Jack
Forum
<<<And you continue to speak of 'we' L2R. Who is we?
>>By Lynn (Monday, 16 Apr 2007 22:59)>>>
There are quite a few posts above, pls be specific.
FLAGG
<<<But l2r, you get offended whenever someone disagrees with you. The anti-American thing for instance, being anti-American isn't an insult, it's a point of view....>>
>>By Flagg (Monday, 16 Apr 2007 21:41)>>>>
It is your point of view that JustJon is a cunt. In the future YOU are going to have to learn how to communicate that differently. Lynn could be of help, perhaps, in explaining that to you. Again, this is NOT an anything goes board ANYMORE.
I am VERY bothered by a certain individual's posture here. Does anyone remember the clarion call for assistance here???
>>By lv2read (Monday, 16 Apr 2007 23:23)
I agree, lv2, such crude vulgarity is a piss-poor way to demonstrate intellectual prowess.
But who determines what offends -- Deaf Ear, Sarcoidiot, The Gang of Four -- see what I mean?
Consider this -- this board has been most active when disagreements and confrontations were strongest. And if we're honest about it, most come here to enjoy the stimulus of conflict far more than playing nicey-nicey.
Words themselves are powerless. It's how we choose to respond that separates the men from the boys.
Or to keep the feminist word police happy, make that -- the adults from the children. (*grin*)
Carry on.
>>By xkidonim (Monday, 16 Apr 2007 23:47)
The following 'WE's' are bothering me L2R:
WE are referring to unchecked AND unabated racism
>>By lv2read (Thursday, 12 Apr 2007 23:14)
YOU brought this up, so who is WE?
WE ain't going in that direction anymore!!!
>>By lv2read (Monday, 16 Apr 2007 10:13)
YOU brought this up, so who is WE?
Well, WE won't tolerate that anymore
>>By lv2read (Monday, 16 Apr 2007 19:21)
YOU brought this up, so who is WE?
WE are not going to debate whether prick, or cunt or words like those are vulgar or not
>>By lv2read (Monday, 16 Apr 2007 22:13)
YOU brought this up, so who is WE?
Also, I've asked you twice before, so this is the 3rd time.
You are implying you have been given moderator status. WHO gave you moderator status?
If no one gave you moderator status, why are you acting as if you have been given this status.
As long as you don't answer this question no one will take you seriously.
>>By Lynn (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 00:37)
PS I do not particular like this L2R, if fact I hate it. As soon as you play fair I'll back off!
>>By Lynn (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 00:44)
Lynn
You won't like my answers, in fact you may hate them, but here goes.
My answere will demonstrate that you've walked inthe door and thrown common sense out the window. But here goes. My responses will BE IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
Copied below are your citations and my 'brief' replys.
WE are referring to unchecked AND unabated racism
>>By lv2read (Thursday, 12 Apr 2007 23:14)
YOU brought this up, so who is WE?
SPIKE KEE IS A BIGOT OF BIGOTS. IMUS HAS NOTHING ON HIM WHATSOEVER. IF YOU DON'T RECOGNIZE BIGOTRY COMING OUT OF A BLACK PERSON'S MOUTH, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN DO TO ENLIGHTEN YOU.
WE ain't going in that direction anymore!!!
>>By lv2read (Monday, 16 Apr 2007 10:13)
YOU brought this up, so who is WE?
WE ARE THE PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD THAT KNOW INSULT AND VITRIOL WHEN WE SEE IT. WE AREN'T THE WRITTEN VERSION OF THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW.
Well, WE won't tolerate that anymore
>>By lv2read (Monday, 16 Apr 2007 19:21)
YOU brought this up, so who is WE?
CUNT AND PRICK IS ALSO KNOWN BY YOU TO BE VULGAR AND INTEMPERATE AMD DETRACTS FROM A GOOD DISCUSSION.M WE IS THE BOARD AND THE BOARD WILL NOT SPIN OUT OF CONTROL. IN FACT THIS DISCUSSION HERE AND NOW IS SIDETRACKING THE DISCUSSION.....BUT NOT FOR MUCH LONGER.
WE are not going to debate whether prick, or cunt or words like those are vulgar or not
>>By lv2read (Monday, 16 Apr 2007 22:13)
YOU brought this up, so who is WE?
DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SOME GUY CALLING ANOTHER GUY A CUNT?
LYNN, WE WON'T BE DEBATING THAT HERE.
Also, I've asked you twice before, so this is the 3rd time.
You are implying you have been given moderator status. WHO gave you moderator status?
If no one gave you moderator status, why are you acting as if you have been given this status.
As long as you don't answer this question no one will take you seriously.
