Oh look, someone just took dump on the front page! June 20, 2005 5:51 AM Subscribe
FYI: there was a lot of lag, almost 10 minutes, between when I posted this and when it showed up.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:03 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:03 AM on June 20, 2005
I wrote CP a note and pulled the post. I think it's another example of a time where the phrasing of the post is just about as important as what's being linking to.
posted by jessamyn at 6:08 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by jessamyn at 6:08 AM on June 20, 2005
From the state of the initial post, and his in-thread beligerence, I just assumed he was dingo-rooting drunk. Sort of amusing, really, in its own small way.
posted by veedubya at 6:11 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by veedubya at 6:11 AM on June 20, 2005
Since when do you have to be drunk to root a dingo?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:14 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:14 AM on June 20, 2005
Mark this day.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:41 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:41 AM on June 20, 2005
Well, superbird, some of us pretend to have standards. Plus, it's the dingo doing the rooting.
posted by veedubya at 6:54 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by veedubya at 6:54 AM on June 20, 2005
Oh look, someone is whining again about MetaFilter's evil liberals!
posted by matteo at 7:27 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by matteo at 7:27 AM on June 20, 2005
Oh come come matteo. Cheap narratives require good and bad folks, so maybe Steve@ is just fulfilling his part in the grand experiment called... Democracy.
posted by gsb at 7:31 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by gsb at 7:31 AM on June 20, 2005
Just so that others can enjoy the veedubya/stavrosthewonderchicken byplay as much as I did: "root" is Aussie for "fuck."
And why is everyone picking on S&L? His judgment was spectacularly validated by Matt. Come on, it was a dump on the front page, however you feel about Bush.
posted by languagehat at 7:36 AM on June 20, 2005
And why is everyone picking on S&L? His judgment was spectacularly validated by Matt. Come on, it was a dump on the front page, however you feel about Bush.
posted by languagehat at 7:36 AM on June 20, 2005
I dunno. "Dump" seems pretty strong. This was more like farting on the front page: still bad and very much worthy of deletion, but not quite a dump.
posted by Bugbread at 7:41 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 7:41 AM on June 20, 2005
And why is everyone picking on S&L? His judgment was spectacularly validated by Matt.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
posted by quonsar at 7:47 AM on June 20, 2005
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
posted by quonsar at 7:47 AM on June 20, 2005
I love it that Tom Cruise has become a new MetaFilter meme.
posted by LarryC at 7:49 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by LarryC at 7:49 AM on June 20, 2005
OK, I'll compromise on "fart."
q, always a pleasure to amuse you!
posted by languagehat at 7:50 AM on June 20, 2005
q, always a pleasure to amuse you!
posted by languagehat at 7:50 AM on June 20, 2005
Well, a link which is ostensibly a rant from Kos may not by itself qualify as a dump (I think it is), but surely we can agree that the micro-managing of the resulting discussion and derisive attitude of the poster would raise even a borderline post to "dump" status.
And I would add that I sure hope Asparagirl doesn't find out that people are rooting dingoes in this thread.
posted by dios at 7:58 AM on June 20, 2005
And I would add that I sure hope Asparagirl doesn't find out that people are rooting dingoes in this thread.
posted by dios at 7:58 AM on June 20, 2005
And why is everyone picking on S&L? His judgment was spectacularly validated by Matt. Come on, it was a dump on the front page, however you feel about Bush.
Surely you're not so obtuse as to think that steves political leaning had nothing to do with this call-out. An appropriate response would have been to flag the post and move on. We don't start meta threads everytime we see a bad post. Well, at least we're not supposed to. That's what the flags are for.
posted by puke & cry at 8:23 AM on June 20, 2005
Surely you're not so obtuse as to think that steves political leaning had nothing to do with this call-out. An appropriate response would have been to flag the post and move on. We don't start meta threads everytime we see a bad post. Well, at least we're not supposed to. That's what the flags are for.
posted by puke & cry at 8:23 AM on June 20, 2005
I'll dump on S@L too:
What's the point of having flags if people are going to run straight to MeTa? At least try and flag & wait for Matt or Jessamyn to wake up before doing your own poop in here.
For the record, it was a crap FPP and deserved termination.
posted by i_cola at 8:26 AM on June 20, 2005
What's the point of having flags if people are going to run straight to MeTa? At least try and flag & wait for Matt or Jessamyn to wake up before doing your own poop in here.
