General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
You need to recalibrare your humour switch.

(Now, where did I recently hear something on those lines? )

Your dishonesty is growing--

Why? You're the one who responded to argument with a version of "it was
a joke, son, a joke" a few posts back.

you are the fellow who has taken the "this is
no laughing matter" approach, yet when *you* see fit, you toss in the witty
remarks. Double standard much?

Not particularly. You suggested a properly calibrated humour switch was
a necessary tool, now you're flying off the handle because it seems your
calibration is badly off.

And the resolution authorised immediate invasion in the event of alleged
violation?

Trouble with resolutions is looking at what they actually say.

The resolution passed by our congress did.

Sorry, we were talking about UNSCR687, not Congressional resolutions.
Unless you accept that Iraqi government resolutions that Kuwait was
actually the 19th Province and should be reunified immediately were also
binding?

Remind me again where the US congress has jurisdiction over Iraq?

Yes (Again). Did you not read the last two times I showed you this, or
did you just not bother to reply?


First source found at
http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/ucreport/dis_chem.htm

+++++
36. However, it was not possible to verify the full extent of several R&
D projects carried out by Iraq from 1989 to 1990, due to the absence of
sufficient data from documents and other verifiable evidence. Those
include the research on new chemical warfare agents, BZ and Soman. These
also include Iraq's efforts to develop new delivery means for CW-agents,
such as special warheads other than for Al-Hussein missiles, i.e. FROG
missile, and real binary artillery munitions and aerial bombs. Evidence
of such studies was found in the documents from the Haider farm. On the
other hand, the Commission did not find evidence that Iraq had reached
the stage of industrial production of these materials and items.
+++++

No production, that's agreed by the UN inspectors. (Mind you, apparently
they're all useless incompetents, so who knows what pre-1991 projects
they overlooked). Development alleged but not found, though pointers
were certainly seen. Not proven, but strongly alleged, that research was
underway: just stated confidence that "industrial production was not
found".

So what you are saying is that there is no mention of any
production/fabrication--as I said.

No mention of *industrial* production, meaning they had at best reached
prototype testing - and certainly not excluding prototype testing.

After all, we found evidence of the program: not the program itself.
(Which, despite apparently superb intelligence, remains elusive)

So your, "And the discrepancy was noted
years ago" is a bit off, as the UN never noted any evidence of binary rounds
*existing*,

No - just no evidence of a production line for the results of the
suspected research.

The first Archerfish prototype was built in a garage in personal time.
Now it's part of the US AMNS program. Doesn't mean the first few
hand-built prototypes never existed, or that Redfish didn't get lost
while surveying Brent Spar.

Of course, US search teams - much more honest and reliable than the UN,
and free to move as they willed led by their excellent intelligence -
would *surely* not miss such a significant project?

I guess the shell found just materialized from thin air, then?

To repeat,
"These also include Iraq's efforts to develop new delivery means for
CW-agents, such as special warheads other than for Al-Hussein missiles,
i.e. FROG missile, and real binary artillery munitions and aerial bombs.
Evidence of such studies was found in the documents from the Haider
farm."

So, evidence of studies but not of production lines. And in over a year
of searching based first on intelligence, then on prisoner
interrogation, there's no sign of any production line that could have
produced such a shell.

One option is that this was a pre-91 prototype round. Another is that it
was imported, from Syria or Iran as examples. Evidence that it's part of
a domestic production program is the thinnest of all - yet that's the
mast you've chosen to nail your colours to.

No, simple fact. The ricin program? Let's assume it basked in the
Glorious Leader's favour. So what is it going to _do_? If you can get an
enemy soldier or civilian subdued enough to inject them with ricin, you
could just have cut their throat much more cheaply and effectively. (And
unless you're building James Bond-style autoloading umbrellas or Van
Helsing-style dartguns, an AK-47 is just as effective for spray-and-pray
on a crowd and suicide bombers' vests even more so). But it's a "deadly
toxin" and you can boast - with complete truth - that you hold "the
deaths of ten thousand Americans" in one test-tube and have succeeded
where so many others have failed. (Administering it is the problem, but
that's the difference between salesmanship and engineering)

A violation, it is. A threat, it isn't.