>>By Lynn (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 00:37)
WELL, I AM BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY...AND IF YOU WANT A CHILDISM JUVENILE BOARD, I AM SURE THAT YOU COULD FIND ONE ELSEWHERE.
REAL SIMPLE...NO NAMECALLING, NO PROFANITY, NO THREATS IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, ALL OPINIONS ARE WELCOME....YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO YOUR OPINION.
LET'S PUT AN END TO THIS BICKERING AND EXCHANGE IDEAS.
>>By lv2read (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 01:10)
"WELL, I AM BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY"
I suggest you seek professional help.
>>By planet ear (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 02:05)
<<<"WELL, I AM BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY"
I suggest you seek professional help.
>>By planet ear (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 02:05)>>>
Yes you are, as in Pest Control.
Pls don't take offense...meant light heartedly.
Should the US and the UKv ignore the nuclear threat from Iran, and WHY? This is a good place to start. Question open to all.
>>By lv2read (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 05:00)
>>>My answere will demonstrate that you've walked inthe door and thrown common sense out the window
common sense is out the window for sure, who threw it out is the question
like I said, good luck L2R
>>By Lynn (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 09:30)
So childish name-calling is forbidden and we're all supposed to rise above it an act like responsible adults...
>Yes you are, as in Pest Control.
Pls don't take offense...meant light heartedly.
Except for you. As long as you say 'only joking' afterwards.
>>By Flagg (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 10:38)
It's ok Flagg he's monitored himself and reported himself to himself for breaking his guidelines... all that remains is for him to write himself a private Flork msg indicating why if he doesn't shape up he'll ban himself from the board... or something like that....
>>By planet ear (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 12:07)
Remarkably enough that makes more sense than any of the other posts here.
Perhaps I need therapy too ;-)
>>By Lynn (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 13:40)
I've not seen any evidence here to suggest that Lynn!
>>By planet ear (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 14:13)
We are repeating ourselves. Iran????
>>By lv2read (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 15:45)
Ah yes, Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYlaIxNX01Q&NR=1
>>By Lynn (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 16:08)
We are repeating ourselves. Iran????
Nope, not WE, YOU. Your oft repeated question is both loaded and idiotic... Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons at present, have you learn nothing from the Iraqi WMD scam your leaders played on the world lv2repeathimself?
>>By planet ear (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 16:36)
So, do we wait until Iran develops the capability? How many of you think that Planet Ear's response is safe and prudent?
May I ask Planet Ear, do you believe Iran's leader is having a mid-life crises and that we should just let him work it out? Maybe you consider him harmless. I would suggest that you follow your leaders admonitions. Mr. Blain is world respected and recognizes the danger in their current course.......do you know why?
BTW Planet Ear, WHY did the United Nations unaminously sanction Iran?
Your government is a treasured ally of the US....and Americans appreciate that.
Now, Planet Ear, how about Iran. This issue doesn't just go away...it malingers.
What do YOU think?
>>By lv2read (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 18:52)
>BTW Planet Ear, WHY did the United Nations unaminously sanction Iran?
Maybe so they wouldn't have to go to war with it.
>>By Flagg (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 20:59)
Flagg
The UN unanimously sanctioned Iran....all 15 members of the Security Council....not one naysayer, not one abstention. And who was the preeminent world leader that led that charge,,,,,you're right. President Bush of the USA. And, if necessary, who will neutralize the Iranian threat.....yes, the USA and its greatest ally the UK.
Planet Ear...it is time for something positive. Do nothing?? Hide our collective heads in the sand?? Not sure that that posture can be taken seriously.
May we hear from a European that supports American and British policies? I know that you are out there.
>>By lv2read (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 23:19)
> WHY did the United Nations unaminously sanction Iran
I think you're lying again lv2bs. They didn't. AFAIAA the UN Security Council did.
>>By planet ear (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 23:50)
> WHY did the United Nations unaminously sanction Iran
I think you're lying again lv2bs. They didn't. AFAIAA the UN Security Council did.
>>By planet ear (Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 23:50)>>>
EVERYONE knows, and that includes you, that the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran. And you should also know that your country is enforcing that dictate along with your best friend, the UNITED STATES.
Apply the term lying to yourself, but no other. Pls pay attention....I am not calling you an idiot here, or even misinformed. You'll be much happier here when you return ti civil and respectful behavior. I don't recall your calling Lynn names when she spoke if the continental shelf in the UK and the US being breached within T W E N T Y Y E A R S.....that it unless you agreed with her!!!
Again, and you aren't off the hook here. WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IRAN? Take your time. google this or google that, WE are waiting your response. And, BTW, isn't the Earth on the cusp of an Ice Age?
>>By lv2read (Wednesday, 18 Apr 2007 00:19)
EVERYONE knows, and that includes you, that the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran.
