Figleaf

Reported.

I disagree. No. I am very comfortable with Greg treating foul language in the forum on a case by case basis when it arises. He can not read every single post in every single thread. Thus, it behooves all members to take it upon ourselves to participate in notifying him when possible transgressions arise. I will wait until Greg tells ME to stop calling out what I perceive are transgressions. Each of the foregoing quotes demonstrates a serious challenge to even the concept of policing language. Charles thinks both 'shit' and 'fuck' are bad. But Geoffrey thinks 'shit' is good but 'fuck' is bad. On what basis? No objective one, seemingly. (Geoffrey also can't sensibly discern when something is directed at a poster and when it's not.) Then we are offered the "mother-in-law" test ... which produced for Geoffrey the "shit"/"fuck" distinction, I guess, though how is still unclear. Why would someone's mother-in-law be the appropriate standard for this forum though? Next, Charles is happy with the case-by-case method. But that apparently involves him reporting people when his sensibilities are offended and putting us to the bother of worrying about it or responding to it. What gives him the right to make specious reports about language that has no rule against it? And then finally, Charles critiques my failure to use his prefered punctuation in re the word 'fuck'. This is plainly ludicrous. Reported. Unlike my use of 'fuck', your use of 'Frig' is clearly directed at me through the modification of my user handle. There IS a rule against that, Charlie.

So are you making a pitch for a rule change?

intellectually challengedThat's a candidate for "Understatement of the Year Award". Is there some reason you changed the order of the quotes? Your two intellectually challenged quotes are placed together, and separated from Ft. Niagara's accurate observation. I can see that, but you didn't answer the question. Is there some reason for changing the order?

But there is no question about the credibility of the document? Is there? None that I've heard. Presumably if there is, the RCMP would evaluate that in their investigation (unless Day thwarts it). Wrong. He's quoted as saying the documents say what they say.

Yes, doing what? You can read the news somewhat, can't you? Well, that's a novel suggestion. It seems like it would have required them to take a rather strange and pointless side trip for that to be the case. I think you're mistaken. I believe the Iranians specifically said they were questioning the British about their 'aggressive action', in reference to the boarding.

I don't think it's a lack of class. I am pretty sure that Figleaf hasn't seen the actual document. That wouldn't stop him from going after the Conservative Government. ... I know about as much as anyone who pays routine attention to the news. I haven't read the document. The relevant quote of MP Hart from the document is undisputed by Hart (or anyone else with any knowledge as far as I know). As for going after the government, the government has a clear and direct path to avoiding it -- Day should step aside until (unless) he's cleared.

Yet another tedious diversion. 1-If you want to know what it contains you can go ahead and read the thread and the various news stories cited here. 2-No-one pawed through any trash so far as I know.

No its not.

intellectually challengedThat's a candidate for "Understatement of the Year Award". Is there some reason you changed the order of the quotes?

looks kinda like a chimp

That depends on *why* one hates them. (P.S. Muslims can be or any 'race', so I've taken your use of the word 'racist' to mean more generalized bigotry along religious or ethnic lines, etc.)

My comments at post #282, above, fully respond to this issue.

I agree. I disagree. reported Greg has spoken on this issue quite recently. He indicated that there is nothing in the rules about so-called 'profane' words and that his interest focuses on respectful dialogue. In this instance I think it's obvious my use 'fuck' was exclamatory and in no way directed at any poster. If there is a rule against particular words, I need but be advised of it so that I may comply.

So I love how you law and order tories can be so sanguine about the virtual certainty that someone broke the laws against political corruption in regard to Day's seat. Of course I'm not surprised.

Has Day done the right thing yet and stepped aside so the RCMP can investigate these serious allegations properly? If not, why not? What is he hoping to gain by thwarting a full and fair review?

Ick. Turdblossom is about one of the least appealing human beings on the planet. And was that Cheney at the other end?

"Who hates the U.S.A?" GEORGE BUSH HATES THE U.S.A.

My answer to this is already contained in the post (#282) above yours.

I really don't consider it of any importance whether the Brits were on their side, or whether they strayed a little across the imaginary line. In neither event is Iran's behaviour remotely justifiable. Whatever private definition of 'justifiable' you are using to bolster your POV doesn't change the fact that in international law a state is perfectly entitled to detain foreign military forces caught conducting agressive actions within its sovereign territory or waters. Dass da fax. Has there been any indication or suggestion from anyone that they actually conducted any boarding operations within Iranian waters? Your question has no bearing on the point I was making. The answer to your question is that the Iranians are saying they were in Iranian waters. Whichever waters they were in, they were engaged in the aggressive act of armed boarding of civilian shipping. Legitimately, if in Iraqi waters, illegitimately if in Iranian waters.

You guys are pathetic. You're kneejerk preference for closing your minds against anything that has even a whiff of a chance of upsetting your fragile applecart-worldview is saddening, but your self-righteousness and self-satisfaction about it makes my gorge rise. You do realize that this new material Poly has posted lines up precisely with the troubles Army Guy was having with the situation, right? (You know, Army Guy -- the poster here who actually has insight into military procedures in the region.) Look, we KNOW British authorities were implicated in the Nigeria Yellowcake Uranium fraud. What makes it so hard to believe they could be less that perfectly honest about this situation?

No private definition needed, Britain wasn't conducting aggressive actions and was on a U.N. mandated mission, and, has released their co-ordinates. You're going off topic. The point of my comment there is not about who to believe in the actual case, but about what the applicable rights and expectations are in the hypothetical case. And again, I will point out that your post says nothing really except that you choose to believe Britain. Well, you're entitled to that choice, but realize that it IS a CHOICE that you are making in the absence of proof.

Good one!

Regarding all of you who are claiming to know that Iran is wrong and Britain is right... The problem is, that the chain of credibility on these sorts of statements is totally unclear. Let me explain... Scenario: A poster here says "Z" ... She read it on website A ... website A got it from news syndicate F ... news syndicate F employed reporter Q ... reporter Q attended military briefing W ... military briefing W released data printout N ... printout N was prepared by V who was told by GPS operator Smith that that was his reading. Now we know from how Bush/Blair started the Iraq conflict that A, F, and Q are incompetent, co-opted, and useless. We also know that W, N, and V could readily employ dissinformation if they think they should. And Smith? Well he's 22 years old and been in the job for 6 weeks. His XO helped him take the reading, but they're not mentioning that. Now please note, I'm not saying I believe Iran and disbelieve Britain. I'm saying that we have no way of finding a reasonable certainty on who to believe. The certainty some of you express is, it must be acknowledged, an emotive and non-evidential type of certainty.

Glad we agree that it was an act of war. By one side or the other.