Finally, you admit it is a violation. Case closed.

Nice evasion. So why not invade Iraq properly in autumn 1991, when
they're thoroughly in violation?

UNSCR687 did *not* provide for immediate invasion, by whoever felt like
it, on the allegation of violation. It's taken well over a year for even
this slight proof of a technical violation to emerge: and from hundreds
of tons of missing weapons with vast factories producing more, we're
down to one

No wonder you're so terrified of discussing it and try to hide behind a
bland "case closed".

There was supposed to be a major, imminent threat. There wasn't,

snip meaningless material, since you now admit he was in violation

You mean, "avoid all the issues you find too hard to deal with?"

Go and find a dictionary. Look up the definitions of "some" and "all".
Notice that they are not identical.

Then carry out a careful count of the WME production programs found to
date in Iraq since the occupation. Having found that it tends towards a
round number, count again to confirm.

He was in violation, you mean. Glad you now understand that.

You mean, "avoid all the issues you find too hard to deal with?"

Of course he was in violation.

Good.

snip more materiel made meaningless by admission he was in violation

Let's remember that we British apparently used chemical weapons on the
Iraqis during the 1920s. Out of interest, would digging up a
1920s-vintage shell filled with mustard gas count as "a violation" and
be the complete, absolute justification you seem to consider it?

No, just the guy who wonders why "if violations of A, B, C and D are all
'urgent grounds for action' in Iraq, then why are more serious
violations of all four not important elsewhere?"

Obviously you are completely hung up on this "Standard Playbook for
International Affairs",

I am not, and have said so to you repeatedly. Since you're fond of
invective, let me now call *you* a liar for repeatedly making false
claims despite contradiction.

Don't worry about it, Kevin. Just call me "a liberal" and forget about
it.

I don't believe I have thus labled you (at least not in recent memory)--but
don't let that stop you from claiming I have, or would, given your
demonstrated ability to make false attributions.

Pot, meet kettle.

Where have *I* ever mentioned a "standard playbook for international
affairs"? (Your words, this post) That is your own invention which you
have falsely, repeatedly, attributed to me. You are a liar.

Where have I ever stated that only "great numbers of rounds in massive
stockpiles" or "only massive amounts", (both you, this thread, June 05)
would be convincing? Again, your invention, falsely quoted as being my
words. You are a liar.

Shall I continue? I find your protestations of wounded honour extremely
amusing, since you so freely indulge in the conduct you claim to
deprecate.

Actually, our Prime Minister signed off on them, which may prove to have
been unwise.

I have not seen them attibuted to our own leader. So what you are saying is
that your guy was wrong, and outrs was right?

Well, it seems the director of your Central Intelligence Agency at least
felt he was wrong.

Indeed. Why, the US Army is regularly called upon to fend off hordes of
umbrella-wielding assailants, is it not?

You have already admitted he was in violation in this regard, as we claimed.
Don't try backtracking now.

Who's backtracking? Where's the danger posed by a horde of
umbrella-wielding Iraqis trying to get close enough to jab the legs of
their enemies? Dave Barry's expression "field mice under a rotary mower"
springs to mind against even the least competent opposition: I'll take a
DShK in a sangar or even an AK against a ricin-loaded umbrella any day.

Chose to mount *your* high horse? After you called me a cynical liar for
such a thing?

(I believe the phrase is 'Ker-CHING!')

I can see that sarcasm is beyond your comprehension; you seem to keep
forgetting it was you who lambasted me

"Lambasted"? When?

My, you're thin-skinned and touchy. Is that a side effect of habitial
lying?

for bringing humor into the equation,
but then you repeatedly do so yourself. Again, double standard much?

No, just amused.

Yeah, he is obviously innocent of all charges because he had NO IDEA that
his nation had been working on WMD efforts over the years,

I'm impressed that you can say this with such certainty.

I don't.

Then why did you say it if you're not certain?

