Yes, and is it too much to ask that you read some of it before you butt in? Afterall, it wasn't you who did most of the work here.
>Some of my comments are directed at you, some at Hakki, >some at both of
you. It's a thread. There were others involved in it too, so were you
cruising for a bruising or something?
Can't you start and sustain a thread yourself for once instead of making me wish I were dead?
> Since I am apparently not supposed to cite any of my >work or the work of
others when
>addressing you, I can only claim that there are many books >and articles on
>the subject.
All I'm asking is that you acknowledge what has been discussed in a thread before you try to come off as the know-it-all.
>You have misunderstood the use of the term. Conspiracies
>happen all the time, but the broad contours of history are >not shaped by
conspiracies.
I have misunderstood nothing. My position is I'm hesitant to generalize based on what I know. Stop with the lectures.
> This is what the schools you cite teach. There are dozens >of articles
that have discussed this for several years--before >the bombing.
Yes, Chip, we've been over this a hundred times before. But what does this have to do with profiling the 9-11 perps and figuring out how they got into the US? What does it have to do with trying to get a grasp of the differences across the various Taliban and Al Qaeda factions?
>posted on the PRA web page which you claim are stupid and a parody.
No, I said they were so stupid they were prime for parody.
>But I am not supposed to cite anything, so the conversation >is reduced to
unsupported
>opinions.
That's rich. Hardly anyone cites more sources on this list than Hakki or me. Your problem is you don't know how to converse. All your stuff is support with no interesting assertions.
>So, Charles, you want to argue that the above is not a >nasty personal attack?
Do I need to cite someone to make the argument?
Charles J