[Lerkfish]

-

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I know I'm extrapolating a bit, but you have to admit, everything is heading in this direction.

It's heading in a direction. Just not in the bizarro way your are trying to make it seem.

scenario: Bush loses the popular vote, again, and wins the electoral vote, but the chasm is wider, making it obvious the electoral college has been manipulated.

ROFL! After reading that one, I really can't see me taking you seriously Lerk. I mean come on..

Keep in mind, I'm just freeforming this,

Oh, I am fully aware of it. I am sure most anyone who reads it will be too.

[thunderous_funker]

You forgot the part about Bush peeling back his mask to reveal his Ture Alien Form as we proclaim, "All Hail Our Galactic Masters"

[Timo]

where are the black helicopters?

[nvaughan3]

With the arguments and logic your have presented, it seems to me that the theory that (someone in) the US government was behind 9/11 would fit in perfectly with these themes. Dou you believe that? (I'm asking seriously, not taking a pot-shot)

[nvaughan3]

-- the rescinding of the two term presidency.

That would be quite ironic if Bill Clinton is in on this whole thing too.

[moki]

conspiracy theories never work. people talk too much

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You forgot the part about Bush peeling back his mask to reveal his Ture Alien Form as we proclaim, "All Hail Our Galactic Masters"

"Don't listen to him, he is lying!"

[UNTeMac]

Lerk, this is really beneath you. Conspiracy theories are not really theories because they take a set of current circumstances and make gross, unsupportable assumptions about future circumstances. While I think Ashcroft is the scariest man in power since Richard Nixon, I think you're reaching waay too much. Go on vacation or something.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
From another thread:
Here's just something to stimulate conversation. .....Feel free to discuss it, tear it apart, come up with your own, etc.
--

Bush and company would have to rewrite the entire constitution to come up with a conspiracy like this.

I favor the Atlas Shrugged conspiracy best.

[mathew_m]

Here's some extrapolation:

Lerk's been in the un-employment line for too long.

I'm surprised liberals hate Bush so much (esp. the Hollywood crowd). It gives them so much fodder for their fiction.

[Lerkfish]

-

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
With the arguments and logic your have presented, it seems to me that the theory that (someone in) the US government was behind 9/11 would fit in perfectly with these themes. Dou you believe that? (I'm asking seriously, not taking a pot-shot)

My question still stands...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I"m making a point, and this is how I choose to make it. If you find what I've posted bizarre, then you would also find what I posted 9 months ago bizarre, yet everything I said then has come to pass, in spite of my worst fears.

I am going to have to call out the BS flag on this one Lerk. If you want, I can post a ton of things you said 9 months ago and on that has not come to pass. As a matter of fact, on many of those posts, you were dead wrong.

My point is that although this is a "conspiracy theory" at the moment, if we are not careful, it will end up being reality. And frankly, I don't see a great effort being expended by anyone to forestall the logical conclusion of the state of affairs.

That is the point people are trying to make to you. You effort wasn't logical. It was bizarre.

I appreciate you trying to tell me how to post, but I'd appreciate it more if you'd try to see the point I'm making and see where I"m coming from.

People saw the point you was making, and where you are coming from, hey I don't blame them for not knowing. Again, just because we don't agree with you, doesn't mean we didn't saw what you was trying to get at.

Instead of pointing fingers at ME and saying I"m a looney, I want you to think about what WILL happen eventually if we do absolutely nothing to stop it. THAT would be lunacy, not this harmless conspiracy theory.

No, I would say the original post in this thread is indeed loony.

I started this thread as a conversation starter, but I meant in terms of discussing the items in the extrapolation, not as a compendium on my sanity, which is doing very well, thanks for your concern.

When you post ideas like this, don't be suprised when your sanity comes to question.

BOT: What, exactly is happening to forestall this prediction? is anyone reigning in Ashcroft? Is anyone stopping Bush from invading Syria? If no one does, will they stop?

Nope it will go on as you plann, er fortold. They will destroy and plunder and rape the cows and put McDonalds on every corner. Bush will throw back a devious laugh and point his fingers at all of us that fell for it! Boy Bush must be a smart one to pull all of this off.

