P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 20-11-05, 08:38 AM   #21
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theknife
whoops, that's the General George Casey, top US commander in Iraq. hasn't he been listening to the psuedocons? didn't he get the memo that the only way to honor the sacrifice of our brave troops is to continue getting them killed?
I'd trust a military plan for withdral over any politician's plan. It's likely that an exit strategy like this one was requested by the administration in case the Republican resolution passed. It's best to leave these things up to the people who understand the situation, so Congress best stay out of it.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-05, 03:07 PM   #22
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

Quote:
Mr. Speaker --

My Democratic colleagues are coming down here accusing us of slandering our friend and fellow member, Rep. Murtha.

That's absurd.

This isn't about him.

It's not about any of us.

This is about foreign policy.

And quite frankly this idea on the left that we can and should immediately withdraw is not only a bad idea, it's a dangerous one.

How do you tell an 19 year old American fighting, bleeding for their country that this is all pointless? How dare you. You may not agree with the way things are being managed, but don't you minimize the importance of what we're doing in Iraq.

You all on the left opened up this debate with your irresponsible comments and now you're trying to sneak out of the room to avoid the topic.

The left in Congress wants a debate on the idea of immediate withdrawal and we're going to have it.

The left wanted to run their mouths with no regard to the big picture, well now you're going to have to stand here and take the heat for that.

We're fighting because we don't want our kids living in a world dominated by terrorism. That's why we're fighting.

The left works real hard to isolate Iraq from the Middle East and from terrorism.

Does the left actually think terrorists separate Iraq from the war on terrorism.

Certainly not. Absolutely not.

I don't believe America is willing to give up on what is a WAR for the FREE WORLD.

The left wanted this debate. We'll have this debate. And you will lose this debate.

The American people have stronger backbones than the radical left running the Democratic Party in this House.

The final vote is 403-3 (6 present, 22 not voting) on immediate withdrawal from Iraq. So, when Democrats hold press conferences stating we should 'immediately redeploy' ('Retreat hell! We're just redeploying gradually in a different direction when 'practicable!'), they are speaking figuratively.
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-05, 03:37 PM   #23
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

i haven't heard more bulsh*t since vietnam. typical republican grandstanding while more continue to die.

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-05, 03:58 PM   #24
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSpratts
i haven't heard more bulsh*t since vietnam. typical republican grandstanding while more continue to die.

- js.

Really? read Murtha's resolution again then.....The US Congress has learned the Vietnam lesson: We will not abandon our friends and allies to the good wishes of murdering thugs.

Jack Murtha is an American hero, who has learned the other Vietnam lesson: RUN!!
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-05, 07:35 PM   #25
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

i'm not sure where you get your information concerning vietnam but i suggest you get a refund. vietnam had a civil war. the parties in question were the fascist establishment vs the communist upstarts. what we had was an academic philosophy of "containment" that had nothing to do with the people of vietnam, or as it turns out, reality.

the lesson we learned cost 50,000 american lives and an untold number of asians, but it was simple: we can't stop someone else’s civil war by occupation unless we care to send our young there to die indefinitely - and - we fix the problem politically. even then we have no guarantees. the same lesson applies to iraq. perhaps even more so since the internal hatred reaches back to a time america wasn't even a concept. the shiites and the sunnis will have their civil war, whenever we leave, regardless of how efficient we make their militia killing machines. the sunnis will be crushed, the shiites victorious and all this talk about balance forgotten as some kind of absurdist conservative think tank fairy tale the muddled masses swallowed whole. in the meantime more americans will die in the slow waltz to the inevitable.

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-05, 11:47 PM   #26
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Please stop comparing Iraq to Vietnam, there's no way 58,000 American soldiers are going to die there. There's no draft. There's no Ho Chi Minh trail. The comparison is not only futile, it's tiresome.

