General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

snip

Since you saw fit to snip most of the quotes of your own words I
presented
to you to support the accuracy of the "standard playbook"
characterization
of your argument, it is obvious there is little reason to continue
showing
you where your own words do indeed repeatedly convey that thought; it
also
points to the fact that continuing this discussion any further is a waste
of
effort, since you will just snip those items that prove your basic
dishonesty.

What Kevin "accurately paraphrased" is that he alleged, I answered: he
alleged, I answered: he alleged and I answered: and he has no reply.

Sure you did. Just keep believeing that tripe....



But...
Then you had
the unmitigated gall to come back in this thread and claim you *never*
attributed that paraphrase directly to me--

No, I didn't. Where did I claim you said it? Remember, if it's a quote
then it's traceable.

""It's not about the WMD". I can only go by what you say, Kevin...Your
claiming they were irrelevant was
something of a hint." Your meaning was quite clear, and your subsequent
"apology" did not really address your misstep. The fact that you
*continue*
to claim yopu never did this is just topping on top of the cake.

And I replied, within 24 hours, that it was not a direct quotation any
more than your "accurate paraphrases" (pshaw!) of other folks' words
are, and apologised immediately for any misunderstanding.

But you persisted in claiming it was an accurate paraphrase--it was not. The
ones I have presented of your arguments, OTOH, are supported by your own
past statements.


(Note that Kevin has wriggled around and eventually claimed I insulted
and lied some other way from his original claim - and snipped out
without reply the immediate retraction and apology for that, to


snip

And proved conclusively that you're attributing statements to me that I
never made.

So you are now saying that the Google record of your 18 May statement,
""It's not
about the WMD". I can only go by what you say, Kevin...Your claiming they
were irrelevant was
something of a hint" was not your words.

No, I've never denied those words, and I've already apologised for any
possible misinterpretation.

Now, I note *you* have snipped out multiple examples of where you have
falsely attributed words to me... how *remarkably* convenient!

I notice, also, you've neatly elided your repeated claims of "Nobody
said this!" where they were met with published speeches, and "This never
happened!" with the cites that it did.

So, just who's being dishonest here, Kevin?

You are, and I am growing tired of pointing that out to you, as it obviously
serves no purpose. I do have one regret in this case--I should have just
plonked your lying ass on 18 May, and saved us both the effort of this
current meaningless "he said, she said". You are what you are, and there is
going to be no changing that.


If you want to put it like that?

Fort Widley courtyard, dawn, Saturday 19 June.

Gauntlet's down.

I said when you are in the area; I have never been to the UK, and
don't
see
any chance of going.

Oh, how *marvellously* convenient for you.

I told you where this would have to occur up front-

Kevin, you issued the challenge.

"As to cowardly, the next time you are in the area drop me a
line--I'll be more than happy to let you address that issue in person,
in any form you may so choose, if that is what you really want." Kevin
Brooks, June 8 2004.

Yes, I did. Though I kind of took that "coward" bit of yours as a challenge
in and of itself.


By rule and tradition, the challengee gets to choose time, place and
weapons. There is a sizeable body of tradition on the matter. That you
are as ignorant as you are dishonest is no surprise.

Sorry, I have never had any plans to visit the UK, so if you are really
interested, you'll have to come to the DC area; that is enough of a trip for
me to make.


It is also no surprise that you avoid the first invitation, and now the
second. Indeed, when it turns out I'm willing to cross the Atlantic to
meet you, you're suddenly unable to even leave the environs of
Washington DC. Not unexpected, but hardly an indication of either your
courage or your certainty.

Again, my original invite stands. Let's see, we have Paul, who has mentioned
visiting the DC area before, which would seem to pose a realistic
possibility of him doing so again. Versus me, who has never been to the UK,
and is extremely unlikely to ever have the opportunity of going there in the
future. Now which sounds like a more sincere invitation--the one to the guy
who has frequently commented about his trip(s?) to the DC area, or the one
offered to guy who has never visited your own stately shores? Methinks you
were not actually sincere in that offer about Fort whatever next
weekend...please, say it ain't so?


-odd how you then
lieterally *jumped* at the opportunity of making your invitation one that
you already knew was beyond my reach. Gosh, how gutsy you are!

I played it according to tradition. Then when you claimed it was too
hard for you to travel, I offered to meet you on the far side of an
ocean. You're still running away. What conclusions shall we draw from
this matter?

Go ahead and hide behind your tradition; I'll still be waiting in VA to make
that trek to DC at your leisure.


Certainly does. Shall I see you on the 5th? And will it be swords or
pistols?

As I said before, anytime--and I mean *anytime*, you screw up the courage
and can get to the DC environs, let me know.

In other words, when invited to defend your words, you found it
inconvenient because it was the wrong country.

Gee, again, how sincere was that offer?


Then, when the opportunity was offered in your own country, even on the
correct coast, you found it inconvenient because it was the wrong state.

You could go along with my original offer--anytime.


Shall we pursue this spiral downwards? Must I pursue you through excuses
that I'm in the wrong city, the wrong suburb, the wrong neighbourhood,
and eventually that you'd give me satisfaction if only I were not on the
wrong side of the street?

No, I'd even be willing to meet you halfway (to NYC, that is); do you have a
suitable alternative in mind?


You are the fellow who
introduced this invitation--

Indeed, and I note with amusement your efforts to avoid it - while
loudly trumpeting your enthusiasm.

I have offered to meet you halfway now. Ball's in your court, Captain
Courageous.


If I'm taking a three-thousand mile trip, can't you match even a
fraction of that?

See above.


so I am assuming you will be quite happy to
drive down for the show...unless you maybe lack the moral fibre to
actually
follow through?

As I said, it's a working visit so I'm constrained for time. (Fly in on
the 5th and the ship leaves on the 6th, and time and carriers wait for
no man). So, no long drives, but I'm willing to fit you in.

Oh, so now you have already started building your newest excuse. Halfway?


And you've indicated that you lack the means or the will to visit the UK
(or, perhaps, just the courage).

Just never had any plans to do so, now or in the past--but you already knew
that, didn't you? Which is whaty that whole Fort whatever on 19 June was
just your psing for the stage? Again, halfway?


Still, never fear. There will be a third date and time for you to run
away from. Perhaps even a fourth.

No, Kevin. I offered you a challenge and you immediately claimed that
you couldn't meet it but had terrible travel constraints.

LOL! Yeah, right... sure. The response to your initial invite stands.

Of course: on current form, I could knock at your door and you'd claim
it was "too far" to meet me.

No, not as I have offered to meet you halfway to NYC.


July 5th. I'll pass more details as I have them.

So you are not willing to follow through on your initial invite. Figures.

You've been offered and evaded two places and dates so far. What excuse
will you use for the third?

The offer stands--ball's in your court.

Brooks