Debra No, this is what I said: In my message last Thursday, 2:04 pm: "Right after 9/11, one of the first thoughts from Cheney was "Great. Now we can finally go after Iraq.""
In my message last Friday, 4:55 pm, I said that my use of the word "thoughts" was incorrect and then wrote: "It does show there was already a plan in place regarding Iraq that they could latch onto, and that the WTC loss could be fit into that plan, and people's mourning about that played upon. And it has been." There's nothing about oil in those messages, is there? If you want to argue with my view that part of the reason for this war is to gain access to Iraq's oil, then do that. Me You are correct, oil was not mentioned in either post, however both lend to an ulterior motive other than those outlined by Bush. > I believe Kakki said she had read some of his works. Debra >From Kakki's Friday, 12:06 pm message: "I cannot think of any enlightenment I would personally get from reading him." Me On 2/15/03 in a post to Kate Kakki also said "Chomsky was someone I read right after 9/11 whose words hurt me in the worst way." Sounds clear to me she's read some of his works. Debra Sounds very clear to me. Relying on reviews of Chomsky's work written by a right-wing think tank is not the same as reading his words. Of course right-wing writers would present his work in the worst possible way. Being aware of and honest about the bias of what one's reading and quoting does not seem as important to some other people as it does to me. So, this "Chomsky" point is not something to argue about anymore. > I realize you want to support everything Kakki (and Sarah) have to say, > and constantly needle me every chance you get. Both attitudes are a bit > simple-minded, don't you think? > Me > See again you assume. You realize nothing. Mind reading again? Debra No, mind reading's not required here. All's obvious just by reading your unpleasant messages over the last few months since you joined the list, most of them full of sneering sarcastic remarks, with you making rambling comments about things you half remember and half understand. Your tone is usually so nasty I've never paid much attention to what you have to say (and have probably missed some of your needling), and will start completely ignoring your messages as soon as I send this. Me Debra, Unfortunately one of my short comings is I find it hard to turn the other cheek. I have responded to people as they have to me. There are many on this list I don't agree with but only a few that I have become sarcastic to. Most though I disagree with them I do respect their views, and appreciate their in put to the discussions. > I do agree with Kakki, and Sarah on many things, not all. I wasn't > trying to support Kakki as much as I was trying to hold up a looking > glass for you. Debra Thanks for your offer to be my teacher. I think I'll pass on that. ME > You are doing much of what you accuse others of. Debra Yeah, right. Attempted zinger duly noted. Now, move on, Kasey. Playtime's over. Debra, I truly am not trying to teach you anything. I'm attempting to show you why I react to you as I do. Because of your tone, and your sarcasm. But you are correct, I will block your e-mails as others have Kasey Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
