Figleaf

I've already given you an answer to such peurile taunts. I see no reason to add more commentary on that matter.

What say you just be a nice little DB and waddle off somewhere and I will ignore your little sexist homophobic insult? 1. What sexism? 2. What homophobia and what insult? If you find Spartan culture (or homosexuality for that matter) shameful that's your problem, not mine. 3. I have no idea what you mean by 'DB'. Maybe you'll enlighten me.

You mean the case where the tories knowingly tendered doctored audiotapes to attempt to falsely implicate someone in a crime? It's surprising a Conservative supporter would bring up that ugly episode.

Have I not already advised you that I don't place any value on your opinions? I believe I have, but somehow you haven't grasped that, it seems. Stalk? I've been replying to posts either about me, directed to me, or on subjects I've been participating in closely. This latest accusation of yours simply demonstrates that you, not me, are the one pursuing an obsession. But don't let that dissuade you. Keep it up. In fact, please intensify your behaviour. Soon Greg will notice it for what it is -- trolling.

I'm unaware of having made any sexist or homophobic comments. Who or what is DB?

Could you explain to me what exact problem you are having comprehending the difference between the concepts of 'accused' and 'proven'. Until you grasp that distinction your commentary will persist in being simply worthless blather. !!! Since when? According to what? Why are you wasting everyone's time with such absurdities?

That post, and the one following it are in violation of the forum rules in two respects: First, in both cases you have failed to trim the quotes. Second, neither of them is in furtherance of discussion of issues. I'll refrain from reporting them, but you owe everyone an apology (again).

Whining? Crying? Riiiiiight. Again, I'll point out to you that this forum has rules, and if you abide by them you have nothing to worry about in that regard., If there were such a penalty, you'd likely suffer from it, based on this last post, at least.

His publicists said today that he was just putting one over on the interviewer and he didn't really do it. Frankly, I don't care what relationship someone has with his Pop, snorting ashes sounds like asking for a pain in the schnoz.

Oh, nice temper tantrum, Scott. BTW, I notice you and M.Dancer stick together thru thick and thin. Are you "spartan" with eachother by any chance?

1. Boxes? Plural now? 2. How do you know they were sealed? What do you even mean by 'sealed'? 3. The label on the box was written in movers' code, with the address consisting of nothing but a four digit number. Need smeed. It wasn't wrong. A cryptic yellow label was on the box, the box that had been abandoned for several years. Meanwhile, the seat Stockwell Day took over appears to have been vacated by Hart pursuant to the payment of a benefit of a kind seemingly contrary to the Criminal Code. This is the issue that Tory apologists are trying to hide through specious accusations against the whistle-blower.

Maybe, but it doesn't tell you much more than that. Presumably the exact same Parliament labels were used on the boxes the Liberals moved INto the building. But how would you know whether it belongs to you or not? Even assuming he notice it, reading the label wouldn't have told him anything, since all it said was a movers' code. Even if he knew the codes (which is very doubtful) they wouldn't establish who owned the box. And anyway, the box had been abandoned for several years. MEANWHILE, the fax Holland found still speaks for itself, indicating a strong likelihood of wrongdoing in the way a seat was vacated for Stockwell Day.

Get over yourself, I have no interest in you or your pipsqueekness or your stupidity or the bullshit you pretend is an argument. If you have such lack interest, then I invite you to leave the subject alone. Meanwhile, I have reported your post for it's abusive contents.

Regretably for your credibilty and reputation, there is nothing in the least duplicitous about my comments. You have revealed either a willingness to make false accusations, or an profound ignorance of the concept of duplicity. In any event, why don't you discuss ISSUES instead of pursuing vendettas against other participants here?

Indeed. So that proves Dancer has no idea what it means since his usage of it has no connection to that meaning. Hooey. I disagree. In fact, I can't even imagine how you come to think it 'seems' like that. Certainly the actual contents of my comments never suggested any such thing. Perhaps you are, as the psychologists say, 'projecting'.

In the video on YouTube the picture of the packing slip is clearly visible. The video was taken when Holland brought the box to the press conference he held ... WAIT, so how do we know that the document came from that box??? Holland could simply have used a left-over box for the materials for all you know! This whole smear Holland campaign has a strong stench of desperation. Day must step aside and let the proper investigation proceed.

