| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
| Date: |
16 Feb 2005 02:06:20 PM |
| Object: |
UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hans ' the =FCber lefty' Blix was up to more than taking bribes and
planning on writing his smear campaign book againt President Bush - his
UN inspector buds were also Drunks - LOL..
'Pass the Champaign' as they screamed in Baghdad - 'Where is Saddam our
Buddy?'
The Circus that was the UN inspections that the left touts as god-send
solutions to monitor countries is now also a drunken mess of
individuals, according to a former senior inspector told the US Senate
yesterday.
"In a move that provoked fury from officials of the Swiss firm Cotecna,
an Australian former inspector detailed a picture of incompetence,
indifference and drunkeness among the men acting as the frontline for
UN sanctions."
Have you heard recently that UN people in Africa are no raping and
torturing, filming young girls - according the Los Angeles Times.
Wooopsssss - got to rethink that bag on an Iraqi head being the end-all
of war scandals, eh?
Now with the UN finding out, from documents ceased in the Iraqi war
that Germany, France, Russia and the UN paid Saddam 21.3 billion
dollars in a secret oil for food scam - has now rocked the UN to it
undoing. Even the Leader of the UN Kofi' Anan's son is involved.
Time to rethink this UN thing - I do not think it is working at the
moment - need a fresh dose of new faces in there, eh?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=3D/news/2005/02/16/woil116.x=
ml
.
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.conews/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
16 Feb 2005 02:21:21 PM |
|
|
Michael Johnathan McDonald wrote:
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hans ' the über lefty' Blix was up to more than taking bribes and
planning on writing his smear campaign book againt President Bush - his
UN inspector buds were also Drunks - LOL..
Rather disingenuous Michael, why didn't you post the whole article?
...and what has Hans 'the über lefty' Blix to do with sanctions
monitoring anyway? I thought his responsibility was weapons.
=>
UN inspectors 'spent their days drinking'
By Francis Harris
(Filed: 16/02/2005)
UN inspectors in Iraq spent their working hours drinking vodka while
ignoring a shadowy nocturnal fleet believed to be smuggling goods for
Saddam Hussein, a former senior inspector told the US Senate yesterday.
In a move that provoked fury from officials of the Swiss firm Cotecna,
an Australian former inspector detailed a picture of incompetence,
indifference and drunkeness among the men acting as the frontline for UN
sanctions.
Arthur Ventham, a former Australian army officer and customs officer,
joined the operation in 2002 and worked at various sites in Iraq and
neighbouring states.
He said that at Iskendurun in eastern Turkey, some officials had refused
to work.
When he asked one of his bosses why, he was told: "They were friends or
relatives of potential clients, and are only in the mission so the
company could secure future contracts in Nigeria, Comoros and another
African country.
"When I said that this was unfair on everyone else, I was told that it
was general practice in Cotecna."
Other inspectors had spent most of the day in hotel rooms while others
drank beer and talked to the local people.
Inspectors were supposed to check lorries to make sure the UN sanctions
regime was being enforced.
At another monitoring site where the UN was supposed to check
humanitarian aid supplies, Mr Ventham noticed "the team leader and his
fellow countrymen [the nationality is unstated] spending the majority of
their time in each other's rooms drinking vodka as opposed to managing
and leading the team".
There he noticed small vessels and barges moving to a small island each
night.
"I mentioned this to a number of other inspectors saying there was
plenty of scope for smuggling and what were the UN doing about it.
"I was extremely surprised by the response that it was common knowledge
smuggling was going on at Um Qasir [and that] the oil was being sold on
the black market to augment the regime."
Cotecna officials said the unheralded release of Mr Ventham's
allegations was unfair and that they would respond in detail at a later
date. They said Mr Ventham had been dismissed and was a disgruntled
former employee.
<=
'Pass the Champaign' as they screamed in Baghdad - 'Where is Saddam our
Buddy?'
The Circus that was the UN inspections that the left touts as god-send
solutions to monitor countries is now also a drunken mess of
individuals, according to a former senior inspector told the US Senate
yesterday.
