The word, that is. Should have been "Screw it to the board." Might make a difference in the piece. I was saying that your rant is meaningless. And if you wish to be offended, please don't seek permission. It’s entirely up to you.

I found Tom's reply to my posted story to be adequate -- for him -- but you couldn't fathom the meaning of the word "is". I’ve been here long enough to understand most of the responses I get.

So have you.

Makes no never mind to me, though. Some folks like to pretend to misunderstand, because that allows them to continue doing whatever it is they are doing, regardless of repercussions.

Now you're playing a game trying hard to learn the actual names of Tom's and Scott's "enemies" on these, and other, boards. Well, the enemies are those who insist that terrorists are freedom fighters, regardless of action and motivation (Reuters, Ltd., comes quickly to mind here). Seems pretty clear.

The debated attack, btw, was not performed specifically against the United Nations, but as a lesson to Iraqi supporters of Coalition occupation. The threat may take. I like to doubt it, but this involves a population that has been told what to think for more than a generation, and the older folks who know better may have a pretty bad time of it.

Reminds me of my tour in South Korea, with the students demonstrating against U.N. “occupation“, and the elders knowing the consequences from the North should we ever choose to pull out. Iraq just happens to demonstrate with deaths rather than posters.

Dan