Oh, I forgot - humour and sarcasm. Which are admirable rhetorical tools
in your hands, but deceitful lies when used against you. Just as
paraphrasing your debator's words is a perfectly acceptable tactic for
you, but a filthy deception when practiced against you.

Having fun yet?

I'd be more impressed if you could show me how what he *believed* he
owned or might soon own, related to what he actually *did* possess.

Meaningless--you have already admitted he was indeed in violation.

As I said, dig long and hard enough and you might find a 1920s chemical
munition. There you go - he's in violation.

See how meaningless this absolutism of yours is?

snip more tapdancing around the fact that he was in violation

Amused at the frantic evasion - "evasion of UNSCR687" now apparently
being the Holy Writ that required immediate invasion.

Of course, there's no playbook, which is why two Iraqi shells require
invasion and a prolonged occupation while hundreds of chemical-tipped
Syrian SCUDs are politely ignored. Makes perfect sense: two artillery
shells are obviously *much* more of a threat. Oh, yeah, and it "wasn't
all about the WMD", which makes the whole "violation of 687" rather
moot...?

Confusing, isn't it, once you stop thinking about what you're doing and
just decide to blindly follow?

Your countrymen have called them much worse than liars - should I
disbelieve them?

Are you saying they are liars, or not?

No. Why do you suddenly find them credible, and why have you so
conspicuously failed to defend them?

Given your own record of recent
dishonesty,

You mean, like "massive quantities"? Go on, find me a post where I said
that - yet you attributed it to me. Or is it not lying when *you* do it?

It's curious that those who are most generous in flinging the charge of
"liar" are those who themselves are quite reckless with the truth.


Well, twice and eventually. (Overlapping requests, but mea culpa)

I never did get the prioritisation or the sort of detail that turned
them from "political manifesto" to "actually useful", but then I didn't
expect to.

You got them, repeatedly.

No, you rattled off a laundry-list of reasons. Were they in order? What
was the relative importance? *That* was what you were asked for and you
have *still* failed to provide.

That was why I asked for them in order and with an indication of their
relative importance, and I was unsurprised when you were unable to do
so.

Of course, you at least provided "the reasons", but you made sure you
had ample wriggle room. Out of your list, what at least were the top
three reasons? You weren't even able (or were too wary) to state that.
Doesn't indicate much trust in your judgement.

Try my 18
May post in reponse to you--the subject was "Sarin in a 155mm Artillery
Round". Now you claim I just gave them to you in "overlapping requests"?

I'm being generous because you repeated the laundry list and still left
out the order and prioritisation I asked for.

Nope. The wording I used then was: "Here are a few, though--

Now, remember you've left out any priority and importance. Are these the
top slice of the list? The least important reasons that are safe for
public discussion? A random selection?

I gave you some more in this
thread. But you *kept* claiming I never answered your
question...

You didn't, because from the first the question was not just "list every
possible reason for war with Iraq" but "what was the order of
importance?"

tsk-tsk-tsk, that would be another false accusation on your part
(unfortunately, that is getting to be about par for the course with you).

No, that would be another casual lie from you.

People *notice* dishonesty, Kevin.

No, Kevin, I've said so three times at least. That you choose not to
read, does not mean words are not posted.

Now, the first time you called me a liar, I replied to you
paragraph-by-paragraph, explained and apologised for the
misunderstanding... only to find that at the end of the article, you
claimed you would read no more on the matter. (In which case why bother
making a significant accusation of untruth?)

I've repeated the explanation and the apology twice already, and still
you claim to have missed it.

For a fourth time, I was about to repeat... but on a hunch, I checked
the end of your message and realised you had fled the field *yet again*.

I'd ask "Why are you so willing to fling accusations, yet so reluctant
to even discuss apologies?" but apparently you won't read this either.

Bull****. Is this your idea of an "apology"?

Right - so we've gone from "I'm a liar because I misquoted you and
insisted I was right" to "I paraphrased you and immediately made it
clear this was so, and apologised for the misunderstanding" to "I'm a
liar because you don't like the tone of my apology"?

