Thursday, July 06, 2006

Gee, They Are Not Paranoid

With the recent news of Ken Lay passing away to the Enron in the sky, the Loosers have begun formulating their conspiracy theories, as to how he is not dead, or alternatively was murdered. They are even tying him to 9/11. Hey, why not, if you believe the hijackers are still alive and Barbara Olson is running Lira counterfeiting rings on the Polish-Austrian border, how much more of a stretch is this?

44 Comments:

At 06 July, 2006 12:10, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Re the Enron verdicts
1. At what point does a CEO not have responsibility for whats going on in the company? If the guy in the boiler room is doing something nefarious, is the CEO responsible? Enron had top drawer outside accountants and highly paid financial executives. I didn't read of any paper trail that Lay and Skilling knew what Fastow was up to with his "Star Wars" monikered subsidiaries buying and selling loans to show phony assets.

2. How come accountability doesn't apply to people making more serious decisions, like taking the country to war? They just say "I got bad information."

 
At 06 July, 2006 12:24, Blogger Alex said...

You know, as soon as I found out he was dead my first thought was...."I wonder how long it will be untill CTers start claiming he was murdered".

 
At 06 July, 2006 12:31, Blogger James B. said...

Joan, Lay was convicted on six counts of conspiracy and fraud because of his direct involvement. What is your point?

 
At 06 July, 2006 13:01, Blogger Chad said...

I think it's a safe to assume Lay was probably scared of going to jail. That's why I think this whole "heart attack" buisness is a joke.

We all know what people do when they're scared... they jump out of skyscrapers.

My guess is that Lay took a dive out of the Sears Tower. It was probably caught on video by at least a couple tourists, but that video was obviously confiscated by the Feds and the image of him falling was replaced via CGI with a flock of disoriented seagulls.

I dare you to prove me wrong.

 
At 06 July, 2006 13:03, Blogger Manny said...

"Lay was convicted on six counts of conspiracy and fraud because of his direct involvement."

Heh. Here's a little more meat for the CTs. In the 5th circuit a defendant is not considered "convicted" until he has exhausted or waived his appeals. Mr. Lay's convictions will probably be vacated. This won't exonorate him in anybody's eyes, of course, and the convictions won't be "reversed." But it will complicate efforts to gain control of his remaining assets.

 
At 06 July, 2006 13:17, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Arthur Andersen was convicted, too.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/31/news/midcaps/scandal_andersen_scotus/index.htm

 
At 06 July, 2006 13:29, Blogger Unknown said...

Blog Link I just noticed:

The strange saga of the 9/11 planes

 
At 06 July, 2006 13:38, Blogger shawn said...

2. How come accountability doesn't apply to people making more serious decisions, like taking the country to war? They just say "I got bad information."

Do you know anything of Enron? All the head honchos were on it, for years they dealt in nothing. Air. They all knew the books were cooked and couldn't care less.

 
At 06 July, 2006 14:04, Blogger undense said...

To build on bg's post, I'd like to add the Strange Saga of the White Helicopter:

http://tinyurl.com/jdo2f

 
At 06 July, 2006 14:14, Blogger CHF said...

Yeah bg, strange indeed.

Planes take off, planes hijacked, planes crash.

I still don't understand...

 
At 06 July, 2006 14:14, Blogger CHF said...

As for Lay's death....do people have heart attacks anymore?

 
At 06 July, 2006 14:22, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Undense,

Is it just me or does BG and that helicopter guy look eerily similar?

Coincidence? I think not.

 
At 06 July, 2006 14:30, Blogger Chad Chandler said...

"It was probably caught on video by at least a couple tourists, but that video was obviously confiscated by the Feds and the image of him falling was replaced via CGI with a flock of disoriented seagulls."

Now THAT was funny.

 
At 06 July, 2006 14:37, Blogger Pat said...

BG, use a little critical thinking. If we assume that the planes were not hijacked, then we've gotta figure that they were flown to some secret location and the passengers disposed of in some way. Now, do you really believe that after all that, "they" gave the planes back to United and American Airlines? Wouldn't that mean that the management of those companies and the mechanics (at the very least) would have to be aware?

I strongly suspect that the necessary paperwork did not get filed for awhile because of ongoing investigations, and then was forgotten.

 
At 06 July, 2006 14:38, Blogger undense said...

