# NotfooledbyW....AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 20, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475 "2013-06-20T16:02:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/561 "2013-07-18T14:05:52Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Bush has no say on the matter if the Chief Inspectors of IAEA and UNMOVIC report Iraq’s to be fully complied with its disarmament obligations. No phony claim of > a wall of text here for Mace to hide behind when he cannot respond. Just the facts as written in Res 1284 which created UNMOVIC. Now, that’s just funny. Bush will be compelled by Blix to vote a certain way in the UNSC? So, you do think it was Blix, and not the UNSC, who was the ultimate decider as to whether SH was in “full compliance” with UNSC resolutions. I thought we were making progress earlier when you agreed that was not the case, but it seems that fact now comes in conflict with your need to justify how you were Fooled By W, and so you reverse course and disregards facts in favor of your pre-determined world view. Blix makes a report of his findings to the UNSC. Only the UNSC can determine whether “full compliance” has been met. You will never hear Blix use that term, and he shouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/562 "2013-07-18T15:08:15Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’ll say this again: you agree more with Bush than John or I ever did. You’re as responsible for the war as any average citizen is, so you should look deep into your soul and acknowledge your mistakes which cost thousands of American lives. Shame on you. How would I be responsible for the war? What mistake did I make? I did not vote for any Republucan representatives or senators or Bush. My congressional district in Northern Va and my two US Senators were all pro war Republicans. They thought the invasion of Iraq was legitimate and still is legitimate like John Mace does. I have never thought the decision to invade Iraq was necessary, legitimate, ethical, rational, proper or wise or justified. So Ravenman, do you agree with Mace in his 2003 post below that invading Iraq in March 2003 was both legitimate and justified because “S.H. did his best to violate the letter and the spirit of that disarmament plan”? I sure don’t agree with any of that Bush excuse bill crap? Why would you? > [@"Going to war under false pretenses" -- Bob Graham / Impeachment justified?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/going-to-war-under-false-pretenses-bob-graham-impeachment-justified/189398/53): > > I think I outlined fairly well what the US’s justifications were, and while Bush did a lousy job articulating things, it does all come down to the Gulf War of the 90s and subsequent resolutions passed to enforce the permanent disarment of S.H.s regime. It was clear to me that S.H. did his best to violate the letter and the spirit of that disarmament plan, and therefore the US was justified in invading. > Can you understand what I mean when I say that although I accept the legitimacy of the invasion, I still think it was tactically the wrong thing to do? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/563 "2013-07-18T15:25:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Now, that’s just funny. Bush will be compelled by Blix to vote a certain way in the UNSC? That is not what I wrote. You are not very intelligent are you. Here is what I wrote from what you cited: > [@](#): > > “Bush **has no say on the matter** if the Chief Inspectors of IAEA and UNMOVIC report Iraq’s to be fully complied with its disarmament obligations.” Now read what I wrote and get back to me on that. There is no UNSC vote required to begin relieving sanctions on Iraq if Iraq is fully complied with UNMOVIC and the IAEA. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/564 "2013-07-18T15:51:22Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > How would I be responsible for the war? What mistake did I make? You supported the war authorization, which was the key legal authority allowing Bush to go to war. For all you want to talk about UN resolutions, you’re on the wrong side of history and facts for supporting the constitutional basis for an unjustified war. You are the one closest to Bush’s position, not **John** or me. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/565 "2013-07-18T20:34:01Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You supported the war authorization, which was the key legal authority allowing Bush to go to war. What does one do or not do to have actually and actively supported or not have supported the Iraq AUMF as it was moving through negotiations between the Congress and the Administration in September/October 2002? My commentary and assessments here have been in regards to what occurred after the AUMF(if necessary) was passed. I have explained that my recollected impression of the Bush Administration’s behavior prior to the vote was that they were behaving irrationally in the wake of the 9/11 attack. They were being neocon-crazed whackoes for tying Iraq to al Qaeda and making claims that the continuous threat from Iraq had risen from containable on September 10, 2001 to a serious and unallowable threat on September 12, 2001 that must be confronted immediately. But I did recognize the reality that irrational elected Republicans plus Joe Lieberman were in the driver’s seat with regards to getting an AUMF passed by a Republican controlled House and a somewhat hawkish Democrat controlled but divided on Party line Senate. That vote was rushed and forced into play