How bizarre. What, exactly, is the "lie" here?


Meanwhile, you repeatedly and blatantly conduct exactly the same false
attribution, invent bizarre positions such as "defending Hussein" and
claim they're mine. But this, presumably, is not lying? I've given you a
couple of examples, I'm curious to hear your explanation of how they are
an honest and accurate quotation of my words and where the originals can
be found for reference.

Kevin, you're not a sockpuppet for Fred McCall, are you?

Why, does Fred have you properly pegged as well?

Depends what you mean - he disappeared in clouds of bluster and
killfiled me every time I proved he was talking out of his arse.

*He* started calling me a liar when I pointed out you could use
precision-guided weapons for close air support and he insisted that had
never happened, didn't happen now and could never be considered.
Apparently all those LGBs, JDAMs and Mavericks reported expended in CAS
missions were just fictions of the pilots' overheated imaginations.

Actually, you have, but I've accepted it as the rough-and-tumble of
debate rather than using them as an excuse to avoid awkward issues.

Please show me where I have done so in this (or last month's) debate. Show
me where I have claimed, "You said..." something that you have not.

Where did I ever claim there was a "standard playbook for international
affairs"? You repeatedly use that phrase, in quotation marks, as if it
was my own words. Where did I mention the existence of such? Or did you
invent it and then falsely attribute it to me?

Where have I ever stated that only "great numbers of rounds in massive
stockpiles" or "only massive amounts", (both you, this thread, June 05)
would be convincing? Again, your invention, falsely placed in quotation
marks as though they were my own words. Where did I make those
statements? Citations, please.

Kevin, you're the one who has FOUR times made an accusation and then
refused to respond to the reply.

Which accusation? The one about you lying about what I actually said,

Which I immediately made clear was a paraphrase and apologised for - a
point you ignored, while indulging in the exact same conduct yourself.

or the
one about my actually repeatedly answering what you claimed I had never
answered?

You were asked for a *prioritised list*, not "some of the reasons" in no
particular order. You've still failed to provide it, though you've
rattled off some of the usual mantras.

Yes. When "one shell" is a violation, then "violation" becomes
meaningless. By that argument, most of Europe plus the USA would be "in
violation" if you dug long enough in the right places.

Nope. Only Iraq was subject to the proscriptions of 687. Nice try, though.

And where did UNSCR687 say "the suspicion (not proof) of a breach shall
justify immediate invasion"? Again, you need to actually *read* what you
cite.

One of the reason the UN wasn't hugely popular is precisely because a
breach of UNSCR687 isn't an instant casus belli, but grounds for a
follow-up motion to cover action under UN auspices (such as, 660 - "Iraq
is very naughty to invade Kuwait and should leave immediately" was
eventually followed by 678, which authorised member states to enforce
660 and implored all states to support the action.)

The US and UK decided to short-circuit the UN and go for a national
solution. Time will tell whether that was the correct option: and unless
the current operation ends in disaster then partisans on both sides will
insist that their way would have been *much* better.

You complain about "high horses" and write this rubbish? Hypocrisy,
'Kevin Brooks' is thy name.

What hypocrisy? Saddam has been removed, so he no longer poses any threat,
present or future. A lot of folks think that is a "good thing".

Don Quixote was sure he was riding at giants with flailing arms, too.

Saddam Hussein posed "a threat" because, after over a year of searching,
we've turned up two - count'em, TWO! - chemical shells of uncertain
vintage. You don't think that if WMEs were a factor, there were better
places to look?

Of course, "it's not all about WMDs", it's a completely flexible list -
so much so that you proudly boast of being unable to work out what order
the reasons might fall in. But then, Hussein wasn't the top threat on
any permutation of your list.

Still, the idea that you should deal with the most dangerous threats is
obviously foreign foolishness rooted in the notion that there's a
"handbook" containing basic wisdom like "biggest risk, biggest
response".

The only WME attack on the US to date has been home-grown: I earnestly
hope there are no more (disbelieve that as much as it pleases you to do
so) but I have neither belief nor evidence to show that the occupation
of Iraq has reduced the risk in any detectable fashion.

