the definite implication was that by supporting chora I was an idiot and that WW was being reasoned. Of course if you then say that I was being stupid for attacking him, apparently he wasn't being stupid for attacking chora. You were displaying clear bias there. Why attack one person and not another?
oh and your words here again...... 'I was just Saying that WW made fair points and i thought chora was being a unfair on him, i never said anything about the MAY thing?' How? chora never attacked WW until after he attacked him. So apparently chora was being unfair on him but WW was not being unfair to chora. Lovely bias.
wads
Onwards the Aussie Spam Invasion!
TwoWongs rocks my world
campaiging for vitamin S
Quai Master is my muffin
This message last edited by wads on 4/20/2004 at 9:21:20 PM.