Trying to link this post to the original poster's topic, China's success and rise (especially in comparison with the US) is often contrasted with how bad we are at human rights. Recently, Tibet has been the shining example of how evil we are. Even in Stardock, there's another thread in the forums about China, Tibet and the Olympics - with the general idea that China is evil (sort of Korath + Drengin + Yor + worse). I've intentionally stayed out of that thread - there's many comments there that I strongly disagree with (I recently engaged in a forum putting forward my views about Tibet and ended up being hounded out as a "brainwashed son of Mao" and "commie bastard" - so the scars have not healed... though I am grateful for being educated on the word 'commie', I had not heard it before and dictionaries were less than useful).

Chinese people have reacted extremely passionately to what we perceived as unfair and unjustified attacks against us regarding Tibet and the Olympics. What we have not been so good at is understanding why we are so vilified. I've been trying to read as much as I can about western press. As I understand, Tibet is Good. China is Bad. When Bad attacks Good, then we should help Good and attack Bad back.

If things really were that clear cut and that was the ONLY thing I knew, I would probably think China is bad too and criticise China. More and more, I don't think it's what Americans or French or English are like, it's more what you are told.

As I read your press, there was once a utopian hamlet in the middle of Paradise called Tibet. The fields were green, the sky was blue. The benevolent Saint Dalai Lama planted daffodils every day in his herb garden whilst gentle monks rubbed prayer beads and prayed to Buddha. Then... one day... EVIL VICIOUS COMMUNIST MAO STORM TROOPERS CAME IN AND SHOT EVERYONE!!! DIE DIE ALL YOUR BASE BELONG TO US AND FEEL THE WRATH OF CHINA!!!!

or something like that...

Living in China, we have a healthy skepticism for all media. We don't believe it all when our media tells us China has made Tibet heaven. But I don't understand why you believe it all when your media tells you China has made Tibet hell.

I'm not going to say Tibet is perfect and China's government of Tibet is wonderful. But I would like to share some things that I wish our government would say:

i) The One Child Policy does not apply to Tibetans. As part of trying to protect the Tibetan culture from dying out, anyone with Tibetan blood is exempt from the OCP. Furthermore, Tibetans receive bonus subsidies from the government for every child beyond the first to encourage procreation.

ii) Tibetans get special bonuses regarding health care, tax and social security.

iii) Most major tertiary education institutions in China apply affirmitive action quotas for Tibetans i.e. If you are Tibetan and you score lower in your entrance exam than a non-Tibetan, you will still be accepted into University above the non-Tibetan.

I am a Han. As a Han, assuming no other special considerations, I'm only allowed one child, I pay more tax, I pay more to see the doctor and my son might miss out on going to Uni because a Tibetan gets his place.

And I also think Tibetans are really nice people. Han, Mongol, Tibetan... we're all Chinese. We contribute, we assist, we fight, we get over it... and we grow.

I hope that provides a little different view on China and Tibet.

Actually, I'm not doing that; I'm only trying to get you to think logically about what you are saying, and to stop stating things as fact that are not.



The claim has no merit, as I have demonstrated to you. Did you read that article yet? No, I didn't think so.

If you want to keep on believing these things, I guess that's your right, but please try not to let your country invade or otherwise attack Iran based on these silly ideas of yours.



Well, great, but that's not what you said. What you actually said was that he threatened to "bring about the end of the world", which he has not done.

You also stated--again, as a fact--that he was one of the embassy hostage-takers. As far as anyone can tell, there is no evidence of this and the experts, including the CIA and even the hostages themselves don't think he was. But you still feel comfortable stating this as a fact.

You are welcome to your opinions, even if they're silly ones, but I would ask that you not state things as facts that are not facts. Not only does it make you look stupid, which I don't think you are, it's contributing to this anti-Iranian hysteria which is only going to culminate in something awful, and get a lot of innocent people killed... for nothing. Just like in Iraq.



I don't have any proof. I don't need any proof. That is not my assertion. Stop it with the straw man arguments, ok?



You want me to prove a negative, do you? How about you do this for me, then: can you prove that you didn't beat your wife last night? Can you prove to me that Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction? Can you prove that Iraq wasn't involved in 911? Oh, too late, they didn't and they weren't, but you destroyed their country and murdered and displaced millions of Iraqis anyway. Need I go on?

Besides, I didn't claim that they weren't backing Hamas. As far as I know, all of the Arab governments and peoples back Hamas. So does most of Europe. And why shouldn't they? They're the legitimate elected government of the Palestinian people.