You move into an office,on Parliament hill,in a government building,in Ottawa, the nations capitol.There are boxes to be moved from that office, into another office,on Parliament Hill,into another government building,in Ottawa,the Nation's Capitol. The delivery slip doesn't say Joe's moving company or Holland Moving company, it is a delivery slip that has the House of Commons logo and seal on it. Who could own this? Does it matter? Maybe it belongs to someone who works for the House of Commons. Maybe if you're ethical you would call the House of Commons and tell them they have boxes there,or....maybe not. Maybe you don't read the label. Maybe the label makes no sense to you. Maybe you feel that after it's hung around for years it doesn't matter to anyone. Maybe you figure if it was confidential, it would SAY so on the box. Regardless, it's not illegal to open it, and the contents cannot now be ignored. The fax implies a crime may have been committed in arranging for Hart to step aside for Day. This possibilty needs obviously needs a thorough investigation, and for that to be done without conflicts of interest, Day cannot stay in charge during that investigation. That's totally beside the point, since the box had NO seal, and all the label said was 320-2 (or whatever).

Look here, Ricki ... simply saying over and over again that the box was "clearly labelled" is NEVER going to change the fact that the label on the box was not, in fact, clear at all. Furthermore, attacking Holland is NEVER going to change the fact that the fax implicates someone in arranging for a benefit for Hart to resign to make way for Stockwell Day. This is a fact. It's an important fact, that needs to be investigated properly, and for that to happen, Day can't be in charge of the police doing the investigation. Do you realize that petty, dilatory protestations like your smearing of Holland really just serve to highlight tories' deficient handling of this matter?

How is he a liar? What mistruth, specifically do you accuse him of? As to calling him a 'thief', you have not a shred of basis for such a scurrious comment. Further, I believe that is defamatory and against the rules of this forum. I have reported your post.

Well that's interesting, though not exactly germane to the point involved in our latest exchange. Good post, Geoffrey. If the Gitmo prisoners are as bad as Bush says, it should not be that hard to convict them of crimes in a fair and open trial. Mind you, technically it seems to me that if their alleged crimes arose in Afghanistan, then it is in Afghanistan that they should be charged.

It was actually a felicitous use of the word addressed. If you're gonna try and use the ten-dollar words spell 'em right. I remember how Ricki Bobbi used to snipe at typos when he'd been thrashed in a discussion. Wow! that guy was f[RULE VIOLATION]! Partial measures usually grow but can't always appeal to women over there.

ah,,,sorry chump.... Insult reported to moderator. If you don't even read my posts, why do you argue about them. In fact, I noted above that the straight was Egyptian territorial waters. Saying that my arguments are empty does change the fact that I've soundly refuted your claim that a blockade is considered a just cause for war. I have: -cited the law that only self-defense or UNSC resolution is a legal cause for war between states; -noted that YOUR OWN SOURCES don't say that blockades are an act of war; -noted that YOUR OWN SOURCES say blockades will become defined as acts of war in 2009; and -pointed out that blockading the strait does not fit the legal definition of blockade which species the blocking of ports or shoreline. Meanswhile you baldly assert that blockades are a just cause for war, but as I've demonstrated (without any substantial reponse from you) your supposed support for that assertion doesn't actually say any such thing. Honestly, what do you think you're accomplishing? If this ain't a duplicitous and dishonest argument, I don't know what is..... Egypt Blockades Eliat....blockades aren't an act of war... In my mind, this poster has zero credibility. Especially considering that for 100s of years blocades have been condidered an act of war, I have to assume figleaf is playing dumb by choosing to ignore tradition, and in order to get the last word in, reports beiung called chump as an insult.. It that aboyt right, friend? Why would you dredge up a thread where you were so thoroughly refuted and showed yourself off so badly? Peculiar. Anyway, your post raises nothing new and my prior posts on this thread are more than adequate disposition of your position. One bit of advice, though, look up the definition 'duplicitous' before using it again.

I actually said addressed explicitly. ... Yes, that's part of what made it such an infelicious analogy, since The Box only had a coded mover's label on it.

So you're saying the feeling is mutual.

I fail to see how that makes a whit of difference to the point you're responding to. At least hundreds, probably many thousands, of people have been asking that for years now. Eventually it makes sense to draw the conclusion that it doesn't exist. POWs are not accused of anything. To receive Geneva Convention protection they disclose their status to their captors. As for criminal, they are held briefly by their accusers the police, but the police must hand them over to the courts within a very limited time.