What what? I don't know what, notice again, you statement means, Judy, it's
rather open-ended.
I replied to +what+ Stephen said, which comprised of the quoted below, and
said that what he was saying was not up for discussion (but he was saying
it) with the delete key hovering over any reply I might make.
Expand on your what, Judy, it's too easy to throw in touch-me-nots like
that.
----- Original Message -----
From: "judy prince" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: Nuclear bomb Iran attack plans apparently on!
> What?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 11:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Nuclear bomb Iran attack plans apparently on!
>
>
> >> (And no, David, I don't mean to be repressive, but I refuse - in
> >> advance -
> >> finger hot on the delete key - to get into a 'dialog' with you on this.
> >> Thanks.)
> >
> >
> > Dear Stephen
> >
> > there is nothing I can say in response on the terms you lay down, my
> > question to you on this, that is your statement, not our private
opinions
> > about whether the Bush-Blair admins really intend to invade or attack
> > Iran,
> > rather than just indulging in postures, is why say it in the first place
> > if
> > you are not prepared to discuss it?
> >
> > I deeply dislike being hijacked by language into sub-fusc political
> > commentary, I seem to recall that this is a poetry list, a place
therefore
> > for something that is marginalised by the meta-rhetorics of power, why
> > not,
> > instead of opinining, indulge in that lovely subversive troublesome
> > difficulty that says this is the easy, the way that lies light on you,
> > called poetry?
> >
> > Take Care
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > (And sorry Lawrence, I'm quoting in full below)
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stephen Vincent" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:32 AM
> > Subject: Re: Nuclear bomb Iran attack plans apparently on!
> >
> >
> >> I remember having our same sense of cocky confidence that Tony and
George
> >> would not be fully stupid enough to invade Iraq, either. Tony B. burnt
> > once,
> >> I suspect will hold fire. Israeli fundamentalists, the USA neocons, and
> > the
> >> USA Rapturists - when the latter two are not one in the same - are a
much
> >> more risky bunch. Important?? I would not back off everyone possible
> > pinning
> >> them to the wall so they don't go into another, but much more dangerous
> >> version of Cheney drunk and quail shooting.
> >> This bunch can't shoot straight, but they sure like to shoot first.
> >>
> >> Suggest, indeed, David, eating "important" as the cereal of choice for
> >> breakfast. Regularly.
> >>
> >> Stephen V
> >> (And no, David, I don't mean to be repressive, but I refuse - in
> >> advance -
> >> finger hot on the delete key - to get into a 'dialog' with you on this.
> >> Thanks.)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > I wouldn't worry too much about the nuking Iran stuff, unless
> >> > everything
> >> > goes completely to hell that isn't going to happen, Dr Strangelove
> > Bush's
> >> > admin might, outside of Blackburn, indulge in a rhetoric of such, but
> >> > it
> > is
> >> > not important.
> >> >
> >> > Best
> >> >
> >> > 9excepted Dave)
> >
|