less than a month before the mid-term elections. The first national elections since the 9/11 attacks. With all that reality prior to the AUMF vote that many here refuse to reciognize it is no wonder that Ravenman has confused himself into thinking that accepting the outcome of the WH press for an AUMF is identical or similar to supporting the AUMF that was passed. It’s not. There is no correlation. My point about the AUMF after the vote is that Saddam Hussein was in violation of international law at that time. A vote for war could be justified under those circumstances. But that authorization was available to Bush only if it was on the condition of enforcing all relevant UN Resolutions with regard to Iraq. And the trouble is that Bush sought and received UN Res 1441 but invaded Iraq in defiance of 1441. Bush went outside the AUMF instead of adhere to it when he was not enforcing UN Resolution 1441 at the time of the invasion. Had Bush adhered to the AUMF as written there would have been no path to war, at least according to the law. So it is wrong to condemn the AUMF as Bush’s easy path to war when he basically shit on it just like he shat on 1441. And when Bush decided to use military force it was open and clear to most people who thought about such things Iraq was much much less a threat with UN inspectors in Iraq and for sure Iraq was not in violation of international law during March 2003 in contrast to the fact that he was in violation of international law in October 2002 when the AUMF was passed. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/566 "2013-07-18T20:55:50Z")
So, if you were in Congress at the time, you would have voted to authorize an unjustified war. And then when it turns out that you did something stupid, your lame excuse would be that you voted for the war before you figured out it was the wrong thing to do. You should be ashamed. That’s so disingenuous that it is almost another one of your numerous lies… but it doesn’t quite rise to that level. Congratulations, your BS-to-honesty ratio has just improved from 110:1 to 105:1. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/567 "2013-07-18T21:21:31Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So, if you were in Congress at the time, you would have voted to authorize an unjustified war. I was not in Congress at the time. But you are too stupid to understand that at the time of the vote it would not have been an unjustified war. Iraq was in violation of international law and the vast majority of Congress members saw that violation of international law would have justified war. That is if Iraq did not submit to inspections. But the truth and reality is that Iraq did submit to inspections and was not in violation of international law when Bush decided to start a war. Your ignorance is astounding in that you refuse to admit that war was not justified when inspecters were disarming Iraq peacefully in 2003. And you keep your ignorance intact by refusing to accept that Bush did not use military force as the AUMF authorized it. Bush was obligated to use force to enforce All UNSC resolutions. So blaming the AUMF knowing that Bush went around it is kissing Bush’s ass and giving him a pass for starting a war that did not need to happen and wouldn’t have if Bush were held to comply with the AUMF. Your buddy Mace says the war was justified and legitimate knowing for several months that Bush forced the peaceful inspections to stop and Bush Lied about Saddam’s cooperation. You could not kiss Bush’slying ass any better than that. Saying the war was legit and justified is what Bush wants everyone to believe, I will never say it like your buddy Mace does. And you are fine with Mace but not with me. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/568 "2013-07-18T21:29:41Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Here’s what John Mace said: > > Read More: 20030718a1045 Going to war under false pretenses – Bob Graham -Impeachment justified (["Going to war under false pretenses" -- Bob Graham / Impeachment justified? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=198596)) > > You may also see if you read what Mace wrote that he has had problems with understanding the realities surrounding the US invasion of Iraq. Mace said in July 2003 that “not one country officially came in on the side of Iraq. Not one.” which is absurd. Everyone knew about the French and should have known that the majority of members on the UNSC came out for continued inspections and not war. That of course was considered by post-inspection war mongers in 2003 to be ‘on the side of Iraq’. I’ll try to conceal my shock that you didn’t actually answer my question. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/569 "2013-07-18T22:16:19Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > …the vast majority of Congress members saw that violation of international law would have justified war. Who are you trying to kid? That doesn’t make it justified. > [@](#): > > Your ignorance is astounding in that you refuse to admit that war was not justified when inspecters were disarming Iraq peacefully in 2003. I see you are back to completely fabricating things. Three days ago you were basically calling me out of touch because I said the war was never justified, even in October 2002 when Congress was voting. Now you make up some other BS lie that contradicts your previous fabrications. Plus, I love it how you make it out like **John Mace** supported the invasion. Let me tell you, **PantsNotNotOnFireBecauseOfW** , he’s been around here a long time and his views on the war were posted here 10 years ago. His position is not what you’re saying it is, so it’s yet another one of your damned lies. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/570 "2013-07-18T22:18:40Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So was the invasion justifed or not? One-word answers only, please. No ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/571 "2013-07-18T22:30:11Z")
