In article <ugrPa.220$Rb3.17@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>, Dominic
Sortie <DS553@prodigy.net> wrote:

As they say, ignorance is bliss.

If you want to remain ignorant of any other platform than Windows PCs,
be my guest...

um.. Max.. you hardly know enough about Macs to even carry on a discussion
beyond four letter words. No one would be missing anything killfiilin' you
"Max Volume" <macsvolume@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:110720030840181242%macsvolume@yahoo.com...

I don't think people have problems with macs as much as it appears. I think
(at least from my point of view), you come on too strong, and, while you're
trying to make a point, people are turned off to macs because of the way you
talk about PCs and macs. Personally, I like macs, and am saving up for one,
but there's nothing wrong with PCs either. Maybe you've had a bad experience
with them, but I don't think the best way to turn people from PCs to macs is
to blast PCs.

Peace,
Cory

In article <78FPa.1768$Bp2.14@fed1read07>, Cory
<coryNOSPAM@soundlightproductions.netNOSPAM> wrote:

I have REPEATEDLY said that I am NOT trying to "turn" people FROM
anything TO anything!!! I am simply contradicting all the bad-mouthing
from people who are just mad because they can't AFFORD a Mac!!!

Go ahead, use whatever the fuck you want, I don't care.

"Max Volume" <macsvolume@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:140720032338225233%macsvolume@yahoo.com...
And George W. repeatedly said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and
were an immediate and real threat. It didn't make it true though.

Gareth

"Gareth Church" <gechurch@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:uZKQa.4670$wU5.4348@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
enough to believe that Saddam destroyed the thousands of tons of weapons the
UN declared he had it is surprising you have the aptitude to post to ANY
newsgroup dumbshit.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:58:58 GMT, "nappy"
<joseft_nospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Darned, you are severly brainwashed bro.

-m-
--
filmmaker/DP/editor,
Sydney, Australia

"ON ENTRE OK, ON SORT KO"

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:59:06 GMT, Mattie <Mattie@nospam.com> wrote:

Have you ever heard of bluffing? Soviets were good at it. Now Saddam
did it, and it turned out against him. If the WMD's are so plentiful,
where are they? The mantra seems nowadays been shifted from "We will
find the WMD's" to "We will find the WMD programs". Not that these are
found either...... (yeah yeah, it's such a big country huh? But what
about that "superior" intelligence gathering agency in W-D.C.? They
surely should be able to find them?!!?!?).

No, I believe he just called upon his right to not have any country
mess in in Iraq's internal affairs. Just like any other country
would do.

-m-
--
filmmaker/DP/editor,
Sydney, Australia

"ON ENTRE OK, ON SORT KO"

Mr. Jobs? Are Macs WMDs?

--
Best regards,
Craig Scheiner
Executive Producer
CPS Associates
Video Production and Publication
www.cpsvideo.net


">

Martin Heffels <mheffels@nwesguy.com> wrote in message

You mean the CYA?

-Eric

"Gareth Church" <gechurch@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message

Where have YOU been lately?

-Eric

"nappy" <joseft_nospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6DeRa.83$ES4.71@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
Without getting into an IRAQ debate here, why doesn't anyone realize that
Saddam did this to his own people by just not allowing full access to the
inspectors?
If he didn't have the weapons they would have checked and left, simple.
Also if he was fighting for the principle of it, he is the biggest moron in
history.
Allowing thousands of his people to die for pride? Idiot.

A true leader puts the welfare and safety of his people about himself and
all else.
I seen the old King of Greece on Larry king once, and he has been in exile
in England since the 1960's.
He said, he could have chose to stay and fight in a revolution, he still had
the support of over half the army and people but he chose to leave
peacefully because he loved his country and didn't want to spill any blood
over politics. So he's been alive and living in England and sent all his
kids to school in the states etc...
Saddam could also have been given exile and not shed any IRAQI blood, but he
was not a true leader.
But we new that, his pride blinded him or was it his ego?

So without thinking anything else, I hold him accountable most of all.

AnthonyR

In article <dPDRa.45230$Aw.4556@twister.nyc.rr.com>, AnthonyR
<Replyongrouponly@becauseoflame.spammers.com> wrote:

As long as you're not blaming it on ME, that's a start...

"AnthonyR" <Replyongrouponly@becauseoflame.spammers.com> wrote in message
news:dPDRa.45230$Aw.4556@twister.nyc.rr.com...

Bush lied. Ever noticed that the point at which the words "Bin Laden"
disappeared from Bush's mouth and Saddam became public enemy no. 1 coincided
EXACTLY with the Enron scandal? There is NO evidence of Saddam's complicity
in Sept 11th. OR cosiness with Al Qaeda. And the WMD won't turn up. If Bush
didn't lie, the "intelligence services" are worth shit.

How many U.S. servicemen have died in Iraq?

Gary

They haven't been able to find Sadam or his sons either, in all this time.
Based on your post, I guess we should be skeptical that they ever existed?

I wasn't against the war, I was just disapointed that war was the only answer
all those bright people in Washington could come up with.

David

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 00:01:19 GMT, "David McCall"
<david.mccall@comcast.net> wrote:

If you want to look back in history, then be fair, because
the USA has a good track-record in killing their own people
too. Not with biochemicals, that's true, but with an equal
uneven advantage: guns against arrows.

-m-
--
filmmaker/DP/editor,
Sydney, Australia

"ON ENTRE OK, ON SORT KO"

"David McCall" <david.mccall@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fHGRa.84101$Ph3.9957@sccrnsc04...
No. Saddam and his sons are but a few people. They could be literally
anywhere in the country (or another country), or they could be dead. In
order to create WMDs you need large factories. These can't be anywhere,
there are only a limited number of buildings that would be suitable, and
surely these would be the first place that were searched. Also, large
numbers of workers are required in the factories. Whereas Saddam obviously
isn't going to come forward, those workers might feel free to now that the
regime is gone.

I wasn't against the war either. Neither was I for it. I don't know enough
about the situation to be able to make an informed opinion on that. But I
agree with you that it is a worry that it was the first and only response
thought of by Washington. And I believe Washington decided on a war very
early on in the piece, and then just had to come up with the justification
to support what they had already decided. It is becoming obvious now that
the justification for this war that Mr Bush sold to his and other countries
is false. Was the war right or wrong? Who knows. Was the decision to go to
war made for the right reasons? Hell no.

I feel I should apolagise for bringing this topic into a video newsgroup. It
is an interesting subject, but doesn't belong here. What I said was intended
as a throw-away comment. I should have thought a bit before saying it.
Sorry.

Gareth

"Gary Pollard" <askme@newsgroup> wrote in message
news:bf79o2$3kn2@imsp212.netvigator.com...
all indications.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:17:42 +1000, Martin Heffels
<mheffels@nwesguy.com> wrote:


What are you talking about?? This is the same Iraq that invaded
Kuwait... remember? And one major condition to ending the first Gulf
War was that Iraq disarm and allow arms inspections. You are clueless,
man... Why don't you pick up a newspaper once in awhile?

Mattie

"Max Volume" <macsvolume@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:170720031858235219%macsvolume@yahoo.com...
LOL