_GR_, 2001

[MalignD at aol.com]

<MD wrote (leaving out all context):


You seem ever troubled to distinguish actual from not, even when the

conjecture is your own.  Innocent of "an atrocious" hypothetical crime?  I'd

have to say yes to that.>>

I'm not leaving out the context.  I'm responding to you who knows the context.

<<Must be nice to be a believer. Are you that certain of "the actual?" If I 
have learned anything from pomo, it is to question certainty.>>

Are you serious?  There is no "certainty" being questioned.  There is a 
hypothetical and inapplicable example being tossed out by you.

<>If you can accept that we, the USA and al-Qaeda, are dealing in beliefs,

then actual innocence isn't the point here. >>

I don't have any idea what this means.

<<A unilateral star chamber has found him guilty. >>

So your point is that bin-Laden should be held to the standards of the US 
courts of law, assigned a pro bono lawyer should he lack funds, etc. before 
we proceed against him?

Pardon my lack of decorum, but you're a fool.