"In a move that provoked fury from officials of the Swiss firm Cotecna,
an Australian former inspector detailed a picture of incompetence,
indifference and drunkeness among the men acting as the frontline for
UN sanctions."
Have you heard recently that UN people in Africa are no raping and
torturing, filming young girls - according the Los Angeles Times.
Wooopsssss - got to rethink that bag on an Iraqi head being the end-all
of war scandals, eh?
Now with the UN finding out, from documents ceased in the Iraqi war
that Germany, France, Russia and the UN paid Saddam 21.3 billion
dollars in a secret oil for food scam - has now rocked the UN to it
undoing. Even the Leader of the UN Kofi' Anan's son is involved.
Time to rethink this UN thing - I do not think it is working at the
moment - need a fresh dose of new faces in there, eh?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
16 Feb 2005 04:08:02 PM |
|
|
Absolute Zero wrote:
Michael Johnathan McDonald wrote:
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hans ' the =FCber lefty' Blix was up to more than taking bribes and
planning on writing his smear campaign book againt President Bush -
his
UN inspector buds were also Drunks - LOL..
Rather disingenuous Michael, why didn't you post the whole article?
I gave the link and commented on other parts of this whole UN/Iraqi
episode - just because you cannot accept it by your responce tells a
reader you are the one that is disingenuous. I posted the top comments
from the article observed and correctly said in my post.
Here let me repost the graph - "In a move that provoked fury from
officials of the Swiss firm Cotecna, an Australian former inspector
detailed a picture of incompetence, indifference and drunkeness among
the men acting as the frontline for UN sanctions."
This only gives Tony credence of your bias that he keeps harping on.
Typical.
..and what has Hans 'the =FCber lefty' Blix to do with sanctions
monitoring anyway?
Everything - He was one of the leaders of the inspection teams that
looked for things that would apply to sanctions. Is that too hard to
comprehend, or do you have a learning disability?
I thought his responsibility was weapons.
Boy you are one smart cookie lol. ;)
=3D>
UN inspectors 'spent their days drinking'
By Francis Harris
(Filed: 16/02/2005)
UN inspectors in Iraq spent their working hours drinking vodka while
ignoring a shadowy nocturnal fleet believed to be smuggling goods for
Saddam Hussein, a former senior inspector told the US Senate
yesterday.
So you just called me disingenuous and here you post the article, which
I try not to do knowing, I believe, it is illegal ( I have done it in
the past, but I try not too do it anymore), and you proved what I said
in the head post - are you stupid or something?
What is your point? That I was a liar?
Maybe you are taking your attacks' on Tony too hap-hardily. You forget
others here are still targets of libel campaigns and not a peep from
you has been raised. So....Now lets some up this *whole* situation
here.
I believe you are the disingenuous one.
tant pis...
---
Sum up my argument...
The Whole UN/Iraq involvement was a complete mess and Hans Blix was
right in the midst of it.
(1)The Associated Press
Updated: 6:28 p.m.
ET Nov. 15, 2004
WASHINGTON - Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime made more
than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting the U.N.
oil-for-food program and other sanctions, more than double previous
estimates, according to congressional investigators.
(2)By Desmond Butler
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
NEW YORK (AP) -- Saddam Hussein diverted money from the U.N.
oil-for-food program to pay millions of dollars to families of
Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out attacks on Israel
http://michaelreport.com/world/region/un/off.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
16 Feb 2005 04:53:52 PM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108591682.574162.129450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
....
Sum up my argument...
The Whole UN/Iraq involvement was a complete mess and Hans Blix
was right in the midst of it.
And this proves what? Only that there is an active smear campain going on
in the US against all things UN.
Does any of this, true or not, change the fact that there were no WMD? Blix
made the Bush Administration look ham-fisted, and so they seem to be calling
up their PR sock-puppets to tell some stories around the campfire... it's
nothing more than straw-man tactics.
