The champagne is flowing in a South Wales junkyard today
 

"Ken Ehrett" wrote in message
...


This of course is a non-response by Assthrobby designed solely to draw
attention away from his idiotic claims about minimum casualties.
Don't expect him to explain his silly theory about minimum casualties
when bombs were detonated in an enclosed space at the very point in
time when the largest number of people would be occupying that space.
All you will get at that point is name calling and misdirection.


It seems that is all I can expect from the fool is indeed non-response and
evasion. He/she knows nothing about the subject to hand. I have seen much of
what happened - given my job - this attack was NOT designed to minimise
casualties. All this Anthropy can offer up is desperate attempts to put a
spin on the actions of its heroes.

The champagne is flowing in a South Wales junkyard today
 

"Anthropy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:09:50 +0100, "encyclopedia"
wrote:


"Ken Ehrett" wrote in message
. ..


This of course is a non-response by Assthrobby designed solely to draw
attention away from his idiotic claims about minimum casualties.
Don't expect him to explain his silly theory about minimum casualties
when bombs were detonated in an enclosed space at the very point in
time when the largest number of people would be occupying that space.
All you will get at that point is name calling and misdirection.


It seems that is all I can expect from the fool is indeed non-response and
evasion. He/she knows nothing about the subject to hand. I have seen much
of
what happened - given my job

I didn't know the public toilets in Victoria station had been hit.

Were you worried that one of your cruising venues had been hit?

The champagne is flowing in a South Wales junkyard today
 

"Anthropy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:26:21 +0100, "encyclopedia"
wrote:


"Anthropy" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:09:50 +0100, "encyclopedia"
wrote:


"Ken Ehrett" wrote in message
m...


This of course is a non-response by Assthrobby designed solely to draw
attention away from his idiotic claims about minimum casualties.
Don't expect him to explain his silly theory about minimum casualties
when bombs were detonated in an enclosed space at the very point in
time when the largest number of people would be occupying that space.
All you will get at that point is name calling and misdirection.


It seems that is all I can expect from the fool is indeed non-response
and
evasion. He/she knows nothing about the subject to hand. I have seen
much
of
what happened - given my job

I didn't know the public toilets in Victoria station had been hit.

Were you worried that one of your cruising venues had been hit?

You tell me, you work there.

Yet another one of your erroneous assumptions to add to the growing list. It
is noted that you have not answered the question put to you - again.
Obviously because you cannot. Now go to your room without supper.

The champagne is flowing in a South Wales junkyard today
 

"Anthropy" wrote in message
...

What question?

The question that has been put to you several times now in this thread and
on each occasion all you have done is offer up evasion - as you have again.
Obviously it seems that you cannot answer it and you have been left cornered
and struggling. If you evade again it will be an admittance on your part
that you are nothing but a lame troll.

You have said that "I can confidently state that the American invasion and
subsequent occupation and slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians in
Iraq and Afghanistan has led directly to the deaths of 49 innocent British
civilians in London last Thursday."

I have asked that you offer up direct and incontrovertible proof that allows
you to *"confidently state"*

Now given that you contradict yourself in the post you made:
"Anthropy" wrote in message
...

by saying

"The question has not been answered neither has the identity of the group
who planted the bombs."

As yet the identity of the bombers - as you have noted - are not known.
Though not likely - it is possible that they are the IRA or an animal rights
organisation. Hell they could even be the Anthropy Association for the
Violent Enforcement of which Colour is the New Black.

So on the one hand you say that the identity of the group who planted the
bombs is unknown yet you seem able to "confidently state that the American
invasion and subsequent occupation and slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqi
civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan has led directly to the deaths of 49
innocent British civilians in London last Thursday."

So once more I ask that you offer up direct and incontrovertible proof to
back up the reason you have that allows you to "confidently state"

The champagne is flowing in a South Wales junkyard today
 

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:19:03 +0100, "encyclopedia"
wrote:


"Anthropy" wrote in message
.. .

