proper?..as i fear for Sues' eyes and Daves blood pressure...

Ake

Took me no time atall.

~SUSAN

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 09:51 PM

I dont like it like that Sue




It looks funny as well as sounding ridiculous...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 10:13 PM

Are you on WebTV? Does it look different to you maybe than it does to me?













Or not? :~)

~SUSAN

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 10:25 PM

Night Night Susan:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 10:44 PM

'Night, ake. ;~*)

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 10:51 PM

Yo, Ake.... Don't worry 'bout nuthin'... OL' T-Bird ain't a bit scarey since about 90% of the time he's wrong on which side of an issue to defend... But that's what makes him T...

And it don't matter what he's arguin' wabout to him as long as he's arguin'... Hey, the worlds full of funny people and you gotta admit that T-zer is one of them...

And I know that he uses LH's secret weapon which just spews out paragraph afetr paragraph of meaningless possible facts and supositions but that's the way he argues...

But T, to his credit, will read yer stuff and throw just eniff of yer personal stuff into the mix to make you feel like, inspite of using the now-not-so-secret weapon, he's writing all that stuff...

...cept he ain't.

Who cares? I don't. I ignore the obvious T-crap and just saty on the points. He doesn't like yer points so he tries to change the debate closer to where he can let the "N-N-S-S" (Now-Not-So-Secret) weapon argue with you... I call him on this one all the time but, hey, he don't care...

Well, now that LH has deflocked T, ake, it should make it easier to debate with him. But keep in mind that the T-Bird will argue that that the sky is yellow and that the earth is flat so he doesn't particularly pick the correct (right, well yeah) side of issues...

BTW, as if I had to say this. This ol' hillbilly don't use the "N.N.S.S." weapon, thou I do know about it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: freda underhill
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 10:57 PM

interesting.. people have commented to me that there are toooo many space between the lines in my posts. and no proper punctuation.

BUT what can you do?

you can please some of the catters all of the time, and all of the catters some of the time, the others you just throw statistics at and see what they do. and i have done a survey of the Cat - those people who use argument without resorting to long words, endless raves, paragraphs taken from computer packages or statistics are more fun, and so you're more likely to read to the end of the paragraph. (counts me out)

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 11:42 PM

This software won't make up your facts for you like Teribus' does, but it will format what you make up yourself into an organized debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 11:56 PM

But freda, your posts are always a pleasure, whatever the form! :~)

Well I have not read them ALL. But I bet I'm right! :~)

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Mudlark
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 12:14 AM

Freda...It's true that many relatively short paragraphs are much easier to read, but at the end of the day, content counts for a lot more than presentation. I'll wade thru your posts any day, well-spaced or not.

CarolC...very interesting sounding software but when I did the clicky I got

NOT FOUND
The requested URL /ask.css was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Hmmm, not found to the 2nd power!

Akenaton...there is talking, discussing, arguing and debating, all interesting, stimulating exchanges of ideas. And then there is formal debating...which is often a sort of intellectual game, the only point of which is to win. Getting a computer program to win the game doesn't get one very far once off the computer, however. Maybe that's why Teribus enjoys Mudcat so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 01:33 AM

You ask: "Are facts shite?". Well, some are and some aren't. It's up to you to check. Can't get around that if you want to argue.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 02:09 AM

1. Facts are often thinly disguised opinions.
2. Facts are meaningless until they have been weighed for relative importance
3. Facts which are 1 but have not been weighed are just propaganda and rhetoric, and are of little merit.
4. Facts which have been verified as having occurred objectively, ands which have been weighed for importance are worth a great deal and are not shite..

Hope this helps.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: freda underhill
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 02:18 AM

thanks susan & mudlark - i guess what i was trying to say was obvious - different people like different things and receive info differently. this has inspired me to think about the cat and blither on about how i respond to it. depending on how burnt out or not i feel, sometimes i love reading the political posts, and get right into them. then i'll go for a while avoiding them, because i just don't want to think about it.

like you there are some catters whose comments i will always read (and yes, you guys, jennyo, ebbie, dianavan, sandra, jacqui and carolc fall there, and i guess some of those blokes..) and some whose comments i skip over. and i know there are some catters who will always be annoyed by my comments, its the law of nature. apart from the obvious - do i like that person and how do they think, a lot of it has got to do with sense of humour, how do you feel at the end of the day and what you can cope with taking in at the time.

