So here is the moment in time when the U.S. claims lay shattered...
Our claims were never that good anyways.
Remember the first Gulf War?
-Hype
"Our claims"?? Hype, from your messages I wouldn't have thought you were a member of the US administration..(-;
Hype, I need a refresher... what claims were not good in the first gulf war?
cheers!
I can help you there Brian. Let us start with the country that created the problem ......
Iraq .... ooops no ... It was Kuwait
Kuwait was slant drilling Iraqi oil , Thats the polite way of putting it . The more accurate way is to use the word 'stealing'
They were drilling at an angle into Iraq and stealing the oil of another nation. Saddam complained and the world did nothing to assist.
What is wrong is the perception that Saddam was the aggressor. That is false . Kuwait was the aggressor
That does not mean that I supported the invasion of Kuiwat. Just that not many people are aware of the facts.
Ok, but everyone (not everyone, but many nations) and their mother joined into that conflict.
Iraq wanted Kuwait back due to the oil, and Kuwait did not want to go back, due to the oil. Iraq finally responded.
I will investigate this claim of slant drilling, I have never heard it before... thx for the 411!
cheers!
I dont 'think' that Iraq had any plans to keep kuwait. but thats just an opinion.
Iraq had enough Oil of its own. It just did not want it being stolen.
That does not mean that Saddam was a lovely guy with flowers in his hair 
Ok, there was a total of 15 days or so between complaints from Saddam about "Kuwait's actions (conspiracy to lower prices, drilling on shared border fields)", and his actual invasion. (July 17 - August 2, 1990). "If" this was really the cause, there was not much diplomacy action taken. In the past, Iraq had tried to claim Kuwaiti land many times after the finding of oil there(just Google). But, this is completely off topic, so I will end it.
thx!
Oh there was intense diplomacy . April Glaspie rushed straight out to Iraq and gave Saddam the go ahead to take action.
"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
What more did he need.
Btw , It was not shared border fields that were the problem (nice political wording , did you invent the phrase collatoral damage just kidding) it was the theft of Iraqi oil by slant drilling into Iraqi land. Kuwait was drilling down in their own land , then across into Iraq and stealing oil.
'Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with force by the United States'
As you state , this is not on topic so we will leave it here. The subject of the IAEA complaining to the US for lying is far more important.
I didn't mean to get this thread off track. I do believe this is related and relevant to the discussion of Iran's nuclear status.
I will add that Kuwait wouldn't have been able to drill into Iraq's oil without help from the US.
This is about oil. Controlling Iran, Iraq and Saudia Arabia is all about oil and maintain US superpower status.
I agree Hype , I just think that the IAEA letter should be noted in it's own right. Your example was correct. Obviously I just didnt want to spend this whole thread debating the first gulf war with Brian (or anyone)
There are many examples of the claims not being good. This letter (as you note) is another one in a long line of dishonest conduct.
"Hype, I need a refresher... what claims were not good in the first gulf war?"
Woah! This from the guy who said, "I believe I am more informed than 99% of the people around me," followed by "I do not understand why someone would have such more superior and accurate knowledge about events than I do."
I guess that 1% is either pretty big (like double-digit big), or the people around you are out of it.
Here are two claims: babies thrown out of incubators, and tanks amassed on the Saudi Arabian border.
DJEB, LOL, You go back many comment threads ago searching for quotes?
I am not going to go back and look for it, but it seems a little out of context, misquoted, and not a sentence. I need to go back to school and brush up on my English.
Really, I do need a refresher... I now remember the stupid baby thing, and the tanks and such, but they were really minor details in my mind compared to the bigger picture. Or, at least to me it seemed this way. I suppose it was a big argument for some of you.
Getting back on topic, this will not lead to anything. Iran may not have pure weapons grade material, but I have no doubt that they want to produce it. This is not justification for an invasion or anything of that sort though.
cheers!
Brian,
You have no doubt they want to create it? What makes you so sure? Is it because Georgie Boy says so? Remember WMDs in Irak?
A piece of advice: think for yourself.
Jez, Thanks for telling me to think for myself. This blog needs insightful people like you.
Given the fundamental and radical nature of those that really run Iran... combined with the huge arms output of the country to stateless orgs(Hezbollah)... coupled with numerous statements about the destruction of Israel... admission to a goal of ramping up to 3000++ cents... 18 years of secrecy... questionable democracy... a good bit of human rights violations all add up to a strange picture. I draw my own conclusions based on these points.