But where are the WMD?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
16 Feb 2005 05:12:50 PM |
|
|
Aidan wrote:
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108591682.574162.129450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...
Sum up my argument...
The Whole UN/Iraq involvement was a complete mess and Hans Blix
was right in the midst of it.
And this proves what? Only that there is an active smear campain
going on
in the US against all things UN.
Does any of this, true or not, change the fact that there were no
WMD? Blix
made the Bush Administration look ham-fisted, and so they seem to be
calling
up their PR sock-puppets to tell some stories around the campfire...
it's
nothing more than straw-man tactics.
But where are the WMD?
Kinda pissed-off that the US Soldiers found the UN oil for Food Docs
now aren't ya? Pissed ya off, eh? This war proved one thing - The UN is
a cover for covert operations - same crap anti-Americans hold over the
American military and intelligence communities.
Don't worry, Kofi already admits that the Oil For Food program was a
real fact. For heaven's sake his son is indited in this.
Kinda screwed up your whole life of being an anti-Iraq/American w2
screamer, eh?
....exposed some your dear inside leaders of UN, France, Germany, Russia
to the light of day, eh? ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
17 Feb 2005 03:58:21 AM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108595570.798399.73770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Aidan wrote:
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108591682.574162.129450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...
Sum up my argument...
The Whole UN/Iraq involvement was a complete mess and Hans Blix
was right in the midst of it.
And this proves what? Only that there is an active smear campain
going on
in the US against all things UN.
Does any of this, true or not, change the fact that there were no
WMD? Blix
made the Bush Administration look ham-fisted, and so they seem to be
calling
up their PR sock-puppets to tell some stories around the campfire...
it's
nothing more than straw-man tactics.
But where are the WMD?
Kinda pissed-off that the US Soldiers found the UN oil for Food Docs
now aren't ya? Pissed ya off, eh? This war proved one thing - The UN is
a cover for covert operations - same crap anti-Americans hold over the
American military and intelligence communities.
Very poor attempt at deflection. Where are the WMD? Blix was right wasn't
he?
Don't worry, Kofi already admits that the Oil For Food program was a
real fact. For heaven's sake his son is indited in this.
Very poor attempt at deflection. Where are the WMD? Blix was right wasn't
he?
Kinda screwed up your whole life of being an anti-Iraq/American w2
screamer, eh?
Very poor attempt at deflection. Where are the WMD? Blix was right wasn't
he?
...exposed some your dear inside leaders of UN, France, Germany, Russia
to the light of day, eh? ;)
Very poor attempt at deflection. Where are the WMD? Blix was right wasn't
he?
By the way, the only person prosecuted under the oil for food scandal so far
is an ... American..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
16 Feb 2005 05:26:24 PM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108595570.798399.73770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Aidan wrote:
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108591682.574162.129450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...
Sum up my argument...
The Whole UN/Iraq involvement was a complete mess and Hans Blix
was right in the midst of it.
And this proves what? Only that there is an active smear campain
going on
in the US against all things UN.
Does any of this, true or not, change the fact that there were no
WMD? Blix
made the Bush Administration look ham-fisted, and so they seem to be
calling
up their PR sock-puppets to tell some stories around the campfire...
it's
nothing more than straw-man tactics.
But where are the WMD?
Kinda pissed-off that the US Soldiers found the UN oil for Food Docs
now aren't ya? Pissed ya off, eh? This war proved one thing - The UN is
a cover for covert operations - same crap anti-Americans hold over the
American military and intelligence communities.
Don't worry, Kofi already admits that the Oil For Food program was a
real fact. For heaven's sake his son is indited in this.
Kinda screwed up your whole life of being an anti-Iraq/American w2
screamer, eh?
Ahhh, no... but I'll allow you to live the fantasy if it suits you.
Where are the WMD that Blix said Iraq didn't have?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
16 Feb 2005 06:47:34 PM |
|
|
Aidan wrote:
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108595570.798399.73770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Aidan wrote:
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:1108591682.574162.129450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...
Sum up my argument...