Jujigatami,

I wouldn't be surprised if they were somehow related.

 
At 06 July, 2006 17:32, Blogger roger_sq said...

This isn't even open for debate.

Seriously guys, how many of you would NOT fake your own death if you found yourself in Ken Lay's shoes?

I don't care how altruistic your view of government is. Ken Lay is among the most connected powerbrokers in modern times. Everyone on the top end thinks he got a bad rap, the only ones clamoring for his head are socialist worker bees.

God speed, Ken Lay! Don't forget to throw Skilling a bone!

 
At 06 July, 2006 17:49, Blogger default.xbe said...

This isn't even open for debate.

the famed "open-mindedness" of the 9/11 truth movement

 
At 06 July, 2006 18:02, Blogger roger_sq said...

Fine, alright...EVERYTHING is open for debate. But the open secret on Wall Street is Ken Lay wasn't doing anything that most of his peers were doing, he was just better at it, and no charges would ever have been filed if his stock hadn't dropped. Skilling is exactly correct in his assessment that it was a run on the bank.

His "death" was the easiest way out for everyone involved.

 
At 06 July, 2006 18:09, Blogger James B. said...

But the open secret on Wall Street is Ken Lay wasn't doing anything that most of his peers were doing, he was just better at it, and no charges would ever have been filed if his stock hadn't dropped.

Where exactly on Wall Street do you work again?

 
At 06 July, 2006 19:04, Blogger shawn said...

Seriously guys, how many of you would NOT fake your own death if you found yourself in Ken Lay's shoes?

Weird, other Enron folks killed themselves.

 
At 06 July, 2006 19:11, Blogger BoggleHead said...

How come people are saying yet again that the only evidence of al Qaeda's involvement in, this time, the London Bombing, is al Qaeda taking credit in a video tape?

Yet again, a video confession is the only evidence?

What about Haroon Aswat? MI6 agent and alleged mastermind of all the attacks in London?

 
At 06 July, 2006 19:15, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Haroon Aswat was the link to both al Qaeda and MI6 in the London Bombings. Letting him go leaves me with questions.

 
At 06 July, 2006 19:28, Blogger shawn said...

What about Haroon Aswat? MI6 agent and alleged mastermind of all the attacks in London?

Technically, we only know he was an informant.

 
At 06 July, 2006 19:44, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Technically, MI6 told the US Department of Justice he was dead.

Technically, he made 20 phone calls between all the bombers in the days surrounding the attacks.

Technically, they let him go after the attacks despite his being on a no-fly list.

Technically, he was picked up in Africa with a suicide bomber vest.

 
At 06 July, 2006 19:48, Blogger shawn said...

Technically, MI6 told the US Department of Justice he was dead.

Probably because his identification was found on a Taliban fighter.

Technically, he made 20 phone calls between all the bombers in the days surrounding the attacks.

And? Do you even know how informants work? They don't do much if you're around them 24/7.

Technically, they let him go after the attacks despite his being on a no-fly list.

There you go with your leading vocabulary, they didn't "let him go". Nor did they let him in, he slipped in unbeknowst to them.

Technically, he was picked up in Africa with a suicide bomber vest.

And?

 
At 06 July, 2006 19:53, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Explain how the evidence against bin Laden for 9/11 is stronger than this?

Oh yeah, that's right.

The confession tape.

 
At 06 July, 2006 20:14, Blogger BoggleHead said...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/070306.html

On Oct. 29, 2004, just four days before the U.S. presidential election, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden released a videotape denouncing George W. Bush. Some Bush supporters quickly spun the diatribe as “Osama’s endorsement of John Kerry.” But behind the walls of the CIA, analysts had concluded the opposite: that bin-Laden was trying to help Bush gain a second term.

 
At 06 July, 2006 20:18, Blogger shawn said...

On Oct. 29, 2004, just four days before the U.S. presidential election, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden released a videotape denouncing George W. Bush. Some Bush supporters quickly spun the diatribe as “Osama’s endorsement of John Kerry.” But behind the walls of the CIA, analysts had concluded the opposite: that bin-Laden was trying to help Bush gain a second term.

That makes sense.

 
At 06 July, 2006 20:33, Blogger BoggleHead said...

But the CIA analysts also felt that bin-Laden might have recognized how Bush’s policies – including the Guantanamo prison camp, the Abu Ghraib scandal and the endless bloodshed in Iraq – were serving al-Qaeda’s strategic goals for recruiting a new generation of jihadists.