The last thing we need is another Pakistan, or North Korea.
Misquoted? No. You said, "I believe I am more informed than 99% of the people around me."
Out of context? How can that be out of context. You explain that one to me.
"they were really minor details in my mind compared to the bigger picture."
The incubator issue was the PR issue used to sell the war to the public and it was utter fabrication. Hardly a "minor" detail. But you wanted to know what claims: those were two of the major ones.
As for whether or not Iran wants weapons-grade material, the best motivation is the 2002 Axis of Evil speech followed by the way the U.S. actually treated nuclear vs. non-nuclear states. I don't see how small arms sales, or human rights violations, etc are an indicator of a desire to get weapons-grade uranium, however. That's either a non sequitur or you are skipping quite a few steps in your argument that I can't see.
small arms sales???
OKAY. With a big thumbs up...
It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that Iran has nuclear weapons ambitions. Given their military and technological prowess, why would they not go to that next step, to have the ultimate weapon?
To believe that they wouldn't, is putting a bit of faith into fundamentalist Iran's peaceful nature.
"t does not take a rocket scientist to realize that Iran has nuclear weapons ambitions."
That's an assumption. Probably a sound one considering my country is going around the world starting wars.
However, they have stated over and over that they want nuclear power. their oil is worth more to us.
-Hype
As I have said, defense against the U.S. would be a motivation. But any statement of certainty is an assumption.
You continue to surprise me Brian. You make such amazing jumps in your assumptions.
Evidence ?
Lets start with Irans fundamentalist peaceful nature.
You say it with sarcasm , so care to inform me of any wars that Iran has started ? Any direct attack on Israel (or anyone) ?
Iran is of a peaceful nature, The small arms (yes thats what they are , I see no tanks or fighter jets being sold) is tiny compared to the export sales of any western country.
Considering that the real experts (the IAEA) have no evidence that Iran is building a bomb, But they do have evidence that the US is lying to the world , I would express caution with your 'rocket science'
The words of the IAEA have more credibility than the (saddam has got WMD honest) views of the intelligence agencies of the west.
There is no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuke at all . If you find any I suggest you report it to the IAEA(who have spent 1300 days on the ground in a do anything ,go anywhere , at anytime inspection process) at once.
small arms??? no, there is no debate about this. There is no question that items other than "small arms" were being used by Hezbollah as well as small rifles, etc.
Iran supplying a stateless/minority organization with weapons that are larger than small arms is not trying to promote peace.
Given this (not trying to promote peace with arms larger than "small" to a stateless org), it is my belief that they would not hesitate to acquire a nuclear weapon.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules...hp?
storytopic=5
...and you call this a peaceful nation? I am surprised you would say this considering what is done to its own citizens. If you call these acts peaceful...
"Iran supplying a stateless/minority organization with weapons that are larger than small arms is not trying to promote peace."
Where is the evidence? Stating so, doesn't make it so. Just like Iraq has WMD.. er not, depending if you believe the analysts in the country or the chickenhawks.
Iran puts people to death just like we do. I fail to see how that makes Iran NOT have a peaceful nature. Your link contains no direct evidence I could see about arms sales.
-Hype
Brian
You mean just like the US was supplying a stateless minority called the northern alliance who used those arms to overthrow the taliban ?
That's one example I can give you plenty more.
In fact (irony is not dead) the rivals of the northern alliance were once a stateless minority who were known as the mujahideen and they were welcomed to the White house . All those stinger missiles that the US supplied them, are now being used against the US forces.
So I assume your not just being a hypocrite and you would also claim that the US supplying stateless/minority organizations with weapons that are larger than small arms is (also) not trying to promote peace.
As for your link
We should add the list of people executed by the US in the same time period to test the hypothesis of who is more peaceful. It would be interesting to see. It would however be easier to look at how many wars Iran has started against other nations since 1979 (modern Iran's formation) and compare it to countries we assume are more peaceful ... lets say the US
I count none from Iran ( well one if you wish to include a very tiny border issue) Saddam started the Iraq/Iran war and Iran has not used its military in any of the conflicts involving Israel and other nations. Tell you what , lets even the odds , Pick a year since 1979 and see if the US has taken the first shot more times than Iran has in total since 1979
On the bomb issue
I am sure you believe that Iran is trying to make a nuclear bomb . Of course there is no evidence for such a belief. The IAEA does not agree with you. Iran is still signed up to the NPT (unlike some countries that actually have nuclear weapons and remain unpunished for such action)
The US government agrees with you , hmmm but they have just been told off for lying about it.