The Whole UN/Iraq involvement was a complete mess and Hans Blix
was right in the midst of it.
And this proves what? Only that there is an active smear campain
going on
in the US against all things UN.
Does any of this, true or not, change the fact that there were no
WMD? Blix
made the Bush Administration look ham-fisted, and so they seem to
be
calling
up their PR sock-puppets to tell some stories around the
campfire...
it's
nothing more than straw-man tactics.
But where are the WMD?
Kinda pissed-off that the US Soldiers found the UN oil for Food
Docs
now aren't ya? Pissed ya off, eh? This war proved one thing - The
UN is
a cover for covert operations - same crap anti-Americans hold over
the
American military and intelligence communities.
Don't worry, Kofi already admits that the Oil For Food program was
a
real fact. For heaven's sake his son is indited in this.
Kinda screwed up your whole life of being an anti-Iraq/American w2
screamer, eh?
Ahhh, no... but I'll allow you to live the fantasy if it suits you.
Where are the WMD that Blix said Iraq didn't have?
I do not know, ask bush - as far as weapons that were banned according
to this article he says there were plenty.
hicup ;)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5835
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
16 Feb 2005 06:50:50 PM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108601254.214982.261760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Aidan wrote:
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108595570.798399.73770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Aidan wrote:
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:1108591682.574162.129450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...
Sum up my argument...
The Whole UN/Iraq involvement was a complete mess and Hans Blix
was right in the midst of it.
And this proves what? Only that there is an active smear campain
going on
in the US against all things UN.
Does any of this, true or not, change the fact that there were no
WMD? Blix
made the Bush Administration look ham-fisted, and so they seem to
be
calling
up their PR sock-puppets to tell some stories around the
campfire...
it's
nothing more than straw-man tactics.
But where are the WMD?
Kinda pissed-off that the US Soldiers found the UN oil for Food
Docs
now aren't ya? Pissed ya off, eh? This war proved one thing - The
UN is
a cover for covert operations - same crap anti-Americans hold over
the
American military and intelligence communities.
Don't worry, Kofi already admits that the Oil For Food program was
a
real fact. For heaven's sake his son is indited in this.
Kinda screwed up your whole life of being an anti-Iraq/American w2
screamer, eh?
Ahhh, no... but I'll allow you to live the fantasy if it suits you.
Where are the WMD that Blix said Iraq didn't have?
I do not know, ask bush - as far as weapons that were banned according
to this article he says there were plenty.
Yes there were plenty, prior the first Gulf War...
But officially, as of today, there are none, just like Blix warned?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
16 Feb 2005 06:57:35 PM |
|
|
Aidan wrote:
Yes there were plenty, prior the first Gulf War...
But officially, as of today, there are none, just like Blix warned?
Sorry Aiden, either all the past news articles, documents, military
photos and TV shows are wrong and you are right or they are right- but
my mind is not made up. Yet, I still weigh a little more truth on their
side - sorry ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
16 Feb 2005 07:24:32 PM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108601855.186078.50530@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Aidan wrote:
Yes there were plenty, prior the first Gulf War...
But officially, as of today, there are none, just like Blix warned?
Sorry Aiden, either all the past news articles, documents, military
photos and TV shows are wrong and you are right or they are right- but
my mind is not made up. Yet, I still weigh a little more truth on their
side - sorry ;)
So where are they then? Officially, where are the WMD if this mountain of
evidence is so conclusive? Are you talking about the evidence that Blix
said was, and was later proven to be trumped up?
You're trusting the Bush Administration, to tell the truth about something,
that they lied about from the begining?
Ow, my ribs hurt.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Never anonymous Bud" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
17 Feb 2005 04:30:46 AM |
|
|
Using a finger dipped in purple ink, "Aidan" <nospam.aweraw@gmail.com> scribed:
So where are they then? Officially, where are the WMD if this mountain of
evidence is so conclusive? Are you talking about the evidence that Blix
said was, and was later proven to be trumped up?
Why, in his MIND, as usual. You should have known that.
