I don't know that any of this was addressed to you. Your comments, are of course, more than welcome, even if irrelevant.
As for what constitutes "proof", that would be up to me to offer and others to evaluate.
However, this isn't what I did before - juxtapose a set of facts and then tell you that you, yes, you, would spin them. (What I didn't expect was your denial of reality, of demonstrable facts.) That time I told you what I'd do, and I did it. And you did it.
This time I've said what I'd do if Tom will acknowledge that if I am right Ashcroft is a scumbutt. I "picked on" Tom because he at least thinks from time to time. (I'm not kidding myself that even in the face of demonstrable reality that most of you won't deny it, JUST BECAUSE you don't like it. That will happen. Some of you may not.)
You're free to go track yourself. Don't feel any obligation to me to keep the reverse track.
Arf
Current Events » in reply to What you consider "proof" and what others consider proof
Yes, Larry, you can go outside and play.
The whole thread (32 posts)
- Lott retaliates for Pickering loss
- Do Nothing Daschle should enjoy his time as ML while he can.
- Re: Lott retaliates for Pickering loss
- Here's the windup - - -
- Give it your best shot
- Re: Here's the windup - - -
- Still the windup - - -
- "That doesn't mean I think I'm always right, I'm not. It does mean that I don't like to LOOK dumb." Croky/bowser....
- Throw the damn ball, or hit the showers
- What you consider "proof" and what others consider proof
- Still the windup - - -
- Here's the windup - - -