There is no proof of this. Just yesterday one of the high-ups in the Iraqi government (ie. the one your government installed) stated that there was no proof of this. But, I guess you know more about that than he would, just like you know more than the CIA does.



Most countries are, as far as I am concerned. In fact, your country is right now backing terrorists within Iran. Like these guys, for one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKO

Tell me why it's ok for the US to train these guys, and not ok for Iran to train insurgents in Iraq (assuming they even are). Note that I am not condoning either... I just want you to help me understand why this isn't a blatant hypocrisy.

One former hostage, retired U.S. Navy Captain Donald Sharer, told U.S. NBC television on 29 June that he remembers Ahmadinejad on two specific occasions.

Please show me where this man withdrew his claim.

Another former hostage, Kevin Hermening, has said Ahmadinejad was involved in his interrogation the day he was taken captive

Please show me where this man withdrew his claim

If you can show me where either of these two hostages have withdrawn their statements that Ahmadinejad was involved then I will withdraw my statement of his involvement.

Until then, I assume you are saying that both of these men are liars and that they are making it all up.





Your right, that remark was unfair. I apologize.



To quote your source the group officially renounced violence in 2001 and today is it the main organization in the National Council of Resistance of Iran

If the insurgents in Iraq would also renounce violence and obtain just one ruling or even file for a case in the European Court of Justice, I would accept your position. However by your own source as you can see they are not the same.

So let’s think logically about what you are saying, you are accepting the word of the accused (Ahmadinejed) as opposed to the words of the accusers (Donald Sharer, Kevin Hermening).

Alright, I can accept that you feel that he has more credibility then the hostages. (I know that sounds flippant, it is not)

This next statement is not accusatory, it is observational.

As the basis of your position you feel that because a U.S. government agency cannot and will not substantiate that a photograph that is “thought” to be a particular person, most likely is not that person.

O.k., let’s go with this: The man in the photograph is not AHMADINEEJED!
That has nothing to do with the claims of the two hostages. They did not say “the man in the photograph is Ahmadinejed”, they said that Ahmadinejed was one of their captors. Two totally different claims.

“Mr. Sharer and the others have said that the suspect, that picture that‘s been floating around the news organization today, is not the man he believes was the captor who is now the president-elect. But he sticks to his story, Mr. Sharer, that the man who was his captor, one of them, is now the president-elect of Iran.”

Oh, how silly of me to believe such a person. I mean after all what would he know? He’s not the C.I.A. and they would know better than he would. I mean he was only there; he was only a firsthand observer.


The problem seems to be that because their assertion that he was one of their captors was mentioned in the article about the photograph that by demonstrating that the man in the photograph is not Ahmadinejed somehow proves that he was not involved.
That is like saying “because we can prove that the photograph showing someone who resembles me being in Philadelphia at the time stated proves that I was in fact not in Philadelphia and the statements of those who say they interacted with me in Philadelphia during that time are thereby false!

The only thing it demonstrates is that the person in the photo is in fact not me. So would you explain to me why I should disregard as lies the statements of Donald Sharer and Kevin Hermening. Why is it silly for me to believe the statements of Donald Sharer and Kevin Hermening but it is not silly that you accept the statements Ahmadinejed?

It is apparent to me that your views lend toward accepting the word of those who are opposed to The United States over those who tend to be supportive. That’s fine; dealing with that mindset is no different than dealing with the mindset of “Vanilla is better than Strawberry”. The problem is that you seem to think that anyone who claims “sorry, it is the other way around” is “Silly”.

So in conclusion, would you please explain to me and thereby by proxy to Donald Sharer and Kevin Hermening how it is that their statements have no merit and that their assertions are “Silly”?

Please, do direct your answer directly toward them if you would as I will be happy to forward your response to Mr Hermening personally or if you would like you can contact him and provide it directly to him by emailing him at kevinh -at- hermeningfinancialgroup.com.

I am quite sure he would be very interested in knowing why someone who believes his statement has merit is “silly and illogical”. I am sure being how you have proven that it has no merit you will have no difficulty in demonstrating it to the man himself.

I was unable to contact Mr. Sharer at this time but I hope to have a valid email for him soon as well, figuring you might want to inform him as to the silliness of his statement as well.



Yes, Yes I do in fact. I feel quite coptfortable stating that The President of Iran was one of the embassy hostage takers. do you feel comtfortable facing those men and telling them otherwise?




does having the person who was personaly involved in this mater finally meet with your level of needed evidence satisfying or "or something"?