--
The truth is out there,
but it's not interesting enough for most people.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.conews/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
16 Feb 2005 06:47:17 PM |
|
|
Aidan wrote:
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108595570.798399.73770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Aidan wrote:
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108591682.574162.129450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...
Sum up my argument...
The Whole UN/Iraq involvement was a complete mess and Hans Blix
was right in the midst of it.
And this proves what? Only that there is an active smear campain
going on
in the US against all things UN.
Does any of this, true or not, change the fact that there were no
WMD? Blix
made the Bush Administration look ham-fisted, and so they seem to be
calling
up their PR sock-puppets to tell some stories around the campfire...
it's
nothing more than straw-man tactics.
But where are the WMD?
Kinda pissed-off that the US Soldiers found the UN oil for Food Docs
now aren't ya? Pissed ya off, eh? This war proved one thing - The UN is
a cover for covert operations - same crap anti-Americans hold over the
American military and intelligence communities.
Don't worry, Kofi already admits that the Oil For Food program was a
real fact. For heaven's sake his son is indited in this.
Kinda screwed up your whole life of being an anti-Iraq/American w2
screamer, eh?
Ahhh, no... but I'll allow you to live the fantasy if it suits you.
Where are the WMD that Blix said Iraq didn't have?
OH! So you're not falling for his diversion eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh? Eh?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.conews/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
16 Feb 2005 04:36:36 PM |
|
|
Michael Johnathan McDonald wrote:
Absolute Zero wrote:
Michael Johnathan McDonald wrote:
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hans ' the über lefty' Blix was up to more than taking bribes and
planning on writing his smear campaign book againt President Bush -
his
UN inspector buds were also Drunks - LOL..
Rather disingenuous Michael, why didn't you post the whole article?
I gave the link
...and you know perfectly well that most people won't bother to follow
the link to read the article. So you can cherry pick a few bits out and
spin it anyway you like.
and commented on other parts of this whole UN/Iraqi
episode - just because you cannot accept it by your responce tells a
reader you are the one that is disingenuous. I posted the top comments
from the article observed and correctly said in my post.
Here let me repost the graph - "In a move that provoked fury from
officials of the Swiss firm Cotecna, an Australian former inspector
detailed a picture of incompetence, indifference and drunkeness among
the men acting as the frontline for UN sanctions."
This only gives Tony credence of your bias that he keeps harping on.
Typical.
Well fine, but by your not posting the WHOLE article you don't have to
admit this, for example...
"Cotecna officials said the unheralded release of Mr Ventham's
allegations was unfair and that they would respond in detail at a later
date. They said Mr Ventham had been dismissed and was a disgruntled
former employee."
..and what has Hans 'the über lefty' Blix to do with sanctions
monitoring anyway?
Everything - He was one of the leaders of the inspection teams that
looked for things that would apply to sanctions. Is that too hard to
comprehend, or do you have a learning disability?
Blix is Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC.
http://www.unmovic.org/
=>
The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission
(UNMOVIC) was created through the adoption of Security Council
resolution 1284 of 17 December 1999. UNMOVIC replaced the former UN
Special Commission (UNSCOM) and continues with the mandate to verify
Iraq's compliance with its obligation to be rid of its weapons of mass
destruction (chemical, biological weapons and missiles with a range of
more than 150 km), and to operate a system of ongoing monitoring and
verification to ascertain that Iraq does not reacquire the same weapons
prohibited to it by the Security Council.
.. . .
<=
It goes on to NOT mention sanctions.
I thought his responsibility was weapons.
Boy you are one smart cookie lol. ;)
Well show me then.
=>
UN inspectors 'spent their days drinking'
By Francis Harris
(Filed: 16/02/2005)
UN inspectors in Iraq spent their working hours drinking vodka while
ignoring a shadowy nocturnal fleet believed to be smuggling goods for
Saddam Hussein, a former senior inspector told the US Senate
yesterday.