[Lerkfish]

-

[Lerkfish]

-

[vmarks]

Well, I suppose I ought to go ahead and join this thread already in progress, seeing as how I was the poster being chided in Lerk's post for 'telling him how to post' -

Without commenting on Lerk at all, let me ask:

Does it always make sense to extrapolate every situation to it's one of many conclusions, no matter how far-fetched?

The beauty of conspiracy theories is that they work on people because there's a kernel of truth or suspicion of truth that the listener latches onto.

We've all had careless service at fast-food establishments, so when someone tells us that a friend of a friend was served a deep-fried chicken head at such an establishment, beak and all, we suspend disbelief. Does this happen all the time? no.

We are willing to accept our government lies to us- and have been ever since JFK was assassinated. Does this mean all government is lies? More than we'd like, but again, no.

There are a lot of things that -could- happen. There are a lot of things that are somewhat probable. Why we'd decide to go with the far-fetched prognostication, I'm not sure, especially when we want to form arguments that we could take to representatives in government and be taken seriously.

This isn't the first time I've heard weird theories about sitting presidents.

Remember the list of mysterious deaths that were all connected to the Clintons, and the drug running theories, and the theories surrounding Vince Foster's death?

For the comment by nvaughan about Bush and Clinton working together to repeal term limits, you aren't the first person to mention such a possibility- there's a conspiracy theory out there that claims that a secret group picks the President based on blood ties back to Washington, and / or the English Monarchy, and that both the Bushes and the Clintons had such ties, and are really working for the same leadership.

It's all poppycock of course, even though people who support such things believe that they're taking present day situations and extrapolating to a logical conclusion.


This is like risk-analysis. You don't decide that a piano could fall on your head and thusly wear a helmet in public - you weigh what -could- happen against what is most likely to happen. I'm suggesting that this three pronged concept of yours is not the most likely of all possible futures.

Running with this prognostication is not going to help us stave off the continued service of our Attorney General- (see the other thread) or stave off actions by the sitting President. Instead, making arguments that are either shorter-term prognostications, or are based on the ill-effects of events past will be much more convincing when I speak with my Representatives.

Will you go to your Representative's office with this concept of three prongs? and expect them to act based on it? Can you come up with something that might spur them to action better?

[Lerkfish]

-

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Um..no, the only place I'm going with this is to generate conversation on the board...isn't that the purpose of all the threads?

I didn't start the thread with "here's something to influence policy or our government representatives"
I said: Here's just something to stimulate conversation. Here is my pet "conspiracy theory". I like to think about them, even if I view them with a healthy grain of salt...

Thanks for somewhat following the spirit of the thread, though, without personally attacking me (sort of )

I assure you, nothing I said was meant as a personal attack.

And yes, if there's a good argument that surfaces in one of these threads, and I agree with it, I plan on taking it to my Representatives. I think I said as much in the other thread where you posted this pronged approach.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
why does it matter to you?

discuss what I've posted, or post something of your own, your own theories, or why my theories won't work.

anything, but stop focusing on ME as a person, as a poster. Look at the content. IF you don't find the content worth commenting on, move on to another thread.

Relax. I'm not focusing on you per se, though the question was indeed posed to you. It seems a logical extension of the provided theory that 9/11 was caused by our government. Does this fit in or not?

[christ]

Originally posted by vmarks:
...You don't decide that a piano could fall on your head and thusly wear a helmet in public...

I want me one of them helmets!

[christ]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
...Does this fit in or not?

It could. It's not far from Ollie North country to imagine someone, rogue or not, that thinks it is either patriotic or in the interests of the Administration to provoke action by plotting (or at least providing funding/ other support for) something like 9/11. Do I believe it? No.

Do you?

I have no doubt that some out there do, and as vmarks pointed out, there is a kernel of possibility that means that, like all of the best conspiracy theories, it can never be completely ruled out.

But I'm not persuaded that God wasn't an astronaut.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Well, sure, you can find all sorts of things everyone said that was wrong. But what was I right about?....let's see, shall we?

But not everyone was claiming that everything They said has come to pass, exaggerating yet again.

I've posted bizarre, then you would also find what I posted 9 months ago bizarre, yet everything I said then has come to pass, in spite of my worst fears.

I was saying that is nonsense. And it is.

