🚀 go-pugleaf

For the record, lets note that you do now longer make the slightest attempt 
to defend your remark that Bush's usage was incorrect, and clearly Bush has 
a better vocabulary that you do. Nor have you posted a link that shows the 
story is true - that somebody pulled him aside and told Bush his use was 
wrong. Clearly nobody did (as his usage was not incorrect), and that is why 
you haven't posted a link showing it is true. You made the whole thing up, 
but fucked it up by inventing a story that in fact you showed you didn't 
understand the word "axis" yourself.

This is typical crank material.

My original post concerned evidence that Iran was developing a military 
nuclear capability. When you couldn't challenge this evidence, the topic was 
changed by you to whether Bush knew the meaning of the word "axis". This 
what cranks do - when shown to be wrong, they drop the argument and talk 
about something irrelevant.

Then when your position on the word "axis" was proved wrong, you again just 
ignored it and instead decided to talk about 9/11. Again, when cranks are 
cornered, they just introduce some new topic. They never admit they are 
wrong, or apparently even think about what they write at all.

Yes, we could have a conversation about 9/11, but its got nothing to do with 
either evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb or what the word 
"axis" means. Presumably if your bullshit thoughts on 9/11 were shown wrong, 
you would change the topic again. It might be on the evils of flouridation, 
the Bali bombing was a micro-nuke, or any of the weird and wonderful things 
cranks go on about when corenered.

I assume you have nothing more to say about whether their is evidence that 
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, or want to discuss other meanings of the 
word axis. Personally the idea of discussing 9/11 with yet another crank 
isn't that interesting, so unless you want to stay on-topic I will bow out 
of this conversation (and no, I don't mean "bow" in the sense of "bow and 
arrow").