“Certainly,” the CIA’s Miscik said, “he would want Bush to keep doing what he’s doing for a few more years,” according to Suskind’s account of the meeting.

As their internal assessment sank in, the CIA analysts drifted into silence, troubled by the implications of their own conclusions. “An ocean of hard truths before them – such as what did it say about U.S. policies that bin-Laden would want Bush reelected – remained untouched,” Suskind wrote.

 
At 06 July, 2006 20:39, Blogger roger_sq said...

Where exactly on Wall Street do you work again?

Don't worry, you never thought to ask who really directs your 401k money, no reason to start looking into it now.

 
At 06 July, 2006 20:41, Blogger roger_sq said...

Weird, other Enron folks killed themselves.

What's your point?

 
At 06 July, 2006 22:41, Blogger apathoid said...

bg...
Blog Link I just noticed:

The strange saga of the 9/11 planes


Hey, BG. Check out the Tail Numbers and Occams Razor post.
In the comments, jackhaynes left a post about the zombie planes saying exactly the same thing as the blog you cited. Check out my 2 follow up comments toward the bottom. There are numerous examples of destroyed aircraft being registered long after their accidents.

If you guys would ever do any honest, genuine research(as opposed to "dishonest and disingenuous") before jumping to conclusions, we wouldnt have to point out all of your errors all of the time......

 
At 07 July, 2006 01:04, Blogger BoggleHead said...

Occam's razor means you cut out the evidence, right?

Not a single person on this forum has refuted Saudi government links to the 9/11 hijackers.

That'll be my little moniker until someone does, so get cracking, debunkers and wanne-be-but-don't-wanna-actually-do- debunkers.

The presumption---which I will now pre-empt---that if my allegations were true, they would have been uncovered by Congress will hereby be addressed on the informed suspicion that this type of erroneous thinking is pervasive in the OS community.

Intimidation of ALL the members of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into Intelligence Failures surrounding 9/11 by the FBI is documented by Senator Bob Graham and, of all people, then-Representative Porter Goss, the Senate and House Intelligence Committe Chairs who formed the Inquiry in the first place.

Complete idiots need not reply. I will bite back.

The import of this is that Saudi Arabia is the only known support network in the United States for the only two known (at the time) al Qaeda hijackers.

Thoughtless replies such as "Criminals hang out with criminals, so what?" will brook no reply.

People that think Occam's razor means you can ignore some of the evidence will brook no reply.

In fact, it's precisely denying plain and obvious facts (however rarely OSers seem to think they come up) as irrelevant when a further explanation is required even for non-9/11 related reasons.

And yet this is plainly a 9/11 related cover-up.

 
At 07 July, 2006 01:15, Blogger BoggleHead said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 07 July, 2006 01:18, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"In fact, it's precisely denying plain and obvious facts (however rarely OSers seem to think they come up) as irrelevant when a further explanation is required even for non-9/11 related reasons."

I meant to say that it's precisely this type of thinking, these types of denials, where some egregious wrong-doing is being covered up that is alleged to relate to 9/11...

...and yet nobody sees a need to uncover it, not just for 9/11 related purposes, but nobody sees a real need to uncover it at all----that puts off CTers who would otherwise be smoking a peace pipe with OSers.

I offer a modicum of reasoned discourse in exchange for same.

I offer more in exchange for more.

I am not courting dismissals in lieu of evidence, because I have plenty evidence.

We should actually all sit down and discuss it rather than accuse each other of playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon independent of how strong the connections being formed even are.

Who among the OSers can say they're not playing Kevin Bacon with bin Laden's involvement of 9/11?

Who among the OSers can even find six degrees of bin Laden from Atta?

Who among the OSers can seriously look at substantiated evidence of wrongdoing and dismiss it on the notion that those facts are cherry-picked to reach an impossible conclusion?

It's a straw man and you all know it.

 
At 07 July, 2006 02:07, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Look CTs, if you want to dispute that 911 was "planned" by Bin Laden, go ahead. Al Qaeda is a VERY decentralized organization, if you can even call it that. Basically it serves as a sort of strategic think tank and source of funding and training for Islamic insurgents around the world. Groups like the hijackers are basically an independent "cell", and though they may have received money, training, or advice from Al Qaeda- that doesn't necessarily make them "memebers" of an Al Qaeda organization. Conversely, groups like the Kashmiri Harakut al-Mujahadeen(spelling?) represent an autonomous organization that may receive funding or training from Al Qaeda.

