so how long does this guy have to live

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/9/06 at 5:32pm

abc news posted the photo and name of the informant who gave up zarqawi.



buh bye

Updated On: 6/9/06 at 05:32 PM

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 6/9/06 at 5:42pm

Good Lord. Whose side are they on?

Kiss any future info goodbye.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 6/9/06 at 5:48pm

......

morons.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/9/06 at 5:49pm

yet abc is unwilling to publish the identities of those accused in the duke sex case.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/9/06 at 6:22pm

Not only that--the US is denying him the $25 million reward they offered for the Zarq man.

Why?

Because the information was tortured out of him by the Jordanian Secret Police.

Updated On: 6/9/06 at 06:22 PM

[ckeaton]

Posted: 6/9/06 at 6:35pm

Jesus, he looks like a villian's henchman from a Stephen Segal movie.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 6/9/06 at 7:38pm

I thought you were talking about someone else. Never mind.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/9/06 at 7:45pm

wow, that's in really, really poor taste, rath. even for you.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 6/9/06 at 7:48pm

Tactless Rath. Honestly disgusting.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 6/9/06 at 7:52pm

Sorry! Papa isn't known for having the most impeccable taste and sometimes a little black humor escapes from him. Considering what's been a major topic on the board here, with two threads devoted to it already, can you blame me?

Updated On: 6/9/06 at 07:52 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/9/06 at 7:56pm

yeah, ok. that's pathetic. you know i defended you too.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 6/9/06 at 7:58pm

Defended me where?

Oh who cares. Good God. This thread was started by Papa, for God's sake. I don't think it's out of line to expect some snark from him at times.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 6/9/06 at 8:02pm

Yet, you couldn't have read the first message, figured out it wasn't a dark joke and left it at that?

This is a message board. Everything has to go from your brain to your fingers and then you have to push the post button. Everything that is said requires some genuine intent. You're copping out.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 6/9/06 at 8:18pm

As long as I seem to be shooting my mouth off today, let me weigh in, too.
Sorry, Rath....over the line.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 6/9/06 at 8:20pm

All right! I got it! You all made your point already. I was done with this thread and was allowing it to get back to what it was about.

You people can drag this out as long as you like, don't let me stop you.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/9/06 at 9:27pm

like elephants, we.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/10/06 at 8:44am

rath posted on: 6/9/06 at 07:38 pm

i thought you were talking about someone else. never mind.

she's since changed the post where she lied and denied that she was talking about who i knew she was referencing and now admits it in the edited version of that post.

considering what's been a major topic on the board here, with two threads devoted to it already, can you blame me?

yes, i can and i do.

Updated On: 6/10/06 at 08:44 AM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 6/10/06 at 9:20am

Yes, I decided to change my post from a lie to the truth, and take responsibility for it.

Are you done yet?

[mominator]

Posted: 6/10/06 at 9:31am

Back to the topic at hand.... Wha the heck were these guys thinking?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/10/06 at 5:33pm

who can tell what someone is thinking when they do things that defy explanation, mominator.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/10/06 at 6:28pm

Namo, will you STOP bashing Rath on every single post she makes? Gah, it's like, it's like you have some sort of computer sensor that pokes you and wakes you up whenever she posts anything at all, day or night, so that you can appear and bash her.

Oh wait, I was away most of the week and people other than me are having problems with Rath? Why, that's not possible! I have it on good authority that I am the source of all negativity on BWW, that without me, BWW is Candyland's Nicety Nook.

[By the way, the new tactic I've noticed as I have been catching up on my reading, is that people (not me, because I haven't been here) are allowed ONE (1) critical post of something Rath has written. After that, you are just dragging it out and going on and on and on and Jesus, you're flogging some sort of dead animal, she GETS IT, okay? Meanwhile, please sit back and relax and read her posts after post after post in any random thread about nothing much at all. Except herself. Talk about your well-flogged dead cows.)

[shermanslave]

Posted: 6/10/06 at 6:33pm

wow, I can't belive they would tell the world who he is. Really thoughtless.

And Rath seems to make friends wherever she posts, sweet thing that she is.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/10/06 at 6:35pm

I have learned something. I had no idea there was a torture clause that means people don't get their reward. I also thought we weren't torturing any more. I guess there's a lotta chatchin up for me to do on even other topics.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 6/10/06 at 6:35pm

Namo, you turn threads into being about me much better and lately, more frequently, than I do.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/10/06 at 6:45pm

Oh yes, I know, all the time right? Just every single time you so much as tap your keyboard, right? Just take a look, Rath. Try to fearlessly examine how many perfectly functioning threads just absolutely have to have "A Very Special Rath Time Out" so that you can go back and forth a few times with somebody about, well, you. No matter what the original topic. Try to do it. I know it'll probably be hard to look at an actual record, as an Eating Diary must be for somebody who gorges on junk food.

If you want, how about checking to see how many dozens of your posts never ever have a response from me? So that for once and for all your "Namo persecutes me all the time" whining will not hold up when compared to the sheer volume of posts you make.

And take a look at this past week's posts and see how I am not the source of all irritation by and for you.

I'm sure this is where you'll just say something about me now.