For the record, it was a crap FPP and deserved termination.
posted by i_cola at 8:26 AM on June 20, 2005
Several people immediately took a dump in the post, too. When are people going to get it through their heads that that isn't necessary? Most of the time, we can even do without the MeTa callout.
posted by scarabic at 8:26 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by scarabic at 8:26 AM on June 20, 2005
Has no one linked to this website in a front page post yet (re Downing Street Memo)?
posted by tweak at 8:34 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by tweak at 8:34 AM on June 20, 2005
"When are people going to get it through their heads that that isn't necessary?"
Oh, I'm sure 'they' are aware of that; 'they' simply don't care.
posted by mischief at 8:36 AM on June 20, 2005
Oh, I'm sure 'they' are aware of that; 'they' simply don't care.
posted by mischief at 8:36 AM on June 20, 2005
First of all, I want to thank S@L for starting this callout thread. I always find the pile-ons cathartic
Secondly, if you can't take a dump in a thread that's about to get flushed, scarabic, where can you take a dump?
posted by Doohickie at 8:39 AM on June 20, 2005
Secondly, if you can't take a dump in a thread that's about to get flushed, scarabic, where can you take a dump?
posted by Doohickie at 8:39 AM on June 20, 2005
*Wonders when the insomnia_lj self-promotion bot will arrive with more links to his photos*
posted by mlis at 8:40 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by mlis at 8:40 AM on June 20, 2005
matteo, my faithful doppelganger.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:15 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:15 AM on June 20, 2005
Doohickie : "Secondly, if you can't take a dump in a thread that's about to get flushed, scarabic, where can you take a dump?"
My apartment came with a toilet. It cost extra, though.
posted by Bugbread at 9:25 AM on June 20, 2005
My apartment came with a toilet. It cost extra, though.
posted by Bugbread at 9:25 AM on June 20, 2005
i'm no fan of the (undeleted, interestingly) mystery FPP, in which you are offered a 'click me' adjective with no explanation or description; this one at least had something to indicate the bias of the poster, so you had an idea of what you were in for.
a question: is allowance given to the fact that a 'bad' FPP can be redeemed by the quality of the conversation it brings about? i mean, if one forgets that the conversation itself tends to be ruined by those who whine that it's a bad FPP, why not take into account that someone posting within the thread can expand or improve the quality of the conversation beyond what is stated in the FPP? if i were to see a post on something i am passionate about but felt the quality was lacking, i might join in and punch it up a bit. also, it might be more considerate for the innocent bystander who takes the time to form a thoughtful post on a subject (there are a few people who don't just foam at the mouth and hit 'post') not to have it buried and lost to thoughtful response.
posted by troybob at 9:36 AM on June 20, 2005
a question: is allowance given to the fact that a 'bad' FPP can be redeemed by the quality of the conversation it brings about? i mean, if one forgets that the conversation itself tends to be ruined by those who whine that it's a bad FPP, why not take into account that someone posting within the thread can expand or improve the quality of the conversation beyond what is stated in the FPP? if i were to see a post on something i am passionate about but felt the quality was lacking, i might join in and punch it up a bit. also, it might be more considerate for the innocent bystander who takes the time to form a thoughtful post on a subject (there are a few people who don't just foam at the mouth and hit 'post') not to have it buried and lost to thoughtful response.
posted by troybob at 9:36 AM on June 20, 2005
languagehat writes "And why is everyone picking on S&L"
Probbaly because Steve has a consistent record of not addressing the substance of posts, prefering to derail them with attacks on the poster.
posted by orthogonality at 9:39 AM on June 20, 2005
Probbaly because Steve has a consistent record of not addressing the substance of posts, prefering to derail them with attacks on the poster.
posted by orthogonality at 9:39 AM on June 20, 2005
Probbaly because Steve has a consistent record of not addressing the substance of posts, prefering to derail them with attacks on the poster.
posted by orthogonality at 9:39 AM PST on June 20
As opposed to doing tired, unfunny, and lame "STFU libr'uls" "rants"? Those are clearly full of substance, eh? And those aren't intended to derail by attacks on those who would disagree with the poster, eh?
Did I mention how stupid and unfunny that kind of behavior is?
posted by dios at 9:49 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by orthogonality at 9:39 AM PST on June 20
As opposed to doing tired, unfunny, and lame "STFU libr'uls" "rants"? Those are clearly full of substance, eh? And those aren't intended to derail by attacks on those who would disagree with the poster, eh?