Still people believe in all sorts of things Brian . I would not want you to change your beliefs. I will stick with the credible IAEA reports that have been submitted to date that clearly shows that there is no evidence at all of Iran attempting to build a nuclear weapon.
Hype...
Iran puts people to death just like we do Did you type this with a straight face? Did you read the cases, and the methods, and the reasons... I do not know where you live, but if you are referring to the old west/south of the U.S., where lynching and hanging and flogging were commonplace, then I suppose you are correct.
You ask where the evidence is about Iran? I am not here in a "comment" thread to post obvious links to well known knowledge. If you feel it is not well known, then I am sorry. The world media (mainstream, and not) reports these things frequently and often. If, you are one of those people that believe there is some global conspiracy to trick "the globe", then there is nothing that I can say to convince you otherwise.
I was not linking about arms sales, just internal Iranian abuses.
cheers!
_H_, The IAEA does not judge intentions, only what is going on at the moment. As well they should, they are not specialists in the field of psychology and such (I don't think.) We can leave this to the historians, political experts, and mental health workers.
According to you, stinger missiles and the such are small arms, so what difference does it make? 
BTW, there was a war going on. There is no war in Lebanon. No conflict was taking place. Quite a different scenario.
Do not be like Hype and try to compare the atrocities going on in Iran to the death penalty in the US. It is not the same, it is not even close.
Did you type this with a straight face?
I of course can't speak for Hype but I can not imagine why he would not.
Execution is execution , slaughter is slaughter and death is death. Are you trying to suggest that the US slaughters its convicts in a more civilized way LOL , they kill them Brian.
They put criminals in places like Gitmo and fight like hell to ensure that they can torture them. Come on , be serious ...
You ask where the evidence is about Iran?
If you are talking about Iran and any connection to a nuclear bomb then I would love to see it, There is no evidence Brian. If you have any then please report it to the IAEA at once. They are the world authority that judges such matters not the propaganda of the likes of John Bolton. They have made no such claim and the world is in tune with them.
As for a global conspiracy , I would hardly call three (of the 192) nations of the UN that have the guts to spout out such lies (as defined by the IAEA) that Iran is even trying to build a bomb (just the US/UK and Israel) a global conspiracy. It is a tiny conspiracy of 3 nations.
The other 189 countries of the UN are undecided on the subject and have as yet seen no evidence to suggest such an idea is anything more than fiction.
_H_, The IAEA does not judge intentions, only what is going on at the moment
Wrong the IAEA detect intentions (through the actions of the nation) to predict if they are or are not building a bomb. They have never restricted themselves to the here and now.
The IAEA have said there is no sign of such intentions
BTW, there was a war going on
I am quite sure that Hezbollah would have stated that they were at war with Israel , so why would you not call that a war . You had a cold war with russia for decades.....
As for the death penalty , I do compare such sickening actions . I am against the death penalty in all its forms.I think it is sub human behaviour and that countries that still commit such acts (there are very few left) should all be compared with each other.
Ending the life of someone who is in your custody and is no longer a danger to anyone else is barbaric. Taking an eye for an eye is not a definition of justice anywhere outside the old testiment etc.
We stopped it in this country many decades ago and I believe there is only about 10 countries left that still persist with it. Irony reminds me that it is often the anti abortion supporters in the US that are strongly in favour of the death penalty.
Iran is of a peaceful nature.
Ending the life of someone who is in your custody and is no longer a danger to anyone else is barbaric.
So, Iran is peaceful and barbaric?
This argument is getting a bit silly.
IMO, Irans methods/actions towards its own people are barbaric. The U.S. does not need to do this to its citizens. There are a few who decide to murder in infinitely awful degrees, and it is the opinion of the people that this death penalty punishment should remain. As many things are done (in most states) to ensure that it is humane, sometimes things go wrong, but it is not intentional by any means. Iran does not do anything humane-like, as numerously evidenced in the link.