akenaton i agree that sometimes people can be a pain, in that they think argue in a differnt way and for me sometimes it can be intolerable, depending on whether i'm having a bad hair day or not. so yes, i tend to skip over those people once identified. I have also turned around on a couple of people - once for someone whose posts upset me hugely, but then after a while i started to see the humour in them and now sort of like him, despite myself. then the other way for someone else whose posts i enjoyed a lot, until i saw him getting stuck into someone else whose posts i admire & enjoy, over a period of time, it sort of killed it for me and i no longer enjoy his stuff.

well, why rant on about this?

as the man said, because I could! and that's the joy of mudcat!

best wishes

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 05:35 AM

...And that's a fact!

;-D

..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Pied Piper
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 07:27 AM

The Mudcat Mystics have an interesting technique they employ in there posts; just think of something and say it.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Bert
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 08:34 AM

Yup facts are funny things, that's why when Ake tell us he works with a heavy hammer it doesn't tell us too much.

What is heavy? for a jeweller a 2lb hammer is heavy, for a boilermaker a 7 or 14 lb hammer is kinda medium and a 28 lb hammer is heavy.

For a pile driver, I dunno, but those buggers are REALLY heavy.

So Ake, tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

What do you do for a living?

Or was the term hammer a euphemism and are you really a professional stud?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 11:15 AM

I tried it just now, Mudlark, and I had no trouble getting in. But just in case I'm imagining it, here's the URL:

http://www.debatetools.com/

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Oaklet
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 11:57 AM

Interesting fact:

The British Sugar Corporation is now the UK's largest supplier of topsoil in the UK. They rinse the stuff of the sugar beet and now sell it instead of dumping it. Last year they supplied 50,000 tonnes of topsoil, 38% of which went to developers, under contract. The BSC's Hector Crump, head of its newly-formed Topsoil Division ejaculated: "The UK housing developer is a major market niche for our topsoil business as they are increasingly forced to develop more and more brownfield sites, where contaminated soil and sub-soil has to be removed. Replacing it with a by-product of the processing of such a staple foodstuff is a natural, logical step and we are going to make shit-loads of money of which I'll get some as me bonus."

Previously, the waste soil was stolen in the hems of the trousers of the workforce or sent to randomly selected addresses in Canada in Jiffy Bags.

According to Mr. Crump, "This bloody topsoil thing is money for old rope and I'm going to buy a Jag and a caravan".

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Cluin
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 12:26 PM

Not sure if facts are always shite, but shite is always a fact.

...a little life lesson there.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Mudlark
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 12:54 PM

Thanks for trying, Carol...I got the double negative w/that address as well...must be me.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 12:55 PM

Bert...Professional stud ....If only!!

I'd happily do that job for the "perks"...Dont tell Dolly mind...

In real life I'm a stonemason,and use hammers of various weights
John Henry was the pile driver....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 01:27 PM

Fact: the sun rises and sets each day, yet there are those here on the Mudcat that probably would argue that it does not.

I think the problem you folks have with Teribus is he DOES supply facts to support his arguments and you just don't want to accept that fact.

I REALLY think it is difficult to offer a reasonable argument against a fact (of course in Bobert's case a fact is a fact ONLY if the fact supports HIS argument) :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 01:36 PM

Except, DougR, that he gets caught fairly frequently with his "facts" down around his ankles. And he never has a good answer when that happens. At least not to me he doesn't. It's pretty easy to debunk most of Teribus' "facts". It only requires careful reading of his posts and a little research.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Wilfred
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 02:32 PM

Okay, let's see if we can find those people who will argue that the sun does not rise and set each day.















Well?













Don't be shy...













No takers?











Sorry, Doug R, looks like you struck out again. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 02:42 PM

Well, to be accurate it only appears to rise and set each day ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 02:46 PM

No, facts are not shite, they are facts. But sometimes, amid the smoke and mirrors, they can be quite rare.

On a couple of occasions some months back I took several of Teribus' posts and checked his "facts" point by point and found most of them to be either distorted or downright hot air (I did some fact checking myself to check out his facts). Out of maybe 1,200 words (in a single post) of "facts," a couple of them checked out, but the problem with them was that they were irrelevant to the point of the discussion. Apparently his tactic is to try to stun you with sheer volume, assuming that you will assume that what he is presenting as facts actually are facts and that you won't bother to check because the list is so long. After calling his bluff a couple of times and checking them out, I don't waste my time reading Teribus' posts anymore (I'm sure Doug will have something to say about that!). I can get more accurate facts (and often at least as relevant to the discussion) by reading the list of ingredients on a can of soup.

