Not at all.

alcaray — 3/17/2004 11:14:50 PM (archived)

It was one analogy with a consistant theme. Not a long list of disparate parts referring to a long list in another post.

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

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (35 posts)