It has removed the possibility of Saddam supporting one. Case closed.

Did he ever have the means to support one?

Tell you what - I'll guarantee to prevent your house being ruined by
rampaging bull elephants. Now it's only my kindness and generosity that
stands between you, and domestic ruin under a herd of crazed pachyderms.

Credible? Or silly? I'd say "silly" - similarly, if Iraq has no means to
produce a threat, then attacking them eliminates _nothing_ while leaving
*real* threats much more free to act. (You don't need elephant
insurance. Burglary, fire, et cetera are more credible risks... how much
would you take from those policies to build an elephant-proof fence
around your house?)


If Iraq *did* have the means to produce a significant WME threat, where
is it?

(To forestall the inevitable "ricin! ricin! scary!" it's something an
A-level chemist should be able to do with commercial glassware in a
domestic kitchen)

And when you provided them, I explained how all were business as usual
throughout the Middle East. Refute my points, or run away.

Your points are meaningless; NFZ violations are not "business as usual in
the Middle East"

Send a recce aircraft to photograph Syria's WMD factories and missile
bases and see what happens.

You can't fly there and will get a more effective response than Iraq
managed.

And as much as I dislike and distrust the Iranians and
Syrians, I have yet to read any realistic accounts of mass graves attributed
to their current leaders,

Then you've failed to read. (Syria is Ba'athist just like Iraq was and
has similar policies about internal dissent)

Oh, I forgot - I read ahead and you ran away.

There is nothing to run away *from*. You are blowing hot air--as usual.

Another lie, Kevin? They slip so easily from your lips.

You're standing by it when it goes off? That seems to be the most usual
description to date. It didn't detonate on command, it was found and
defused or - this is my guess and only that - disabled by controlled
detonation.

I am assuming the IED was detonated as a convoy went by, as is the usual
case.

The public information to date suggests but is not firm that it was
spotted in time, and disabled: the process of disabling the rounds
caused the shell to break and the contents to mix.

Very vague and not much more has been coming. (Which is not hugely
suspicious - these things take time to analyse. I'm a little surprised
that more information about the details of the find haven't noticeably
emerged, but give them time)

Not from a proper binary round with no setback and centrifugal effects,
actuated on the ground by a fuzewell full of plastic explosive. Poor
mixing, poor performance.

I said, "with fully cooked sarin";

In other words, "not a binary round used as a IED", meaning "not what
was found".

i.e., the guys who did the deed would
have been smart enough to remove the burster, remove the two chemical
components and mix them seperately, and then reassemble the round with
properly mixed sarin. The outcome could have been MUCH worse.

Or they could have killed themselves in the attempt, or just ruined the
shell. (Just because the ingredients of binary sarin aren't nerve
toxins, doesn't make them innocuous or easy to handle)

Plus, how many US troops are in the "downwind effects" of a roadside IED
whose owners didn't know what they had?

The typical IED is targeted against a moving convoy. With no previous
indication that chemical rounds might be used, it is easy to assume that the
remaining vehicles would either herrringbone and dismount, or drive through
the KZ.

Both putting most men outside the effective area. One shell doesn't do
that much - they're fired in barrages for a reason.

Now consider quantity of agent - produced by the munition, and exposure
for the troops.

You are basing this on what actually happened vis a vis the failure of the
bad guys to account for this being a true binary weapon; I am looking at it
in a worst case, but still realistic, scenario.

Still gets you less casualties than using HE, as far as I can tell -
unless your guys really bunch up around the explosion point that
initiates an ambush.

I'm lowering my opinion of your competence, sadly, if this is *really*
your opinion and not just bad temper.

This shell didn't even kill the EOD team (not in NBC as far as I can
tell) and yet it's meant to massacre a convoy? How much gas from a
roadside source do you think passengers actually in moving vehicles
absorb? You're absolutely right that the best protection for the
intended victims would be to drive through at best speed, but the notion
that this shell posed a serious threat to troops in fast-moving motor
vehicles is just *ludicrous*.

