And which Canadians have you been talking to that gave you this impression? I'm assuming you are referring, at least in part, to me, having been one of the most vocal Canadians in these threads. Eds I'm through arguing with you - I use that term purposefully since it's obvious that you don't know how to debate. Your arguments consist of throwing out blatantly ignorant statements, then screaming when others call you on them. It's obvious that either: you are not reading what we have written, or you are not comprehending what we have written. If anything we have indicated is unclear, please say so, but I know for a fact that I, and Mach10, have in no uncertain terms said military intervention will be required and we fully support it.

I stand by my quote in the previous thread. To my understanding of what you had written, it accurately reflects your statement. If I didn't quote directly then it is because your initial post was poorly constructed and I wanted to get at the crux of your argument. Yes, I omitted your "If", because given your statement the way it was written, it was obviously redundent. If your conditional statement was actually intended to be central to your argument, then I apologise, but find it no less unappealing on that basis.

I don't know if you ever went to college or university, but from your writings I have my doubts. Your vocabulary is obviously of a high-level, but you don't follow through when making your arguments. You make mistakes - lack of support for your arguments, dancing around the point you're trying to make and you then try to cow people into believing that you're feeding them facts - that are slammed in first and second year courses, and would not be tolerated at all by profs at higher levels.

I notice you didn't bother to answer the question that I asked at the end of my last post in that your thread. You, again, danced around the issue. Either you support it or not. I don't care if you accept my arguments or not Eds. I don't care if you tell me. The question was asked in hopes of having you examine your own beliefs to determine what they really are.

I believe what I've written already on this subject, will suffice. I will not write any further in this thread or any other thread having to do with this issue. I will continue to follow them in case you're interested in responding or flaming, but I have nothing further to say to you and will not reply on the forum to any of these responses. In this regard, I give you the opportunity to get in the last word ,or not, as you so choose. I doubt the people reading these are interested in hearing any further from either of us, though.

Eds, everything I have written in this post is intended as constructive criticism. I hope you take it as such. I have no doubt that my dislike for your politics shows, but I'm not that good a writer, nor do I choose to take the time now to be diplomatic about it. It's obviously a failing on my part. At the same time I would like you to consider what I was told by my first year Poli Sci prof. (paraphrased) "It is not my responsibility as a reader to decipher your arguments. As a writer, it is your responsibility to ensure that your position is evident, clear and well supported."

I will close on a bright note. I fully applaud this statement you made:

This is exactly what I have been trying to get you say with regard to the anti-Arab/Islamic statements you had been making. If you espouse this belief in regards to your views of Canadians, then it stands to reason that you would also espouse it in regard to Arabs and Islamics. For this I applaud you.

[This message has been edited by Tonker (edited 09-16-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Mach10 (edited 09-16-2001).]