Did I mention how stupid and unfunny that kind of behavior is?
posted by dios at 9:49 AM on June 20, 2005
dios, you are already aware of this but people don't really give a damn what bugs you since you bug most people.
posted by fenriq at 10:00 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by fenriq at 10:00 AM on June 20, 2005
troybob : "is allowance given to the fact that a 'bad' FPP can be redeemed by the quality of the conversation it brings about?"
By some, yes, and by some, no. Personally, I give little allowance for redemption, unless there is some seriously good stuff going on inside the thread, because MeFi is supposed to be primarily about the links. Pulling a good conversation out of a bad link is like getting a severance package when being fired: it's better than no severance package, but it has to be pretty darn good to counter the fact that you're getting fired.
Heehee. Dios, S@L, and orthogonality talking to eachother about derailing and lack of decorum.
posted by Bugbread at 10:03 AM on June 20, 2005
By some, yes, and by some, no. Personally, I give little allowance for redemption, unless there is some seriously good stuff going on inside the thread, because MeFi is supposed to be primarily about the links. Pulling a good conversation out of a bad link is like getting a severance package when being fired: it's better than no severance package, but it has to be pretty darn good to counter the fact that you're getting fired.
Heehee. Dios, S@L, and orthogonality talking to eachother about derailing and lack of decorum.
posted by Bugbread at 10:03 AM on June 20, 2005
As opposed to doing tired, unfunny, and lame "STFU libr'uls" "rants"?
Seriously. He should make fun of handicapped people instead, right, D?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:04 AM on June 20, 2005
Seriously. He should make fun of handicapped people instead, right, D?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:04 AM on June 20, 2005
ortho said: probably because Steve has a consistent record of not addressing the substance of posts, prefering to derail them with attacks on the poster.
Well, just for the record, you went out of your way to ignore the well-reasoned argument I made and addressed to you last week and distorted my comments.
S@L has never done that to me despite the fact that my politics are closer to yours than his.
Full disclosure: ortho did help me out with a Firefox issue via email and was polite and friendly. I think he is just rude when he signs on to Metafilter.
posted by mlis at 10:11 AM on June 20, 2005
Well, just for the record, you went out of your way to ignore the well-reasoned argument I made and addressed to you last week and distorted my comments.
S@L has never done that to me despite the fact that my politics are closer to yours than his.
Full disclosure: ortho did help me out with a Firefox issue via email and was polite and friendly. I think he is just rude when he signs on to Metafilter.
posted by mlis at 10:11 AM on June 20, 2005
bugbread writes "Heehee. Dios, S@L, and orthogonality talking to eachother about derailing and lack of decorum."
Funny but not fair: Of my seven posts to MetaTalk, none have been callouts of posts or authors (and one was actually to praise jessamyn).
Two of dios's three MeTa posts have been callouts; fully seventeen of Steve_at_Linnwood's 29 posts to MeTa have been callouts.
And while I haven't done a count of comments, I think very few of mine have been derails or complaints about posts (I can think of one off hand, early on, when I couldn't see the point of a post about some particularly pointless animated music flash).
But I can recall many comments by dios and Steve which criticized discussion the post rather than discussing its substance. (In fairness, a few of Steve's most recent comments surprised me by making actual substantive arguments, rather than just expressions of outrage.)
posted by orthogonality at 10:28 AM on June 20, 2005
Funny but not fair: Of my seven posts to MetaTalk, none have been callouts of posts or authors (and one was actually to praise jessamyn).
Two of dios's three MeTa posts have been callouts; fully seventeen of Steve_at_Linnwood's 29 posts to MeTa have been callouts.
And while I haven't done a count of comments, I think very few of mine have been derails or complaints about posts (I can think of one off hand, early on, when I couldn't see the point of a post about some particularly pointless animated music flash).
But I can recall many comments by dios and Steve which criticized discussion the post rather than discussing its substance. (In fairness, a few of Steve's most recent comments surprised me by making actual substantive arguments, rather than just expressions of outrage.)
posted by orthogonality at 10:28 AM on June 20, 2005
MLIS writes "Well, just for the record, you went out of your way to ignore the well-reasoned argument I made"
I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make.
posted by orthogonality at 10:30 AM on June 20, 2005
I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make.
posted by orthogonality at 10:30 AM on June 20, 2005
orthogonality : "Funny but not fair: Of my seven posts to MetaTalk, none have been callouts of posts or authors (and one was actually to praise jessamyn)."