Then you logically have conceded you were lying! Thank You!
>>By planet ear (Wednesday, 18 Apr 2007 00:34)
>Flagg
The UN unanimously sanctioned Iran
Maybe so they wouldn't have to go to war with it.
>>By Flagg (Wednesday, 18 Apr 2007 00:40)
We're still waiting Planet Ear.........
Iran....do nothing??
Wait....how long?? Why??
Iran....Planet Ear.....take a stand....how long do we put off action?
Why are the sanctions a great idea??
>>By lv2read (Wednesday, 18 Apr 2007 01:45)
(Tuesday, 17 Apr 2007 23:19)
History is re-written! Avid followers of this board will know what I mean.
>>By planet ear (Wednesday, 18 Apr 2007 12:57)
WE do ;-)
>>By Lynn (Wednesday, 18 Apr 2007 13:47)
I detect the hand hand of the moderator at play here... please clarify if that is you lv2rd.
>>By planet ear (Wednesday, 18 Apr 2007 15:12)
L2R, why still Iran? We should be arguing about Virginia shouldn't we?
>>By Flagg (Wednesday, 18 Apr 2007 18:15)
L2R, why still Iran? We should be arguing about Virginia shouldn't we?
>>By Flagg (Wednesday, 18 Apr 2007 18:15)????
Probably much to discuss...little to argue over.
Planet Ear..........Iran???
>>By lv2read (Thursday, 19 Apr 2007 22:22)
>Probably much to discuss...little to argue over.
I would certainly hope so. But I'm sure we'd find something to argue over.
>>By Flagg (Thursday, 19 Apr 2007 22:29)
lv2repeathimself my views regarding Iran situation have not changed in any significant way since earlier lengthy posts feel free to read consider and comment on any specifics raised
The actual sanctions imposed via UN Security Council appear to me as little more than a restatement of the countries pre-existing commitments under NPT and it took John Boulton 2 weeks to get that past the Russians! You'll note the Russians are fossil fuel rich ;)
As I have already said I regard nuclear proliferation as an historical inevitability. Given the lack of enthusiasm displayed for further UN sanctions currently (I think it is the case that even these current ones have to be renewed periodically) I don't think many more informed observers than you with whatever pre-occupations drive your absurb little outbursts are actually terribly troubled by Irans current nuclear development. Frankly I think the Iranians are possibllly correct to say they have the right under current NPT treaty to enrich for non-weapons use. I would remind you that USA and others are obliged under this self-same treaty to make positive steps to disarm... what progress has the USA made in this respect? Is it considering harsh action against itself for its arguable failure to fulfil its NPT commitments? ;)
Given that region also has nuclear arms held by Israel, India and Pakistan I am curious why you are singling out Iran for special treatment if other than the fact USA would like to coerce Iran into a long term package of oil supply priced in dollars to avoid your obvious difficulties when the rest of the world shifts to oil priced in Euro (or the Yen perhaps)
> Iran....Planet Ear.....take a stand....how long do we put off action?
You do then make the the startling assumption that "action" will be necessary, and that sanctions and diplomacy and negotiations will fail. Given your presidents frankly infantile pronoucements regarding "Axis of Evil", the way he has tied himself into unqualified prevention of Iran gaining nuclear weapons (thus committing your country to move ahead of any international consensus on the matter or accept humilating personel U-turn), the complete lack of credibility your "intelligence" services will have in your country after the failure to find WMDs in Iraq or OBL in Afganistan I predict that "action" will be neither domestically or internationally acceptable and he will eventually have the take the advice of the Iraq study group (and Blair for that matter) and start talking to Iran. It apalls me he seems to have ignored ISG entirely as far as I can see.
USA our "friends"? After Bush/Boultons blatant attempts to raise the temperature on the tricky issue of the UK naval personnel detained by Iran; ie Bush calling them "hostages" which was both provocative and inaccurate (they would be "hostages" if Iran had issued demands for their release), Boulton stormed onto our TV fuming that Blair wouldn't issue threats "take a tougher stance" etc etc I think you'll you'll find that there will be a somewhat frostier atmosphere transatlantic for a little while. UK is not at war with Iran and doesn't want to be railroaded into a provocative stance in order to help Bush form another "allegiance of the really rather unwilling" (sic) to save his bacon thanks.
You'll also note please that UK measured and diplomatic response appears to acheived the return of our servicepeople in 15 days with nothing more than conceded by either side than understandings to prevent such situations arising in futiure. You'll note this also means diplomatic links will have been excercised and refreshed.
Contrast this with US. It took you 444 days to get your Iran hostages back. Learn the lessons that history can teach please.
>>By planet ear (Friday, 20 Apr 2007 00:07)
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW BOOKS