What all this DOES NOT MEAN by any stretch of the imagination, is that Osama or Al Qaeda are "CIA" assets or do not exist. They are very real, though their true nature is often distorted by the Western media and PARTICULARLY REPUBLICANS. One important example is that Al Qaeda does not for the most part train "terrorists". It was designed to train insurgents in more or less conventional military conflicts from the Phillipines(something less conventional) to Bosnia(more conventional). "Terrorists", those that frequently resort to urban insurgency tactics(under which terrorism usually falls), could be termed as the "Al Qaeda special forces" in the sense that there are fewer of these individuals.

 
At 07 July, 2006 04:43, Blogger BoggleHead said...

For the reading impaired, none of my warnings were heeded but I'll entertain some throwaway speculation by the OSers, who stand behind nothing as the government story changes, and who repeatedly blame the real investigators for the lack of consistent answers.

Look CTs, if you want to dispute that 911 was "planned" by Bin Laden, go ahead.

The OS claim is that 9/11 was planned by KSM. You seem to have abandoned the OS claim from the word "go."

Just noting you have no evidence of bin Laden's involvement whatsoever is apparently the simplest of my tasks.

There's really only two possibilities. Either you're ready to libel OBL as a perpetrator of 9/11 rather than for being the narcotics trafficker that he really, in essence, is.

Or you're going to likewise malign the CIA for doing the same, in which case I'd say you're off your rocker and require a rubber room suitable for half-wits.

I thought we were supposed to collect all the evidence before accusing people of mass murder. Or mass murdering people in wars of aggression presumably based on such accusations, such as in Afghanistan. Or take the bounties on the "al Qaeda" sent to Guantanamo. Or Ashcroft's "indefinite investigative detentions."

So you defend terrorists. Plain and simple. Let's see what else you've got.

Evidence of CIA involvement in the drug trade is myriad and comprises its own academic discipline and I would trash you in the subject gladly assuming you don't go crying home to mommy.

I don't care to support or dispute OBL's involvement at this particular junction, but you sure are making a huff as though it's relevant to the detailed statements from Senators and Congressmen to the effect that Saudi Arabia constitutes the only known support network for al Qaeda in the United States.

The most reasonable question on this entire topic that I foresee being asked is simply whether ostensibly pro-US Saudis have penetrated ostensibly anti-US Saudis under the guise of anti-terrorism, but presumably (to any sane individual) to profit off the massive Afghan narcotics trade.

Such a ruse was likely in place dating back to Prince Turki's inquiries from bin Laden into precisely such a position, whether OBL was aware of it or not, although the claim is essentially a non-issue.

If you hadn't noticed, OBL is supposed to be at war with Saudi Arabia and yet there's massive documentary evidence that the only known support network for al Qaeda in the US is Saudi Arabia, and, incidentally, a US defense contractor.

Your own bed-wetting indecision on the question is all I need to smell blood on the issue.

Al Qaeda is a VERY decentralized organization, if you can even call it that.

Why nominalize an organization whose structure you can't even describe?

Saudi Arabia is the only known support network for the hijackers within the United States.

Tell me who backed the hijackers and what types of evidence exist to support your conclusions. If not, I'll just assume you're full of crappy, easily debunked little theories, since you are.

I'm familiar with the concept of a "cell structure"---it's typically taken to be evidence against anybody one wishes, primarily by idiots or, euphamistically, non-evidence based thinkers.

A known Saudi spy known to be on the payroll of Prince Bandar "Bush" is alleged to constitute an element of a "cell structure"---the claim is ludicrous on its face, and is substantiated entirely in the presumed insubstantiation that is befitting of a cell structure despite proof of the direct involvement of Bandar "Bush" through his direct intercession on behalf of career Saudi spy Omar al Bayoumi, as well as that intercession's exclusive correlation with Bayoumi's role as case officer to the only two known (at the time) al Qaeda hijackers.

The two events happened with perfect simulteneity, and there is not a part of either that does not overlap the other, for the non-reading impaired.

