Brother rs7, I am torn between the fraternal love I have for you and that which I have for Brother msfe... I was actually in Yahoo Messenger with msfe a few minutes ago... if you get to know him, he is a nice guy... I fear I angered him today, however ... I told him my penis was hard and I was about to ejaculate, and he left the conversation abruptly... I wanted to explain it wasn't him that was doing it to me, but some online porn, but he had already left... I sincerely hope that I have an opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding with him... Love, Candle P.S. Brother msfe, if you read this, please accept my heartfelt apologies... I am not inclined sexually in the direction that I fear I you think I am... I love you as a Brother, not as a lover...
Indeed Brother Candle is the family freak. But we love him despite his abnormalities. The love is part of the glue that holds ET together. Where else could you find such a zoo full of miscreants who have tolerated each other for so long? If that is not "love" I don't Know what is! Cathy of BobCathy and FPC coexisting in the same universe is proof alone of the magic of ET. Candle is just the most high profile of the twisted minds. It is his love for us all that compels him to exhibit such bizarre behavior so as to spare the rest of us the indignation he absorbs on the behalf of his "brethren". He is our redeemer. Our guy on the crucifix of his own making. God bless our universal Brother, the CANDLE-MAN!!! Peace, RS
Who is stuffing the ballot box? How can 46% of the respondents claim to "read every word"? (thus far). This is a clear case of a rigged poll. Is MSFE/Wild also some of our other conscientious contributors? EVERY WORD???? Hell, I don't even proof read every word of my own posts before I hit the button Who's cheating here?? Well we will see what lies ahead if the poll doesn't just die a quick and natural death. If we get a good size sampling, my guess is the truth will come out and a very small percentage of ETers will claim to "read every word".... Of course, I have been wrong about many things in my life, But believing that the average ET member is interested enough in all those C&Ps from the Guardian sort of defies logic. I guess only time will tell. Meanwhile, if the results are indeed accurate, I guess all those who idolize Ronald Reagan, and think Dubya is a great President have yet to even look at this poll. We shell see what we shall see! Peace, RS
Brother candle, You must have 4 hands. How else could you: 1) chat with msfe 2) do something with your penis 3) scalp eminis 4) post on this board boredom during trading hours?
I wasn't aware that one could "flame" an author who wasn't participating in the discussion. Are you suggesting that one or all of the group I mentioned might be lurking here. If so, then I wonder what they're doing in the chat area of trading site, and I sure hope they show themselves so we can have at it one on one. Heck, I'll take them all on. The subject was msfe's posts. We were asked for opinions. I gave mine. I've previously responded to various of pieces by such authors in detail, or have presented countervailing views from other authors - depending on how interesting I thought the matters were, how much time I had, what seemed appropriate. I've seen you attacking msfe and others, sometimes foully, often insultingly and repetitiously. I don't recall your ever engaging the substance of any of the c&p's other than with blanket dimissals. Your statements suggest that you either know very little about right wing extremists, the majority of whom hold views very different from mine, or that you are demonstrating another aspect of your customary hypocrisy - flaming me while pretending to deplore the practice, using a loaded term to argue by way of insults and generalized guilt by association rather than with logic or evidence. I challenge you to point to an "extreme" point of view that I've offered, or to give an example of an "extremist" whose views you believe are similar to mine. Until you do so, then I'll assume that anyone who has points of view different from yours, and who argues them tenaciously, must qualify as an extremist in your political dictionary. We've spent a lot of time arguing about issues, and I'm offended that you discount my efforts so off-handedly. I wouldn't make a claim to "logic [that's] brilliant and irrefutable beyond question," but I've worked hard to be as precise and clear as I could, and to refer wherever possible to facts and evidence. I'd really thought you'd gotten over the need to make every discussion a pissing contest, and were through with trying to make things personal between us.
Brought to injustice Britain must challenge US lawlessness Wednesday July 9, 2003 The government has at last used strong words to criticise the detention and probable impending trial of British nationals at the notorious US detention centre in Guantanamo Bay - at least by comparison with its sotto voce objections before. The relatives of Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi will be moderately encouraged by the "strong reservations" which the Foreign Office minister Chris Mullin has voiced, and by his commitment to pass on to the US ambassador in London the objections raised from all sides of the Commons. However it is likely to be a futile exercise unless it is followed up by sustained and visible protest by more senior ministers. The process now envisaged for six detainees including Mr Begg and Mr Abbasi, under an order issued by President Bush last week, has been correctly described by Amnesty International as a travesty of justice. The order means that they can be charged and tried in front of a military commission which has been directly appointed by the president or the secretary of defence or his deputy, and which has the power to hand down a death sentence. Or else they may simply be held indefinitely without charge. Mr Mullin told parliament on Monday that Britain expects the process "to fulfil internationally accepted standards of a fair trial" but he admitted that even at this late stage the government is still in the dark about the procedure already laid down by Washington. This extends to the vital issue of the right of defence where it is only known that "the Americans will nominate the defence lawyers in some way." It is already clear that there will be no right of appeal - except to another panel appointed by the Pentagon. The more than 650 detainees in Guantanamo Bay are being held in a legal limbo which bears no relationship to US or to international law. They have been deprived of the protection of either or both by two bare-faced ruses: Washington argues that since Guantanamo Bay is not on US soil the detainees are not subject to US jurisdiction. And it has designated them unilaterally as "unlawful combatants" in order to deny their right to an impartial hearing under the Geneva convention. The war in Afghanistan was conducted allegedly in order to "bring to justice" - Mr Bush's favourite phrase - those responsible for acts of terrorism. To submit the detainees of Guantanamo Bay now to a travesty of justice is a curious way to go about that. It can only strengthen the impression that the US makes up the rules as it proceeds. When asked why Washington had not followed international precedent for handling such cases, Mr Mullin replied that "the road chosen by the US is clearly set down, and we have to negotiate around that position". This is an amazing admission of weakness on the part of a British government which has argued elsewhere that there are more opportunities to influence US policy from its position of loyal support. Mr Mullin also warned his questioners repeatedly that "megaphone diplomacy" is not the best way to handle what he called a "delicate situation". This too is a remarkable admission. The term "megaphone diplomacy" was coined two decades ago by Lord Carrington in discussing how to negotiate with the Soviet Union. It has been used since then in similar situations where it is claimed that open argument would be counter-productive in dealing with an autocratic government that is immune to public pressure. It is a dim outlook for democracy if Britain is now compelled to put the US in the same category as China or Saudi Arabia.