From: "John Beamish" 

Always good to hear from you David.  I do wish you'd learn to argue with
facts instead of invictive.  But I admit it:  I made a mistake.  I argued
with the village idiot, got dragged down to the village idiot's level and
you beat me with your experience.



"David Blair"  wrote in message
news:3e987a3b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Actually, no the logic fails because you made assumptions and acted on
them
> as facts.
>
> From your own brain damaged post:
>
> >>5.  Now that Hussein is gone, so is the link to Total.
> >>6.  Who will fill the void?
> >>7.  Can you say "An American oil company"?  (you
should be able to).
>
> 6 was a question.
> 7 was an assumption.
>
> Come back when you stop using your own assumptions as basis for factual
> arguments.
>
> ANd last, try again to noticed I was reproducing a portion of an article,
> not my own writing.
>
> Gads, you're more dense than I recall, Beamish. And I recalled you as
> exceptionally dense, not to mention monumentally anal.
>
>
>
> "John Beamish"  wrote in message
> news:3e982402{at}w3.nls.net...
> > For the record, then:
> >
> > 1.  The logic was put in front of you in a logical manner (in easy to
> > follow, p-q symbol notation).
> > 2.  A logical manner can be followed by persons who are not simple.
> > 3.  You could not follow it.
> >
> > 4.  Therefore, you, David, are simple.
> >
> > (Apologies to the other readers of this thread.  David is having trouble
> > with his elementary symbolic logic.)
> >
> >
> > "David Blair"  wrote in message
> > news:3e9805e2$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > I knew you were. Thanks for the admission.
> > >
> > >
> > > "John Beamish"  wrote in message
> > > news:3e97975c{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > > You just wrote "OOPS!  I'm too simplistic to grasp
this."
> > > >
> > > > Exactly.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "David Blair"  wrote in message
> > > news:3e976126{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "John Beamish"
 wrote in message
> > > > > news:3e9747e9{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > > > > Well, duh!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll type slowly for you David since you seem
to have trouble
> > > following
> > > > > > things.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you point out (and it's public knowledge)
> > > > > > 1.  Jean Chretien's son-in-law is Andre Desmarais.
> > > > > > 2.  Andre Desmarais has a brother, Paul.
> > > > > > 3.  Paul Desmarais sits on the Total board.
> > > > > > 4.  Total was the western oil company with
the closest ties to
> > > Hussein.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's all about oil.  You still don't
understand that, do you?
> > > > >
> > > > > Have they invented color in your world?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pay very close attention now because logic is involved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5.  Now that Hussein is gone, so is the link to Total.
> > > > > > 6.  Who will fill the void?
> > > > > > 7.  Can you say "An American oil
company"?  (you should be able
> to).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This was so easy for everyone else.  (Do make
the effort to keep
> up
> > in
> > > > > > future.)
> > > > >
> > > > > My, my, my. Can you say, "OOPS! I'm too
simplistic to grasp this?"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4