IMHO BOTH sides are wrong.
Saddam definitely has WMD, and has definitely a track record for delaying obstructions and feigning compliance with UN resolutions then ignoring them.

Well that's a no-brainer Lerk. That is like me saying "Saddam has a moustache!

Bush's camp, OTOH, has done nothing but beat the drums of war, and its clear that is precisely what they intend, regardless of whatever is said and done by Saddam.

Yeah all they have done is beat the drums of war. I sure hope you aren't using that as something you have been RIGHT about.

It is inevitable, because both sides are rushing in mad runaway trains to the same collision: war.

One side gave the other side a way out. One side could have stopped the war from happening. There was no RUSH to war. 12 years is not a rush.

HEy hey HEY hey hey...I resemble that remark!

Idon't question that Saddam is a VeryBadMan?. he is, absolutely no doubt.
Ialso consider Bush a VeryBadMan?, for vastly different reasons, but ultimately, he's going to have a war with Iraq come hell or high water. That much is clear.

Again, pointing out the obvious.

but...then what? China? North Korea? Libya? Phillipines? Saudi Arabia? Isreal? (insert country possessing weapons of mass destruction or funding terrorism or both here)?

Funny how you can call defending one's state as terrorism. But ok Lerk, go on with your bad self. I guess we should just have took them all on at the same time? Where was your anger and rage when Clinton was killing Iraqis? Or when all of this was going down and he didn't care? He just wanted to ride the fence? I guess that was ok?

Sometimes the cure can be deadlier in the long term than the disease, if not administered correctly and cautiously.

And anything Bush does, to you is not administered correctly. We get it.

1. War if he complies: Washington rhetoric all along has been that if he complies, its only a smokescreen, we've seen this all before, yadda yadda yadda. Even if true (and it is), that still does not allow for a diplomatic resolution if the US already says it will not trust compliance. In other words, the rhetoric is war if there is no compliance, and if there is compliance, it doesn't count. Therefore, compliance in and of itself is meaningless...war will result in any event.

ANd how is this baseless opinion came to pass? It hasn't. Talk about rhetoric, no I wouldn't even call it that. I thought you was posting things you was RIGHT about, not things you had opinions about that didn't come to pass.

2. See # 1 above. Add to that, the US is almost heckling the process of inspections, essentially mocking them, even as we are requiring them. This shows that even we find them pointless, but we demand Hussein take them seriously. If we expect him to comply, it has to be in a way that allows for the opportunity to do so.

We had been heckling them for 12 years, so we basically caused the inspections to fail? Come on Lerk, he has had 12 years to comply. No matter WHAT way it was done, he wouldn't have done it. You are pointing the finger in the wrong place. IMHO , and again, more subjective opinion. And not things you have said that has come to pass.

here's the deal, this is very much like the legend of the Zen master saying "if you kneel, Iwill beat you with this stick. If you stand, Iwill beat you with this stick:". So the student stands up and takes the stick away from the master. Unfortunately, in this scenario in the real world, if Husseing is damned either way, if he DOES have WMD, he would be well-advised to go ahead and use them, and do so pre-emptively. Not that Iwant that, obviously, but in his position I'd certainly be considering it....

That scenario that was just made up in your head, That scenerio never happened.

This is why Iprefer diplomacy. Even when it fails,

Or never works, and kills more people than war does. But that is ok! As long as it's not called war!
*gives peace sign*

it provides more possible solutions.

We tried many possible solutions. You keep forgetting that. He didn't want to comply. You keep forgetting that.

Military sword-rattling only allows for two possible outcomes: War, or complete submission of one side , which eventually leads to insurgence later.

In your opinion you mean.

This goes to a previous point of mine: this sabre-rattling is NOT credible, because it doesn't really desire the stated goal, because it continues to mistrust it when it is reached, and interferes with the process to reach it.

Again, more opinions, no facts that have came to pass.

In other words, instead of being a threat in order to hasten diplomacy, it is a certainty based on the double-bind nature of the threat...in other words, a clear promise to bypass diplomacy.

No matter what Hussein does at the point, he WILL get the sabre, because the stated goal is not the real goal. the stated goal is compliance to UN resolutions, but the real goal, if we are all being honest here, is to dethrone the present regime and replace it with a more US compliant one.

