EC> Look at the funny bob spinning around and around.  You
  EC> ignore the Jake Tapper column because he refers to an
  EC> article in the New York Sun.

 -> Now that's a new lie from Earl. I don't even much recall the Tapper
 -> blog, but I do know it was not because of the NY Sun that I ignored
 -> it.

That was the "reason" you gave.  So once again you try to rob the word
"lie" of any meaning by calling a true statement a
"lie."  That is an
interesting way to try to cover your own false statements.  Wilson will
be impressed.

 EC> You ignore the New York Sun
 EC> news stories because you don't like the Daily News.  Then,
 EC> when you find out it was a different New York newspaper,
 EC> you announce that you don't like it either.

-> Another lie from Earl.

You called it a rightwing mouthpiece, and you said you felt justified in
ignoring whatever the paper said because it was biased.  Is this really
all you have left -- a sad and pathetic strategy of calling all truthful
statements "lies?"

So to recap the thread, Sauer said it couldn't possibly be true that
Iran was giving assistance to Al Qaeda.  I pointed out that there was
ample evidence that Iran has done exactly that.  You jumped in babbling
nonsense, lying about sources, misattributing sources, ignoring news
reports because you felt the paper was a "rightwing mouthpiece," and
making pathetically meaningless comments that you pretended was
refutation, and in the end never established that the reports of Iran
assisting Al Qaeda were false.  But you did make a fool of yourself
several times in the process, and that is always entertaining to watch.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10