What puzzles me is:   1. Where does he get all the time to devote to this? Is he retired? Unemployed? Does he ever do anything else? Is he actually three people?   2. Why does he seem to care so much? What's he selling?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 04:05 PM

Well DougR didn't pick a very smart example there! According to Christopher North, some 200 years ago, the sun never set on "His Majesty's dominions."

Having had to apologise to Teribus a couple of times recently, I'm certainly beginning to see the case against facts (though I think it was him, not me, who was left "clutching at straws" in that infant-mortality wrangle you mentioned, Ake). But to be fair to the guy, his extraordinary marshalling of facts has given me pause for thought on quite a few occasions.

I'd always rank a good opinion ahead of a dubious fact of course - provided it comes clearly labelled as such, rather than masquerading as a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 04:06 PM

I have a friend who often tells me 'bullshit baffles brains'. He then proceeds to prove the case in debate. It's very easy for one person to use facts to prop up their point of view if the person with whom they are in debate does not have the facilty to prove or disprove those facts.

I agree that facts can be used selectively to back up any stance taken. Not all of us have the type of brain that retains those sort of figures or the time or inclination to research the particular
matter in question. I have now learned to admit that I do not have enough knowledge of the particular subject to argue the toss and change the subject.

There seems to be a need with that type of person to be able to show that they are right. It's a sort of control mechanism, maybe brought on by a basic insecurity in their own ability? My experience has shown that people like that are unable to admit that they don't know something about any subject raised, which is maybe why they have to resort to garnering facts from internet sites. I've found, for myself, that if I admit to little knowledge on a subject I will learn more in debate and that allows me to formulate my own opinions and not those of the person who is feeding the information onto the site.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 06:30 PM

Another thing I have noticed about the "fact freaks" is that they continuously refer to their opposing debater as "small," in stature,intelligence,even place of habitation,and invariably use terms like "Sonny","old son", "little mind", "little ideas",and living in a "little world".
jacqui c,said something interesting concerning an insecurity behind the writing of these people,and a obsessive need to prove themselves right.
I think she has a valid point.
I have always categorised people who use these terms, as patronising bullies ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST, TheBigPinkLad
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 06:35 PM

The sun will always set if you add enough gelatin.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jul 04 - 08:15 PM

if you have ever been involved in formal DEBATE, you know facts can be shite..*grin*...It never appealed to me, but an acquaintance was quite smug, back in college, for having slipped into a debate, (partly by the use of bright red suspenders..[braces]) the astounding 'fact'..."seven out of ten doctors leaves three!"....

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Jul 04 - 04:11 AM

Interesting......

I don't know any of the parties involoved, but I suppose there is something a little bit sad about assembling a wadge of 'facts' to win an argument on Mudcat.

I do know that facts are sometimes very misleading. the Tories for example spent a hell of lot money on education. From experience however I know that most of the money was spent on crude social experimentation like the so-called national curriculum.

I was a supply teacher at the time and I saw the inside a lot of schools, and the important stuff like text books and repairs on school fabric all went to hell. I think most the money must have landed up in the pockets of middle class publishers who were publishing all these national curriculum directives and documents which arrived every day in the post. One English department had a entire room filled chest high with all this unread and largely unreadable crap.

I gather it was the same story in the health service where GPs where being induced to become fund holders against their better judgement.

You've got to try and assess the characters behind the statistics and their intentions.

Whatever you feel about Bush and Blair, I think surely their intentions towards Iraq are more benign than Saddam Hussein. Whether it was worth all the carnage - I think we have to just hope for the best.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: DougR
Date: 04 Jul 04 - 03:33 PM

Thanks, DMcG, for proving my point. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jul 04 - 03:35 PM

any fact which will support your argument is valid:

any fact which might cast doubt upon your desired conclusion is invalid, and shite.


Just ask SRS.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jul 04 - 03:45 PM

DougR, I think it's you who proved our point by submitting this proposition, "the sun rises and sets each day", as a "fact".