Again, we are looking at this from two different viewpoints. If you would
care to go back and review my posts in the other threads on this subject,
you will n ote that I said early on that the way this one was set off,
versus the normal cannon launch, was to be thanked for the relatively low
yield.

Plus, it appears from US reports to date, over a decade of deterioration
of the shell and its contents.

Well, gee golly whillikers, Kevin, it might amaze you that we're run by
the UK government not the US.

Well, in that case stop acting as if we over here had to be claiming massive
stockpiles

Your invention, not mine. Lying again? Please stick to my own words of
"militarily significant" when you wish to attribute a description of
required quantity to me.

No. I quoted you precisely complete with cite. I paraphrased you and
when challenged that the paraphrase was distorting your actual position,
I publicly withdrew the paraphrase and apologised for the error.

To repeat what I wrote above: Bull****. Is this your idea of an "apology"?

So, you're now calling me a liar only because you didn't like the tone
of my apology? While multiply doing the exact same paraphrase on my
words?

Not good.

I'd call it considerably more honest than your tactics here, Mr Brooks.
Be very wary of claiming "you never did X" when in fact you just chose
to never find out.

Odd way you have of "apologizing" after an inaccuracy is pointed out

What else are you meant to do? I used a tactic you're fond of, you took
umbrage, I apologised and made it clear that I had paraphrased rather
than precisely quoted your words.

For this I'm called a liar while you repeatedly attribute false
statements to me.

Yes, I'm enormously impressed with your honour and integrity.

Hey, you have been claiming I never gave any of these to you...but as we
have seen, I did last month, and again in this thread... Where is your big
"apology"?

I asked you for a prioritised list. I got "some reasons" in no
particular order. Still haven't had any indication even of which is the
most and which the least important reason.

With or without payload? That technicality aside, plot the 'allowed
range' on a map and see where it gets Iraq.

It is a violation. Even UNMOVIC reluctantly admitted as much.

So take it to the Security Council.

Oh, yes, they're irrelevant and incompetent? Then who cares about their
resolutions?

One needs to take one side, or the other, if one wishes to present as
having any integrity. Is the UNSC a significant body, or not? If it is,
why was it bypassed? If it is not, who *cares* what twaddle it passes?

Yep, that's a clear reason to invade. I mean, *look* how many aircraft
and aircrew we've lost policing those No Fly Zones!

They were violations.

Take it to the Security Council.

Alleged or proven? Who was convicted for it, out of interest?

Proven to the satisfaction of most, except for diehard Saddam apologists.

So who was convicted, since the evidence was so solid?

Or is "diehard Saddam apologist" another one of those lies you're so
free with?

harboring a couple of known terrorists,

I offer you Brennan, Artt and Kirby.

Then declare war on us.

Why? Three fugitive murderers are proof of hypocrisy regarding "giving
sanctuary to terrorists", but hardly casus belli unless you're really
desperate.

And have since accepted - in the very post to which you reply, if memory
serves - that you have finally provided. (Since you've claimed you won't
read this, it might be churlish to add 'after much prodding' and for a
debator still on the floor, it would be downright rude to comment how
you flung them behind you as you fled)

They were "flung" last month, to you. Short memory, eh?

Well, after I gave up on you ever managing the "prioritised" part...

Still, half an answer's better than none and it's clear *you* have no
idea either what the relative importance might have been.

Yes, you do. Which post of yours did I attribute it to? Where did I say
that the words in those inverted commas were yours and yours alone?

"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 words. That
seems like a pretty direct attribution to me. Which would make you a
liar...again.

As would your "standard playbook for international affairs" and "great
numbers of rounds in massive stockpiles" so falsely attributed to me.

Seems you're even more of an egregious liar than me, Kevin, and you've
never made clear that you were paraphrasing rather than quoting nor
apologised for the misattribution.

What's your excuse?

You claimed they were not a major factor. I asked you to name and rank
the major factors and got a laundry list, which I imagine will have to
do. "I don't know" would, by the way, have been an honourable and
acceptable response.

