-=jd=- wrote:

On Tue 09 Mar 2004 01:06:55a, N8KDV
wrote in message :



Michael 'I must be on drugs, I can't read' Bryant wrote:

Steve Lare,

You suggested I was on drugs for suggesting that you said
you were involved in the search for Pol Pot. Then how do
you explain the dollowing archived post:

__________________________________________________ _________
__ From: N8KDV )
Subject: "I always had this dream of seeing him in an
orange prisoners jump suit
View: Complete Thread (6 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: 2003-03-08 18:42:11 PST


Nobody You Know wrote:

wrote:



BBC is mute on this..
anyone else pick up anything...?



http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/w...020/binladen03
0307.html



No wonder we can't catch him, our blabbermouth news
media keeps tipping him off.

It's just a matter of time. It's difficult. I spent some
time looking for Pol Pot...never got him... that's the way
it happens. This time though... technology may trip up Mr.
Bin Laden... I have my fingers crossed.

__________________________________________________ _________
_____

Short-term memory loss, Steve? Anyone can check out
Google. Took me 60 seconds to find the post.

Good for you fat boy. Now, let's deal with the facts. Here
are your original posts:

"It's hilarious how you amuse yourself in such a stupid.
Learn that in the military. I mean you certainly had a lot
of time on your hands while listening to Pol Pot, right?"

And...

"You claimed, earlier, that you were invloved in efforts to
monitor Pol Pot when you were in the military. Going to
deny thay, now? If I produce the original post will you go
away?"

Here was my response:

"I'm waiting fat boy, produce the post that said I was
'listening' to Pol Pot. I was not 'listening to', nor was I
involved in 'monitoring' Pol Pot".

Now as you can see I responded to your posts in an honest
way.

You on the other hand cannot read nor comprehend. Do you
see your error? No?

Well it's obvious that you do not understand the difference
between the words 'looking for' and 'listening to' and
'monitoring'.

You claimed I was 'listening to'... and I denied that. You
claimed I was 'monitoring'... and I denied that.

You have deluded yourself into thinking you've produced
something. You have not!

Please stop your shuck-and-jive.


Damn! LOL! You suckered a (presumably) detail-oriented debate
coach?

Amazing isn't it! He walked right into the wall.



Normally, I wouldn't interject, but that's pretty darn funny!
When your opponent stops seething, he may even get a chuckle
out of it himself!

-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)