Las Malvinas AKA The Falkland Islands - why the argy-bargy?

by cedars 319 Replies latest members politics

• 

  soft+gentle

  besty I have read that book too (Guns germs and steel) and in the preface the author warns of the danger of taking explanation for justification. Jared Diamond says his purpose in writing the book is to promote understanding that can be used to alter outcomes rather to perpetuate or to repeat them (p.17).

  edit: I also think the blurb from goodreads has got the book a little back to front too and is quite misleading. But I guess whoever wrote it wants people to buy the book...

  edit edit: I agree that it is an excellent book
• 

  stuckinamovement

  Both sides of the debate sounds like a bunch of "argy bargy" to me. Don't you guys know that soon there will be no more national conflicts? There will be no political boundaries or territorial fights, and all of us will be serving one Government......God's!

  SIAM
• 

  Chariklo

  If they want to keep hankering after those islands it's up to them but they'll be doing it for a long long time.

  They no doubt will continue to do it for a long, long time, tornapart!

  Coming back to the thread after being largely away from it all (due to family matters that took me from home) I can see that the scene has changed a bit!

  I’ve been reading up on what I’ve missed. There’s Emilie’s intriguing lampoon of a JW meeting on page 14. It contains this phrase: “Since you all think I am a JW…” Perhaps I’m alone here but, in context, personally speaking, I find that statement bizarre!

  Very. Well, we’ll let that pass, though I think some may raise an eyebrow.

  Back to Argentina and the Falklands, and this thread. I’m very sorry Cedars and Moshe are not going to post here any more, but I do understand their point, and I agree that here we see some rather skilled propaganda, very cleverly done. Hats off to you, Emilie, for that! One of the features of professional propaganda is to continually repeat a point, even if it is not true, so that eventually it is the repeated statement that sits in the mind of the reader or listener.

  Here we see, stated over and over again, the assertion that Britain stole the Falklands from Argentina by evicting the poor Argentinians, under Vernet, in 1833. Yet that was not the case. It is not true, and it won’t be true however many times it is repeated. I’ve already demonstrated the truth of the matter in a previous post. This is the Argentinian thesis. They’ve been saying it ad infinitum for all these years and refuting it here won’t stop our own eloquent Argentinian contributor. Yet the facts remain that Britain had ownership of the islands from 1765, and that reality was actually confirmed de facto by Vernet when he sought British protection before even going ahead with his family to settle there.

  Some will be interested to learn that in 1831, after Vernet had captured three American ships with their captains and all hands, and even abandoned seven American sailors on an island “without the means of sustenance” (taken from a letter by Commander Duncan of the Lexington to the US Consul Slacum in Rio de Janeiro.)

  At the end of that year, President Andrew Jackson said, in his State of the Union address, " ... I should have placed Buenos Ayres in the list of South American powers in respect to which nothing of importance affecting us was to be communicated but for occurrences which have lately taken place at the Falkland Islands, in which the name of that Republic has been used to cover with a show of authority acts injurious to our commerce and to the property and liberty of our fellow citizens. In the course of the present year one of our vessels, engaged in the pursuit of a trade which we have always enjoyed without molestation, has been captured by a band acting, as they pretend, under the authority of the Government of Buenos Ayres. I have therefore given orders for the dispatch of an armed vessel to join our squadron in those seas and aid in affording all lawful protection to our trade which shall be necessary, and shall without delay send a minister to inquire into the nature of the circumstances and also of the claim, if any, that is set up by that Government to those islands. In the mean time, I submit the case to the consideration of Congress, to the end that they may clothe the Executive with such authority and means as they may deem necessary for providing a force adequate to the complete protection of our fellow citizens fishing and trading in those seas..."

  The character of Argentinian claims in the area is even at this point in time becoming firmly established and well-known internationally.

  The Americans arrested Vernet, and took him and his deputy off the islands into custody , and storekeeper William Dickson took charge of the colony. In 1832 the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata appointed Don Juan Esteban Mestivier governor of the Falklands, but he did not last long. The colonists murdered him. Don Jose Maria Pinedo of United Provinces warship Sarandi then took charge of the colony, until the British warships HMS Clio, under the command of Captain James Onslow and HMS Tyne visited the Islands and reiterated the British claim to sovereignty.
  
