Brianna, thanks for being who you are - Its great that you have the wherewithall to deal with this asshat as well as you have considering all the other "crap" you are dealing with in your life. Oh and to answer your question - banned people cannot send pm's - just sayin.

Dana, Thanks for such an eloquent response. Your political acumen is shining.

AD, Just go fuck off.
(sorry, couldn't resist)

Then you ought to have reserved your judgement until which time that I might sink so low to have posted her MPs to me. I'm guessing that had both her PMs and mine been posted here for you to see, that you would not have continued with this below ...

I'd rather that you NOT "fuck off", Dana. I think you should remain for the duration of the hump and you may come to realize that you have made an error in judgement.

To answer the burning question ... will I post those PMs "in full"? The answer is "no". Your first instinct was the more sensible one and you should have followed that instinct of being "uncomfortable about PMs being shared with the board".

I'll make you a promise never-the-less. If Briana posts ALL of my (AND HER) PMs here ("in full", without any paraphrasing, etc.) ..... and you still feel that I should "fuck off", then I'll do exactly that, never to return. Simple, yes? That should sound fair to you.

Until your profane outburst above you were the one I respected the most on this board, but I'll ignore my distaste for your reply and fall back on both my first impressions of your character and my promise to you, above. It is beause of my better impressions of you that this promise applies to you, Dana, and to no-one else. It is your decision and yours alone.

So ........ ? What will it be?

I"ve NEVER PM'd AD!

can we just skip to this part?

you have made the trip from the registration page to the land of unwelcome faster than any poster i remember.

Tony--I am being slandered. I have never ONCE PM'd AD. Is there any way for you to prove this? This guy is getting scary.

PM number one from AD to me:

Brianna.
You know very well that my comment about your sig had nothing to with your illness. I would have thought that anyone could clearly see that. And all that crap in my direction because of it is completely unfair. You also must realize that my comment couldn’t possibly have anything to with it ANYWAY as I didn’t know anything about your condition in the first place.

Now I’m curious to know why it is that you haven’t spoken up in my defense? That’s not very kind of you, is it.

Aretha's doctor

I gave no response except the public one on the board. same goes for PM number two.

Quite honestly AD, it wouldn't matter in the least what has or hasn't been put in PMs. The single line about her not having cancer, is enough to me. I neither want nor require your respect.

Banned.

As people point out, the FAQ says...

AD barged in, declared loudly that he despised half the people in the tavern, and then picked up a full lager and poured it over the favorite regular's head. When asked to apologize, he refused and picked up another beer. Sometimes you don't need to wait to see what comes next.

Wow... I leave for a few days and all heck has broken loose. Now, I'm not for censorship, and this is a place for free expression, but can we all be adults (AD)? We don't have to agree or get along, but there is something to be said for respecting other people.
There is no need for anyone to defend anyone else. The fact that others came to Bris defense is because she's... well, liked and respected. AD - if you have to ask someone to defend you, are you worth defending? Why couldn't you be mature and post a simple gomen-asi, instead of continuing to rant and asking Bri to defend you?
On your opinion that US isn't a democracy, the majority of your posts are backed by no truth whatsoever. We restrict media? Come on. Anything but. In fact, I wish we would restrict them. Frankly, I don't need to see Brittney Spears ta-ta. Our media makes it a daily program to Bush bash and state how bad things are in Iraq without actually reporting any news. Not that I am a fan of Bush or the Iraq war, but the media is definitely left-wing. And they have the freedom to report on anything, no matter the truth.
The UN? What were they doing? Oh, yeah, having the inspectors kicked out, or when not kicked out, being refused in to see the facilities. Oh, yeah, that's real progress. So let's see... they were accused of having WMD (and rightfully so... they had the material, and the desire), and the refused to let inspectors inspect. Yet we were in the wrong? Oh, let us not forget that Saddam gased his own people for decades. Killing hundreds of thousands. Sarin and mustard gasses were discovered post-invasion. Hmmm... I wonder who he was going to use those on? If not a US target (and it probably wouldn't have been) then it would most likely be his own people (as usual) and then the US would be accused of doing nothing to stop him.
Stop accusing the US of being undemocratic without any facts to back it up.

Well that spin has long since been proven false - a complete outright lie that has no responsible sources but was promoted, as a lie, for a political agenda. The worst kind of spin.

No, that is a fact. Go check it yourself.

You made the claim. Least you could do is provide some supporting facts. Well the facts have been repeatedly and widely published for a long time now. First the 75th Exploitation Task Force searched all over Iraq and found nothing. Then David Kay was assigned a (1000 man?) task force. When they could find no chemical weapons production, then the new theory was that Saddam had built a 'surge capacity' to quickly create those chemical weapons on demand. Meanwhile Cheney kept promoting spin - lies - on Meet the Press. There is the spin source for mythical chemical weapons. The same source was 100% wrong about all WMDs - including chemical weapons. Same source even claimed an allied relationship between Saddam and bin Laden when every responsible person knew otherwise.

Liar also created that spin about chemical weapons found? That myth still survives? Even a 'surge capacity' never existed. Sarin and mustard gasses were NOT discovered post-invasion. And yet some spin doctors still promote the lie long after well proven false.

aimeecc - that is reality once we eliminate the spin promoted by Cheney and Rush Limbaugh. No sarin or mustard gas weapons were found. None. Nada. Even the production facilities - the 'surge capacity' - did not exist - in direct opposition to what you have posted. I checked it out long ago. I learned the facts by asking damning questions. Did you? Or did you just believe the first thing you were told? That would make you a perfect target for Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson.

You are the one spinning, so quit the accusations and do a google search. Almost every mainstream media reported on the finds. Or do I have to google for you? Or do you not believe the news? I can't find one mainstream media that claims it was a hoax of any sort. Or do you have your own intelligence agency you get your spin from?

I'm not a Limbaugh fan, can't say I've heard him in years.

Oh what the heck, I'll google for you for news
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081300530.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...aq-sarin_x.htm
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

And don't forget the entire ISG findings, in which you cherry picked.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profil...cal/index.html
Since you cherry pick your points, I will mine. Actually, I leave the majority in

From your links:

"Some of them are very corroded. They are probably not usable,"
"the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective.""

If you count these old corroded non-functioning shells left over from the Iran/Iraq war as WMDs, then I guess there were WMDs, but I think they have to work to be counted.

It's sorta a case of proving tw to be incorrect in one sentence-

"No sarin or mustard gas weapons were found. None. Nada."

- while simultaneously bolstering his argument and supporting the rest of his argument.