"Authorized UN sources†involve persons authorized to transmit information from the UN, not to the UN. Detectives are internal sources, not department/agency sources"
This is a degree of quibbling and digression that I thought you were wholly incapable of. The sheer blatancy of it I think suggests something about your position to anyone who can read.
You might live upon suggestions. I do not. What do you "suppose" my position to be?
As for Syria, I would suggest following the news. You can "start" here: a quick Google -- but please don't be afraid to look elsewhere.
Admittedly I did offer an argumentum ad hominem, but even this was backed with fact. An “authorized UN†source is one who states the precepts and/or doctrine of the UN, not one who offers material for these precepts and/or doctrine. To me, this is obvious. To you, apparently not. As such, to me, your posts do lack a logical form of sense. Then again, I suppose sense, or the lack thereof, remains a judgement for the observer. I shall attempt to refrain from such in the future, but promise nothing.
Cheers,
Dan
Current Events » in reply to re: re: The facts . . .
re: Please be clear . . .
The whole thread (39 posts)
- Pressure builds on U.S. to explain lack of Iraq weapons
- re: The Loser!
- The Winner!
- So...
- re: Lewinsky flap . . .
- Repeating lie doesn't make it the truth
- re: So...
- So...