So you just called me disingenuous and here you post the article, which
I try not to do knowing, I believe, it is illegal ( I have done it in
the past, but I try not too do it anymore),
What's the difference, legally speaking, between posting excerpts and
posting the whole thing?
and you proved what I said
in the head post - are you stupid or something?
No, I think you'll find that I'm not.
What is your point? That I was a liar?
No, that you cherry-picked bits out of the story.
Maybe you are taking your attacks' on Tony too hap-hardily. You forget
others here are still targets of libel campaigns and not a peep from
you has been raised.
What are you talking about?
-A
So....Now lets some up this *whole* situation
here.
I believe you are the disingenuous one.
tant pis...
---
Sum up my argument...
The Whole UN/Iraq involvement was a complete mess and Hans Blix was
right in the midst of it.
(1)The Associated Press
Updated: 6:28 p.m.
ET Nov. 15, 2004
WASHINGTON - Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime made more
than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting the U.N.
oil-for-food program and other sanctions, more than double previous
estimates, according to congressional investigators.
(2)By Desmond Butler
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
NEW YORK (AP) -- Saddam Hussein diverted money from the U.N.
oil-for-food program to pay millions of dollars to families of
Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out attacks on Israel
http://michaelreport.com/world/region/un/off.html
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
16 Feb 2005 06:11:20 PM |
|
|
"Absolute Zero" <amycaton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cv0hoh$a0s$8@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Michael Johnathan McDonald wrote:
I gave the link
..and you know perfectly well that most people won't bother to follow
the link to read the article. So you can cherry pick a few bits out and
spin it anyway you like.
He thinks it'll get him a job with the Bush Administration.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
16 Feb 2005 05:06:25 PM |
|
|
Absolute Zero wrote:
Michael Johnathan McDonald wrote:
Absolute Zero wrote:
Michael Johnathan McDonald wrote:
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hans ' the =FCber lefty' Blix was up to more than taking bribes and
planning on writing his smear campaign book againt President Bush
-
his
UN inspector buds were also Drunks - LOL..
Rather disingenuous Michael, why didn't you post the whole article?
I gave the link
..and you know perfectly well that most people won't bother to follow
the link
that is of no concern of mine.
to read the article. So you can cherry pick a few bits out and
spin it anyway you like.
I didn't spin it. Blix was overseer of the Iraqi inspector; so he
should take blame. What I said was a fact - and I stated it in the
previous post - if you cannot comprehend what I just posted than you
just answered my question poised to you - well I did give you a chance.
and commented on other parts of this whole UN/Iraqi
episode - just because you cannot accept it by your responce tells
a
reader you are the one that is disingenuous. I posted the top
comments
from the article observed and correctly said in my post.
Here let me repost the graph - "In a move that provoked fury from
officials of the Swiss firm Cotecna, an Australian former
inspector
detailed a picture of incompetence, indifference and drunkeness
among
the men acting as the frontline for UN sanctions."
This only gives Tony credence of your bias that he keeps harping
on.
Typical.
Well fine,
but by your not posting the WHOLE article you don't have to
admit this, for example...
Where do you get off thinki' that?
You sure are stupid. If Blix is the head of the team and his boys are
drinking and not doing there job, how was my take in regards to spin?
Because you do not want to hear it? I think so. ;)
Also, If you cannot click your right index finger on the mouse, why is
that my problem? Explain!
"Cotecna officials said the unheralded release of Mr Ventham's
allegations was unfair and that they would respond in detail at a
later
date. They said Mr Ventham had been dismissed and was a disgruntled
former employee."
..and what has Hans 'the =FCber lefty' Blix to do with sanctions
monitoring anyway?
Everything - He was one of the leaders of the inspection teams that
looked for things that would apply to sanctions. Is that too hard
to
comprehend, or do you have a learning disability?
Blix is Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC.