Again, if Iranian gov't behaves this way to their own, what would they do to the ones they dislike? (rhetorical)
Brian read the context please
I said .... Iran is of a peaceful nature, The small arms (yes thats what they are , I see no tanks or fighter jets being sold) is tiny compared to the export sales of any western country.
I went on to ask you to show me any examples of Iran using its military to start a war with anyone and you declined.
I did not at any point say that Iran is the world's most humane country in regard to it's own people. My point was about Iran being 'peaceful' in regard to its conduct with its armed forces and other nations. Please do not twist my words , People can read for themselves what I said (twice now)
. The U.S. does not need to do this to its citizens.
Katrina anyone ?
Tell you what lets go back to Iran..
How many homeless people in Iran ? How many crack addicts ? rapists ? murderers ? How many paedophiles ?
How many Iranians have to say a pledge to the country every morning lol
They have free speech (I read many Iranian sites that are very critical of the government (links on request). They have a democracy (well if you can call Israel a democracy then you can call Iran a democracy .. personally I think neither applies)
You could look at issues as wide ranging as poverty , the ghettos , Murder, Drugs and responses to national emergencies and say. If the US government behaves that way to their own (as the worlds richest economy) then what would they do to the ones they dislike (we don't need to say rhetorical) the answer can be seen leaving US f16's many many times each day.
Btw have you noticed that this article is about the US being dishonest to the world about Iran and you have turned this into a debate about your perceptions of Iran from the position of being American....
Anything to say on the US being pulled up for telling lies ? 
(not rhetorical)
First off, I can fully understand that for propaganda purposes, you want small arms to be defined in such a way as to exclude a huge group of small arms. You can define it as only BB guns if you want, but the rest of the English speaking world are going to define small arms as, well, small arms.
"Given this (not trying to promote peace with [SMALL ARMS] to a stateless org), it is my belief that they would not hesitate to acquire a nuclear weapon."
There are people who get there kicks going around web boards writing non sequiturs (there are calls trolls by some). I am seriously starting to think that this is your bag. I've asked myself a few times already why I haven't just banned you for repeatedly wasting our time. At the rate you are going, I'm sure at some point I will.
At any rate, as you are stating premises here (and drawing a non sequitur as a conclusion), you are making an argument, not stating an opinion. You are a big boy and should be able to put your argument in standard form and debunk yourself (something you should have done before hitting "Publish"). If you use this kind of [il]logic in your daily life, you are going to end up convincing yourself that red is green and get killed crossing the street.
Hezbollah = Iran
Hezbollah started the last conflict. They were the aggressor, and it was the straw that broke the camel's back.
The US does not do any of this to its own people. The people do it to themselves (poverty, ghettos, murder, drugs and national emergencies (?, I do not get that one)) I do not see how the US created Katrina, unless you believe in some seeding conspiracy theory.
Let us get back to the topic, and steer away from your Katrina talks.
Yes, there may be inaccuracies in the report produced by one of the representatives from the state of Michigan. The IAEA points out 5 of them in detail. They do not use the words outrageous, or dishonest. They use the phrase "contains some erroneous, misleading, and unsubstantiated information".
I think this story is being blown way out of proportion. The solution is to just have a better peer review before these types of reports gets released (in this case, at least one peer review with revisions made LOL).
I admit, the mistakes were dumb.
cheers!
Brian
Hezbollah = Iran
lol pseudo logic .. So Syria != Hezbollah ? Hezbollah = Hezbollah and Iran = Iran . In no form of logic do Hezbollah = Iran .Are you going to start saying that Dawa = Iran and hence the US is supporting the Iran led government in Iraq ?
Hezbollah started the last conflict
I disagree. the Invasion of Lebanon by Israel was the reason for the formation of Hezbollah. Without that invasion there would be no Hezbollah , Its not on topic anyway
They do not use the words outrageous, or dishonest
Read it again
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/
b..._09_06_iaea.pdf
Did you read the letter ? Quote....
..... in adition the report contains an outrageuous and dishonest suggestion that......
Yup they are both there, you just have to read past the first paragraph. If you are going to type things like the above then I would also believe that you were wasting our time..... Read the source before you comment please....
I do not see how the US created Katrina
I never claimed the US created Katrina .. sheeez, you really must try extra hard to misunderstand the 'debates' that I have with you.
The point of the mention of Katrina was the Infamy of the reaction by US government.