This type of thinking could also be taken to be "evidence" (i.e. a presumed lack of evidence, or trying to prove what one is contemporaneously claiming is a "negative", characterizing a cell structure as opposed to the orgy of evidence we actually possess that shows it is not) against anyone apart from the people who actually accepted the largest wire transfers, from Saeed Sheikh for example, to the tune of $70,000.

That would be an american defense contractor whose last CEO (to my knowledge, at least) is former CIA director James Woolsey.

This is apart from corroborative evidence that is suspicious but wouldn't be in itself definitive, such as that $100,000 wire was transferred to Mohammed Atta from the head of the ISI the same day Bob Graham and Porter Goss were meeting with him.

Only someone thorougholy lost in mythic-membership ethnocentric pre-formal cognition would dispute Bob Grahams' claims that Saudi Arabia is involved in the financing of terrorism since he was at that meeting.

Or the spy for the Saudi government that handed off the only two known al Qaeda hijackers to an FBI informant in college aged Saudi counter-terrorism, his "friend" as we know from the LA Times. Very hospitable of him to open up bank accounts for the hijackers and fill them with $9,900 deposits---just $100 below what would trigger an automatic investigation by the bank by order of federal law.

You'd have to be a liar to claim you have anything like that on bin Laden himself. Luckily for you that you admit you don't have anything at all to substantiate the OS version.

Basically it serves as a sort of strategic think tank and source of funding and training for Islamic insurgents around the world.

No doubt that it does. If you're an idiot and you know nothing and all you have is plausibility theories that defy an orgy of evidence that was leaked by prominent members of congress in defiance of FBI intimidation, for which there is also an orgy of documentary evidence in the mainstream media.

Tell me all about it, you little al Qaeda expert, you.

You're basically demanding I disprove the negative that this is not the case, despite a complete and utter lack of documentary evidence in congressional reports, the 9/11 Commission report, etc.

Groups like the hijackers are basically an independent "cell", and though they may have received money, training, or advice from Al Qaeda- that doesn't necessarily make them "memebers" of an Al Qaeda organization.

You would have me believe Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 but that the official version is still true? You're a bigger idiot than I thought.

Of course you'd have to be brain dead to think Prince Bandar "Bush," who funded Omar al Bayoumi, who in turn funded the hijackers, is al Qaeda or to think there's any other evidence al Qaeda constituted the support network in the United States for the hijackers, despite myriad evidence implicating the Saudi government as being that same, very one and only support network.

Even the theories that you argue are plausible are pleaded on the assumption that their mere insubstantiation will corroborate their high likelihood---but how much logic really went into arguing how logically improbable or unnecessary the real evidence is when the truth is that OSers often have no thoughts of their own on the matter, and cannot piggyback off the thoughts of others even to parrot them, being brain dead worms.

Conversely, groups like the Kashmiri Harakut al-Mujahadeen(spelling?) represent an autonomous organization that may receive funding or training from Al Qaeda.

You can't spell presumably because you're trying to speak a different language from what you're accustomed to. Even a mere sub-genius would have cited the vagueness of thus-far attempted linguistic transliterations between the two languages.

So far ignorance is your only pleading that is substantiated in evidence.

Speaking directly to your claim, however, I wonder if in fact you haven't conjectured a theory in spite of overwhelming evidence it was the Saudi government directly?

And in spite of the utter lack of evidence anybody else funded the hijackers?

What all this DOES NOT MEAN by any stretch of the imagination, is that Osama or Al Qaeda are "CIA" assets or do not exist.

You'd have to be seriously mentally degraded to think the CIA does not exist, or to posit a role for it which is essentially afunctional, as you clearly do.

An "asset" or an "agent in place" is exactly what the CIA is supposed to be recruiting.

Any lack of imagination in dreaming up a scenario of what the world's intelligence agencies might even be for is entirely your own fault.

I suppose it never occurred to you to infiltrate, manipulate, or neutralize the terrorists such as for example by controlling their websites for counter-recruitment purposes.

Or that what might be wrong is claiming a thing for public consumption by idiots while the truth remains concealed (but only from idiots) even as members of congress protest FBI intimidation and incursion on the legislative branch?

These are seemingly the simplest of all tasks compared to the high profile cases of daring and amazingly surreptitious espionage, unless you ask an idiot.

They are very real, though their true nature is often distorted by the Western media and PARTICULARLY REPUBLICANS.