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Jul 04 - 03:55 PM

You're welcome, DougR :->

It was, of course, pure jest as I am sure you all realise. But were anyone to insist on being serious about it, there is some sort of point - the one single observed phenomenon can have lots of different interpretations depending on your point of view. Which interpretation you claim as the 'factual' one is at least as much to do with how you then use it than about its inherent features - i.e. its as much about 'you' as about 'it'.


(And, while we are thinking about 'the sun setting every day', what about from within the Artic circle? Anyone care to defend or counter the argument that it sets every day there?)

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jul 04 - 03:59 PM

by definition, it does- since the definition of a day is from sunset to sunset. But the days are not 24 hours. ( or even 23 hours 58 minutes...) . However, there are facts... one must indicate what the definitions and paramters are in order to evaluate them.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 07:08 AM

Don Firth - 03 Jul 04 - 02:46 PM

"On a couple of occasions some months back I took several of Teribus' posts and checked his "facts" point by point and found most of them to be either distorted or downright hot air (I did some fact checking myself to check out his facts)."

You wish!! Dream on, Don - Dream on.

Oh, by the way, if one of those occasions, happened to be your PING and PONG, with respect to the preparedness of the US air defences on 9/11, I would refer you to evidence given to the 9/11 Commission.

Or maybe it was the DU ammunition thing, I'll refer you to the findings of the Royal Society's Report and conclusions.

Or maybe it was the US arsenal and inventory of Chemical/Biological Weapons. On that I will refer you to the undertaking by the US military to the US Congress to have all stockpiles of Chemical weapons and agents destroyed by 2007. In addition I would refer you to the fact that on at least three occasions on this forum I have requested information from any US ex-servicemen who post to this forum, and there are quite a few, to provide information relating to training they have received relating to the storage, handling, arming and deployment of US chemical/biological munitions - the response has been deafening in its silence, for one main reason. NATO (includes US and UK forces) abandoned the development and use of chemical and biological weapons over forty years ago - to my certain knowledge.

Are facts shite, of course they are Akenaton, especially when they are used to show what complete and utter rubbish you trot out at times.

As to Peter K (Fionn) and the clutching at straws thing. I believe that he first used the expression when I drew his attention to the fact that in its development under Dr. F. Castro, Cuba had been in receipt of subsidies from the USSR. His contention on that subject was that such subsidies had dried up years ago. I then pointed out to him that those subsidies had been in existence for 70% of the time that Fidel had been in power, so could therefore not be considered insignificant. On the infant mortality rate he compared one city in the US to Cuba's national figures, I responded by providing the national figures for both the USA and Cuba - they were comparable. Still don't see how I'm "clutching at straws" Peter K.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: kendall
Date: 06 Jul 04 - 08:15 AM

Hey Terribus, is it possible that the reason you didn't get a response is simply that none of those weapons handlers are Mudcatters?

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 11:48 AM

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.

Here's a few of them, Keith A of Hertford.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=55999

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=70666

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=56679

The first of the three is particularly interesting because in that one, I provided a link to an article that was posted originally by Teribus, and thereafter he kept trying to attribute that article to me. Even after I attempted to point out, several times, that the article in question was posted originally by him and that I had simply provided the link to his article.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: greg stephens
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 11:51 AM

Jack the Sailor: I dont think you have fully grasped the fact that selling someone a spanner is not precisely the same as knowingly helping them to build a certain type of factory. It may be the same, but it is not necessarily the same.
   Accusing you of driving a car does not, of itslf, imply that you have run your wife over.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 12:53 PM

When Martin Gibson was born, the doctor took one look at him and slapped his mother.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 01:10 PM

No one slapped my mother don firth. If you want to get personal like that, the best part of you was left in your father's condom.

Tang and Chongo can't make it as humans so they pose as monkeys. Not comical or clever, but a good case study for a shrink.


As far as your smarts, mooman, I could give a dump on the corner of State and Madison what you do with your big scientific position. This makes you smart? And college progfessors are smart also just because they are college professors? Pretty stupid, mooman. You are obviously quite full of yourself and other toxic waste.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 01:16 PM

Yeah? You're so full of yourself, Martin, it's a wonder you don't explode. But it's a good thing. Imagine the smell.

Listen, bozo...a chimpanzee is not a monkey. Neither is an orangutan. They are apes, and they're a healthy cut above you on the evolutionary scale, that's for sure.

Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: mooman
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 02:41 PM

Not quite so much as you it seems Mr Gibson.