No, they have been finally extracted after much pressure and still in an
unranked straggle. However, even that seems to be too much pressure for
you to bear.

See above. They were given to you on 18 May. Which puts you in the position
of lying...again.

I asked for a list in order of priority, I got "some of the reasons" in
no order.

"I don't know the order." would, again, have been quite acceptable.
Instead, you've chosen to bluster rather than admit ignorance. (I'll be
much more charitable than you and refrain from claiming that you're
deliberately being dishonest in an attempt to conceal your ignorance)

Indeed, because at no point did I claim to anyone that Kevin Brooks said
at TIME on DATE that "QUOTE".

See above. ""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." Liar.

"standard playbook for international affairs"?

"great numbers of rounds in massive stockpiles"

Liar yourself, Mr Brooks.

There was an age when that allegation would have required you to bring a
friend (if you could rent one - from your conduct here it seems you must
have few) and a pair of good swords (assuming you owned them) to a
discreet dawn rendezvous where the matter could be settled in a
traditional style.

You have by this point been proven to be a liar,

Well, to employ the same tactics as you.

Either we are both liars, or we are not.

to wit: in claiming that
you never attributed those statements to me, which you did, by your own
words,

Just as you have repeatedly done to me.

and in claiming that I have not given you those examples of "other
reasons", which I did last month.

As a partial and unprioritised assortment, when you were specifically
asked for relative importance.

Both have been presented to you. It is a
bit late to close the barn door--the cows are out.

Kevin, I keep horses in my stable, it's no surprise you won't find any
cows in there.


Usenet would perhaps be a better place if it were less easy to fling
accusations and run away.

I am not running.

No, I will give you that credit.

I have given you your own words proving you are a liar
regarding your inaccurate paraphrase attributed to me,

And I have shown that you have lied even more generously about me -
except that I have publicly and repeatedly made clear that I was
paraphrasing your words, whereas you continue to blatantly and openly
peddle false quotations as if they were my own words.

along with my own
words proving you also lied about supposedly not having given you those
"other reasons".

You were asked for a prioritised list. You still have failed to provide
it, though you hide behind having mumbled some of the reasons in no
apparent order and then insist that it was a full and complete answer.

Whereas I find your cowardice disappointing. Go cosy up to Fred McCall,
he's more your type.

What cowardice? Not that such an accusation from a proven liar is much to
really worry about--your integrity is shot, Paul, and getting it back is
going to be hard enough without your resorting to baseless accusations.

Kevin, you have no standing from which to judge.

As I said, there was a time when such accusations you fling so cheaply
and casually were considered serious. Some of us still consider them so.
You, obviously, think them nothing more than petty tools to evade
difficult questions.

Sure. "Use humour when you want to. If people don't get it, be ready to
explain."

You did not ask for an explanation--you just declared it unacceptable in
this thread...

Cite please, where I stated that humour was unacceptable in this thread.

Are you falsely attributing words to me *again*?

You mean, "I can paraphrase but you are a liar"?

That paraphrase is accurate; you yourself said, "I can decide when to ride
it and when not to, not you." Which is a bit different from your paraphrase
that has been in question, and was proven to be most inaccurate (not to
mention that you did quite clearly attribute it directly to me, something
you now deny, but which the record shows you did do).

So, where precisely did I state where it could be found?


You mean you *did* see the apologies? I thought you claimed I never
mentioned it!

I was referring to your inane claim that you apologized,

So, the issue is now merely whether you find the tone of my apology
acceptable?

This is some distance from the ferocious and determined dishonesty you
seem insistent on attributing to me, along with multiple other
inventions of yours.

Of course, none of that makes *you* a liar...


while at the same
time, as we can clearly see in this post, you continue to lie about ever
attributing the paraphrase to me.

Kevin, you're getting desperate.

Apparently, you can't hardly say much of
anything lately without lying.

Yes, quite. Go on, then, give me some examples.

Brave words from someone who proclaims he's not even reading the reply.
(And who trumpeted that he wouldn't read the replies to his previous
allegations)

Uhmmm... I did not say that.