  Forgive me for repeating some of the history here, though slightly differently from when I first went into it several pages back in the thread. My point is that here we have plain historical fact. Yet Argentine propaganda, for that is what it is, repeats again and again that the British evicted the Argentine governor and settlers. No. They did not. The Americans quite rightly arrested Vernet who they described as “this man who self-styles himself governor”, for crimes, and it was the British who established the rule of law and order to the land that had been theirs since 1765.

  I was interested in what Emilie wrote of the wording of the lead plaque left by the British in 1776 by Governor Samuel Clayton. I tried to find out more but kept drawing a blank. Then I discovered why. The Argentinians had stolen and removed it the following year and taken it to Buenos Aires.

  Britain presented an Official Note to the Foreign Minister, General Guido;201 ”The undersigned H.B.M. Charge d’Affaire has the honour to inform H.E. General Guido the Minister encharged with the Department of Foreign Affairs that he has communicated to his Court the official document signed by General Rodriguez and Don Salvador Maria del Carril, in the name of the Government of Buenos Ayres, and published on the 10th of June last, containing certain Provisions for the Government of the Falkland Islands.
  
  The undersigned has received the orders of his Court to represent to H.E. General Guido that in issuing this decree, an authority has been assumed incompatible with His Britannic Majesty’s rights of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. These rights, founded upon the original discovery and subsequent occupation of the said islands, acquired an additional sanction from the restoration, by His Catholic Majesty, of the British settlement, in the year 1771, which, in the preceding year, had been attacked and occupied by a Spanish force, and which act of violence had led to much angry discussion between the Governments of the two countries.
  
  The withdrawal of His Majesty’s forces from these islands, in the year 1774, cannot be considered as invalidating His Majesty’s just rights. That measure took place in pursuance of a system of retrenchment, adopted at that time by His Britannic Majesty’s Government. But the marks and signals of possession and property were left upon the islands. When the Governor took his departure, the British flag remained flying, and all those formalities were observed which indicated the rights of ownership, as well as an intention to resume the occupation of that territory, at a more convenient season.
  
  The undersigned, therefore, in execution of the Instructions of his Court, formally protests, in the name of His Britannic Majesty, against the pretensions set up on the part of the Argentine Republick, in the decree of 10th June, above referred to, and against all acts which have been, or may hereafter be done, to the prejudice of the just rights of sovereignty which have heretofore been exercised by the Crown of Great Britain.
  
  The undersigned, &c. (signed) Woodbine Parish Buenos Ayres November 19th, 1829”

  (I have placed that passage in bold to emphasise the reference to the British plaque that the Argentinians removed. )

  Thus, you see that Argentina and the fledgeling entity that preceded it have, over and over again, reiterated their claim, ignoring all facts and international declarations that contradicted them. This has remained so to this day. This constant repetition in the face of all fact to the contrary is just one feature of the propaganda that is clearly in evidence here.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  besty – You’ve made your point and brought up an interesting analysis. As I mentioned earlier, we are speaking about the intent of the signing parties over 150 years ago in the absence of actual accounts, diaries, notes, and commentary on this convention. Thus we debate this based on interpretation. The interpretation you put forth could very well be the truth. Alternately, basing this on Argentine fear of a British invasion, an inability to agree upon it, and having ‘bigger fish to fry” as you put it seems to be a more likely scenario to me. In our two scenarios, the first contention is that de Rosas gave up on the Malvinas because he was trying to unify his country and appease the British and French and not bring up issues he knew he was not going to prevail upon. The second contention is that leaving the Malvinas language out of the wording was because there was no agreement forthcoming. In any case, Argentina did not formally relinquish all claims on the Malvinas as the British did both formally and explicitly in 1713, 1774, and 1790.