Shiites and Sunnis aren't as despairate to kill each other as you think. A civil war might be inevitable if we left them alone now, but the longer we engage them politically the more they learn and more preventable civil war becomes. Besides, if the Shiites decide to slaughter Sunnis then Saudi Arabia will close its borders to all Shiites, not just Iraqis. Without access to Mecca an international war might begin, and nobody in the middle east wants that to happen. So if a couple thousand soldiers dying will save the lives of millions of Muslims then it's something we must do.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-05, 08:30 AM   #27
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
Please stop comparing Iraq to Vietnam, there's no way 58,000 American soldiers are going to die there. There's no draft. There's no Ho Chi Minh trail. The comparison is not only futile, it's tiresome.

Shiites and Sunnis aren't as despairate to kill each other as you think. A civil war might be inevitable if we left them alone now, but the longer we engage them politically the more they learn and more preventable civil war becomes. Besides, if the Shiites decide to slaughter Sunnis then Saudi Arabia will close its borders to all Shiites, not just Iraqis. Without access to Mecca an international war might begin, and nobody in the middle east wants that to happen. So if a couple thousand soldiers dying will save the lives of millions of Muslims then it's something we must do.
i'm not sure if we stayed long enough we wouldn't see those same casualties, but there isn't any way you can dismiss it out of hand, any more than than those who disregarded history and insisted we'd be out in weeks had any standing in truth. i would hope we don’t rack up 58,000, but hell, it could be more. the possibility exists. we won’t see those numbers if we leave beforehand tho. that’s about the only certainty. at this point in the conflicts more americans have died in iraq than in vietnam, so going by reality, instead of say, talk radio mythology, it's worse.

as for your feelings, well now if it's so tiresome for you sitting at home, imagine what it's like for those young americans who have to somehow deal with this neverending mistake on the ground. that they traveled there on intelligence manipulations is bad enough, that they stay to die is untenable. with or without us the ancient middle eastern tribes will do what they've always done, but it's past time our people returned.

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-05, 09:08 AM   #28
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

If your feeling sorry for those poor, poor, pooooor soldiers just remember they kill at least 10 times as often as they get killed Jack. And the fighting's been going on long enough that many if not most have had time to leave the military or not join if they didn't want to serve in Iraq. So I don't think they need you whining for them. I doubt they've had time to listen to all the liberal comparisions to Vietnam but if they did they'd no doubt find it as tiresome as everyone else.

Last edited by albed : 22-11-05 at 10:00 AM.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-05, 11:57 AM   #29
floydian slip
===\/------/\===
 
floydian slip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,704
Default

CNN management has launched an internal investigation into how a giant black 'X' mark appeared over Vice President Dick Cheney's face -- as he delivered a speech from Washington on Monday!

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4cnc.htm

scary shit

i wonder what they are trying to say.

im sure they will find some low level scapegoat.
Attached Images
 
floydian slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-05, 12:40 PM   #30
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

Jack, AMERICA MUST PREVAIL, You can not Run this time;

Murtha whined on the floor of the house about the dead and injured soldiers as a lot of the liberal left do, your enemies would rightly conclude that Americans are weak and will run when they shed blood, Rome Fell, The USA was not put in this position, 911 happened, and yes I bring 9/11 into this. Was Saddam connected to the terrorist attacks? No he most likely was not, but Did Saddam hate America? With Afghanistan no longer a safe haven for terrorist, would Saddam open his country to them? BTW, don’t even try to say Iraq is now a safe haven for terrorist, there are more terrorist in Iraq now, but they are far far from safe, remove American troops from Iraq right now – well then they are safe. Saddam needed to be removed and removed when he was, why wait until he builds his army up, get WMD, or helps the terrorist attack America again, the world is safer with out Saddam controlling Iraq.



What are your opinions on this article?

Quote:
As now configured, this is a party that cannot be trusted when the nation is at risk. Its blindness to evil will get people hurt. It will, by its fixation on poll numbers, say to the people of Iraq who have trusted our word, that it is a pledge written on insufficient funds. It will, as was the case with the 200,000 rebellious Shiites that Saddam Hussein slaughtered in the aftermath of Desert Storm, leave Iraq exposed to the vengeful brutality of unchecked evil.