What question?

The question that has been put to you several times now in this thread and
on each occasion all you have done is offer up evasion - as you have again.
Obviously it seems that you cannot answer it and you have been left cornered
and struggling. If you evade again it will be an admittance on your part
that you are nothing but a lame troll.

You have said that "I can confidently state that the American invasion and
subsequent occupation and slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians in
Iraq and Afghanistan has led directly to the deaths of 49 innocent British
civilians in London last Thursday."

I have asked that you offer up direct and incontrovertible proof that allows
you to *"confidently state"*

Now given that you contradict yourself in the post you made:
"Anthropy" wrote in message
.. .

by saying

"The question has not been answered neither has the identity of the group
who planted the bombs."

As yet the identity of the bombers - as you have noted - are not known.
Though not likely - it is possible that they are the IRA or an animal rights
organisation. Hell they could even be the Anthropy Association for the
Violent Enforcement of which Colour is the New Black.

So on the one hand you say that the identity of the group who planted the
bombs is unknown yet you seem able to "confidently state that the American
invasion and subsequent occupation and slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqi
civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan has led directly to the deaths of 49
innocent British civilians in London last Thursday."

So once more I ask that you offer up direct and incontrovertible proof to
back up the reason you have that allows you to "confidently state"



What question?

The champagne is flowing in a South Wales junkyard today
 

"Little Kenny Fehrett" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:19:03 +0100, "encyclopedia"
wrote:


"Anthropy" wrote in message
. ..

What question?

The question that has been put to you several times now in this thread and
on each occasion all you have done is offer up evasion - as you have
again.
Obviously it seems that you cannot answer it and you have been left
cornered
and struggling. If you evade again it will be an admittance on your part
that you are nothing but a lame troll.

You have said that "I can confidently state that the American invasion
and
subsequent occupation and slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians in
Iraq and Afghanistan has led directly to the deaths of 49 innocent British
civilians in London last Thursday."

I have asked that you offer up direct and incontrovertible proof that
allows
you to *"confidently state"*

Now given that you contradict yourself in the post you made:
"Anthropy" wrote in message
. ..

by saying

"The question has not been answered neither has the identity of the group
who planted the bombs."

As yet the identity of the bombers - as you have noted - are not known.
Though not likely - it is possible that they are the IRA or an animal
rights
organisation. Hell they could even be the Anthropy Association for the
Violent Enforcement of which Colour is the New Black.

So on the one hand you say that the identity of the group who planted the
bombs is unknown yet you seem able to "confidently state that the
American
invasion and subsequent occupation and slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqi
civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan has led directly to the deaths of 49
innocent British civilians in London last Thursday."

So once more I ask that you offer up direct and incontrovertible proof to
back up the reason you have that allows you to "confidently state"



What question?

Where is his direct and incontrovertible proof to ""confidently state that
the American
invasion and subsequent occupation and slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqi
civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan has led directly to the deaths of 49
innocent British civilians in London last Thursday."? But then you knew that
and have just jumped in to try and defend your fellow village idiot
anthropy.

The champagne is flowing in a South Wales junkyard today
 

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:28:47 +0100, "encyclopedia"
wrote:


"Little Kenny Fehrett" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:19:03 +0100, "encyclopedia"
wrote:


"Anthropy" wrote in message
...

What question?

The question that has been put to you several times now in this thread and
on each occasion all you have done is offer up evasion - as you have
again.
Obviously it seems that you cannot answer it and you have been left
cornered
and struggling. If you evade again it will be an admittance on your part
that you are nothing but a lame troll.

You have said that "I can confidently state that the American invasion
and
subsequent occupation and slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians in
Iraq and Afghanistan has led directly to the deaths of 49 innocent British
civilians in London last Thursday."