  You asked me a specific question about my thoughts about Argentina’s rejection Britain offer of mediation from the International Court of Justice in 1947. Again, this is a matter of interpretation due to the lack of any Argentine sources in the government of the time making known the reasons. We must speculate. In 1947, the ICJ was a relatively new body set up by the fledgling UN. To fully understand this, you must look at the Argentine standpoint and where she stood both domestically and internationally at the time. Juan Peron was in power, and he was a hybrid fascist and open admirer of Mussolini. Argentina openly supported the Axis cause during the Second World War, only changing her allegiances toward the very end. To have a case decided by the ICJ, you must accept its authority and put your own country under its jurisdiction. I’m afraid Peron felt that this would open up his own set of difficulties, and the ICJ would then be given carte blanche to go after the Nazis and former Axis officials Peron had given sanctuary to and issue a boatload of extradition requests. It is also worth mentioning that this was 1947, and the war was still a fresh memory in Europe. Argentina had openly supported the Axis cause, and it had reason to believe that it wouldn’t have gotten a whole lot of sympathy from that Court, especially in light of Peron’s Nazi-harbouring policies. Instead, Argentina went to the UN, where it would be a lot easier to lobby and get other nations to counter the British/American/European bloc. By this I mean Argentina openly courted the Soviet bloc and other third parties who would be open to arguments of ‘colonialism’. Where there’s smoke, there doesn’t always necessarily mean fire. Politics is a twisted and convoluted business. Argentina apparently had reasons not to go the ICJ route, just like you also must consider British motivations for offering mediation at the ICJ, especially for a land they had insisted was theirs for over 100 years.

  Britain’s strongest claim to the islands has been ‘prescription’, meaning that the islanders must be allowed self-determination. I have acknowledged this, and have expressed no ill-will toward the islanders and have no wish to evict them or change their style of life. It’s a tricky path to thread when you are dealing with an original invasion and occupation. However, the British Foreign Office has known for a long time that their claim to the Malvinas was based on a seizure and invasion of the islands in 1833. This contention has been debated intensely on this thread, with many insisting that the invasion wasn’t really such, and that the British claim had always been stronger than Argentina. besty’s chart which was constantly being referred to was pulled directly off of wikipedia. What we so far have not done is look at the British Foreign Office’s own analysis of the British claim. In the book, “War in the Falklands”, this is discussed in detail. “War in the Falklands” is attributed to no particular author, but the the Sunday Times of London “Insight Team”, of which (The Sunday Times) John Witherow has been editor of since 1995. Witherow was the Times’ Falkland correspondent, and is likely the chief author of this book. For a little background if you already didn’t know, the Sunday Times is a Conservative leaning newspaper, and is owned by the right-wing mogul Rupert Murdoch. So we’re not talking about a leftist, Chavist/Castro sympathising anti-imperialist publication here. If anything, they are staunch defenders of British foreign policy. I found what they had to say about the Foreign Office’s own Malvinas opinion to be enlightening.

  After the 1908 British declaration of sovereignty over South Georgia and other islands and subsequent Argentine protests, Argentina began to print maps which emphasised their ownership of the Malvinas and the southern islands. One such map got into the hands of the British Ambassador on Buenos Aires, who then sent off a telegram to the British Foreign Minister at the time, Sir Edward Grey, to ask for advice on how to respond. The year was 1910. On page 40 in “War in the Falklands” the Sunday Times painstakingly goes into detail about what happened next. The answer from Sir Grey’s office had been to ignore it, and that Argentina had no valid claim. The head of the Foreign Office’s American Department, Sidney Spicer, then decided to commission a memorandum on the ‘Falklands’, and assigned a certain Foreign Office Research Dept. official, Gaston de Bernhardt, to look into the matter further. De Bernhardt came to the conclusion that Lord Palmerston’s (The British Foreign Secretary in the 1830s) argument for the seizure of the Malvinas was ‘riddled with holes’. Specifically de Bernhardt found that British sovereignty was specifically excluded in the 1771 agreement with Spain, Britain only began to claim East Falkland (Puerto Luis) in 1829 when there was already an Argentine military presence, settlers, and appointed governor, and that Lord Palmerston only examined “official correspondence”. The “official correspondence” is in reference to Palmerston's disregarding of the secret clause between Britain and Spain in 1771, where Lord North agreed that the British would leave the Malvinas after a short re-establishment and cede the islands to the Spanish. Sidney Spicer, after reading the carefully researched memo, had this to say:

  “From a perusal of the memo, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine Government’s attitude is not altogether unjustified and that our action has been somewhat high-handed”

  De Bernhardt’s memo circulated further in the Foreign Office, with one official commenting: “We cannot easily make out a good claim, and we have wisely done everything to avoid discussing the subject with Argentina”. Thus began a period of British questioning of their own claim to the Malvinas. In 1936, one of Spicer’s successors to being the head of the American Dept in the Foreign Office, a certain John Troutbeck, had this to say:

  “The difficulty of the position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits.” [Bold print and italics mine]

  So we have two heads of the British Foreign Office’s American Dept admitting that Argentina had a good claim to the islands, with one admitting that the British had been ‘high-handed’, and the other admitting to being ‘international bandits’ and that the Malvinas were indeed seized from Argentina.