Finally, a concise and clear response. Okay, I’m done. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/572 "2013-07-18T23:51:54Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW > > …the vast majority of Congress members saw that violation of international law would have justified war. > > Who are you trying to kid? That doesn’t make it justified. And who in the hell are you to decide that? The reality of 2002 was that much more than 2/3 of Americans along with their collective representatives in Congress and the White House expressed their view that Iraq’s violation of international law had to be confronted and by military force if necessary. Neither John Mace or XT agrees with you on that. You are a cling on to your own self importance who thinks you are one of the few that knew that Bush would act outside the authority granted him in the AUMF that included limiting the authority to enforcing all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq, which should have included 1441 when it passed and Iraq complied with 1441. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/573 "2013-07-18T23:54:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So was the invasion justifed or not? One-word answers only, please. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Finally, a concise and clear response. > > Okay, I’m done. Carry on. So do you agree with me or with John Mace who wrote that he thinks it was justified? ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/574 "2013-07-18T23:55:08Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You are a cling on Dude, he just called you a clingon - you gonna put up with that shit? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/575 "2013-07-19T00:22:27Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > So do you agree with me or with John Mace who wrote that he thinks it was justified? If you had an army of bloodhounds with GPS devices shoved up their asses, you couldn’t locate my interest in answering this question. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/576 "2013-07-19T00:42:19Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Your ignorance is astounding in that you refuse to admit that war was not justified when inspecters were disarming Iraq peacefully in 2003. -Ntfldbw . > > I see you are back to completely fabricating things. Three days ago you were basically calling me out of touch because I said the war was never justified, even in October 2002 when Congress was voting. Now you make up some other BS lie that contradicts your previous fabrications. -Raven Man. You do not accept that well working peaceful inspections are a substantial legal and moral reason why Bush’s decision to start a war despite those peaceful working inspections, is not justified. You cling to your false belief that nobody should have or honestly could have believed that the use of force against Iraq was justified if Saddam Hussen continued to be defiant against being lawfully disarmed by the international community of nations in accordance with international law. Your attitude emits a ‘piss on international law’ aroma when a jackass like Hussein jerked the UNSC around for years as he did, and you condemn thoughtful people who saw the threat of force as a way to shut this jackass down and get into compliance with international law. You won’t admit the plan put into effect showed real signs of progress and peaceful resolution. And then you wont accept that a president of the USA decided to piss on international law and diplomacy as a ‘first resort’ when diplomacy was beginning to bear results worth having. It is hard for you to accept that peaceful constructive inspections were working because it takes away your holy righteous sainthood. And John Mace says the war was justified because Saddam Hussein kept pissing on international law and you are ok with that when Mace says it. So what are we to think? Mace said it after seeing or should have seen about three months of peaceful inspections that meant SH was running out of piss. So there you are. You and Mace. What a pair! ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/577 "2013-07-19T02:16:19Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You supported the war authorization, which was the key legal authority allowing Bush to go to war. For all you want to talk about UN resolutions, you’re on the wrong side of history and facts for supporting the constitutional basis for an unjustified war. For all my talk about the UN you say? “In my view, if we wish to proceed with a sense of legitimacy to our military actions, there is a process that we must go through, and that process includes both the Congress and the United Nations. One down, one to go.” -Ravenman 03-10-2003 02:42 PM Bush 'pissed all over the ‘one to go’ so what happened to that Ravenman? The (AUMF ‘the one down’) required Bush to BE ENFORCING the (‘one to go’ Res 1441) to use military force. It says so right here: > [@](#): > > The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to – (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and > (2) **enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq**. And now Ravenman