Who give a frig what he is now. You sure blame Tony for being a dunce
sometimes and you sure represent yourself as one now.
http://www.unmovic.org/
=3D>
The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission
(UNMOVIC) was created through the adoption of Security Council
resolution 1284 of 17 December 1999. UNMOVIC replaced the former UN
Special Commission (UNSCOM) and continues with the mandate to verify
Iraq's compliance with its obligation to be rid of its weapons of
mass
destruction (chemical, biological weapons and missiles with a range
of
more than 150 km), and to operate a system of ongoing monitoring and
verification to ascertain that Iraq does not reacquire the same
weapons
prohibited to it by the Security Council.
. . .
<=3D
It goes on to NOT mention sanctions.
Who give a frig - The media leaves alot of the puzzle out - do they
have to explain to a friggin moron EVERYTHING? - its our jobs to put
them together.
I thought his responsibility was weapons.
Boy you are one smart cookie lol. ;)
Well show me then.
Never mind - I'm busy.
=3D>
UN inspectors 'spent their days drinking'
By Francis Harris
(Filed: 16/02/2005)
UN inspectors in Iraq spent their working hours drinking vodka
while
ignoring a shadowy nocturnal fleet believed to be smuggling goods
for
Saddam Hussein, a former senior inspector told the US Senate
yesterday.
So you just called me disingenuous and here you post the article,
which
I try not to do knowing, I believe, it is illegal ( I have done it
in
the past, but I try not too do it anymore),
What's the difference, legally speaking, between posting excerpts and
posting the whole thing?
When you and I see Tony do this ( And others) - post entire articles
without links this is definitely a breach in the law. Again, I believe
I've done it in the past, but I try not to now. You can also ask
permission from a website to post entire articles from them. If you do
not get permission the very least you need to do is give the specifics:
title, ch. article, author. - which I see none of.
and you proved what I said
in the head post - are you stupid or something?
No, I think you'll find that I'm not.
I do not think so, but again, I believe today you are proving my me
wrong ;)
What is your point? That I was a liar?
No, that you cherry-picked bits out of the story.
Yes, I admit it. But I try to stay as true to the story as possible.
Blix was the leader his workers were drunks. Blix is the ultimate Boss
while he was the UN inspection leader in Iraq.
Maybe you are taking your attacks' on Tony too hap-hardily. You
forget
others here are still targets of libel campaigns and not a peep
from
you has been raised.
What are you talking about?
You frigging damn well do know.
And if you want to prove any of my argument wrong try -
bonne chance folle ;)
-A
So....Now lets some up this *whole* situation
here.
I believe you are the disingenuous one.
tant pis...
---
Sum up my argument...
The Whole UN/Iraq involvement was a complete mess and Hans Blix was
right in the midst of it.
(1)The Associated Press
Updated: 6:28 p.m.
ET Nov. 15, 2004
WASHINGTON - Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime made
more
than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting the U.N.
oil-for-food program and other sanctions, more than double previous
estimates, according to congressional investigators.
(2)By Desmond Butler
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
NEW YORK (AP) -- Saddam Hussein diverted money from the U.N.
oil-for-food program to pay millions of dollars to families of
Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out attacks on Israel
=20
=20
=20
http://michaelreport.com/world/region/un/off.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krib" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
17 Feb 2005 02:59:47 AM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I didn't spin it. Blix was overseer of the Iraqi inspector; so he
should take blame.
The same way President Bush, as Commander in Chief, is responsible for the
behaviour of his armed forces? So he should take the blame for the Abu Ghraib
scandals then?
He should also take the blame for these "chemtrails" you're obsessed with?
Interesting take on things mikey.
What I said was a fact - and I stated it in the
previous post - if you cannot comprehend what I just posted than you
just answered my question poised to you - well I did give you a chance.
Any chance of having that translated from cabbage to English?
Who give a frig what he is now. You sure blame Tony for being a dunce
sometimes and you sure represent yourself as one now.
Remember that if/when more American scandals arise, your President is
the top of that pile mikey.
Who give a frig - The media leaves alot of the puzzle out - do they
have to explain to a friggin moron EVERYTHING? - its our jobs to put
them together.
What would *you* know of a "job" mikey? you sponge of your country like
the lazy, incompetent retard you are.
Well show me then.
