Current Events » in reply to re: "in-depth"

The whole thread (28 posts)

• Babylon - Raoul - 1/17/2005 7:07:28 PM
  • Iraqi museum - Eric - 1/17/2005 9:06:48 PM
    • Again, priorities - Tom Brosz - 1/17/2005 10:03:54 PM
      • The Iraqi Oil Ministry had top priority. - Eric - 1/18/2005 12:16:14 AM
  • In less than two weeks, some Iraqis are going to die trying to get to a ballot box. - Tom Brosz - 1/17/2005 8:04:07 PM
    • re:Old stones don't shoot - Raoul - 1/17/2005 10:44:01 PM
      • Reminiscent of shooting the nose off the Sphinx (n/t) - alcaray - 1/18/2005 12:15:26 AM
    • Is that the only thing that matters? Is all else permissable, because of this hard truth? (n/t) - alcaray - 1/17/2005 9:27:55 PM
      • re: Is that the only thing that matters? Of course not. - Tom Brosz - 1/17/2005 9:43:56 PM
        • Not a matter of priorities. It is a matter of your too-often-used rhetorical game. - alcaray - 1/17/2005 9:59:02 PM
          • Well. - Tom Brosz - 1/17/2005 10:09:36 PM
            • I suspect that Raoul does not seriously advocate teaching our troops archaeology - alcaray - 1/17/2005 11:20:44 PM
              • More on Babylon and Camp Babylon - Tom Brosz - 1/18/2005 2:04:06 AM
                • How do you join the "Archaeological Police"? - alcaray - 1/18/2005 4:39:17 PM
                  • Current definition of "confusion" here: - Tom Brosz - 1/18/2005 6:58:05 PM
                    • I think I pretty much stipulated that in my post - alcaray - 1/18/2005 7:12:23 PM
                      • I disagree. - Tom Brosz - 1/18/2005 8:00:08 PM
                        • show me one in-depth piece so I know what you are talking about - alcaray - 1/18/2005 9:07:04 PM
                          • What is your definition of "in depth?" - Tom Brosz - 1/18/2005 9:14:04 PM
                            • I asserted that internet news sources were not "in-depth" - alcaray - 1/18/2005 9:51:16 PM
                              • re: "in-depth" - Tom Brosz - 1/19/2005 2:39:40 AM
                                • guess we can't agree on the definition (n/t) - alcaray - 1/19/2005 4:01:56 PM
                                  • I think we agree on the definition. - Tom Brosz - 1/19/2005 7:39:58 PM
                                    • You keep ignoring that I was talking about an in-depth source - alcaray - 1/19/2005 9:52:57 PM
                                      • Afraid you're out of luck, then. - Tom Brosz - 1/19/2005 10:44:36 PM
                        • Belmont Club comments on this... - Tom Brosz - 1/18/2005 8:04:44 PM
    • Gee, I'm sooo glad *you* think so. (n/t) - Davin L. - 1/17/2005 8:21:34 PM
      • Yeah. I do. - Tom Brosz - 1/17/2005 8:26:58 PM