This party rushes to hide its pacifism and its relativism in single file behind imagery — first the "peace mom" radical Cindy Sheehan and, when she was spent, behind the valor of U.S. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a Vietnam veteran who last week provided cover to his anti-war colleagues by declaring, "It's time to bring the troops home."

It is left, then, to Lieberman, Al Gore's vice presidential candidate in 2000, to spark any ray of hope that the party of FDR and Harry Truman has not become a backward-looking party that can't be trusted with liberty's franchise.

"The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant . . . but they are nowhere as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there," Lieberman said.

"The danger is that by spending so much time on the past here, we contribute to a drop in public support. Terrorists know that they cannot defeat us in Iraq, but they also know they can defeat us in America by breaking the will and steadfast support of the American people for this cause."

That is the voice of the Democratic Party America once embraced. It is the voice of the Democratic Party that held the South. It is the voice of a party America can trust when our people are threatened.

But it is not the voice that now dominates — and defines — today's national Democratic Party. That voice will get defenders hurt and trusting souls betrayed.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/o...05/112005.html
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-05, 07:28 PM   #31
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinner
Jack, AMERICA MUST PREVAIL, You can not Run this time;
"prevailing" is not an option - it's unwinnable, by any conventional definition. here's how it ends - the Kurds do reasonably well as an autonomous, independent entity, the Shia end up in bed with Iran, and the Sunnis continue the violence with or without us.

forget democracy, no dancing in the streets, farewell to all that - Iraq was a neocon fantasy that was dead on arrival. the only remaining question is how many more get killed before we write it off and call it a day. as well we should. we got Saddam, no wmd's, mission accomplished - bring 'em home, end of story.

btw, the government of iraq wants us out, too:
Quote:
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.

The communique -- finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday -- condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

The leaders agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks.
if there is any legitimacy to the claim of freeing iraq, then there is no longer any legal grounds to remain there indefinitely. anyone who argues to stay the course is now arguing to ignore the wishes of the iraqi government, which therefore makes the whole fiasco a sham. so what's it gonna be? are they free or aren't they?
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-05, 10:01 PM   #32
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

The Iraqi legislature needs to pass a law then. Do you understand legality? Fuck you don't even understand grammar and punctuation. Get a clue you straw grasping liberal.

An education and a sense of ethics wouldn't hurt you either. Both sorely lacking.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-11-05, 12:53 AM   #33
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Knife, the only person to suggest that anyone wants our troops to say there indefinitely is you, but it simply isn't true. While the Cheney spokesperson who you continually quote was obviously way off the mark when he suggested the invasion would take weeks, not months (and what authority does such a person have to make such a prediction anyway?), I think that phrase demonstrates this administration's strong desire to bring this war to a quick end. Iraq's government understands this, which is why they're working on this timetable. The word timetable implies that they want our troops to leave gradually over a period of time, otherwise they would simply have made an ultimatum. The simple fact is that there is a lot of work yet to be done, millions of man hours need to be invested, and the old saying 'many hands make light work' still applies. Decreasing our presence there too sharply will ensure that the work will never be done so I'm afraid we can't just cut and run.

I am of course writing from the presumption that peace is attainable in the middle east. Anybody who thinks civil war is a foregone conslusion is arguing from ignorance. Tribalism in the middle east gave way to federalism many generations ago, and since then Arabs and Iranians have learned to settle disputes diplomatically. Maybe they need more practice, but like I've said, nobody in the middle east wants open war among Muslims, with a few exceptions. Hell, maybe we should send Bono in to help the Shiites and Sunnis learn to get along.