The only thing I can think of that provides a higher level of evidence would be acual footage of the event. alas I do not have that. so would you be willing to accept as evidence of my claim the statements of the person who he himself is the one who was there and has made the claim? Or do I also need to fly to Iran, interview AHMADINEEJED and have him address this here as well?

I know your going to say getting AHMADINEEJED in here would be silly, but as you can see I do back up what I claim. I mean can you produce anyone involved in this who has first hand information? I would venture to say that you might want to reconsider your silly position or feel free to produce some first hand information on the subject, as I have.

@ghostwes

I told you that I needed time to gather information that was not suspect. I do not keep at my fingertips the sources of all the information that I have.



As far as knowing more than the CIA does; I imagine that I have now demonstrated that in keeping with your remark, that I do in fact know more than they do.

I guess my statements are not so ridiculous after all. So, are you breathing again? Oh yea you said you were not going to hold your breath so never mind.




I would appreciate it if you would produce anything other than third hand accounts that in any way back any of the assertions you have made. Being that I have shown you that I am in fact armed on this perhaps you would like to go home, order yourself a weapon and then return to this, This was not a debate, I was not trying to influence you to support my statement. I was stating well known facts. You were simply being dismissive of my statements.



Your right it would be silly for you to apologize to someone whom you have insinuated was a liar, or to apologize to them for having presented remarks that you obviously knew nothing about and whom you treated in a dismissive manor. I am not sure what information you would like to look into, were you considering contacting Ahmadinejad for a rebuttal? You do not have to email Mr. Hermening to apologize to him. I did not say you needed to I asked if you were comfortable facing him and repeating the assertions you made here. (From your response I gather you are not). You don’t need to check about that nor do you need to check with any third party as to wither or not he has altered his stance on this. You can just ask him yourself, directly. (He really does not care what you, I or anyone else thinks about this)

In fact here is William Daugherty (another of the hostages you seem to feel is mistaken) response as to how sure he is about it:

"When your country is being humiliated and being embarrassed, the individuals that do that really stick in your mind, you don't forget people who do things like that to you and your family and your country."

So I am not sure what you wish to look into over the next few days, perhaps you would like to confirm his email address?

You are right about this debate being too easy; you know nothing about the subject but want everyone to produce some kind of “proof” about their statements.

The next time I make a statement about a subject of this nature how about we set it up this way... Now that I have demonstrated FIRST HAND INFORMATION AND SOURCES about what I say, that unless you can demonstrate with FIRST HAND INFORMATION AND SOURCES, you might want to consider that I do know what I am talking about and not be so dismissive nor hold your breath waiting for me to produce evidence to his holiness and gain his blessing that I now oh so worthy of his approval..

The people whom I call upon for my information are those who were a part of the subject at hand. I do not bleat out information that is in the news as fact. I check with those involved first. Can you say the same about anything you have stated in this forum?

As for the trains running on time, I said that it was the campaign promise he made and keep, granted the work to make that happen was already done by the government he replaced and thus he did not deserve any credit for making it happen, just that it did happen. It in fact did occur, trains did run on time according to the posted time tables. Manipulated yes, and so on and so on.?
My source of that information? A gentleman named Bernie who was a British agent in WW2. What would he know about it? Not much, you see during the war itself he maintained his cover. His cover was as follows;

Bernie was a Nazi S.S. Colonel who was responsible for ensuring the timely transport of German soldiers in Italy.

I was introduced to him back in 1994 when I drove my secretary to the funeral of her aunt in New York City. Anna, my secretary, was well aware of my love of History covering the early 20th century and wanted to arrange a nice present for me. (I should mention I was dating her daughter and she was really pushing for it to workout. So much for evil mother in laws.) Well, what she did was make a big deal about going to the funeral and not being able to drive in the city and no one in the family could arrange to fetch her. The truth was, the aunt’s death was not sudden and everyone had already had an opportunity to say their goodbyes to her while she was still alive. The entire family knew I was coming and that the funeral was the opportunity to get me to close the office for the day and go with her to New York, meet members of the family... you get the idea.

Well, I had at onetime made a remark to her about wishing I could speak to someone who fought in the war who was neither a member of my family (I had family on both sides of the war), nor was a prisoner.

