Current Events » in reply to re: coverage

The whole thread (19 posts)

• Trying to Contain the Iraq Disaster - Donald - 10/24/2006 1:20:29 PM
  • They are again saying "12 to 18 months". Said the same at the start. - Bowser - 10/24/2006 3:46:41 PM
    • Prior to a couple of years ago, 6 more months was the mantra - alcaray - 10/24/2006 5:39:25 PM
  • re: Trying to explain the Iraq Disaster - ER - 10/24/2006 3:29:05 PM
    • Sorry - TB - 10/25/2006 3:45:13 AM
      • No problem. (n/t) - ER - 10/25/2006 12:51:23 PM
    • Sources - TB - 10/24/2006 10:32:06 PM
      • Was it something I said? - ER - 10/25/2006 1:28:34 AM
      • Read ER's post again. "apply common sense and reason..." when you evaluate a post. (n/t) - alcaray - 10/24/2006 11:23:32 PM
        • My point - TB - 10/24/2006 11:29:22 PM
          • ER's point was that he had not seen any coverage of an obviously spectacular event. - alcaray - 10/25/2006 3:58:45 PM
            • re: coverage - TB - 10/25/2006 5:29:43 PM
              • nice stealth fallback (lot of that going on these days) (n/t) - alcaray - 10/25/2006 6:21:22 PM
      • "apply common sense and reason to these conflicting reports" - Bowser - 10/24/2006 10:58:25 PM
    • Clearly it's not reported because there is no access allowed. - Bowser - 10/24/2006 3:49:46 PM
    • This post incorrectly placed. I meant to respond to J. Herer's post below. (n/t) - ER - 10/24/2006 3:33:06 PM
  • Meanwhile: 2,801 - Donald - 10/24/2006 1:27:03 PM
    • re: Meanwhile: 2,801 - Jack Herer - 10/24/2006 3:00:15 PM
      • "Bring 'em on", he said. (n/t) - Bowser - 10/24/2006 3:47:54 PM