  So I return to what I believe, based on the previous British admissions, is Britain’s only valid argument for keeping the Malvinas. Self-determination. As Sir Jenkins’ noted in his op-ed in the Guardian, though the islanders have a right to self-determination, military conquest cannot establish legal title. Starting in the 1960’s British Foreign Office officials began to explore ‘leaseback’ options to Argentina, thus giving formal title to Argentina, but keeping the islanders under British administration. The most serious attempt at this came ironically during the first few Thatcher years. She appointed an MP who was a favourite of hers, Nicolas Ridley, to head the Falklands desk at the Foreign Office. Ridley was an intelligent man and had concluded that leaseback had remained the only feasible option, and went down to the islands on several occasions to campaign for leaseback. Ridley was met with stiff resistance from the islanders, and his plan was swiftly rejected.

  These positions that I hold are also held by several prominent British politicians, journalists, historians, and perhaps more importantly, British Foreign Office officials who were in a unique position to know the truth. That’s what I have to say on it, and like the rest of you, I’ll hang my figurative hat on that and maybe we’ll see each other round on other topics. I do have other issues to discuss JW related, and I would appreciate it if all Malvinas discussion were confined to this thread. I’d feel better about posting on other subjects if the merits of what I say there are not countered by what I said here about the Malvinas. Frankly, I felt that I was being personally attacked at first (which I was by moshe) and so my focus was on this thread. But it wasn’t my intention for joining. As you know, I hold this issue close to my heart. My father was a Malvinas War veteran, and I have actually visited the islands before and loved the scenery, wildlife, and yes, the people and their British character. I disagree with how the islands were obtained and with the legal title, but I do not seek a solution which involves violence of any kind.
• 

  besty

  thanks LMSA - appreciate the time and effort you put into responding.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  Charliko – What makes you ‘raise an eyebrow’ about my sarcastic comment about being a JW? Did you not get the humour in it? Do you really think I am a JW in disguise? As a JW in disguise, why would I go to an ‘apostate’ forum and start posting about the Malvinas? That would raise an eyebrow? I was simply responding to the accusation that you said that you were dealing with a JW in the first place (me).

  It’s easy to dismiss what you don’t like hearing as ‘propaganda’. Propaganda is a series of half-truths, outright lies, flawed reasoning, and intellectual intimidation all designed to persuade a person to believe in something. I do not dismiss the British positions as ‘propaganda’ since it’s the easy way out, consists of simple name-calling, and tends to harden positions on both side rather than speak in a voice of reason to both. My ‘propaganda’ has consisted of qualified sources from accredited and respected sources, backed up by actual quotes of Foreign Office officials and proclamations. I would hardly call that propaganda, but if your purpose is to discredit me in favour of your own arguments, then I fully understand why you would refer to it as such.

  You repeat your contention that the British did not evict the Argentina and that you proved it in a previous post. Where did you get your information? From that pdf someone found? I trust more reliable sources, such as the British Foreign Office ones I just quoted. Where are your quotes? Who said what? British Foreign Office American Dept heads Sidney Spicer and John Troutbeck both admitted that the ‘Falklands’ were illegally seized by Britain in 1833 based on research commissioned by the Foreign Office itself. The evidence was particularly damning toward Lord Palmerston, as the British Foreign Office researchers had indeed found the secret clause of the 1774 agreement that the Spanish (and Argentines) had always maintained that the British signed and ceded (for the second time) all claims to the Malvinas. I also quoted the text of the actual plaque at Port Egmont which refers to “Falkland’s Ysland” in the singular, which you continue to deny when the evidence is presented and the sources are quoted. What I just gave you was an educated rebuttal, and what you are giving me are wikipedia references and references to what other posters said. I can't even count how many times you gave the link to the pdf someone found and to besty's timeline which he got right off of wikipedia. Since you were so frankly honest with me Charliko, I’ll give you the same courtesy. The other posters are doing just fine without your commentary. I find yours to be of the least reliable, and it’s based on accusations, personal attacks, innuendo, and constant references to what other posters have said. Have you any original thoughts of your own to share? You finally did so in your last post, which I will get to shortly.