When we got there and the funeral was done and we all met at a family member’s house, as we were walking up onto the porch, she walked over to this very old man who was sitting in a rocking chair and smoking a cigar. “Uncle Bernie, this is my boss Michael that I mentioned to you.” He smiled and looked at me and said “ah, I have been told about you! Come inside, I want to show you something!” He got me a rather large glass of brandy and a cigar (a very good Nicaraguan one I might add). Lead me down into the basement and behind the stairs was a curtain blocking the view of the space under the stairs. He drew back the curtain and to revel what was there.

Now mind you Anna and her family were Jewish so you have to place that into this context.

In the space behind the stairs was a display case, the tall kind and in it was displayed the uniform of a Nazi S.S. officer. On the wall were several photographs (a really large amount about fifty or so I think, it was a large wall). As I looked at them I saw several faces that I recognized from history books and such. The common denominator was the S.S. officer in all of them.

It took me about thirty minutes or so ( I was so amazed at the photos) before I took a really close look at the man who was in all the photos, (The S.S. officer). I did talk to “Uncle Bernie” while I was doing this and asking him to confirm some of the people in the photos and to please if he could tell me who others were. In one photo in particular the S.S. Officer had a really big shit eating grin on his face and I happened to turn to Bernie to ask him something and that was when I noticed that big shit eating grin on his face. It took my brain awhile to accept that the man in front of me was that Nazi S.S. officer. (Remember Bernie is Jewish).

I just kept looking at him and back at the photos, I guess he got tired of looking at my mouth being wide open and said “Yes. That’s me” I noticed then that he was suddenly speaking with a German Accent when he said that.

He then spent the next five hours telling me about his adventures as a British agent serving in the Nazi S.S. in Italy during WW2.

He told me how he used the posted time table s to sabotage trains and other things related to the Italian railroad system.

I did ask him if he had ever met Hitler, he smiled and said “No, if I had we would not be sitting here now, I would be dead” He told me about a time when Hitler was supposed to be arriving at a base that he was at and he was to be in the formation to great him. He was ready to assonate Hitler upon his introduction but, for reasons he does not know, Hitler never arrived.

Now back to the point. According to Bernie, The trains did run like clockwork even during the war, not at 100% mind you but real close. He was there. I will take his word over that of what is posted online.

Oh wait, let me guess, you want me to prove that there were any Jews in the S.S. and unless I can you will doubt the veracity of this tale.

Anything else you would like to call me on?

As always in life, you should speak from your own experiences only. If you speak outside that margin, you are making guesses and uninformed misinformation.

In my own experience, Democrats are the following:

Caring for all humans regardless of nationality, race, or gender.

Understanding of those who are less fortunate than the most successful of us.

Not bigoted, racist, sexist, or otherwise judgmental of other people. Respectful of ALL religions and do not push their own beliefs on others.

Kind, seeking to help others, compassionate, intelligent and understanding of the "larger" picture.

Able to think for themselves while listening to multiple sides of an argument, and coming to their own personal take on the issue without outside "coaching".

Understanding of the fact that we are not "entitled" to rule the world, nor even in
the current case where we're the most powerful force, expected to "police" the rest of the world. We are a global world of the same humanity, not a planet of nations controlled by the U.S.A. For the slow, this does not mean "we don't deserve to be a superpower". This simply means having an understanding that the proper way to use a superpower might is to sometimes act like you're the weakest on the planet. It's called "being humble".

Able to see common sense things- the impact of climate change, why the rest of the world hates Bush (and the United States currently), why there's no correlation to us being in Iraq and the fact we haven't had an attack on U.S. soil (please point to the "fact" that says it only takes terrorists 5 or 10 years to plan an attack? Thanks, didn't think so.) And how the Iraq war is a personal war for Bush Jr. because Saddam tried to assassinate his dad. Also, able to see that there was NO "Al Qaeda in Iraq" until we got there and started labeling people as such.


In my own experience, Warpublicans are the following:

Power hungry and elitist. The rich deserve to get richer, the poor are "lazy".
Uncaring for other people who are of other nations, followed by being uncaring for those within their own nation who are, again, "lazy" (meaning not rich).

Self-proclaimed patriots, whose militant stance and aggressive tactics are one of the primary reasons the world now hates us, when in fact we should be at our highest popularity following the 9/11 attacks. Under Democratic leadership (should have been Gore, as we all know) we would STILL be getting sympathy and cooperation from nearly ALL nations on the planet in taking action against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan- because they could clearly see the truth behind the matter.