If you mean the goal is to replace a evil dictator that kills his own people at a whim and threatens the lives of everyone on this earth then yes, I agree with you. And why is that such a bad idea? Oh I remember why, because Bush is behind it. It all makes sense now

Since that is the real goal, the sabre-rattling is NOT to achieve a diplomatic solution, but is instead a ruse to find sufficient opportunity and justification to accomplish the real goal: overthrowing the present Iraqi govt.

Yes sabre-rattling is the real goal. Get a grip.

In this instance, the sabre-rattling is in fact, no part of diplomacy.

so, yes, we disagree sharply on this one.

More opinions.

this is where our opinions are going to have to disagree. Ifirmly believe war and regime change is going to happen, come hell or high water. If Bush cannot do it through inspections, and even if Hussein rolls over completely, then we'll start to see Intelligence leaks to justify the invasion. Some way, somehow, Bush is going to get what he wants in this. Inspections are only plan A.
Why else spend all this rhetoric denouncing the UN's validity and how we do not have to wait for them, if he were not holding in reserve the intention of doing an end-run around the UN resolutions if Saddam complies with them?

Again stating the obvious. Well duh Lerk, Tere was going to be war, not because BUSH wanted it, but because SADDAM did. He was given a way out. Him alone could have stopped this war. It's the way HE WANTED IT. But lets not blame the evil dictator Saddam, nooooo lets blame Bush because he is a Republican and you have on more than one occasion spoke about your disdain for Republicans. Bite the pillow, you are about to deal with him another 4 years. But I am sure you have a conspiracy theory on both why he WONT be in office, and why he WILL. Make sure to cover both sides.

I'm a lot more cynical about Bush than you are, I'm afraid.

I agree.

cyn·i·cal
Believing or showing the belief that people are motivated chiefly by base or selfish concerns

Selfishly or callously calculating

Negative or pessimistic, as from world-wearines

Expressing jaded or scornful skepticism or negativity

You ARE very cynical. Even when there is no reason to be.

Again, this has nothing to do with Bush being a bad person as much as it has to do with you just not liking the party he is from.

Isee too many feints within feints already being put in place for this eventuality. Troops are already being shipped over there. This is going to happen.

Just like no one will be dancing in the streets. That was just a righty dream right Lerk?

Again, most of what you quoted was opinions, not based on fact. Or the obvious. You have been wrong more times than right. When you post silliness like the first post above, don't be surprised when even the lefty's join in and laugh at the paranoia.

[Developer]

Lerkfish, your 3 pronged theory is absurd. It is save to say that something like that could never happen in in the USA. They always have been and always will be the prime example of a stable democracy and constitutional state.
Your government always wants the best for you, so there is no need to so closely monitor what they are doing, and extrapolate to the worst things that could happen, if it's so sure that the worst things can never happen under all circumstances.

And, since I assume you are not a muslim, nothing of this affects you anyway. If anything, what you are doing could bring yourself into focus of attention and into trouble.

Just ignore the little unpleasantnesses others (evil people anyway!) are experiencing and live a happier life.

[Sven G]

... BTW, as Julius Caesar used to say, some time ago: divide et impera (divide and rule/conquer) - it's just that we are "living" (or slowly "dying", maybe?) a more recent incarnation of this ancient "I can't do it (anymore!) - so you just must not be able to outperform me in any way" (or something similar - of course, related to potentially positive/balanced things, for both the individual and common good) remotional issue (see obsessive need for concentrated "power", as a surrogate for more human things): which, in our case, might (also and above all) be a result of the failed "revolutions" of our recent decades.

As Bakunin - or Malatesta? - (IIRC) said, failed and/or incomplete (for their period) revolutions/revolutionaries (more the passive, "follow the wave" ones, of course) quickly tend to become quite nasty reactionaries, if things degenerate in an "uncontrollable" manner...

(OK, just a "Sven's psychological explanation of the status quo" - but anyway... )

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Developer:
Lerkfish, your 3 pronged theory is absurd. It is save to say that something like that could never happen in in the USA. They always have been and always will be the prime example of a stable democracy and constitutional state.
Your government always wants the best for you, so there is no need to so closely monitor what they are doing, and extrapolate to the worst things that could happen, if it's so sure that the worst things can never happen under all circumstances.