At any rate, the defeatist attitude I've seen here and among Democrats in congress is ludacris. For the politicians, the call to remove our troops from Iraq is a calculated move, but for the rest of us regular folk it's just a symptom of the media's selective reporting. In truth progress towards peace continues and will continue, and frankly, the fact that any American thinks that this war or any war is unwinnable deeply saddens me. If that attitude had previaled during the early stages of the American revolution then there would be no United States to speak of because for more than a year we were on the loosing side of that war. Beating the odds has always been the American way and I hope it always will be.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-11-05, 10:46 PM   #34
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
At any rate, the defeatist attitude I've seen here and among Democrats in congress is ludacris.
"ludacris" is a rapper, no? the word is ludicrous - let's use it in a sentence: it is ludicrous for American soldiers to be dying for an Iraqi government that supports the right of it's citizens to kill the American soldiers who are protecting it:
Quote:
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.

The communique -- finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday -- condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.
the Iraqi leadership recognizes the insurgency's right to resist, which is exercised by killing Americans. is that ludicrous enough for you?
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-05, 01:53 AM   #35
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Thanks for checking my spelling, albed, er I mean theknife.

But back to your point, an insurgent who attacks military targets and avoids civilians is clearly not a terrorist, and I can say that without endorsing their actions. So can Iraq. They don't support the insurgency, officially anyway, but like you they worry too much about symantics. While they don't actually recognize the insurgent's right to resist, they do recognize the insurgent's right not to be mislabeled. Americans have the right to kill insurgents, and so far Iraq has acknowledged that right and supported us in that effort with their police and military forces. They're clearly on our side.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-05, 06:17 AM   #36
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

Quote:
an insurgent who attacks military targets and avoids civilians is clearly not a terrorist
by the same token a military who attacks insurgent targets and avoids civilians are not terrorists
um..


Quote:
A Dossier of Civilian Casualties in Iraq
2003–2005




New analysis of civilian casualties in Iraq: Report unveils comprehensive details

"A Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq, 2003-2005" is the first detailed account of all non-combatants reported killed or wounded during the first two years of the continuing conflict. The report, published by Iraq Body Count in association with Oxford Research Group, is based on comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 media reports published between March 2003 and March 2005.
Findings include:
Who was killed?

* 24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.
* Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.
* Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths.

When did they die?

* 30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003.
* Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215).

Who did the killing?

* US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
* Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
* Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
* Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

What was the most lethal weaponry?

* Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
* Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
* Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).

How many were injured?

* At least 42,500 civilians were reported wounded.
* The invasion phase caused 41% of all reported injuries.
* Explosive weaponry caused a higher ratio of injuries to deaths than small arms.
* The highest wounded-to-death ratio incidents occurred during the invasion phase.

Who provided the information?

* Mortuary officials and medics were the most frequently cited witnesses.
* Three press agencies provided over one third of the reports used.
* Iraqi journalists are increasingly central to the reporting work.

Speaking today at the launch of the report in London, Professor John Sloboda, FBA, one of the report's authors said: "The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq. On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003. Our data show that no sector of Iraqi society has escaped. We sincerely hope that this research will help to inform decision-makers around the world about the real needs of the Iraqi people as they struggle to rebuild their country. It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two and half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed."

in Vietmam or the American revolution the difference in military technology wasnt as uneven..but the insurgencies were much better organised and had much greater numbers than the one in iraq...the insurgencies beat the odds..sure
and there was fairly positive outcomes after
although one did slip into a long and bloody civil war
but most countries the british have invaded and then left have

they dont look like pulling out of iraq anytime soon...either
http://news.scotsman.com/internation...?id=2285782005
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-05, 09:44 AM   #37
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

btw, anyone hear the rumor bush is drinking again? it's going around the press corps along w/the ones he's not speaking to his dad & he's furious at cheney/rumsfeld for talking him into this fiasco...one rumor goes he was so stupid he really believed their fairly tale versions of "weeks not months" and "greeted as liberators w/flowers" etc, and now after bringing in al-qaeda from the harsh desert and giving them thier own comfy state and he's stuck with the problem he's "really mad about it! big fat liars" etc.

could be true, could be baloney or maybe he's getting crafty - he believed none of the fairy tales but he's resetting history so he doesn't come off as the worst us prez ever, just your atypical woolly-headed ex-doper, misled by evul trolls he was sure were pals.