Our exchange is terminated at this point.

mooman

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 03:12 PM

Maybe on your end, Mooman

You can dish it out, but you can't take it. As for praising CarolC, one of the most one-sided anti-Israel, anti-Americans on this forum, it's quite possible that you lost your mind in one of your science experiments. weren't you the scientist in the Back to the Future movies? Or have you been watching too much Dexter's Labratory on Cartoon Network?

OK, chongo so you are an ape, not a monkey. Excuse me. They are truly a healthy cut above larvae. Children point at them and laugh at the zoo. They do very little that is original, just mimic. they are filthy animals, actually and very, very smelly.

Maybe you are really Michael Jackson's chimp Jacko. I am sure that if you walk around like you have the NY Times up your rump, you probably are.

So are facts shite, anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 04:14 PM

Naw...I walk around like I've got the police gazette up my ass! But that's just on Mondays. The rest of the week I walk normally. How about you?

I met Bubbles once. Poor sucker. His mind was totally gone. That's what you get livin' in a place called Neverland with a geek that wears pancake makeup and wants to change both his gender and his skin color.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 04:28 PM

I walk pretty normal, also. But sometimes my feet hurt if I am standing on them too long.

Can you rescue Bubbles? If you do, I am sure he would be happy. However, he would probably need tremendous therapy after years of being a homo ape.

When are bananas going to be on sale?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 04:35 PM

As for praising CarolC, one of the most one-sided anti-Israel, anti-Americans on this forum

Accepting this characterization of me also requires accepting your definition of the terms "anti-Israel" and "anti-American". Something that, obviously, no-one is under any obligation to do, and it would appear, some have not. But as we all know, each of us is entitled to his or her own opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 05:01 PM

Yes, but many have accepted this and it is my not so humble opinion that you are very anti-Israel and very anti-American CarolC.

You do not need to be a flag waving conservative or a Jew to read through your agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 05:12 PM

Well, I figure Bubbles is pretty much a lost cause at this point, but I may be wrong. There are some good therapists out there. Anything is possible. One thing I know, though, rescuing him is beyond my expertise.

When are bananas gonna be on sale? Now that is a question worth asking! Soon I hope.

Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 05:20 PM

Each of us is responsible for our own actions and reactions, Martin. That's the best any of us can do. You think you know what's in my heart. I say you don't. But that's neither here nor there for the purpose of this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 05:52 PM

I'm not really sure I care what's in your heart,or your pants for that matter.

But it must be hard to be so unhappy with living in this great country. So much focus on all of your perceived injustices, so much research put into substantiating them. You have a lot of bitterness. I have a feeling that Jewish boyfriend dumped you pretty hard.

I'd rather be in my shoes. People accuse me of being too happy with life, getting to much out of it. My only agenda to come here is to really prove nothing. No agenda except to have some fun, pass a little time, blow some smoke up the butts who think they know everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 06:24 PM

You're projecting, Martin. And what you're projecting says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Since you love bringing the subject of my old boyfriend up here in the Mudcat so much, I guess I ought to set you straight on what happened.

My old boyfriend was 18 and I was 16 when we met. I'll call him Butch just to make things simpler. His father had been ill with Multiple Sclerosis since Butch was about six or seven years old. He (the father) had a particularly bad kind of MS, and by the time I met Butch, his father couldn't move at all and could barely speak. Butch was not at all prepared, emotionally, to deal with this situation, and it wasn't common for families to seek counseling in situations like this way back then. So Butch resented his father terribly for not being "there" for him as he was growing up, and he pretty much wrote his father out of his life, even though his father was lying in a bed just down the hall.

About six months after Butch and I got together, his father went into a coma and after about three days, he died.

Butch was devestated because he felt the tremendous guilt from the way he treated his father in his declining years. I think Butch probably did the best he could under the circumstances, but I can also understand how he would experience guilt after his father died.

Butch told me that he didn't want to end the relationship with me, but that he couldn't see me for a while, and he asked me to wait for him. I waited for him for a few months, and eventually he said he wanted to start seeing me again. We were together for probably a total of about three to four years, but it was never the same after Butch's father died. We eventually grew apart and went our separate ways. No hard feelings for either of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 02:13 AM

"People accuse me of being too happy with life, getting to much out of it."

Is that a fact?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 05:56 AM

From Jack the Sailor - 07 Jul 04 - 09:03 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.

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.>> (Teribus)

Actually I don't see a difference at all. (Jack the Sailor)

I would say that your response to my question Jack, indicates that you have serious problems regarding basic comprehension of the english language.

As to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, you seem to ignore the point that it was proposed by the United States of America, which means, Jack, that THEY put the matter before the UNSC, the United Kingdom and Spain seconded it as they agreed that the matter should be discussed and thought that action was required on the part of the United Nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 12:05 PM

Guest, Clint Keller:

Yes, it is a fact. It is not my opinion.


A sad story, CarolC.

Teribus, is it a fact that this is what Said said? Or did Said "say" this? Maybe it is what Said heard, not said? Maybe it's really only heresay, and not what Said actually said. In other words, what did Said say?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 12:31 PM

A sad story, CarolC.

Yes, I think so too.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 12:39 PM

Most of the sayings attributed to Said have already been said by various naysayers to not be what Said said at all. Whaddya say to that? If Said said what he is said to have said then we are going to have to look into the matter further and document it exhaustively until we are all absolutely certain of what Said really said. And Teribus is the guy to do it for us! I await the results eagerly.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 12:51 PM

Tell me the difference between these two statements.

Jack the Sailor knowingly tried to help Teribus become more self aware.
Jack the Sailor called Teribus and idiot.


Teribus.

Go look up the word "only" in the dictionary. The United States' efforts cannot be the only ones if they had help from Britain and Spain. You are an blustering idiot.


Iraq COULD NOT HAVE BUILT FUNCTIONING CHEMICAL WEAPONS PLANTS WITHOUT THE TECHNOLOGY. If the US helped them get the technology required to build the plant, they helped them build the plants. Its really very very simple, but apparantly beyond your comprehension.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 02:30 PM

Don't feel bad, Teribus.

Just go tell Jack to brush his tooth like I do.

He also used improper grammar when he said, "you are an blustering idiot." That is wrong usage of the article "an" in front of a word that begins like a vowel. Any halfway educated person, even if they live amidst trailer court culture knows that an "a" should be used in front of a word beginning with a vowel.


Jack, try this one: How is you?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 03:03 PM

Correction.

It should have read "you are a blustering idiot."

Right Jack?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,San Hall
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 03:19 PM

And this grammar lesson has been brought to you by a blithering idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 03:32 PM

I'll admit to having made a typo. Mr. Gibson, it is with a heavy heart that I have to inform you that you have made four mistakes to my one.

1. The letter "B" is not a vowel.
2. It is indeed right and proper to use the word "an" before a word beginning with a vowel.
3. You have never told me to brush my tooth.
4. and it should have read "You both are blustering idiots."

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 03:34 PM

BTW

I is fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 03:43 PM

Jack

Is your last name Mehoff?

Guest San Hall: Did you mean "Sam" Hall? What the fuck kind of name is San? If it's Sandy or Sanford, OK, but "San" is reserved for San Diego, San Francisco, etc. Ditch the San name. Really ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 03:44 PM

"Right, Jack?" should also have a comma in it, before "Jack". :-)

We should launch another thread: Is Grammar Shite?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 03:47 PM

A word that begins like a vowel?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:11 PM

grammar is shite.

This thread is shite.

All guests are shite, also.

A cheeseburger and fresh cut fries on the other hand, is pretty good.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:19 PM

And so is a ripe banana.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:31 PM

This thread is shite.

Yet you keep coming back for more?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:33 PM

Yes, he likes Guests, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:37 PM

He seems to liek vowel language as well.

Lol

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:38 PM

oops

like

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:44 PM

Martin just enjoys stirring the pot. He seems to find delight in rattling people's cages. That's probably why he and Chongo have these spats from time to time. :-) Besides, they're both from Chicago, and both rugged individualists by nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:51 PM

I didn't know that chongo was from Chicago. Probably from the West Side!

Jack "the sailor" Mehoff sounds like:

a) A gangster
b) one who has been keel hauled
c) a "spittin"(sic) image of Bluto
d) arms like Popeye, brain like Sweet Pea

Check one.

Matter of fact Czechoslovakia (sp)

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:53 PM

Martin seems to be on a highly successful mission to convince us that he is an ass. Even Chongo makes more sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:54 PM

"Guest, Clint Keller:

"Yes, it is a fact. It is not my opinion."

I didn't think it was your opinion and I didn't think it was a fact; I thought it was a lie.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 04:59 PM

Well I realize that bowel ENDs like a vowel, and thought his mind might be working in that direction, but he clearly said begins like, so I just dunno which end is up on Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Sam
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 05:36 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Sam Hall
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 05:41 PM

Yes, that's me.

"San," in names like "San Francisco" or "San Mateo" means "saint." Maybe there is a Saint Hall? But no. Considering my curtain speech a few centuries ago, I failed to make sainthood, but that's alright. That kind of life never was for me.

I stuck in the typo just checking to see if you were awake, Martin Gibson, and to see if you would miss the main message (that you are a blithering idiot) and chose to fasten on the type, which you did, therefore proving that that you are a blithering.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Sam Hall
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 05:43 PM

idiot!

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 05:43 PM

No lie, you big fat guest Clint Keller. Cross my heart and swear at Bhudda it's the truth.

Guest, heric are you a heretic or one who would ask Vanna White if you could buy a bowel.

Lame response, Jack.

Guest Sam, speaketh!!

Speaking of asses, don't all democrats worship them?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 05:47 PM

guest Sam Hall, glad you found your voice and the ability to take three tries to post one thought. You can't even spell your name right. what a douche bag with earflaps you are.

Your "testing me" song and dance wins this weeks top hat and cane tap dance award.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 05:53 PM

MG

You've more than proved yourself as an ass's ass. But not one to rest on your arse you continue to act asinine and assail us with proof of our assessment of you as an ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 05:59 PM

Hey Jack

Are you the only one with a computer in the trailer court? Isn't Reba's show on?

Let me ponder the statement "an ass's ass." Is this the most brilliant thing I have heard coming out of rural alabamy? If I am an ass's ass, than you are a donkey's rectum.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 06:09 PM

Lame reply.

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Sam Hall
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 06:16 PM

Gotcha again!!! Miss the point and pick up on the trivia!

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 06:19 PM

"No lie, you big fat guest Clint Keller. Cross my heart and swear at Bhudda it's the truth."

I'm a pretty big guest but not a very fat one. That's my opinion, anyhow. About 6-3, 210 pounds. That's a fact. You can check it out.

Does crossing your heart means anything to a Jew? Maybe if you Mogen Davided it? is that a verb?

Swearing at Bhudda [or even Buddha] doesn't meant anything to anybody.

You write like a most unhappy man, taking out your bile in a place where you can avoid responsibility.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 08:19 PM

Well, I thought it might be fun to stir ol' Martin G up slowly and see how he likes it, but I see I don't like it, or like myself when I act that way, so strike the last two posts, please

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 08:39 PM

Christ, this is better than Trailer Park Boys! :-) What controversy! What bile! What sarcasm! Martin has gotta be in 7th heaven. You guys have no idea what you're doing for him. My best fights with Martin are usually over the relative merits of Bob Dylan, but this is a much more wide-ranging slagfest than that.

Damn shame this show doesn't air live on radio....

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 09:58 PM

Right on, Little Hawk. These clowns who call me unhappy couldn't be further from the truth. This is a riot. It's like a playground. The fact is that I am so fucking responsible as an adult that it is just too cool to act out this Martin Gibson role.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: GUEST,IMHO
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 10:47 PM

Holy fuck. I read the last thirty posts and thought I was on the WMD thread. Have a NICE day everyone. Please write.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jul 04 - 10:56 PM

Martin that's scary. Are you saying when you were a kid on the playground you enjoyed taking a beating like this? I gotta tell ya buddy, knowning you are a masochist takes the fun out of it.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 10:03 AM

Jack, the more you laugh, the more you drool. Kind of a maniacal laugh that I am sure can be heard in the next two trailers.

No, that's not what I am saying, Jack. I am saying though, that you don't know Jack.

As a kid, there never was any beatings. Still aren't. This is like being whipped with a feather. there's no teeth. You should know about that. the support that I get on the PM side is very gratifying.

Isn't it about time for you to take out the hot plate and cook lunch?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 12:21 PM

You know, Martin, you're a lot like Chongo. You'd be surprised. He is a chimp, of course, so you're genetically different and all that, but he has the same sort of teflon ability to dish it out and take out with perfect aplomb....like water off a duck's back. Maybe it has something to do with growing up in Chicago. Tough town, I hear. What's the west side like?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 12:35 PM

I was born on the West Side and so were the two generations before me.

Up until the mid '50s, the West Side of Chicago as the second largest concentration of Jews in the U.S. However, it was also very diverse, but white diverse, Germans, Polish, italians, etc. In the mid '50s, what was known as the "color line" crept closer and encroached ever so uncomfortably for most. There was a white plight to the suburbs, where WWII vets exercised their GI loan rights and bought homes in pursuit of a better life for their families. They were for the most part, entirely succesful.

Over the next decade or so, the West Side continued to decay, and a good chunk of it was burned out during the race riots following the April 1968 assasination of Martin Luther King. For the next 30+ years, it became very notorious as a ghetto and for crime.

But the fabulous grey stones and boulevard parks are winning out albeit by gentrification. The west side is making a comeback due to it's always great proximaty to the downtown Loop. People though are being displaced as the yuppification process evolves. Oh well. Too bad. My family was displaced also. That's life in the big city. Thanks for asking Little Hawk.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 12:58 PM

i like 'white plight'.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 01:41 PM

There was a similar "white flight" from the eastern suburbs of Toronto, following the 1970's, as mostly Asian and some Caribbean immigrants moved into Scarboro (a very extended suburban area) and the middle-class whites who had originally formed those suburbs moved north to smaller centers, most notably to the city of Barrie, Ontario. Barrie has experienced the most rapid growth of any urban center in Canada in the past few decades. In '85 it had about 50,000 people. Now I believe it's over 125,000 and still growing.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 01:58 PM

Where did the Black WWII vets go to exercise their GI loan rights and buy homes in pursuit of a better life for their families?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 02:13 PM

CarolC. some went to south suburban towns like Harvey and Robbins, and the Hyde Park and Jeffery Manor areas of the south side. Everyone had the opportunity. Everyone who was a WWII vet qualified for a GI loan.

Now take your underlying agenda and buzz off.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 02:15 PM

Which agendas would those be then, Martin?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 02:31 PM

It is a fact that a lot of people are scared of people who look different or come from a different culture or who are poorer, economically speaking. This applies to both blacks and whites, not to mention all the other varieties and shades. Scarboro was 99.9% fairly affluent white middle-class in the 60's. It is now more predominantly Asian and black, I'd say, but still a fair number whites. It's also a lot dirtier and there's a lot more crime, but that is a result of declining incomes, not any kind of inherent racial tendencies on anyone's parts. Where there is more poverty, there is also more crime...street crime, that is.

A look at the notorious Five Points district in 1850's New York City would provide a spectacular example of the phenomenon. In that case you had a mostly white population living in the most awful slum conditions imaginable, and crime and suffering of every kind was rampant. Murder was an everyday ocurrence. The Irish were the most recent immigrants, the most economically disadvantaged ones, and the ones who got the most blame for the situation by other people who were better off or had been around there longer.

This kind of thing just goes around and around again and again. Every social era has its chosen "untouchables", and at that point it was the Irish. In the 70's and 80's the most stigmatized people in Toronto were East Asian immigrants from India and Pakistan. There was all kinds of bad talk about them among the more ignorant sectors of the white population.

The Five Points slums were depicted in the recent film "Gangs of New York".

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 04:57 PM

You brought it up CarolC. Why don't you frantically search the web, believe everything you read, post 8 or 10 links on the subject, and then watch very few care, as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 05:07 PM

Brought what up, Martin? What are you talking about?

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: Once Famous
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 06:02 PM

Pay attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Are facts shite?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jul 04 - 07:05 PM

The "facts " that formed America and UKs basis for war have been shown to be "shite" by the Senate Intelligence Committee today.
The White House is now trying to shift blame for the attack on Iraq,
the slaughter of a large number of American and british troops,thousands of Iraqi men women and children,the complete loss of credibility by America in World affairs,the comfirmation in Moslem minds throughout the world that Americans are warmongering beasts, on to the security services.
The blame for these horrors lies with the apologists ,in America, in the UK and here on Mudcat,

As long as there are people prepared to defend the "Shite" who rule us, we must expect to be treated like "shite" by those rulers.

Dont think by voting Democrat in the election, you can salve your conciences,...Remember how the Democrats pathetically slunk in behind the Government ,when the "chips were down".

The most sickening thing ,is that these apologists hide behind the banner of Christianity,in a sad attempt to cover their inhumanity.

The only people who can hold their heads high in this debacle, are those who took to the streets in their millions. They knew it was all "shite" and said so....Ake