Current Events » in reply to Can you be more specific?

The whole thread (35 posts)

• 237 GWB & Co. lies - "Iraq on the Record" - Bowser - 3/17/2004 9:19:45 PM
  • re-do that link, B, I wanna read it. (n/t) - Davin L. - 3/17/2004 9:24:22 PM
    • re: re-do that link, B, I wanna read it. - Bowser - 3/17/2004 9:33:26 PM
      • Robert, Justin- now THATS what we need! (n/t) - Davin L. - 3/17/2004 10:19:34 PM
      • Nice. - Tony - 3/17/2004 9:54:44 PM
        • "Special Investigations Division" - Bowser - 3/17/2004 10:24:13 PM
        • mining the database for Imminent/immediate/grave - Davin L. - 3/17/2004 10:18:11 PM
          • re: mining the database - Tom Brosz - 3/17/2004 10:26:49 PM
            • So basically you are saying: - Davin L. - 3/17/2004 10:45:06 PM
              • re: So basically you are saying: - Tom Brosz - 3/17/2004 11:16:39 PM
                • re: So basically you are saying: - Davin L. - 3/18/2004 4:25:09 PM
                  • Lie: 1. an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive - Larry J - 3/18/2004 7:02:31 PM
                    • re: Lie: 1. an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive - Davin L. - 3/19/2004 4:14:54 AM
                • To make it slightly more accurate....? - Tony - 3/18/2004 3:21:20 PM
                • re: So basically you are saying: - REB - 3/18/2004 2:38:36 PM
                  • re: So basically you are saying: - Davin L. - 3/18/2004 4:12:12 PM
                    • Nope - REB - 3/18/2004 6:24:52 PM
                      • re: Nope - Davin L. - 3/19/2004 4:11:18 AM
            • Silly. - Bowser - 3/17/2004 10:42:01 PM
              • If you're going to try analogies, make them accurate. - Tom Brosz - 3/17/2004 11:27:31 PM
                • He wasn't a nice guy. - Bowser - 3/17/2004 11:44:00 PM
                  • That is an understatement. - REB - 3/18/2004 2:35:42 PM
                    • Back to basics. - Bowser - 3/18/2004 4:20:33 PM
                      • re: Back to basics. - REB - 3/18/2004 6:21:50 PM
                        • Huh! Apparently you're right on the numbers. - Bowser - 3/18/2004 6:28:50 PM
                          • re: Huh! Apparently you're right on the numbers. - REB - 3/18/2004 7:09:41 PM
                • funny that you should criticize anyone concerning 'analogies' drawn - Davin L. - 3/17/2004 11:31:21 PM
                  • Can you be more specific? (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 3/18/2004 1:12:06 AM
                    • how could I be more specific? - Davin L. - 3/18/2004 8:11:25 AM
                      • link didnt work? (n/t) - alcaray - 3/18/2004 5:46:47 PM
                    • Why ruin a streak (n/t) - gbaikie - 3/18/2004 7:18:07 AM
                      • nonsensical non-sequiters again? - Davin L. - 3/18/2004 7:58:27 AM
              • Not at all. - alcaray - 3/17/2004 11:14:50 PM
                • And anyway - alcaray - 3/17/2004 11:20:46 PM
                  • My only problem with what you said is that it's correct. (n/t) - Bowser - 3/17/2004 11:25:41 PM