True. I was talking about general posting ettiquette, not specifically MetaTalk threads. Then again, your comment ("Steve has a consistent record of not addressing the substance of posts, prefering to derail them with attacks on the poster") was in reference to "Why is everyone picking on S@L", so I don't see much direct relation to MetaTalk post topics.
orthogonality : "And while I haven't done a count of comments, I think very few of mine have been derails or complaints about posts"
I'd have to check. You're probably right about complaints about posts, and probably right, in a strict sense, about not being "derails based on attacks on the poster", but I'm not so sure about "non-derails based on attacks on the poster". Again, though, I'd have to check.
Besides which, my comment wasn't really saying you and S@L did the exact same thing (comparing apples and oranges), but more that it was amusing that a person who invokes ire because of his aggressive style of posting was being lambasted by someone who also invokes ire because of his aggressive style of posting, and who was in turn lambasted by another person who invokes ire because of his aggressive style of posting. Kind of like saying "Apples, oranges, and kumquats are all fruit".
God I hope kumquats are fruits and not tubers or something odd like that
Anyway, I realize that I'm...uh...derailing the discussion. And...uhm...based on attacks on posters. So, call me a papaya, I guess.
posted by Bugbread at 11:14 AM on June 20, 2005
True. I was talking about general posting ettiquette, not specifically MetaTalk threads. Then again, your comment ("Steve has a consistent record of not addressing the substance of posts, prefering to derail them with attacks on the poster") was in reference to "Why is everyone picking on S@L", so I don't see much direct relation to MetaTalk post topics.
orthogonality : "And while I haven't done a count of comments, I think very few of mine have been derails or complaints about posts"
I'd have to check. You're probably right about complaints about posts, and probably right, in a strict sense, about not being "derails based on attacks on the poster", but I'm not so sure about "non-derails based on attacks on the poster". Again, though, I'd have to check.
Besides which, my comment wasn't really saying you and S@L did the exact same thing (comparing apples and oranges), but more that it was amusing that a person who invokes ire because of his aggressive style of posting was being lambasted by someone who also invokes ire because of his aggressive style of posting, and who was in turn lambasted by another person who invokes ire because of his aggressive style of posting. Kind of like saying "Apples, oranges, and kumquats are all fruit".
God I hope kumquats are fruits and not tubers or something odd like that
Anyway, I realize that I'm...uh...derailing the discussion. And...uhm...based on attacks on posters. So, call me a papaya, I guess.
posted by Bugbread at 11:14 AM on June 20, 2005
can't dump in threads. can't callout in meta. this website is truly anti-fun.
posted by quonsar at 11:25 AM on June 20, 2005
posted by quonsar at 11:25 AM on June 20, 2005
quonsar : "can't dump in threads. can't callout in meta. this website is truly anti-fun."
And yet here you are.
posted by Bugbread at 11:31 AM on June 20, 2005 [10 favorites]
And yet here you are.
posted by Bugbread at 11:31 AM on June 20, 2005 [10 favorites]
there's a bug in your bread, man.
posted by quonsar at 12:12 PM on June 20, 2005 [1 favorite]
posted by quonsar at 12:12 PM on June 20, 2005 [1 favorite]
God I hope kumquats are fruits...
Hey, don't cum on the quats!
(Delete if unfunny)
posted by Termite at 1:15 PM on June 20, 2005
Hey, don't cum on the quats!
(Delete if unfunny)
posted by Termite at 1:15 PM on June 20, 2005
"root" is Aussie for "fuck."
Also Kiwi. As in - "I am a genuine Kiwi who eats roots and leaves" (insert commas as apropriate).
posted by dg at 4:20 PM on June 20, 2005
Also Kiwi. As in - "I am a genuine Kiwi who eats roots and leaves" (insert commas as apropriate).
posted by dg at 4:20 PM on June 20, 2005
Look, if these bloody seppo bludgers don't know a root from a wank, that's no business of ours.
posted by Jimbob at 5:30 PM on June 20, 2005
posted by Jimbob at 5:30 PM on June 20, 2005
And seppo is Aussie/Kiwi for 'American' (short for septic tank = Yank, rhyming slang). And you thought MeTa wasn't educational!
posted by languagehat at 5:56 PM on June 20, 2005
posted by languagehat at 5:56 PM on June 20, 2005
languagehat writes "And you thought MeTa wasn't educational!"
