"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: "T. Early"

Well, I didn't get involved in that whole "ruthless" discussion,
but
don't let that stop you. I don't find you to be "ruthless." I
find
you to be factually-challenged. Among other gaffes, I'm still
waiting
to hear you support your claim that the London think tank that you
referred to in a post was regarded as right wing and a possible CIA
operation. I questioned it at the time, but it seems that you
"forget" to respond when inquiries like that come up.


Well, that could hardly be classified as me ruthlessly insulting
someone in the
group. You can go to the group's web page to see that they are
hardly a
left-wing think-tank as others suggested. In regards to them being a
front for
CIA operations that is a bit difficult to prove given the CIA's
tendency to
classify their covert fronts, but you might try to do a little
research,
yourself.


Again, I never said word one about you being "ruthless," and have no
idea what that thread was about. I questioned this remark of yours:

"It's a conservative think-tank! Many leftists have accused of it of
being a
front for the CIA. If a conservative think-tank says Bush has screwed
up US defense policy, it only increases my credibility"

There's no indication that this group is conservative and frankly I'm
doubtful if you know whether it is or is not. Their website does not
indicate any particular leaning, and if "many leftists" have said so
much about the organization it should be very easy for -you- to
support -your own- statement by pointing us to those "many." I
belabor this minor point only to illustrate a pretty clear inclination
in a number of your posts to a) make a definitive statement that is
wrong--here to increase your own "credibility"; b) attempt to change
the tenor of what you actually said in a second post when challenged;
and then c) toss the ball back into the other person's court to avoid
having to admit you shot from the hip.

Since you seem to be on a mission to bombard this group with items you
consider newsworthy for whatever reasons, perhaps a bit more
attention to detail might be in order.

BTW, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (not to be
confused with the London-based International Institute for Strategic
Studies), an American think tank formerly affiliated with Georgetown
University, had a conservative bent some years ago with (alleged?)
intelligence connections. http://www.csis.org/