  The incident involving the American involvement at Puerto Luis is, as Sir Jenkins noted in “The Battle For The Falklands”, was “an act of pure piracy”. Silas Duncan arrested the settlers which you say weren’t even there, spiked the Argentine guns, and stole all property. It was within this vacuum that you claim that Britain encountered a mostly empty settlement. Might that have to do with the fact that the Argentines had been forcibly deported by Duncan? At any rate, by the time the British arrived in Puerto Luis, there was indeed an Argentine captain who was in the midst of quelling the prisoner rebellion. The British sent him off on his way, but there remained several Argentine gauchos on the island. It took the British six more months, but they finally captured the final one, Antonio Rivero, and subsequently dropped him off at Montevideo. (Sir Jenkins details this episode in "The Battle of the Falklands")

  Your contention that Vernet was a ‘self-styled governor’ conveniently ignores that he had a commission from the United Provinces. Just because the Americans, who had no interest in the Falklands and it was convenient for them to have it free of government called him that, then it makes it fact? If you want to debate that the United Provinces had no right to the islands, then you certainly can, but Vernet had a commission. An illegitimate one according to you, but I do not see any British governor either. As revealed in British Foreign Office memos, there was a secret clause in the 1774 agreement, rendering the British claim of 1765 null and void.

  It’s interesting what Woodbine Parish has to say about the plaque being stolen by the Argentines in 1775. Wait a minute? I thought you said there were no Argentines back then? Perhaps you meant the Spanish. I find it interesting that two British authored books, “The Battle for the Falklands” and “The War in the Falklands” both quote the plaque as reading “Falkland’s Ysland” in the singular. Sir Jenkins’ research revealed that it was a deliberate attempt of the British in subsequent years to add the missing ‘s’. The British Foreign Office memo in 1910 also revealed that there was no 's' at the end of 'Ysland', and thus came to the conclusion that the British did not claim East Falkland until 1829 because of singular tense on the plaque. It’s not surprising that the Spanish stole the plaque, since the British had just ceded them the islands in the Treaty of Urecht and in the secret clause of 1774. They were getting rid of an offending plaque that stated a ceded and lapsed claim. They weren’t stealing anything according to their thinking. The Spanish owned the islands, and anything at Port Egmont they considered to be theirs. This is a classic example of circular reasoning. Just because the Spanish stole the plaque, means that the missing ‘s’ has been there all along? They would have taken it down either way, since they did not recognise British sovereignty over ‘Falkland’s Ysland’ by itself or with the phantom ‘s’. There’s no evidence you present other than Mr Parish saying that the plaque was stolen.
• 

  Chariklo

  Very strange.

  My post contained 1,356 words.

  Of those, 37 were directly to tornapart. 45 were personal comment, 59 were a comment on Emilie's rather skilful lampoon of a JW meeting, and a further 87 on Argentinian propaganda and one element of the art of propaganda in general.

  The remaining 1128 are historical fact, lincluding chunks of quotations from original documents of the time, carefully referenced, and to answer your question, and for everyone's information, the lead plaque was removed in 1775 by Pascueal Callegas, who took it to Buenos Aires.

  Yet Emilie writes, to me above (I hope she'll forgive the quotation, although she seems to object to that habit... entirely normal and the courteous custom in this and other forums and in email correspondence,...since it is from her) "I find yours to be of the least reliable, and it’s based on accusations, personal attacks, innuendo, and constant references to what other posters have said. "

  I can't even count how many times you gave the link to the pdf someone found and to besty's timeline which he got right off of wikipedia.

  Let me help you. Twice. I linked to it twice, when I first entered it into the forum, (yes, I am that someone) and once more. Even my 2-year old grandson can count beyond two. I have never once linked to besty's timeline. Perhaps you are confusing it with the other .pdf "someone" found. (But a different "someone".)

  The interesting thing about this verbiage directed at me is that, along with others (whom Emilie prefers me not to quote so my apologies to those whose efforts I'm not acknowledging, whereas, out of courtesy, I usually do) I've given a very great deal of historical fact, with sources and quotations where possible, much taken from original documents of the time. Yet Emilie calls it "the least reliable". Historians know that original documents are "first" or "primary" sources, i.e. sources that no-one else has interfered with. "Least reliable" to Emilie means without an Argentinian slant.

