"Evidently", daggett

>>Evidently, Pericles considers it is acceptable for powerful nations to invade smaller nations without producing evidence in support of their stated justifications.<<

Pure invention.

On the other hand...

"Evidently, daggett considers it is acceptable for individuals with nothing better to do with their time, to insinuate without evidence that the US government would sanction the mass murder of its own citizenry for no discernible reason, thus visiting further pain and anguish on the relatives of the deceased, and the survivors of the terrorist attack."

...this is indisputable.

Pericles wrote, "Pure invention".

So, either Pericles opposes the invasion of Afghanistan.

Or he is saying that the evidence in support of the invasion of Afghanistan exists, but he is not prepared to tell the rest of us what it is. (See "Why do we fight?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10348&page=4)

---

I see Pericles wants to drag this 'debate' even further down to the level of two little girls arguing in a school yard:

1st little girl: 'tis too!
2nd little girl: 'tis not!
1st little girl: 'tis too!
2nd little girl: 'tis not!
1st little girl: 'tis too!
etc,. etc., etc.

All this to avoid having to discuss the evidence.

I think people have worked out by now that you maintain that I have not presented any evidence in support of the case I am defending, Pericles.

Now, how about stepping back and letting them work out for themselves who, out of you and me is telling the truth, instead of repeating yourself, yet again?

I'm all for that, daggett.

>>Now, how about stepping back and letting them work out for themselves who, out of you and me is telling the truth, instead of repeating yourself, yet again?<<

I have readily agreed to this, many times, even as recently as... hey, today!

"As I have also said on occasions too many to mention, I believe everyone should examine your "evidence" in detail - even though simply wading through it will destroy a fair few otherwise useful brain cells"

How about that! Isn't that amazing - I must be reading your thoughts.

But seriously, you should take time out to brush up on Logic 101.

>>either Pericles opposes the invasion of Afghanistan. Or he is saying that the evidence in support of the invasion of Afghanistan exists, but he is not prepared to tell the rest of us what it is<<

That is an "either/or" that exists only in your head.

Logically, it is perfectly possible to oppose the invasion of Afghanistan for a million different reasons. Any "evidence in support" would clearly not be in that list, now would it.

Think about it.

And while I'm here, I'd just like to say that I thought this was very cute:

>> two little girls arguing in a school yard:

1st little girl: 'tis too!
2nd little girl: 'tis not!
1st little girl: 'tis too!
2nd little girl: 'tis not!
1st little girl: 'tis too!
etc,. etc., etc.<<

Just one question... which one is you?

Daggett you are wasting your time.Time and time again I've invited Pericles to disprove the basic science of freefall and the inability of these structures to even put up minimal resistance to gravity but he is lost for words and side steps the issue.

So the whole exercise is pointless.

*Now, how about stepping back and letting them work out for themselves who, out of you and me is telling the truth, instead of repeating yourself, yet again?*

Oh we have figured that one out long ago Daggett and frankly
you don't look too good.

I am just amazed that Pericles has the patience with you and
Arjay. Few would.

Dear Arjay,

One problem with your 'evidence' is that there were four planes. One of them hit the Pentagon. One of them crashed in Pennsylvania when a number of passengers stormed the hijackers. Your fantasy doesn't explain them.

Pericles has attempted to deal with your sick, paranoid fantasies by logic. CJ Morgan has attempted to do so by humour. Both have failed. One cannot deal with sick, paranoid fantasies by either logic or humour.