I have asked that you offer up direct and incontrovertible proof that
allows
you to *"confidently state"*

Now given that you contradict yourself in the post you made:
"Anthropy" wrote in message
...

by saying

"The question has not been answered neither has the identity of the group
who planted the bombs."

As yet the identity of the bombers - as you have noted - are not known.
Though not likely - it is possible that they are the IRA or an animal
rights
organisation. Hell they could even be the Anthropy Association for the
Violent Enforcement of which Colour is the New Black.

So on the one hand you say that the identity of the group who planted the
bombs is unknown yet you seem able to "confidently state that the
American
invasion and subsequent occupation and slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqi
civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan has led directly to the deaths of 49
innocent British civilians in London last Thursday."

So once more I ask that you offer up direct and incontrovertible proof to
back up the reason you have that allows you to "confidently state"



What question?

Where is his direct and incontrovertible proof to ""confidently state that
the American
invasion and subsequent occupation and slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqi
civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan has led directly to the deaths of 49
innocent British civilians in London last Thursday."? But then you knew that
and have just jumped in to try and defend your fellow village idiot
anthropy.

What question?

The champagne is flowing in a South Wales junkyard today
 

"Little Kenny Fehrett" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:28:47 +0100, "encyclopedia"
wrote:


"Little Kenny Fehrett" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:19:03 +0100, "encyclopedia"
wrote:


"Anthropy" wrote in message
m...

What question?

The question that has been put to you several times now in this thread
and
on each occasion all you have done is offer up evasion - as you have
again.
Obviously it seems that you cannot answer it and you have been left
cornered
and struggling. If you evade again it will be an admittance on your part
that you are nothing but a lame troll.

You have said that "I can confidently state that the American invasion
and
subsequent occupation and slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians
in
Iraq and Afghanistan has led directly to the deaths of 49 innocent
British
civilians in London last Thursday."

I have asked that you offer up direct and incontrovertible proof that
allows
you to *"confidently state"*

Now given that you contradict yourself in the post you made:
"Anthropy" wrote in message
m...

by saying

"The question has not been answered neither has the identity of the
group
who planted the bombs."

As yet the identity of the bombers - as you have noted - are not known.
Though not likely - it is possible that they are the IRA or an animal
rights
organisation. Hell they could even be the Anthropy Association for the
Violent Enforcement of which Colour is the New Black.

So on the one hand you say that the identity of the group who planted
the
bombs is unknown yet you seem able to "confidently state that the
American
invasion and subsequent occupation and slaughter of 100,000 innocent
Iraqi
civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan has led directly to the deaths of 49
innocent British civilians in London last Thursday."

So once more I ask that you offer up direct and incontrovertible proof
to
back up the reason you have that allows you to "confidently state"



What question?

Where is his direct and incontrovertible proof to ""confidently state
that
the American
invasion and subsequent occupation and slaughter of 100,000 innocent Iraqi
civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan has led directly to the deaths of 49
innocent British civilians in London last Thursday."? But then you knew
that
and have just jumped in to try and defend your fellow village idiot
anthropy.

What question?

And with that post you confirm that you are just an idiot jumping into a
thread for the purpose of trolling and without any intention of adding
anything of value.

The champagne is flowing in a South Wales junkyard today
 

"Anthropy" wrote in message
...


Lol, still dancing away, where do you get your energy?, cretin

That noose is tightening around your neck - and you are still evading. You
have nothing yet you seem to want to declare that fact to the world, fool.

The champagne is flowing in a South Wales junkyard today
 

"Anthropy" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:22:06 +0100, "encyclopedia"
wrote:


"Anthropy" wrote in message
. ..


Lol, still dancing away, where do you get your energy?, cretin

That noose is tightening around your neck - and you are still evading. You
have nothing yet you seem to want to declare that fact to the world, fool.

Still evading what?

Any chance of retaining what is left of your credibility. You have refused
to take up the opportunities made available to you and instead you act like
a child. I am bored with you - thanks for playing and better luck next time.