Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
The only thing I said as fact was that US companies didn't get preferential treatment. Maybe one of the ways to keep these threads from going to the dogs is for everyone not to make up stuff and present it as what someone else said.
|
It s strange that in your complaint about everyone (me?) making up stuff and presenting it as what someone else said, you quote yourself in exactly the way I quoted you. I did quote, exactly your words, it is "more likely" in my first response to Nebe's claim that you were "100% correct." And pointed out that it was a relative term derived from a possibillity or maybe. How you get that I was saying you presented the possibility as a fact is puzzling--I was clearly saying the opposite.
And about the family grudge thing that you switched to, I said it was a PSEUDO-fact, not that you presented it as a fact. Again, quite the opposite, implied by my following ironic observation on the "factual" substance of your "opinions."
The whole "fact" stuff in my posts was ironical retort to Nebe's really loving shutting down threads with "facts," neither of which he nor you, as you admit, actually presented in support of your claim that the Iraq invasion was "more likely" that they pushed a war in Iraq to benefit oil buddies. On the other hand, "maybe" you consider the Chinese, Russian, French, et. al., as Bush's oil buddies.
At any rate, as you say, the only thing you "said as fact" that U.S. oil companies didn't get preferential treatment, contradicts your opinion that "maybe" the invasion was to benefit "oil buddies," not withstanding, as Scottw points out, that you responded to my list of "facts" with a "So what?" and a "littany of wild speculation."