Commonly racist, commonly sexist, commonly bigoted. Often extremely Christian, and often FORCE their religion or religious beliefs onto others as if it is the "only" truth, and therefore the world MUST run in such a manner. Unable to understand that there is not ONE definition of morality- different people can have different morals, so while a Warpublican finds nudity to be amazingly horrible, another person might actually find nudity to be completely acceptable. The difference is, the Warpublican doesn't understand that they don't have the "authority" to proclaim their morality the "definitive" one.

Narrow sighted, with extreme lack of logic skills, and unjustifiably arrogant.

Entitled, braggarts, and look down upon others.

Unwilling to help those who don't "deserve it" based on their own narrow world vision.

Warmongerers- believe diplomacy is a failure first and foremost, and that the only way to get someone to listen is to attack them first.




Just to wrap up, I'd like to point out that I catch about 5-10 minutes of Rush and Sean Hannity per day- and listen, even as a Democrat. See, I understand listening to other viewpoints is what confirms my own beliefs. I hear the flawed logic, the incorrect leaps of "intellect", and the flatly false statements and it reaffirms my understanding on matters. And I occasionally learn things- like, for instance, Rush Limbaugh always makes childish names for anyone or anything Democratic, so I borrowed this concept from him several years back and renamed his party the "Warpublicans"- because it most assuredly fits them as they current stand.

Don't agree with my take? Here's my own personal experience- remember, if you're not speaking from your own personal experience, it's meaningless.

I have been unemployed 5 1/2 years now due to a combination of suffering from Generalized Anxiety Disorder and the poor job market.

My Democratic friends understand the severity of my disease and see how many other people are out of work and unable to find work currently- even those perfectly healthy and capable of taking any job whatsoever. My Warpublican friends do not believe GAD is a disease, and that I simply have "regular stress". Therefore, they believe I should have no problem getting a job at McDonald's. If you try to tell them there are no jobs at McDonald's, because all of the out of work adults have already taken them, they refuse to acknowledge this fact. They point at flawed graphs of "high employment levels", and stare dumbfounded when you point out that those graphs don't take into account people whose unemployment benefits have run out for. They refuse to see there are FAR fewer jobs now than there were in the 90's.

Due to having no income, I get my medical care from community health. During elections, our state Warpublican politician visited the Middle School the center is housed in, and told their staff that their facility was "a luxury". I certainly wonder how he thinks my only source of health care is "a luxury", but then again, Democrats would never see it as such a thing.

My Warpublican friends think that such an extended period of unemployment is my fault, and that if I can't find work where I live, I need to move to where the jobs are. "It doesn't matter if you would be miserable in Texas, you have to move there." They also ignore the fact that most people cannot afford to move under any circumstances. The same Warpublicans see it as me simply be lazy- they refuse to look beyond anything but my current situation and label me so. My Democratic friends look at my whole story- at the 8 years I worked 7 days a week, 12-24 hours a day and realize that "laziness" isn't part of my professional lifestyle. They understand that bad things happen to good people that prevent them from having money- like a former employer going bankrupt and not paying your salary for a half year, thus ruining your credit. Or having no medical insurance and needing surgery to remove your gall bladder. These Democrats understand that the system is broken, and that you're automatically declined for disability and that over 3 years later you're still waiting for a trial date.

The Warpublicans I know judge, use weak logic, and since nothing is wrong in their lives, judge you with all sorts of insulting drivel.

The Democrats I know are supportive, understanding, and the only reason I ever think there is still hope in this world for any of us.

These are the things I know to be true.

Sorry, my netname is Druidblue (not two words). Pet peeve of mine.

There are always exceptions, that's common sense. And I've never said Democrats are "angles" (Angels). There's bad apples in every bunch- and the far left is just as embarrassing to the rest of us Democrats as the Religious Extremists are to the right. I'm sure I could meet a Warpublican with the kind traits I've listed above. You know, with the Democratic traits. Still, this type of person is likely to be Warpublican because of things like being pro-life, which is a religious stance and therefore forcing their own religious views upon others, or being for tax cuts that help the wealthy, and will still refuse to see the truth when all the facts are planted in their face. (They just go out of their way to make their own, as per Rush, Sean and "Mann" Coulter.)

I certainly don't have a vendetta against Warpublicans- my sister is one, and one of our closest friends of the family is one. Of course, neither of them have any way to answer questions with facts or good answers when pressed. They need to hear what Rush or Sean told them to say first.