Even for me! I swear I've never heard 'seppo' before. And I would probably have to think for a minute or 3, depending on context and delivery, about "septic tank".
posted by peacay at 6:18 PM on June 20, 2005
Even for me! I swear I've never heard 'seppo' before. And I would probably have to think for a minute or 3, depending on context and delivery, about "septic tank".
posted by peacay at 6:18 PM on June 20, 2005
Several people immediately took a dump in the post, too. When are people going to get it through their heads that that isn't necessary?
If you mean me, I was just trying to discern if there was anything worthwhile in the FPP's only link. I was tryin' to be part of the solution, man! Only when crassy started gettin' hissy did I drop a load, if even then. I may have only farted.
posted by squirrel at 6:31 PM on June 20, 2005
If you mean me, I was just trying to discern if there was anything worthwhile in the FPP's only link. I was tryin' to be part of the solution, man! Only when crassy started gettin' hissy did I drop a load, if even then. I may have only farted.
posted by squirrel at 6:31 PM on June 20, 2005
Now now, don't go confusing us with the Aussies. I've never heard "seppo" before, and "root" hasn't been a popular choice of euphemism since the mid-nineties. I vastly prefer the Powers-esque "shag" myself.
Generational, maybe?
posted by tracicle at 7:48 PM on June 20, 2005
Generational, maybe?
posted by tracicle at 7:48 PM on June 20, 2005
I've never heard 'seppo' before
Well, he was the quiet Marx brother.
posted by soyjoy at 8:08 PM on June 20, 2005
Well, he was the quiet Marx brother.
posted by soyjoy at 8:08 PM on June 20, 2005
languagehat - I didn't ever notice that the Aussies also used rhyming slang so popular with the Pommies. I'd never heard nor seen "seppo" before, so I thank you for the etymology.
tracicle, while not a synonym for "shag" by any degree, I've always liked "snog" for kissing. s--g makes for good colloquialisms, I guess.
/end derail
posted by birdsquared at 8:13 PM on June 20, 2005
tracicle, while not a synonym for "shag" by any degree, I've always liked "snog" for kissing. s--g makes for good colloquialisms, I guess.
/end derail
posted by birdsquared at 8:13 PM on June 20, 2005
I thought the current aussie slang for kissing was pashing.
posted by dhruva at 8:35 PM on June 20, 2005
posted by dhruva at 8:35 PM on June 20, 2005
peacay writes "Even for me! I swear I've never heard 'seppo' before."
I'd have guessed it a reference to "Sepp" Dietrich. Shows what I know.
posted by orthogonality at 8:50 PM on June 20, 2005
I'd have guessed it a reference to "Sepp" Dietrich. Shows what I know.
posted by orthogonality at 8:50 PM on June 20, 2005
Metafilter: (Delete if unfunny)
posted by eddydamascene at 8:53 PM on June 20, 2005
posted by eddydamascene at 8:53 PM on June 20, 2005
Now now, don't go confusing us with the Aussies.
It's true. The Kiwis are our sister-cousins. The Aussies are our American counterparts down under. Don't be angry, you know it's true!
posted by dreamsign at 8:54 PM on June 20, 2005
It's true. The Kiwis are our sister-cousins. The Aussies are our American counterparts down under. Don't be angry, you know it's true!
posted by dreamsign at 8:54 PM on June 20, 2005
Pashing is pretty old school and aplies to both Aus and Godzone (NZ). Same with shag, although I think that is more NZ than Aus. Generally, the Kiwis do a better impersonation of the British that the Aussies do and this reflects a great deal in the language.
posted by dg at 9:11 PM on June 20, 2005
posted by dg at 9:11 PM on June 20, 2005
From a thread dump to a sheep shag, all in the space of a page.
That's entertainment.
posted by peacay at 9:54 PM on June 20, 2005
That's entertainment.
posted by peacay at 9:54 PM on June 20, 2005
Sheesh, I managed to avoid the sheep shagging. I knew some Ocker wouldn't be able to resist. :P
posted by tracicle at 10:38 PM on June 20, 2005
posted by tracicle at 10:38 PM on June 20, 2005
Yeah, well, it's the only thing they can come up with - not very creative these Aussies. But then, what do you expect from a nation that cheats at Cricket?
posted by dg at 10:41 PM on June 20, 2005
posted by dg at 10:41 PM on June 20, 2005
What's your address dg? Just for the record like.
And the Aussie cricketers are pretentious twats. It's good they lose.
I never mentioned NZ and sheep shagging whatsoever - I was merely marrying up some of the magic of the moment, as it were.
posted by peacay at 10:46 PM on June 20, 2005
And the Aussie cricketers are pretentious twats. It's good they lose.
I never mentioned NZ and sheep shagging whatsoever - I was merely marrying up some of the magic of the moment, as it were.
posted by peacay at 10:46 PM on June 20, 2005
Hey, just because I live in Australia doesn't make me an Aussie. Once a Kiwi, always a Kiwi.
posted by dg at 10:51 PM on June 20, 2005
posted by dg at 10:51 PM on June 20, 2005
I'm not going to continue a trans-Tasman slinging match or even an interstate one. We're all mates. I've had my chuckle for the day. You're most welcome to slum stay here on the couch as long as you want dg.
posted by peacay at 11:30 PM on June 20, 2005
posted by peacay at 11:30 PM on June 20, 2005
Man I just read the link that crasspastor posted , all I can say is wow, it's worth reading.
Thanks Steve@linwood, I would have missed it if you hadn't started the metatalk thread!
posted by sic at 12:41 AM on June 21, 2005
Thanks Steve@linwood, I would have missed it if you hadn't started the metatalk thread!
posted by sic at 12:41 AM on June 21, 2005
From the link:
But the ole 'smear and insult' gig is rapidly losing its effectiveness simply because the folks who are becoming restless are not all liberals; it's Republican voters, centrists, and Independents. The liberals also happen to be gaining momentum at the expense of Bushco. Smear dems and you might get some McCarthyism-like backlash, but you might not. It's a ghastly tactic when used by anyone, but perhaps there's not all that much to lose, yet, especially when you're riding high in the public eye. Smear your fellow conservatives or swing voters, especicially when the polls start to show you in the minority for the first time, they get pissed off and vote against you. You lose elections. A word to the wise.
If it turns out we were lied to, then yes, it could be trouble for Bush or whomever falls on their sword on his behalf. If it turns out someone or someones violated Federal law, then yeah, they're in deep shit. They should be; It should be trouble for them. That's exactly why the posturing and repositioning of some Republican Politicians as of late has become more noticeable. They sense that Bush, Cheney, Rummy, ect, are in political and possibly legal trouble, and the reason they're in trouble is mostly because of Iraq. Is it a High Crime to engage in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for taking the nation into war? Is it a High Crime to manipulate intelligence so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed to the United States as a means of trying to justify a war against another nation based on "preemptive" purposes? Is it a High Crime to commit a felony via the submission of an official report to the United States Congress falsifying the reasons for launching military action? Were contracts given out in an illegal way? Did it violate the RICO Act and Corporate malfeasance measures? Did any of that happen?
I want to find out. So should you. Everyone should.
If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Minutes is true, if the Niger Document was known or highly suspected to be fake, if the aluminum tubes were known or highly suspect, if the integrity of curveball was known or highly suspect, then the President's submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and/or various reports to the United States Congress might violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which makes it a felony "to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose..."; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.
the poster is a Republican who works for the Defense Industry.
posted by sic at 12:47 AM on June 21, 2005
Now now, don't go confusing us with the Aussies.
Ya know, when I say:
"root" is Aussie for "fuck."
dg tells me:
Also Kiwi.
So then when I try to be inclusive and say:
And seppo is Aussie/Kiwi for 'American'
this is what I get.
You just can't win!
posted by languagehat at 5:58 AM on June 21, 2005
Ya know, when I say:
"root" is Aussie for "fuck."
dg tells me:
Also Kiwi.
So then when I try to be inclusive and say:
And seppo is Aussie/Kiwi for 'American'
this is what I get.
You just can't win!
posted by languagehat at 5:58 AM on June 21, 2005
It's true. Especially if you're an Australian rugby player.
Ha, take that!
posted by tracicle at 2:34 PM on June 21, 2005
Ha, take that!
posted by tracicle at 2:34 PM on June 21, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:01 AM on June 20, 2005