Then what you wrote is not what you meant.

"Integrity" my arse. Any cowardly chicken**** can fling false
accusations and run for cover.

Every accusation I have made has been covered with direct quotes of your own
words, cited by day and subject, or by my offering proof that I did indeed
give you an answer that you claimed

Just as you've falsely attributed words to me that I never said, and
evaded questions I repeatedly asked - and exploited my tolerance on your
evasions to pretend a wounded innocence when in fact you are still
fleeing the question.

Yes, you're a paragon of virtue and integrity, Mr Brooks.

I had not given you, again by day and
subject. That means they are TRUE...but you would probably have a bit of a
problem understanding that, given your now proven propensity to resort to
lying.

An apparently random selection of "some of the reasons" is not a
"prioritised list". You were asked one question, you answered another,
and you are now broadcasting that evasion as if it were a fine and noble
thing.

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.

Certainly. As I said, some of us don't treat these matters with the
casual disregard that you do.

In my
experience, a fellow like you who has to resort to repeatedly lying in order
to try and cover his own missteps, usually is the sort who lacks the courage
for such encounters--but you are welcome to prove otherwise.

If you want to put it like that?

Fort Widley courtyard, dawn, Saturday 19 June.

Gauntlet's down.

I'm here to talk about it and defend
myself, I'm replying to your claims, you're running away as fast as you
can. Shall we ask the audience to decide?

If the audience has read your claims in this posts, and then compared them
to the quotes I took from those 18 May exchanges, then I am pretty sure they
can reach the same conclusion I have reached--you were lying on both counts.

What order were those reasons in? How important was each? Given that
these were only "some" of the reasons, were there others more important?

No, sorry, you evaded and you kept evading.

Well, Kevin, I'm *really* worried about your bad opinion of me, because
you've clearly shown how open to debate you are and how carefully you
consider your positions, and your hostility could do *terrible* things
to my career prospects - because you're *so* right on all these issues.

Hey, it has thus been proven that you are a liar. First, you claimed I said
something that I did not say. That was the first lie, which you say was just
a misunderstanding and that you apologized about.

I thought I didn't apologise? When did your story change?

Then you now claim that
you never made such an attibution directly to me in the first place--but
your quoted words show otherwise.

Actually, they don't. Meanwhile you continue to freely and falsely
attribute claims and statements to me - presumably this is the least
important of your claims? Or else you have no regard for truth?

I had the integrity to immediately clarify that the words were a
paraphrase rather than a quotation, and apologise for any
misrepresentation: you've extended me no such courtesy in your multiple
false attributions to me.

Finally, you repeatedly claimed that I
never gave you those "other reasons"; but the record shows you were given a
list of them last month, and again during this exchange.

I asked for a list with an indication of order and relative importance.
I got a random selection of reasons.

I get *paid* to do this ****, and Usenet is light relief from it. I'm
actually genuinely sorry that someone I thought was an irascible but
intelligent poster turned out to be a mindless political knee-jerker,
but that's life.

Does any of that change the fact that you are a proven liar?

"Proven" in your febrile imagination, perhaps.

Meanwhile, the challenge is open if you choose to meet it. Will you back
your claims, or withdraw them? (Or will you make a weak excuse?)

Oh, **** off and die, Kevin. I can take a lot but this sort of
sanctimonious rant should be posted at the top, not the bottom.

Ah. So proving you are a liar is "sanctimonious"?

When you ever find proof, let me know.

Meanwhile,

Shouldn't be surprised, I
guess--anyone who can claim they do indeed have the right to declare when
humor is allowed in a thread and when it is not,

Remind me, again, when I told you humour was not permitted?

I *did* tell you that I personally did not find one of your attempts at
a joke funny. Now, show me precisely where I told you that I had "the
right to declare when humor is allowed in a thread and when it is not".

Or are *you* lying, Kevin? Are *you* still inventing claims and then
falsely attributing them to me?

Besides, isn't your entire paragraph redundant if you're just going to
run away?

Uhmmm...who's running?

You are, on Saturday 19th.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk