# Face it, some of you were duped **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 4, 2003, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616 "2003-06-04T15:32:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2003, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/101 "2003-06-06T20:18:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UnwrittenNocturne \* > **(Chomsky’s support of Pol Pot aside - but that is a seperate issue)** I’d be interested to read the article or book in which Chomsky did this. Perhaps you could let me know which one/s to look for? ---
**Author:** ![ChaosGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@ChaosGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChaosGod)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2003, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/102 "2003-06-06T22:01:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mhendo \* > \*\*I’d be interested to read the article or book in which Chomsky did this. Perhaps you could let me know which one/s to look for? \*\* I’ve been looking this up and, apparently, it was a completely malicious misinterpretation of his work. I’d have to read the book in question to be 100% sure. But I’ve found an [excellent](http://www.bard.edu/hrp/hhrs/chomsky.htm) transcription of a seminar in which he gives his view of what constitues “humanitarian intervention”. Anyone reading this can plainly see there’s no way in hell this guy would support a genocide. It’s a real eye-opener. ---
**Author:** ![shelbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@shelbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shelbo)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2003, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/103 "2003-06-06T23:03:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Since the war with Iraq did far more good than harm, despite intelligence misreadings, it’s a net positive accomplishment for this administration. From polls I’ve seen, my view is held by a substantial majority of Americans. \*\* So far, and just off the top of my head, the negative results of the war in Iraq include: (i) 16,000 dead. Thousands and thousands more injured. (I would wager that that is more than Saddam would have killed in the same period. A number of those are American and British soldiers, ZERO of whom would have been killed by Saddam in this period.) (ii) Hundred’s of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis without power for months. (iii) A collapsed health care system in a city of 5 million. (iv) A dramatic increase in the power of radical Islamists within Iraq. (v) The utter collapse of the Iraqi economy, plunging almost its entire population into poverty. (vi) The lowest level of international support and respect for the US and its policies since, well, ever. (vii) The expenditure, to date of what, $50 Billion? With the total cost of the “war”, not including the occupation (oops, sorry, “administration of liberated Iraq”) estimated to top $100 Billion. And then another $75 Billion a year in “administration costs” for how long? 5 more years? 10? 20? (viii) The continuing death and injury of Iraqi civilians at the hands of soldiers who are trying to do a job (policing) for which they are not trained and are ill suited. (ix) The continuing death and injury of US and British soldiers stuck in Iraq in a policing role. Positive Results: (i) Saddam can’t hurt any more people (and, I know, he was a very, very bad guy. But we support some very bad guys in the region even today, not to mention gentle souls like the Shah of Iran and the House of Saud. Jesus, millions are being killed in genocidal wars in Africa, people are hunting and eating each other there, and we don’t seem to be sending any troops. Face it, despite the spin, we did not go into Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy). (ii) The US now has bases in Iraq, and can move troops out of Saudi Arabia. Help me expand my list of positives. Otherwise I gotta go against the view of the majority of the American people on this one. There were vastly less costly options. ---
**Author:** ![ChaosGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@ChaosGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChaosGod)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2003, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/104 "2003-06-06T23:48:47Z")
**mhendo** -\> I found this [chronology](http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/e-asia/ch-kh-chron.html) of articles which reference this issue. Of course, by the very nature of the chronology, the premise of the author is that Chomsky indeed endorsed a criminal regime. But, anyway, it looks like a good starting point if you want to get to the source. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2003, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/105 "2003-06-07T11:36:19Z")
**I’d be interested to read the article or book in which Chomsky did this. Perhaps you could let me know which one/s to look for?** Chomsky, during the period in question, wrote many articles denying that there was a genocide, and citing the progress the regime had made. Although not slavish support, it was a glaring wrong that he never actually owned up to. Now, back to Bush and WMD. No one has really come to grips with this question: Why should Bush have believed there were no WMD when no other nations’ intelligence indicated that either? Was Clinton a liar? Was Chirac a liar? How about Kenneth Pollack? HIllary Clinton? Joe Liberman? John McCain? You can’t just pick and choose based on ideology. If there are indeed no WMD, you inevitable have to come to grips with the fact that everyone was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![frithrah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ad7895/32.png) [@frithrah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/frithrah)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2003, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/106 "2003-06-07T13:58:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > > Now, back to Bush and WMD. > > No one has really come to grips with this question: Why should Bush have believed there were no WMD when no other nations’ intelligence indicated that either? \*\* This is a convenient dodge and non sequitur. No one other than Bush and his lapdog Blair led the charge to war regardless of whether or not other world leaders beleived WMD’s existed. Plenty of nations including our own, have them. While over 40 countries on the U.S. dole may have acquiesed to provide humanitarian aid in the wake of our bloodshed, the invasion was overwhelmingly condemned by the world. Opposition to this occupation ranged from 80% to 90% even among our strongest allies: Britain, Spain, and Australia. Pre-war opposition in the U.S. was near 50%. The other 50% still think S.H. was responsible for 9-11. I’ll grant you, as we watched the shock and awe Bagdad fireworks display from our comfy lazyboy nightly, national pride, patriotism et al vastly increased support in the U.S. TOUCHDOWN! woohoo! You’ve got to love having a superbowl every night where our team always wins. The pentagon brilliantly handled the media. Unlike Vietnam where we saw charred bodies and children shot in the head, we got real time reports of what it was really like at the front; A soldier adopts a homeless puppy that wanders into camp and he shares his MRE’s with the dog. Camera zooming in on the loving pup licking his face. Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! You really bought into that crap? We were there to kill, slaughter, maim, and descimate a nation to pillage their resources against the will of the world. We put our young men and women’s life on the line so that Haliberton could get a good contract. And suddenly, since the U.N. isn’t on board, they don’t have legitamacy. Everyone is out of step but Johnny. Pour out your wine and throw away your cheese to protest the French for having the balls to say that mass murder is wrong. Eat some freedom fries. What will it take for you to realize that this was the unprovoked act of a megalomaniac bent on power, control, world domination, and not unlike Hitler? Bahhh. “Meek and obedient you follow the leader down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2003, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/107 "2003-06-07T14:04:17Z")
Bag the “Hitler” reference next time, ok? We don’t need hyperbole, we’ve got facts. Let _them_ rely on bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2003, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/108 "2003-06-07T14:39:28Z")
[hijack] **adaher** : > [@](#): > > - Chomsky, during the period in question, wrote many articles denying that there was a genocide, and citing the progress the regime had made. Although not slavish support, it was a glaring wrong that he never actually owned up to.\* I challenge you to find even so much as a single quote written by Chomsky in which he denies that the Khmer Rouge committed genocide; otherwise, please retract this malicious lie. What’s really ironic about this sub-discussion, IMO, is the conveniently forgotten fact that the Khmer Rouge received US support in coming to power, and that, despite a non-stop barrage of outraged condemnation during the genocide, chose to sanction Vietnam when it finally moved in to stop the atrocities in the late 70s. The reason? Vietnam, according to the US, had launched an “unprovoked military assault” on a neighboring, sovereign state. And yet somehow now, in the reversed prism of revisionist history, Chomsky supported Pol Pot’s regime while the US opposed it? And at the same time, an unprovoked assault by the US on a sovereign state (Iraq) is completely acceptable? The sheer volume of hypocrisy makes one’s head swim. [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![frithrah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ad7895/32.png) [@frithrah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/frithrah)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2003, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/109 "2003-06-07T14:46:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Bag the “Hitler” reference next time, ok? We don’t need hyperbole, we’ve got facts. Let _them_ rely on bullshit. \*\* Point taken. It’s hard not to get carried away sometimes. Suppose the Hokey Pokey really \*\* is \*\* what its all about. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/110 "2003-06-09T06:52:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dantheman \* > \*\*I must have missed the part where he admitted he had them. Could have sworn he kept claiming he didn’t have them. \*\* Depends what day you quote him from. I believe he has: - denied having them (even though he used them already) - admitted to destroying the weapons he denied having. - Threatened to use the weapons he said he destroyed (but didn’t provide proof of) against invading troups. It could be he just forgot to properly brief his body doubles on the correct truth. As for hiding the weapons, he had both biological and nuclear labs that were mobile. Only a couple of the biological, and none of the nuclear labs have been found. There were traces of cyanide and mustard agents in the Euphrates River (Cyanide could be from industrial waste). I think it would be as easy to remove chemical and biological weapons (and the mobile labs that make them) without a trace. It would be harder to hide nuclear material. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/111 "2003-06-09T07:08:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Magiver \* > \*\* - Threatened to use the weapons he said he destroyed (but didn’t provide proof of) against invading troups. > > \ > > As for hiding the weapons, he had both biological and nuclear labs that were mobile. Only a couple of the biological, and none of the nuclear labs have been found. There were traces of cyanide and mustard agents in the Euphrates River (Cyanide could be from industrial waste).\*\* No doubt you can back up all of the above with cites, **Magiver**. Please do so. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/112 "2003-06-09T07:36:22Z")
[Cognitive Disonance](http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/dissonance.htm) > [@](#): > > Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which has two major effects on learning: > > if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget’s terms. > > if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are not likely to admit that the content of what has been learned is not valuable. To do so would be to admit that one has been “had”, or “conned”. > > Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger and associates, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult, which believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood, and what happened to its members — particularly the really committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the flood did not happen. While fringe members were more inclined to recognise that they had made fools of themselves and to “put it down to experience”, committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members). ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/113 "2003-06-09T12:03:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\*Chomsky, during the period in question, wrote many articles denying that there was a genocide, and citing the progress the regime had made. Although not slavish support, it was a glaring wrong that he never actually owned up to. \*\* Interesting that you didn’t even name a single one of them. Actually, when i asked for the references in the first place, i was well aware of what Chomsky had and had not written about the wars in Indochina, including Cambodia and the rise of the Khmer Rouge. The problem is that many of the people who call Chomsky an apologist for Pol Pot are completely happy to take other people’s word about this, and have never actually got off their asses to read what Chomsky actually wrote about the issue. I was just interested in determining whether **UnwrittenNocturne** was just another in a string of uninformed sheep, or whether s/he had actually made his/her determination based on an actual reading of what Chomsky wrote on the subject. While Chomsky did call into question some of the numbers being thrown around in the late 1970s about how many people had actually died under the Khmer Rouge (above the normal death rate), and while he outlines the way in which heavy US bombing of Camodia helped to create a situation in which a demagogue like Pol Pot could rise to power, he was not, and is not, an apologist for Pol Pot. As **ChaosGod** has suggested, it takes a “completely malicious misinterpretation” of Chomsky’s writing to suggest that he actually supported Pol Pot, as claimed by **UnwrittenNocturne**. And i join **Mr. Svinlesha** in asking for a citation that demonstrates exactly where he did this. And, for those who have been content to spread the slander without checking the sources, here’s a hint: start with the two-volume work by Chomsky and Edward Herman, _The Political Economy of Human Rights_ (Boston: South End Press, 1979). Then maybe look at the stuff Chomsky wrote for _The Nation_ during the mid to late 1970s. That should give you a good starting point. If you’re still stuck, you might want to look at [this article](http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html) by Christopher Hitchens, in which he summarizes the debate and gives some references that you could follow up on. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/114 "2003-06-09T12:25:29Z")
All right. The precious UN released report after report in 1998 saying “SH has WMD! Turn 'em over…if you feel like it”. Bill Clinton (an honest man of high morals) bombed Iraq. What for? The oil? No, he said specifically that he was going after 'dem WMDs. Iraq gassed the Kurds…I doubt they used water balloons. What, now we say they had no WMDs? Nice memory span there… ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/115 "2003-06-09T12:52:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by athelas \* > \*\*Iraq gassed the Kurds…I doubt they used water balloons. > > What, now we say they had no WMDs? Nice memory span there… \*\* Sigh. Chemical weapons were used in the Iran-Iraq war. That doesn’t automatically mean they’re still around. And the Kurds? This is what Bush said: [http://www.dod.gov/news/Mar2003/n03](http://www.dod.gov/news/Mar2003/n03)…\_200303151.html > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON, March 15, 2003 – President Bush today held up the March 16, 1988, chemical attack on the civilians of Halabja, Iraq, as a prime example of the evil Saddam Hussein perpetrates. > > Bush stressed the nature of the Iraqi dictator’s regime in his weekly radio address. > > “The chemical attack on Halabja – just one of 40 targeted at Iraq’s own people – provided a glimpse of the crimes Saddam Hussein is willing to commit, and the kind of threat he now presents to the entire world,” the president said. “He is among history’s cruelest dictators, and he is arming himself with the world’s most terrible weapons.” What did the Defense Intelligence Agency think at the time? [http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html](http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html) > [@](#): > > I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair. > > This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq’s main target. > > And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. > > The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds’ bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time. > > These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran. > > I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/116 "2003-06-09T14:23:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > \*\*No doubt you can back up all of the above with cites, **Magiver**. Please do so. \*\* What, other than 12 years of news reports, do you need? What specifically do you find in dispute? Saddam’s statements have been all over the map. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/117 "2003-06-09T14:29:21Z")
Find them, cite them. Prove that what you are saying is something other than bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/118 "2003-06-09T14:35:47Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* \*\* This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq’s main target. And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds’ bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.\*\* Interesting read. It would make sense that the Iranians would gas the Kurds because it kills 2 birds with one stone. The Iranians have the same problem with Kurdish independence. The qoute also implies it is possible to differentiate between the 2 weapons used. It doesn’t make sense for Saddam to gas his own people as part of a battle plan. Kinda defeats the purpose of repelling the enemy. It also doesn’t negate the use of gas against Iranians. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/119 "2003-06-09T14:41:38Z")
Still waiting on those cites, **Magiver**. ---
**Author:** ![MegaDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/db5fbb/32.png) [@MegaDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MegaDave)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2003, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616/120 "2003-06-09T19:46:35Z")
> [@](#): > > Sigh. Chemical weapons were used in the Iran-Iraq war. That doesn’t automatically mean they’re still around. Well, no. However, when Iraq said “We used this many bombs”, and they said “We had this many to begin with”, and then we find out that they didn’t use as many bombs as they claimed they did, what are we to believe? What happened to the rest of the bomds. You said you had _x_ many bombs and used _y_ many against the kurds (and others) which came out to _z_. now we find out that your _y_ isn’t quite as high as you claimed, and you cannot account for the now extra bombs in _z_. Where are they? We can’t find them, and you can’t say where they are at, or show evidence they were destroyed, or give a logical explanation for where they are at. Understand what I mean? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/face-it-some-of-you-were-duped/179616.md?page=7)