thinks it abhorrent and stupid to suggest that Bush defied both the AUMF and 1441 when he decided to end UN inspections in order to disarm Iraq violently and by the means of war. > [@Bush, Iraq and the UN](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-iraq-and-the-un/160183/18): > > 03-10-2003 02:42 PM If the UN is to be considered relevant, as President Bush often declares his preference, one cannot do so by figuring out ways to “get past” the UN Charter, or UN resolutions for that matter. I don’t understand how someone can read the totality of the UN Charter and come to some other conclusion than that a country cannot take military action against another unless (a) it is authorized by the Security Council or (b) it is in response to an actual, not a future, threat, and under such a case the matter should immidiately be referred to the Security Council. > > In my view, if we wish to proceed with a sense of legitimacy to our military actions, there is a process that we must go through, and that process includes both the Congress and the United Nations. One down, one to go. > > But the current situation seems to be that we will proceed with an attack, and some motions are being made to find a loophole in the Charter or UN resolutions that would justify that action. I fail to see how those attempts stand up to scrutiny. > > Whether or not one supports a war, it occurs to me that the Korean War was an analagous situation: it was a war that was not explicitly declared/authorized by Congress, and thus was contrary to the expectations of those who drafted the Constitution. This coming war with Iraq will not be explicitly authorized by the UN, and thus will be contrary to the intentions of those who drafted the UN Charter, among them many legends of American statesmanship. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3110887](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3110887) And what does, “supporting the constitutional basis for an unjustified war” mean? Bush was not being constitutional when he decided to invade Iraq in defiance of 1441 and thus in violation of ALL UNSC relevant Resolutions regarding Iraq. Bush violated the constitutional terms of the AUMF simultaneously with a violation of the UN Charter and you file complaints against me for what Bush and only Bush did. No one made Bush do what he did. What is up with that? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/578 "2013-07-19T02:29:50Z")
I couldn’t have said it better myself: > [@Why can't the US 'legally' attack Iraq today?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-the-us-legally-attack-iraq-today/150494/21): > > 01-23-2003, 07:31 PM Regarding the ceasefire in 687, there is no clause in that resolution from which one could infer a “right” to restart hostilities if Iraq does not comply with the requirements laid out. To the contrary, > > “34. [The Security Council] Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region.” > > It is hard to read that any other way than to mean that the UN Security Council would have to decide whether “further steps” would be required for implementation. > > Furthermore, as previously stated, the ceasefire is with the UN. Neither the US, nor Britain, nor France, nor any other member has the standing to un-do a UN resolution. > > The point is well taken that 1441 notes that there are no-fly zones in effect. However, that resolution does not have any automaticity in authorizing the use of force by member states. This was acknowledged by Ambassador Negroponte at the time the resolution was passed. > > 1441 does note that Iraq “will face serious consequences” if it continues violations of that and previous resolutions. > > Pulling back from the question of resolutions for a moment, the UN Charter holds that member states have an inherent right to self defense, and arguably anticipatory self defense, but only in those situations where the Security Council has not had time to consider the matter. That is clearly not the case here. > > Even more generally, if one accepts the legal (as opposed to moral or practical) legitimacy of the United Nations, it is extremely difficult to see how there can be any other ultimate authority on the meaning and intent of actions by the UN, aside from UN bodies themselves. That a single country can seek to define the meaning, intent, and application of the UN Charter or UN resolutions would contradict the acknowledgement of legal legitimacy. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=694337&page=12](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=694337&page=12) Well Said, Ravenman. What happened to you? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/579 "2013-07-19T02:30:50Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > Dude, he just called you a clingon - you gonna put up with that shit? This is the best post I’ve ever seen. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475/580 "2013-07-19T02:32:50Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I couldn’t have said it better myself: > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=694337&page=12](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=694337&page=12) > > Well Said, Ravenman. What happened to you? I’m saying literally the exact same thing today, and you’re too stupid to understand that. Now run off and spend another five hours searching my old posts. Look for the one where I made a crack about a 19th century postmaster general. That totally ruled. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/notfooledbyw-aaaarrrrgggghhhh/661475.md?page=30)