  But do you know, I'm not going to fall into this trap of answering these barbs point by point. It's just too silly. OK, Emilie, I'm going to take a leaf out of Cedars' book. (Yes, I am quoting him. No apology. Deal with it.) Go and play on your own, with anyone with patience to play with you. My 87 words on Argentinian propaganda and propaganda in general were not actually about you. You failed to understand that. They were about Argentinian propaganda and propaganda in general, and that was actually the point. You missed it. It went over your head.

  However, your own writing is itself so full of propaganda (yes, this bit is about you) that either you are an ordinary Argentinian citizen (JW or not, I don't care!) or a professional propagandist...but I no longer care about that either. The whole thing is tedious, and I can no longer be bothered with it.

  It's a pity, because the subject itself is very interesting indeed, but not with someone who goes off in a strop whenever she meets a contrary point of view.

  In any case, you have done a very good job with this thread. The Argentinian message has now been read on here over 3,000 times. And some people will indeed actually remember the points you've made over and over again, and that was the intention, wasn't it?

  Well done. No more from me.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  Charliko – On page 12 of this thread, at the very bottom, you stated the following:

  and especially besty's useful and graphic chart on page 7 of this thread.

  Though this isn’t exactly a ‘link’, since you’d have to link the entire thread, this was exactly what I have been referencing. A graphic from an unknown source and posted on wikipedia was being referenced by you. I’d have to go through the thread again, but there are probably others who referred to it. That in itself I don’t find much to object about, beyond the source.

  You have been pretty direct with me in the past. First you sided with moshe when he was attacking me personally, continued to defend him while other posters told him his comments were inappropriate, immediately jumped to his defence when the moderator got involved in both threads, placed your predictable labels on me, publicly lamented the fact that moshe still wasn’t here to abuse me, and just recently you directly called me a JW, because, as you put it, it was exactly what you were dealing with. Oh, and you called me a liar and said that I wasn’t who I said I was. Still I don’t take any of this personally. Here’s why:

  Plenty of posters on this thread made some valid arguments, research, and have impressive argumentation skills. You are not one of these people. Hardly anything you have said is of any originality, and by far, most of your posts have been ‘cheerleading’ other posters. A bunch of high-fives, and “oh you are so right, much respect!”. Beyond your initial posting to me and the one you posted earlier today, you haven’t said anything new and have just been repeating your same talking points with an air of exasperation. I’m glad I impress you. You certainly don’t impress me. ‘Least reliable’ has nothing to do with anything Argentine or British. It has to do with you. People have said more insightful things in a few sentences than you have in your continual repetition of your previous points made. I ignored you at first because I didn’t see anyone worth having a debate with in you. Many have looked into different aspects of this dispute. You looked at a wiki article, read a pdf that you found on the net, and started paraphrasing. It’s quite easy to do that when so many people are talking at once, and the argument is pretty one sided. By one-sided, I mean like 10-1. That in itself doesn’t bother me. But your defences of moshe (which haven’t abated since you just mentioned him) show a bullying factor in your character. You thought you were on the winning side, you chose a popular position, and seemed to relish and celebrate what you thought was a victory over me and my ‘propaganda’. When I finally got home yesterday, I decided to take out my British authored Malvinas books and got down to factual matter by qualified sources. No wiki pages or unaccredited sources. You come back at me with this pathetic argument which was centred around a US President’s State of the Union speech and correspondence from a British Ambassador in Buenos Aires. I quoted sources from the British Foreign Office directly. So this is why I do not take offence from your behaviour. It was lame and you managed to show your limited intellectual capacity in just a few postings. I would have kept this opinion to myself had it been anyone else. But you, dear, have had it coming for some time.

  So, you are choosing to disconnect yourself from this discussion. A very convenient decision, though I certainly respect it. I actually think it’s probably a good thing for you that you do, but of course, there’s no preference for me whether you do or not. If you have something further to say to me, you can certainly count on a responce. I’ve had much better people here debate me, and you hardly rate much of an effort. I do admit to some sore feelings about what moshe was saying about me and your continued advocacy of his abusive comments at first. You were playing right alongside him as his sidekick and you seemed to be in bliss over tag-teaming me. But I am long over it, and can see you just for what you are without any bias or anger in my countenance. You are a bully who played a prominent part in personal attacks which were reprehensible. Beyond that, I see absolutely nothing there but a self-important person with an active wiki search page.
• 

  besty

  welcome to JWN LMSA - you are part of us now :-) please stick around and post on other subjects!

  sincerely

  Paul M
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  Thank you Paul. I think I will take your advice.

  Emilie