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-05, 12:24 PM   #38
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

Something to chew on..............


Quote:
Is Anybody Winning?

November 23, 2005: The Iraqi army expects to win another victory on December 15th, when it protects the voters during the parliamentary elections. The Sunni Arab factions that oppose the government have again pledged to stop the elections. The terrorists have failed twice so far this year to interrupt national elections. Each time they fail, they lose more support in their Sunni Arab base. For this election, the government will have over 200,000 soldiers and police in service. There's no reason to believe the terrorists will be any more successful in stopping the vote this time.

The terrorist campaign against pro-government Sunni Arab leaders continues. Yesterday, terrorist gunmen, disguised as soldiers, killed Khadim Sarhid al Hemaiyem the leader of the Sunni Arab Batta tribe, one of the larger tribes north of Baghdad. Three of al Hemaiyem's sons, and a son-in-law, were killed as well. Earlier this year, other members of al Hemaiyem's family were killed by terrorists. In the last week, terrorists have killed nearly 200 Iraqis. Most of them were Shia Arabs, but Sunni Arabs accounted for at least a third of the dead. The terrorists particularly like to send suicide bombers into Shia mosques and kill people assembled for worship. The terror campaign has not had the desired effect, for more and more Sunni Arab groups have openly backed the elected government. Even one of the Sunni Arab terrorist groups is negotiating a surrender to the government. The reason is simple; hatred. Every dead Iraqi means dozens more friend and relatives of the deceased are now very hostile to the Sunni Arab terrorists. The Sunni Arab terrorists, especially al Qaeda (which basically represents non Iraqi Sunni Arabs), have been quite open about trying to trigger a civil war between the Shia and Sunni Arab communities. While many Sunni Arabs insist that they are the majority in Iraq, even those that realize there are three times as many Shias, believe that God is on their side, and the historical success in dominating the country will carry the day for the outnumbered Sunni Arabs. What these guys have forgotten is that, in the distant past (16th century), the Shia Arabs were in charge, with the help of a foreign army (Iran). Now the Shia Arabs have an American army to help them out. The Sunni Arabs have under-the-table support from Sunni Arabs in neighboring countries, and semi-official support from Syria. The Sunni Arabs are losing. Can they win in the end? The Shia Arabs are not falling for the "let's have a civil war" bit, and are grinding down the Sunni Arab armed opposition.

Another week long offensive in western Iraq ended. A force of 3,500 troops (29 percent of them Iraqi) drove terrorist groups out of several towns, killing 139 terrorists in the process, and arresting over a hundred suspects. The next phase of the campaign, sending in police and troops to keep the terrorists out, is underway. These efforts have not always been successful, but over the last year, there have been more victories than defeats. Month by month, there are fewer areas where government officials require a heavily armed escort to visit. But as long as only a few hundred thousand Sunni Arabs support the terrorism, the attacks will go on.

American commanders carefully watch the progress of the Iraqi police and soldiers. Each Iraqi battalion has an American advisory team of ten soldiers. These troops report back on the abilities of the Iraqi troops and police, and the ratings keep going up. But it's slow. Iraq in particular, and the Middle East in general, have a long tradition of corrupt police and inept armies. Changing this is very difficult, even in a situation like this, where the Iraqis have a major incentive to do it right. Tradition trumps reality, which is an aspect of human nature we like to avoid studying.
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-05, 01:30 PM   #39
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
Thanks for checking my spelling, albed, er I mean theknife.
ouch - that hurt.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-11-05, 08:58 AM   #40
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

Someone with a propensity for the word "thier" shouldn't even mention someone else's mispelling of a much larger word.


I'm really a vocabulary nazi though and don't bother much with spelling.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)