Please read every source/article and reply twice. You seem to be making a habit of either failing to read or misreading a high percentage of what you have claimed to have read so far. It is one thing to misread me. It is quite another to fail to read correctly the letter from the IAEA
This reply should not be required. If you had bothered to check your own facts you clearly would not have written the comment above.
Hezbollah=Iran? What happened to you being better informed than 99% of the people around you?
"Hezbollah started the last conflict."
Guess you weren't informed about he long playing cat & mouse game between Hezbollah and Israel.
"The people do it to themselves..."
You are so well informed, tell us what NAIRU is.
Did you read the report? Do you read your own blog entries?
The title of your blog entry was "US Report on Iran branded dishonest by IAEA".
The sentence in the report you are referring to is "In addition, the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for 'not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program'."
The title of your blog entry should have been more like "A suggestion in the US Report on Iran branded dishonest by IAEA", for this is not erroneous.
If anything is outrageous, dishonest, and misleading, it is your blog entry title.
I think DJEB is right in one point only, you need to ban me from this site. This way, I am not mislead. This will also create a more homogenous setting for your core reading group, sans disturbances.
When you have commenters that say "tell us what NAIRU is", things tend to go in the wrong direction (and irrelevant direction).
Carefully consider censoring me, it will not be the first time ideologies like some of those proposed here lead to this type of behavior.
no cheers anymore 
Brian
They do not use the words outrageous, or dishonest
followed by a quote from the report stating "In addition, the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for 'not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program'."
which is really no differenrt from my snip... ..... in adition the report contains an outrageuous and dishonest suggestion that......
whats the diference ... we both quote the US report and both note that the suggestion in the US report was outrageuous and dishonest...
I feel we are touching a nerve . You said the words were not there then quoted from them and then attempted to deflect in to attacking the site
Whether they were in regard to a 'suggestion' the US made or not has no bearing on you denying that they existed. Suggestions can be offensive and misleading. As pointed out by John Stewart , does how you make the suggestion make it all right ... Can I say "your mother should become a whore " thats a suggestion . Now if you read that in a report about you , you would be upset at the outrageuous and dishonest report too.
The US made a suggestion , that suggestion was placed in a report. the suggestion was labled outrageous and dishonest in the very letter that you said failed to mention it. So instead of coming in and going ooops , I missed that , it was in the report after all , you go on the attack
You sure your not a little neocon in training. Brian , you made yourself look silly by saying something was not in the letter when it clearly was. When you are in a hole .. rule 1 , stop digging... Requesting to be censored is absurd. you choose to come here , we are not a drug , you are not addicted to comment or forced at gun point. Censor yourself if you so wish. We will censor you if we deem you have broken the site rules.
But it really does not have any bearing on you failing to read a letter then claiming that certain words were not in the letter when they clearly were.
The report as whole was not branded dishonest or outrageous, like you would lead your readers to believe, only "one" (I repeat, "one") of the suggestions in the report was labeled this way. It is true that the words "exist" in the report, but not in the context you would like people to believe (via the title). This is all I am trying to point out. This is just some constructive criticism. If you do not find it constructive, then you can ignore it.
I am not going to get into linguistic arguments with you. I feel I am correct in my immediate sentences above.
I did admit that the IAEA has a point, and the representative made stupid mistakes. I am in agreement on this. I am not sure what more you want from me on this.
Yes, a nerve is touched when someone says that the idea of banning me is on the table. What do you expect? This confirms my beliefs in many bloggers and their ideas of comment moderation. I thought this site is different, which is why I enjoy reading some of the things that you put out there. I am open minded, and like to hear what is going on in this edge of the spectrum. Occasionally valid points are made here, so I like to incorporate them into my knowledge-base...
cheers!
Brian, I will take your advice under serious consideration. I was thinking of acting right away, but I'll hold off just for now.
The report as whole was not branded dishonest or outrageous, like you would lead your readers to believe
Thats quite a conspiracy theory. The title of the article is not mine , in fact the title of the articles covering the same event in AP.Yahoo,BBC.... Right across the media world from the US to china (China daily) the words dishonest and/or outrageuous are used in the title and the article in almost every case... Hmmm , maybe that's because those words were used in the letter. You obviously disagree with the the major media networks who took a broadly equal stance when choosing a title for the article. I don't see that the worlds press are all trying to trick you into believing something (especially when they include a copy of the letter in the article) I simply think you are playing a word game. You said the words were not there at all and then was shown the error and you have been trying to claw back ground ever since. The title is standard across the spectrum. Just clicking on the source would enable you to see that the title was not mine. I merely added the words 'by IAEA' for clarity as it is they that used the words.
