Fallback Options

I think this works for all platforms, but if it doesn't just delete it. Add
the following chunk of code to your ...\userContent.css file, editing the
word-wrapped lines to put the whole line on one line. If additional
instructions are needed, go to http://www.mozilla.org/ . Carry on...


/* Quote Levels Colors (usercontent only) */

blockquote[type=cite] {
color: purple1 !important;
}
blockquote[type=cite] blockquote {
color: firebrick !important;
}
blockquote[type=cite] blockquote blockquote {
color: green !important;
}
blockquote[type=cite] blockquote blockquote blockquote {
color: purple !important;
}
blockquote[type=cite] blockquote blockquote blockquote blockquote {
color: teal !important;
}
blockquote[type=cite] blockquote blockquote blockquote blockquote
blockquote {
color: purple1 !important;
}
blockquote[type=cite] blockquote blockquote blockquote blockquote
blockquote blockquote {
color: firebrick !important;
}
blockquote[type=cite] blockquote blockquote blockquote blockquote
blockquote blockquote blockquote {
color: green !important;
}
blockquote[type=cite] blockquote blockquote blockquote blockquote
blockquote blockquote blockquote blockquote {
color: purple !important;
}
blockquote[type=cite] blockquote blockquote blockquote blockquote
blockquote blockquote blockquote blockquote blockquote {
color: teal !important;
}

/*gets rid of colorstuff above; also stuff in user.js file*/

blockquote[type=cite] {
padding-bottom: 0 !important;
padding-top: 0 !important;
padding-left: 0 !important;
border-left: none !important;
border-right: none !important;
}


/* Change display color of text and links in signature*/

..moz-txt-sig, .moz-signature {
color: green !important;
}


/* To change the colour/style of links in signatures*/

..moz-txt-sig a, .moz-signature a
{
color: blue !important;
/* font-style: italic !important;
}
*/
/* Get rid of this line if you don't want italized links */


/* hides the actual _ * etc. characters themselves*/

..moz-txt-tag { display: none; }

Walt wrote:
BrritSki wrote:

Let me repeat - show me 1 quote from anyone, anywhere and I'll be
happy to be proved wrong.


Are you auditioning for laziest person on the internet, or what?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J25B22E3C

Hallelujah.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:28:59 -0500, Walt
wrote:

BrritSki wrote:
Let me repeat - show me 1 quote from anyone, anywhere
and I'll be happy to be proved wrong.

Are you auditioning for laziest person on the internet, or what?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J25B22E3C

A perrallel-uniferse Gougle fur de Moppets? Wild.

bw

bdubya wrote:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J25B22E3C

A perrallel-uniferse Gougle fur de Moppets? Wild.

Um gesh de bork bork!

//Walt

BrritSki wrote:
Mary Malmros wrote:



BrritSki wrote:

Mary Malmros wrote:



BrritSki wrote:

ant wrote:

BrritSki wrote:

ant wrote:

BrritSki wrote:



I agree that Iraq wasn't an immediate threat or that the 45 minute
claim was ever a reality, but everyone "knew" they had WMDs at the
time.







No one "knew", but a lot of us were bloody sure there were no WMD
and argued the point strenuously, which was not a popular move.


Got any quotes on when you (or anyone else here for that matter)
argued this pre-war ?







I seem to remember being one of the few who did.






Quotes please.





So now you're only counting it if said people argued about WMDS
here, on rec.skiing.alpine? Otherwise it wouldn't count, right? It
wouldn't have been meaningful, right?

Any public quote by anyone will do. I asked Ant because I well
remember her arguing it and getting upset at the time, so genuinely
wanted to know if she'd said it BEFORE the war.

Sheesh.

Sheesh yourself. Why are you guys getting so angry - can't find any
quotes to prove me wrong ?



There are plenty of quotes to prove you wrong, Brrt, but honestly, it
doesn't look like there's any point in providing you with any of them.
Why? Because you're doing a classic Bush-administration bull****
denial move here, and no matter how many times someone jumps through
your hoops, you'll just move the goalposts once more in an effort to
continue denying that you're wrong. "Nobody said that, it never
happened. Oh, it did? Well, prove it! Go find a quote! Oh, there's
a quote? Well, nobody said that in a newspaper! Oh, there's a
newspaper quote? Well, nobody said that in a _major_ newspaper! Oh,
there's a quote from the New York Times? Well, nobody _important_
said that in a _major_ newspaper that's not owned by the liberal media
conspiracy!" Et cetera.

Why don't you come clean here, and show a little intellectual honesty?
You said above, "[E]veryone 'knew' they had WMDs at the time." That's
simply not true, and there were plenty of people saying so at the
time, from Hans Blix and Mohammad ElBarradei down to yours truly, in a
variety of forums. You may have been on a mental vacation at the
time, or your ears may have been closed, or you may have been one of
the bullies screaming, "Aw shuddup you pansies!" Any of those things
would furnish a reason for your current state of denial -- but none of
them constitutes an excuse.

There's only been one quote provided so far. That was Blix' statement of
Feb 2003 to the Security Council. In it he did NOT say there were no
WMDs, only that he didn't find any which is an entirely different thing.

Well, no ****, Sherlock. And you know what? I don't know that there
are no WMDs under your bed. I think I'll send a cruise missile to turn
you into a bad-smelling paste just in case.

Sheesh!

I have not moved any goalposts or shifted my ground in any way. On the
contrary, I started out asking Ant to quote from her posts here and I've
now widened it. Let me repeat - show me 1 quote from anyone, anywhere
and I'll be happy to be proved wrong.