And, since I assume you are not a muslim, nothing of this affects you anyway. If anything, what you are doing could bring yourself into focus of attention and into trouble.

Just ignore the little unpleasantnesses others (evil people anyway!) are experiencing and live a happier life.

Surely this is sarcasm??

Hmmm if not,
What kind of way is that to live your life??? " as long as you aren't muslim don't worry about it.......' When they kick all the muslims out they will target another group to scapegoat.

Now for a PERFECTLY apt quote


"First they came for the Communists;
I did not speak because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews;
I did not speak because I was not a Jew.
Then they came to fetch the workers, members of trade unions;
I did not speak because I was not a trade unionist.
Afterwards, they came for the Catholics;
I did not say anything because I was a Protestant.
Eventually they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak ..."

Martin Niemöller,Pastor
Dachau, 1942.

This has happened before....its happening right now in many countries (Zimbabwae anyone??), so do not think it can't just as easily happen in the US. It is a very slippery slope.

[Zimphire]

This pizza oven comes with 63" heavy-duty cord and 3 prong safety plug.



http://midcentral.net/PDFs/Nova.html

Who wants pizza?

[Nicko]

Zimp were you an Emu in a previous incarnation?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Zimp were you an Emu in a previous incarnation?

Of course not.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Developer:
Lerkfish, your 3 pronged theory is absurd. It is save to say that something like that could never happen in in the USA. They always have been and always will be the prime example of a stable democracy and constitutional state.
Your government always wants the best for you, so there is no need to so closely monitor what they are doing, and extrapolate to the worst things that could happen, if it's so sure that the worst things can never happen under all circumstances.

And, since I assume you are not a muslim, nothing of this affects you anyway. If anything, what you are doing could bring yourself into focus of attention and into trouble.

Just ignore the little unpleasantnesses others (evil people anyway!) are experiencing and live a happier life.

YES! I agree 100%, finally someone sees things the way they really are.

!!!

[Lerkfish]

-

[Lerkfish]

-

[Lerkfish]

-

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Personally, I would love to see you actually do this. In fact, I challenge you to.
I would find it edifying, educational, and entertaining.

I would gladly admit to being wrong on whatever you posted accurately. Please include links or at least dates so I can verify them.

Lol Lerk all I have to say is "They WONT be dancing in the streets"

The challenge is to you. However, be aware, if you wuss out and don't accept this challenge, you forfeit the right to criticize me credibly in this thread again.

I am doing no such thing. Stop projecting your silly rules on me.

You know Lerk, I could MAYBE see your point if I was the only one poking fun of your post in this thread. But take a look around. No one is really believing your conspiracy theory. No, it's just not Righty that is picking on you about this one, but the left as well.

I think at one time you were objective. But in the past 5 months I think your cheese has slightly slipped off your cracker. You haven't given anyone any reason to believe that your predictions will be true. Your track record isn't that great.

Your post was entertaining, but it's far from rational thought.

[Lerkfish]

-

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yes, I admit I was wrong about that, temporarily. But later, I was right, in that the "liberation" is not as universally accepted as "dancing in the streets" implies.

No, you are STILL wrong. The fact that you STILL wont own up to that doesn't add to your credibility any.

Is that all you got?
that is not "tons". one thing,

Sorry Lerk, I am not gonig to search all evening for everything you have been wrong in, just for you to try to justify that you was actually right about it using some bizarro rationalization like the one you made above.

vs. the myriad of correct predictions I've already cited.

Actually you only cited a FEW predictions you made. Ones that were obvious and what one calls "no brainers"

wussing out, I see. you said you post tons, and you have not.

Yeah I am wussing out, You going to double dog dare me next?

talking out of your arse as usual.

If you re-read this thread, It's not ME that is being called out for talking out of ones lower oriface.

But if saying that makes you feel better. Go right ahead.

Again Lerk, your actions and words speak for themselves. You haven't given anyone a reason to beleive your predictions are credible in any way.

[Lerkfish]

-

[Lerkfish]

-

[mathew_m]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I actually don't have to. reread the first post. I'm saying I'm starting this thread to generate conversation, and to feel free to shoot down the theory, provide one of your own, or discuss.