Presumably this constitutes some form of admission that you're a Republican because you speak out of your ass about their "very reality"--when you can't even spell the organizations that you CONJECTURE are involved--as though you can't recount a single example of the politicization of intelligence for the purpose of the manipulation of the domestic electoral or the politics of political capital.

You can't cite the modern historical experts on espionage successes or their opinions thereupon, not actually being aware of any or what they might even look like if you saw them.

You have unsubstantiated plausibility theories rooted in all the very ruses you claim to see right through.

One important example is that Al Qaeda does not for the most part train "terrorists". It was designed to train insurgents in more or less conventional military conflicts from the Phillipines(something less conventional) to Bosnia(more conventional). "Terrorists", those that frequently resort to urban insurgency tactics(under which terrorism usually falls), could be termed as the "Al Qaeda special forces" in the sense that there are fewer of these individuals.

So few that you cannot document examples of any for whom the only known support network in the host country is not the FBI, Saudi Arabia, MI6, or a combination of them.

You ignore McVeighs' and Nichols' trip to the Phillipines despite massive substantiation in actual evidence, with which you are unfamiliar and wouldn't recognize if you saw it.

You can't fathom that the mastermind behind the London Bombing was an MI6 agent in Bosnia and Kosovo even if Fox news told you so, which it did.

You're all around wrong and someone who frankly is better off feeling the wrath of a CTer than perusing pdf files from think tanks the credibility of which you are utterly unqualified to ascertain.

 
At 07 July, 2006 06:18, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Moron, I don't speak Urdu or Arabic, in English transliteration there are different ways to write things. You are all over the place here. One line you're saying that Bin Laden should be innocent until proven guilty- basically. Then you claim I am "defending terrorists"?

Also, not only am I NOT a Republican, I have never registered to vote for the 5 years I remained in the US before leaving for Europe. That and I'm also a socialist. We would not be welcomed at Republican gatherings to say the least.

You still don't get the big picture. The fact that Al Qaeda doesn't have some kind of military heriarchy where someone like Bin Laden orders footsoldiers like Mohammed Atta to carry out an attack does not mean that they don't have "involvement". Osama Bin Laden is an IDEOLOGICAL leader.

More importantly, I am not claiming to be an "expert" on Al Qaeda. Michael Sheuer, who spent 22 years in the CIA working in the department responsbile for Afghanistan and issue of Al Qaeda IS however, an expert. So is Robert Fisk, one of the few Westerners to actually meet Bin Laden.

Also, we CAN describe the organizational structure of Al Qaeda- it is decentralized. The Sendero Luminoso was also very decentralized in the same manner, often using a tactic of "Leaderless resistance". Would you argue that Sendero Luminoso was nonexistent as well?

 
At 07 July, 2006 07:42, Blogger shawn said...

who stand behind nothing as the government story changes

I'm glad you're not a scientist. You'd be stuck at the sun revolving around the Earth and spontaneous generation.

 
At 07 July, 2006 08:02, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Yes, the "government story changes" because they DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION AT ONE TIME. It's not like information on Al Qaeda is posted on some kind of Official Al Qaeda Website or something.

 
At 07 July, 2006 11:54, Blogger Unknown said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 07 July, 2006 11:56, Blogger Unknown said...

JPSlovjanski, BoggleHead, Pat, apathoid,

I've got various issues with comments each of you made. In Pat's case, we simply disagree. Pat, I'll enjoy continuing our conversation, but I don't think this thread is a good place to do it.

Speaking of this thread, I have a suggestion. I realise this isn't my blog: James and Pat get to run it anyway they want.

However, might I recommend that links be used rather than these extremely long comments. If you don't have a web page to create your comments on, why not try:

1) Writely.com (can publish anything to your own URL)

2) googlepages.com

Both of the above are extremely easy and free ways to publish on the web.

11:54 AM

 
At 07 July, 2006 12:15, Blogger Alex said...

Yeah, you're right BG, the lengths of bobbleheads posts are getting rather silly. That last one took 4 fulls scrolls of the mouse wheel. I've got better things to do than waste time scrolling over his garbage.

 
At 07 July, 2006 13:25, Blogger default.xbe said...

feel free to post anything on my forums screwloosechange.xbehome.com and link to the post here

it will be easier to read long posts there because it wont force them into such a narrow collumn

 

Post a Comment

<< Home