Why don't you stop being so damn lazy and go look for them yourself? It
would be easy enough to do. Tell me this: If I, or Ant, or someone
else, produces said quote, what will you do? What exactly will you do?
Say, "I'm sorry, I was completely wrong, and I apologize for being an
obstreperous idjit"? Or will you then throw in some other conditions?

BrritSki wrote:

Walt wrote:

BrritSki wrote:

Let me repeat - show me 1 quote from anyone, anywhere and I'll be
happy to be proved wrong.



Are you auditioning for laziest person on the internet, or what?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J25B22E3C

Hallelujah.

Oh, so, that was it? "Hallelujah"? Whatever happened to, "Gosh, I
guess I was completely and totally wrong"? No wonder Ant didn't want to
be bothered to do your work for you.

In article ,
wrote:

There's only been one quote provided so far. That was Blix' statement of
Feb 2003 to the Security Council. In it he did NOT say there were no
WMDs, only that he didn't find any which is an entirely different thing.

I have not moved any goalposts or shifted my ground in any way. On the
contrary, I started out asking Ant to quote from her posts here and I've
now widened it. Let me repeat - show me 1 quote from anyone, anywhere
and I'll be happy to be proved wrong.


Okay, Walt's given you Usenet posts, but there certainly were people
during the time of the debate who were arguing that Hussein wasn't, as
posed by our own government, an immediate threat to the US.

Robert Scheer, the progressive (former) LA Times columnist, apparently
wrote this in one of his own columns in August of 2002. Here's a quote
from an article on FAIR's website, which discusses his firing in mid-Nov:

Scheer's forceful and independent commentary has often placed him in
the middle of national debates. He has been one of the strongest
critics of the White House over the Iraq War. For instance, in a
pre-war column (8/6/02) that undercuts the current notion that
everyone got the WMD story wrong, Scheer wrote that "a consensus of
experts" told the Senate that Iraq's chemical and biological arsenals
were "almost totally destroyed during eight years of inspections."

And I distinctly remember some of Scheer's columns picking apart of the
Administrations claims for a then-current Iragi nuclear capability as well
during the build up to the fiasco^wwar. I can try to look these up for
you if you'd like...

If they're so prevalent, what's the problem ?

It could be that a pretty large number of those folks were in the US
intelligence services...

john

Mary Malmros wrote:


BrritSki wrote:

Walt wrote:

BrritSki wrote:

Let me repeat - show me 1 quote from anyone, anywhere and I'll be
happy to be proved wrong.




Are you auditioning for laziest person on the internet, or what?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J25B22E3C

Hallelujah.


Oh, so, that was it? "Hallelujah"? Whatever happened to, "Gosh, I
guess I was completely and totally wrong"? No wonder Ant didn't want to
be bothered to do your work for you.


I'm sorry, I was completely wrong, and I apologize for being an
obstreperous idjit.

Not getting boinked much lately then Mary ?

John Red-Horse wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

There's only been one quote provided so far. That was Blix' statement of
Feb 2003 to the Security Council. In it he did NOT say there were no
WMDs, only that he didn't find any which is an entirely different thing.

I have not moved any goalposts or shifted my ground in any way. On the
contrary, I started out asking Ant to quote from her posts here and I've
now widened it. Let me repeat - show me 1 quote from anyone, anywhere
and I'll be happy to be proved wrong.



Okay, Walt's given you Usenet posts, but there certainly were people
during the time of the debate who were arguing that Hussein wasn't, as
posed by our own government, an immediate threat to the US.

Robert Scheer, the progressive (former) LA Times columnist, apparently
wrote this in one of his own columns in August of 2002. Here's a quote
from an article on FAIR's website, which discusses his firing in mid-Nov:

Scheer's forceful and independent commentary has often placed him in
the middle of national debates. He has been one of the strongest
critics of the White House over the Iraq War. For instance, in a
pre-war column (8/6/02) that undercuts the current notion that
everyone got the WMD story wrong, Scheer wrote that "a consensus of
experts" told the Senate that Iraq's chemical and biological arsenals
were "almost totally destroyed during eight years of inspections."

And I distinctly remember some of Scheer's columns picking apart of the
Administrations claims for a then-current Iragi nuclear capability as well
during the build up to the fiasco^wwar. I can try to look these up for
you if you'd like...

No, no need. Thanks for the quote above, that's the kind of intelligent
argument I was interesting in having before I got sidetracked by Ant an
Mary.

I never believed Iraq had a nuclear capability, or 45 minute claims and
so on, and I freely admit that I didn't hear any arguments that none
existed from any serious commentators pre-war, in particular Hans Blix
who seemed (to me) to blow with the wind.

But it's possible that I heard them and dismissed them - see, there's
that little weasel word "almost" in "almost totally destroyed during
eight years of inspections.".

BrritSki wrote:

Mary Malmros wrote:



BrritSki wrote:

Walt wrote:

BrritSki wrote:

Let me repeat - show me 1 quote from anyone, anywhere and I'll be
happy to be proved wrong.





Are you auditioning for laziest person on the internet, or what?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J25B22E3C

Hallelujah.



Oh, so, that was it? "Hallelujah"? Whatever happened to, "Gosh, I
guess I was completely and totally wrong"? No wonder Ant didn't want
to be bothered to do your work for you.


I'm sorry, I was completely wrong, and I apologize for being an
obstreperous idjit.

There ya go.

Not getting boinked much lately then Mary ?

Sounds like I struck a nerve, there. Sorry 'bout the small one, Brrrrrrt.