Submitted by phil kendall on May 24, 2007 - 5:59pm
Subtitle: how oleaginously deceitful can one supposed foreign contractor be?
It is called having standards. Incoherent political rambling, mixed with poor attempts at sarcastic wittisms, do not take away from your attempted deception. Most people (on being caught) would accept it, and learn from it. It would seem you are not most people. I suggest you read the link carefully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair.
[Standards/Pau1 M0rrella on May 23, 2007 - 3:58pm]
1) "It is called having standards"; innuendo: as in "You don't!" - eh?
2) "Incoherent political rambling"; proof please, example and explanation; or is this "only in your (however mistaken) opinion?"
3) "mixed with poor attempts at sarcastic wittisms" Ooops! Spelling: "wittisms"; no spell checker, Pau1? Or just careless? Too arrogant, perhaps? Then "poor attempts", again in whose opinion? "I never joke about my work, 007!" - but having a sensayuma helps, and can be a bit'a fun, when discussing what is otherwise a truly dreadful topic.
4) "Most people (on being caught) would accept it" - 'Scuse me? This is called assuming one's own argument; usually one is required to prove some allegation before one constructs further slights based upon any such.
(Note: I have my suspicions about Mr M0rrella; this tends to confirm them. How about, he came here a) to challenge the 'oil-theft' proposition, b) with the ill-formed prejudice that it's wrong (IMHO, of course it's not, it's the coming theft itself that's wrong) then c) to hand out a few smacks. Fits, eh?)
5) Then the gratuitous link to the Jayson Blair affair ...
This is a bewdy; a real bloody-bottler, mate!
Jayson Blair (born March 23, 1976, Columbia, Maryland) is an American former New York Times reporter who was forced to resign from the newspaper in May 2003, after he was caught plagiarizing and fabricating elements of his stories.
[wiki/Jayson Blair]
(Not just by-the-way, I neither plagiarize nor fabricate. This is another false allegation from Pau1 - amongst the many - which must be, according to my interpretation of WD guidelines, either justified (IMHO can't be) or withdrawn. Hmmm?)
But prey [sic] tell, just what's so good about this Jayson Blair ref?
Well, daaarlings, for any of those who've been away some other-where (or had their heads stuck up some dark place 'where the Sun don't shine') for the last four years or so, we've had an illegal invasion now become a brutal occupation - all premised on lies, and the 'secret plan' to steal Iraq's oil. (It had to be kept secret; because it's so glaringly obvious, the only way that they could hide it is in plain sight, all the while denying it: "Wot, me steal oil? Don't be so ridiculous! That must be one'a those nutty-wutty conspiracy theories!" (Could come from Cheney, say - or Rumsfeld. Haw! Try "9." say. There's a lot, just like the dkos. Ever heard of pushing s**t uphill with a pointed stick?))
The proof of oil-theft will be seen when it happens; and the oil law being foist by the US on the Iraqi puppet government is a concrete step in that direction. Again the challenge to any and all: just prove it ain't 'murder for oil!'
Ridiculous indeed, but "What else is new," I hear you mutter?
Just this: it was the NYT, with Judith Miller 'leading the charge,' along with the other big "Paper of Record," the WP (this is neither to forget nor minimise the efforts in deception contributed by 'Faux News,' say, or the sordid and venal MSM as a whole), but it was the NYT which acted as one'a the primary conduits and amplifiers of the neoCon-associated undemocratic 'putsch' which shovelled all those utter BS-lies at us, to send us off to that murdering war. (Possibly millions now dead!)
High praise, perhaps; but only in a cack-handed sort'a way of course, for me to be bracketed with that lot.
Only problem for Pau1, though, is that - as my record quite clearly shows - I act as a seeker of truth; by citing articles and inviting comparison with what we actually see happening out in the real world, I act to counter that dreadful, filthy and lying pushed paradigm propaganda. Harrrumpf!
Finally, and also not just by-the-way, I have asked: "May I enquire, as to your purpose 'in here,' Pau1?" This is not in any way frivolous; it is a WD guideline: "2. Disclose affiliations which you think could reasonably be perceived to affect what you write." (Ooops!) So how about it again, Pau1?
Oh please, don't rush off, lemme have a 'nother go? Pretty please?
-=*end*=-
PS Although Mr M0rrella may have nefarious motives (coming to a definitive conclusion is not helped by the utter paucity of real info provided by him, see his œuvre), it's not to say that we don't need the input from people of his ilk:
You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question.
[George Monbiot/Too much at stake to let climate-change sceptics bluff the world]
(The article itself is worth a look.)
If we consider the oil-theft sceptics' proposition: that the illegal US invasion now brutal occupation of Iraq ain't about 'murdering oil-theft' - then we need to see an until-now, as far as I'm aware, non-existent proof. To which Pau1 M0rrella has not contributed even the slightest bit, Oh no; not a single solitary skerrick thereof. But thereby hangs his tale.
Ref(s):
[1] innuendo n. (pl. -es or -s) allusive remark or hint, usu. disparaging or with a double meaning. [Latin, = by nodding at: related to *in-2, nuo nod] [POD]
No comments:
Post a Comment