Uk Intelligence.

[denis123]

Originally posted by JPaul+22 July 2003 - 20:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul &#064; 22 July 2003 - 20:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@22 July 2003 - 18:52

The esteemed media source JPaul will confirm that I do not carry personal baggage from thread to thread.

That&#39;s a bit harsh, particularly when I was not even involved in that part of the conversation. However I will happily confirm your claim.

At least it has been my experience.

[/b][/quote]
"Sarcasm is the escape route of an empty soul."

[J'Pol]

I though he was being ironic.

[lynx]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@22 July 2003 - 20:17
linx, don&#39;t take this the wrong way, but you&#39;re smart and articulate, why not see what you can find on the subject? I say this because of my conviction that advanced research skills will serve you well in the information society. and you&#39;ll also win online debates much easier with a few choice links or attributed statistics.

btw it&#39;s lynx, not linx (I thought you might have picked up on my use of &#39;myflies&#39.

I&#39;m sure I could find some references to this subject, (RF has done so, so I won&#39;t bother on this topic unless I unexpectedly find they are not of the quality I desire). But I generally feel fairly comfortable that my own views and debating skills are sufficient not to need them in the first instance. But be assured that I certainly can (and will) find such background material should it prove necessary.

The reason I actually prefer to put my own views rather than quote those of someone else, is simply because I do not usually know the background to their views, and consequently I try to avoid their use until I have had time to research the contents. I realise this sometimes seems to put me at conflict with the perceived norm, but in a normal conversational (unprepared) debate our own views are often all we have to go on. Surely we find out much more about each other if we exchange our own views rather that simply quote the views of strangers.

If someone can show my views to actually be wrong, I will concede defeat, but (and please don&#39;t take this personally yourself ) I have noticed that you have a tendency towards trying to show things to be semantically incorrect. You may find this tends to make your own argument seem picky, and it usually does nothing to progress the debate.

I realise that some find this irksome, but I was taught to write as if the other correspondent was in the room with me, and we were talking face to face, a glass of wine in one hand, favorite music playing in the background, and generally having a good chinwag. You might like to try it that way.

Have I hijacked this thread yet ?

Edit: semantics

[thewizeard]

Getting close&#33; Would you like another glass of whine? Seriously though links fancy some golf. I couldn&#39;t agree more with you in most cases. If we can all stay "friends"at the end of the debate then much shall have been achieved

[myfiles3000]

am i the only one hoping to make some bitter, life-long enemies on this board?

[thewizeard]

I think it is important to keep a sense of humour, myfiles.

I am protected against my enemies, much less against my friends.

[lynx]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@23 July 2003 - 14:44
am i the only one hoping to make some bitter, life-long enemies on this board?

If you think I am going to fall out with you over this, you can kiss my arse.

[Styx]

The last time i remember a popular war taking place on shonky evidence with civilians dropping everything to rush off to the front was with the crusades... remeber Prester John and his letter?

I sincerely hope that we gained in morals and civilisation since then, and that this &#39;Gulf War II" is only a minor set back on account of a cowboy being in office in the only supergiant country left in the world...

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by Styx@23 July 2003 - 15:31
The last time i remember a popular war taking place on shonky evidence with civilians dropping everything to rush off to the front was with the crusades... remeber Prester John and his letter?

I sincerely hope that we gained in morals and civilisation since then, and that this &#39;Gulf War II" is only a minor set back on account of a cowboy being in office in the only supergiant country left in the world...

styx, what do you think gore would have done differently?

[Styx]

How did the war start anyway? ... *tries to remember*

Oh yeah, it was Pres. Bush seeking out Osama Bin Laden. This was very honorable and all, and more or less justified. Then the &#39;war of terrorism&#39; started. Then it was the &#39;Axis of Evil&#39; (couldn&#39;t use the evil empire again) With Iraq, Iran and N. Korea. Then, somewhere along the line, we blinked, missed a few seconds, and suddenly Osama Bin Laden couldn&#39;t be found, and was there fore in Iraq (possibly). Then there were WOMD in Iraq. -toddles off to the UN- Okay, some diplomatic back and forthing here, then we have Weapons Inspectors in Iraq. All good so far... Then suddenly, Iraqs deluding the WIs, and the US of A has to step in to make iraq see the picture. Oh yeah, and not forgetting N. Korea&#39;s threat of nuclear weapons (WOMD) was too dicey to stage a invasion (hmm... double standards maybe?)

Do you think that Mr. Gore might of handled the whole situation a little differently? A little at the start might well have been enough to make a vast difference inthe end result. (hmmm... reminds me of chaos equations... )