Unfortunately, all you seem to be able to do show that you can personally attack me, and be too much of a coward to back up your accusations.

now, BOT: can you refute the predictions, show where they are wrong, suggest some of your own, etc.?

The thing is Lerk that you don't want to debate, you only want people to pat you on the back and say you're a genius. Your 'theories' are half-baked. For you to expect any more is idiocy. If you had a bit more sense of humor it would be more fun and you wouldn't take yourself so seriously.

Of course Lerk has me on ignore so he'll never be able to heed this advice.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


prong one: control all three branches of the government, and the intel community. Rumsfeld has already created his "CIA within the CIA" group, and the office of Homeland Security puts everything under the purview of Tom Ridge. More and more power controlled by less and less people.

prong two: quell with extreme prejudice the rights of citizens to protest by removing their access to due process, paving the road for political prisoners, like there used to be in South Africa. Sure, now its "suspected" terrorists, but how long until its anyone who disagrees with the administration? without access to legal counsel, the outside world and being held indefinitely and executed without trial, the US will have the ability to "disappear" citizens who are vocally antiadministration, and there won't be any way to prevent it since it will all be done in secret, with no protections.

prong three: rubber stamp the middle east, and then the world, in the US image. with prongs one and two in place, prong three will proceed without interference.

Well observed, I do believe that things do seem to be heading that way.
But people don't won't to even think that such a thing could possibly happen. As soon as you class these facts as a 'conspiracy theory' they lose their merit in the eyes of most people. They forget that the facts are stairing them in the face. Why? because 'it's just a conspiracy theory'.

Just talking about it however won't stop things heading that way, there needs to be action- organised action. For example look at the neo-cons- they have offices, computers, media links, government links-they have a status. They were able to push their agenda through because they had the means to do it. All those that protested against the Iraq war could only take to the streets with home-made banners. Although they recieved national recognition, their influence ended there.

Any sort of opposition to the '3 prongs' needs to be well planned.

[Lerkfish]

-

[Lerkfish]

-

[Nicko]

Repeat after me,

"Life is not a Philip K. Dick novel."

"Life is not a Philip K. Dick novel."

"Life is not a Philip K. Dick novel."

Breath in...

Breath out...

Breath in...

Breath out...

ahhhhhhhh, feel better now?

[Lerkfish]

-

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually, lets look at what I said IN CONTEXT, shall we?:

Yes, and you was wrong about it, even in that CONTEXT.

[Lerkfish]

-

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I actually don't have to. reread the first post. I'm saying I'm starting this thread to generate conversation, and to feel free to shoot down the theory, provide one of your own, or discuss.

And that is what we have been doing. You got all pissy about it. Don't write up tripe, then get all defensive when people laugh at it ok?

Unfortunately, all you seem to be able to do show that you can personally attack me, and be too much of a coward to back up your accusations.

LOL The irony of that sentence. I am surprised you didn't see it before you wrote it down. I told you WHY I wasn't going to do it. You like to take things you said wrong and somehow irrationally twist it in you being right. I am not playing your games. Has nothing to do with me being a coward, but more to do with me not wanting to deal with your silliness. Like the sillines above.

now, BOT: can you refute the predictions, show where they are wrong, suggest some of your own, etc.?

Refute the predictions of something you claim will happen in the future? That's a good one Lerk.


Here, have a peanut. Keep spinning for us.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
The thing is Lerk that you don't want to debate, you only want people to pat you on the back and say you're a genius. Your 'theories' are half-baked. For you to expect any more is idiocy. If you had a bit more sense of humor it would be more fun and you wouldn't take yourself so seriously.

Of course Lerk has me on ignore so he'll never be able to heed this advice.

Nail on head.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
still waiting, zim.

Better get some reading material out Lerk. I am not playing your retarded spin game.

Find some sucker that doesn't know your history of spin.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually, I DO want debate, but your'e not debating, your only attacking me.There's a difference.

Attacking? no, poking fun of your silly 3-prong paranoia? Sure. There is nothing to debate Lerk. It's all 100% silly.

Here ya go,

Debate that the women from india have 10 heads that feed 700 children under the table of the Shoney's restaurant that is being held captive by midgets with lisps that only want blue frisbees.

Discuss.

The very fact that you expect us to take your post seriously says a lot Lerk.