I know many different people, and while the majority are Democratic, at least 1/2 of the Warpublicans I know are so sick of their own party it's laughable. Combine that with how popular Obama is (he's obviously going to be the nominee), and the laughable attempts to bring him down with meaningless crap like his "pastor controversy" (completley irrelevant to the majority of the population) mean the Warpublicans, with their weak candidate, have a large uphill climb to try to win. You'll see record Democratic turnout this fall- and you'll see record Warpublican voting FOR Obama as well.

And hey, just like in 2004- you never know what will happen- maybe McCain will win and keep us on our current track (heading for a break in bridge up ahead with a long fall below)... you never know. But I do know that just like in 2004, if McCain wins, the rest of the world is going to shake their collective heads and our "superpower" status will sink another 30 degrees into oblivion.

At my age, I can just shake my head and be sad about it, but the real damages will be visible for our kids and their grandkids, who will be learning about what took place in the aughts and say, "How could they not see how wrong they were?"

I am a democrat and supporter of Hillary Clinton. I hear what you’re saying about being at odds with most people.

The big problem that has caused people to abandon supporting the war effort are mostly (in my opinion) due to the gross incompetence of the Bush administration in handling the occupation along with the fact that it has been shown he lied to us about why we needed to go in.

And that is a real shame cause there were oh so many legitimate reasons to do it, they did not have to make up lies.

t looks like we will not have to choose between McCain and Clinton this fall, sadly it looks like Obama is going to get the nomination; this could end up being the first time in my life that I will be voting for a republican for president.

You may still get your wish and get Hillary. All she has to do is convince the super delegates to vote her way and despite the will of the people she wins. Sounds like democracy to me.

ouch, thats sounds like a remark I would have made...

Yer treading on thin ice there pretty boy.. stealing my thunder and all that!   

Fair enough. I didn't mind waiting... it appears you did, though.



Haha! Hardly... but thanks for the laugh.



In fact, I almost did become asphyxiated, after repeated bouts of laughing out loud. Thank you for your concern. I'm OK now.



But these are not well-known facts. These aren't even facts at all. Hence my concern. I was indeed being dismissive of your statements, just as they deserved.

Since, however, you have provided some information for me to look at, which I do appreciate. I did look into the names you gave me. There's a good interview here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8430780/

I don't think it's quite as conclusive as you make it out to be, mind you, but it certainly is interesting. I cannot prove that he was not involved (and should not be asked to), nor can you prove that he was, so I suggest on this one we call it a draw. It's just too inconclusive to say... for the moment, at least.



You really are being silly about this. I already told you this was the first I had heard of them... you cannot reasonably accuse me of these things. You raise some good points, and are sometimes a worthy debater, and then you go and say stupid things like this. You really should be above this kind of thing, I think.



I'm meeting him for golf next week. Can it wait until then?

I would like to correct something I said earlier, however. I said that "the hostages" say that it was not him. That was incorrect. I should have said "some of the hostages say that it was not him". An important distinction, especially given the information you have provided.



Haha, funny. Seriously, I think I know a lot more about these things than you do, actually. I mean, really... in another thread you are now saying that all the current Arab governments are all Nazis, because they are descended from the Mufti or some such. Laughable. I see now that there isn't much point debating this stuff with you... you're just not in the right mind.



I concede the point only on the names I was not aware of. Which really isn't that much, so get over yourself. It still doesn't prove that Ahmadinejad was involved.

And think how much easier it would have been if you had simply stated these things upfront when I asked you, instead of being silly about it all.

And yes, you may have my blessing now, child.



So you've actually talked to those guys, then, have you?



That was awesome! You should write GalCiv2 AAR's, mna. You obviously have a talent for writing great fiction. I especially like the attention to details (a Nicaraguan cigar -- nice!)

Seriously, do you really expect anybody to believe that story? Come on...



I don't care what your imaginary friend tells you, Pony. Mine tells me your head is on backwards.



No, that won't be necessary. I'm quite confident that you are completely full of it on this one. But you did make me laugh out loud for several minutes, and I appreciate that.



No, I think we're done here. Haha. No way I can compete with that fabulous story. You win.

Like I said, you are dismissive of facts. Again, anything that does not fit into your preconceived notions is waived away.
The network that “Uncle Bernie” was a part of

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/vegyes_/secretwar_06.rtf

I am sure you had no idea of the existance of this network, of cource not, just like you had no knowege of the information I had to provide you with already, yet still, you want to act like you know anything..

Looks like an interesting read.

Before I read it, though, can you tell me anything about the people hosting that chapter? Are they reputable, etc? Is it your site hosting it?