Maybe a suggestion Brian , This comment thread ,like many you decide to engage in is very long. If you feel during a debate that you are simply debating with me then why not email the site hence keeping you well safe within rule 8. If you are replying to more than just me and others are joining in then feel free to continue as you wish.
Djeb and Myself of course reserve the right to ban anyone who breaks the site rules and it makes no difference how you would define it after you were banned. The real reason would only be for breaking the clear posting rules and not part of any left of centre conspiracy.
Saying that , you are not banned and we have been most flexible when applying rule 8 to your comments. You have not delivered any hate speech or any OTT personal attacks so I am trying my best to be flexible with your desire to question issues in such depth. Of course we will get frustrated when you make claims such as They do not use the words outrageous, or dishonest when they clearly did.
I have no problem with debates. Go ahead and debate. But repeating the same thing over and over again in 10 different posts is not debating. Yes, your behavior, Brian, has been civil (no hate speech, no personal attacks), so I have been very reluctant to remove any of your posts. We have received complaints, however, about long, drawn-out battles between people on these pages.
Perhaps we will have to start locking threads, but it's hardly fair to disallow others the chance to comment because one person wants to repeat him/herself.
Just to quickly add to the comment by Djeb , You can get more information about the complaints we had and the reason behind rule 8 Here
A point of obvious, you are not the 'Bryan' mentioned in the article
thx DJEB.. yes, using "non sequitur" and "99%" are examples of one repeating one's self ( I can not count how many times this has been used/repeated).
I will refrain from trying to repeat myself, for I have not done so deliberately.
Multiple people pose questions, so I pose responses. If I exhaustively further the debate by asking questions, then I apologize.
I do not think I said there was a conspiracy theory hatched from your title, it was just misleading (just as the IAEA said of the report). Yes, the mainstream media can tend to mislead, if I "correctly" recall there have been a few studies that show mainstream media tends towards the left... so one does have to look at the source document to really get the facts straight. It can be hard at times to see what bias a particular news source has.
There is not much to discuss on my side here, I agree with the IAEA report (because they are the experts)... so that is my comment.
cheers!
Brian ...
Lets be honest , you have failed to answer (or even acknowledge) 'most' of the questions put to you on this site lol
As for repeating yourself , I would note your tendacy to require debates to go way way off topic before we can finally drag you back to the point. Just take a look at how many comments you wrote in this thread (alone) before you actually made any mention of the article and then it was only due to being pushed.
Finally , after all this you state There is not much to discuss on my side here, I agree with the IAEA report (because they are the experts)... so that is my comment.
Sheeez , took you long enough
As for your comments regarding Djebs remarks to you , A non sequitur is a logical fallacy. Reminding you that a point that you raised has no logical base is simply a matter of informing you. Once you are aware that the point raised is a non sequitur then proceding with the point would be ... well .. pointless.
People hold whatever opinions they so wish Brian . But if a point raised as a fact clearly does not follow, then we would kindly request you either (a) cease raising the point or (b) show us that it was not in fact a non sequitur.
I am much more interested in establishing truth then I am in collecting opinions.
Further the debate all you like. Just don't repost the same agrument again and again in the same thread. When you offer an argument, it is made. If you feel the need to draw attention to what was said by you already, make a reference to the time and date you posted your premise/argument and say "See my above post of 09.20.06 - 6:09 pm." It should not take 14 posts just to say, for example, that you feel that the title "was just misleading..."
As for my use of the term non sequitur, stop making them and I'll stop using it. If you prefer, I could use the English "it does not follow," but non sequitur is more concise. "But if a point raised as a fact clearly does not follow, then we would kindly request you either (a) cease raising the point or (b) show us that it was not in fact a non sequitur."
As for my repetition of your claims to being more informed than 99% of the people around you, it's called Tit-forTat. You are the one who said, "I enjoy giving you a hard time." To think that this sort of thing will just slide is unrealistic. Tit-for-Tat.
Cheers. :P
Commenting by HaloScan
