<font color=deepskyblue>Yes...I'm sure it is. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] </font>

Quote:

Originally posted by Donut: I expect the "about time you all apologised thread to be re-run any time now.

<font color=deepskyblue>Don't hold your breath. I seriously doubt it will be from the source you're "anticipating" if it does occur.</font>

Quote:

Originally posted by Donut: I'm happy to enlighten you at any time.

<font color=deepskyblue>LOL. I'll be waiting with baited breath. :rolleyes: </font> </font>[/QUOTE]I can get you referred to "smileys anonymous if it's all getting too much for you!

And your anticipation of my anticipation reveals your deep seated paranoia.

BTW - I don't usually correct people's spelling here but I abhor the loss of the use of the verb "to bate", plus I'll take this opportunity to enlighten you.

Bated and baited sound the same and we no longer use bated (let alone the verb to bate), outside this one set phrase, which has become an idiom. Confusion is almost inevitable. Bated here is a contraction of abated through loss of the first vowel (a process called aphesis); it has the meaning “reduced, lessened, lowered in force”. :rolleyes: (Bugger - it's catching.)

Looks like I'm not the only one guilty of "excessive use of the rolleyes smiley."

Oooooh, idioms. My favorite. I'll take three. :rolleyes: (Damn!)

<font color=deepskyblue>I'm not sure what you're referring to or exactly what you mean here, but it's sweet of you to offer anyway.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>LOLOL - now THAT was genuinely funny. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] I have no paranoia regarding you or your actions. I am merely making an educated guess based on your past actions. The last time you "anticipated" a certain thread, it was because you had been monitoring the posts of a member on another board and saved an offhand comment for over 3 months until you could use it on THIS board to cause unnecessary grief for that person. I don't have any paranoia, <font color=orange>Donut</font>. Your past actions speak for themselves.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>Very well, I will wait with bated breath then. In the meantime, I will give you credit for actually making good on your claim and "enlightening" me to the improper spelling.</font>

Take it to PM if you are still dredging that up Cerek :( . There are people from both forums that don't wish to see this linen aired in public. If you still believe in motives most sinister then this CIA rubbish needs to be shredded for the fabric it is.

You simply stated that you could easily use the sarin gas in a terrorist act. You could use a butter knife. Or a broken light bulb. Bear in mind that the 9/11 attacks were carried out with things you could carry in your pocket.

And about the well-oiled machine... That was sarcasm. I really doubt that Saddam kept meticulous records of his weapons of death. Though he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt, I was under the impression that there was mustard gas and Anthrax and nuke programs and we "KNEW EXACTLY WHERE IT ALL WAS." Knowing the exact location of a cache of recently made weapons is not the same as stumbling upon something left over from a war a decade ago after a year of looking. I'm sorry, but that sounds more like luck to me.

Let me try this in civilian laymen terms.
US artillery is a different caliber than the former USSR artillery. So, even though this nerve agent shell is older, has some of it's markings removed etc.. it's a different caliber. Could the US have made it? It's possible, however, very unlikely. It would take a facility to produce it, as it's a different caliber. Then it would have to be filled with 'sarin' agent, Oh, I forgot to mention, the US does not use 'sarin' agent. Then would have to be 'time' aged, then transplanted in the AO. All in all costing a huge amount of money, just to show 1 shell, very unlikely.
Artillery round manufacture is very much like production. Would it not take an enormous amount of time, energy, and money to fit a Geo Metro onto a Ford Excursion suspension?

Naturally it is luck. All of WomD are in syria/iran/russia (?) or anywhere that saddam hid it.

USA fought the war (By GWB claims- due to WoMD), because even if saddam lacked the artillery power to deliver sarin he manufactured it, and distributed/would have distributed it to terrorrists. OBL comes strangely enough to mind.


Naturally the "oil" bit was sarcastic one. I reffered to it as such.

Are you people incapitale of reading and understanding English? For the people that English is not their native tounge I give a pass to them. But the rest of you HOW MANY TIME DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT ADMITTING THE WAS A WoMD found is not the same as saying the War is justified? Get this through your heads I don't give a rats rear end why you don't think the War is justified!!! For all I care you can Hate Bush, you hate the U.S.A., you can think a big country whipping the dog manure out of a smaller country is wrong. You can hate capitalism I don't care. "Hale" I think we should have gone to war because the SoB SoDamn Insane needed his ass whipped.

What I do care about is using an arguement for one side then when that arguement is found to be wrong not having the balls to admitt it. Admitting it doesnot mean you think the war is right it just means you got the balls and brains to admitt something. Some of you wouldn't admitt it if a damn WoMD was dropped on your heads because in some warped fashion you would be thinking it was an OK for the War. Now there are some that have in the past shown they have the balls and brains to admitt the truth and frankly I'm suprised at your reluctance. It doesn't have a DAMN thing to do with wether you think the war is right or not It has to do with admitting something.

Calm down, Mr. Cooty old Crust, I don't want you to blow a gasket or something. Okay, now we count to 10. 1.... 2..... 3..... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Good to see you.

Hey John, did you ever try decaf ? :D