Never mind - I'm busy.
mikeyboy runs away yet again, pathetic.
Yes, I admit it. But I try to stay as true to the story as possible.
Blix was the leader his workers were drunks. Blix is the ultimate Boss
while he was the UN inspection leader in Iraq.
I'm sure President Bush thanks you for the blame.
And if you want to prove any of my argument wrong try -
bonne chance folle ;)
ditto
--
krib
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
17 Feb 2005 12:18:09 PM |
|
|
Krib wrote:
Hey spazz boy. You ready to start responding? You said that you
contacted my school and forced me to apologize to you but never
supplied a name. You are a liar and have been running for over a year
now.
You want to bring them into this? You want to start libeling others
now?
Lets go Fool! ;)
Kinda frigged that you offer your moralities to posters like Tony while
you spread your hatful/ sick perverted libel crap over USNEST, eh
chumpy liar?
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I didn't spin it. Blix was overseer of the Iraqi inspector; so he
should take blame.
The same way President Bush, as Commander in Chief, is responsible
for the
behaviour of his armed forces? So he should take the blame for the
Abu Ghraib
scandals then?
He does idiot. However if the same applied to Bush fool then Kofi is
responsible for the exploitation, raping of young girls in Africa under
his Peacekeeping troops tard.
He should also take the blame for these "chemtrails" you're obsessed
with?
Interesting take on things mikey.
What I said was a fact - and I stated it in the
previous post - if you cannot comprehend what I just posted than
you
just answered my question poised to you - well I did give you a
chance.
Any chance of having that translated from cabbage to English?
Who give a frig what he is now. You sure blame Tony for being a
dunce
sometimes and you sure represent yourself as one now.
Remember that if/when more American scandals arise, your President is
the top of that pile mikey.
Who give a frig - The media leaves alot of the puzzle out - do they
have to explain to a friggin moron EVERYTHING? - its our jobs to
put
them together.
What would *you* know of a "job" mikey? you sponge of your country
like
the lazy, incompetent retard you are.
Well show me then.
Never mind - I'm busy.
mikeyboy runs away yet again, pathetic.
you ready to supply name liar retard? You have been running for over a
year, eh libelous crapshit?
krib
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krib" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
18 Feb 2005 02:56:38 AM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108664289.369551.83860@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Krib wrote:
Hey spazz boy. You ready to start responding?
After you Raider...
http://www.google.co.uk/groups?selm=Wk2Sc.124%24Qs4.78%40newsfe5-gui.ntli.net&output=gplain
http://www.google.co.uk/groups?selm=whZyc.325%24Ee2.172%40newsfe4-gui&output=gplain
http://www.google.co.uk/groups?selm=kI6wc.335%24Wl1.102%40newsfe1-gui.server.ntli.net&output=gplain
http://www.google.co.uk/groups?selm=b5Moc.23%2444.21%40newsfe1-win&output=gplain
http://www.google.co.uk/groups?selm=%25CRLb.142%24YV1.85%40newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net&output=gplain
And many dozens of more posts where you'v erun away from the questions
like the yellow piece of snail ***** you are mikey.
You said that you
contacted my school and forced me to apologize to you but never
supplied a name. You are a liar and have been running for over a year
now.
Prove I'm a liar mikey ;0)
You want to bring them into this? You want to start libeling others
now?
Getting yourself all upset eh mikey? ;0)
It must be difficult for a middle aged man to be the butt of all these jokes
eh? what with being unable to graduate highschool because of your retardation
and mental problems, all those schoolkids mocking you, unable to function in
the real world so never being able to get a job, being a social pariah and
a pathetic welfare sponge, ah my, so sad... I can't stop laughing ;0)
Lets go Fool! ;)
Sure Raider, you feel free to answer my questions from all of those
pasts posts then maybe I'll consider doing the same, what's that cabbage?
can't admit your lies and deceit? ah well... nevermind eh?
Kinda frigged that you offer your moralities to posters like Tony while
you spread your hatful/ sick perverted libel crap over USNEST, eh
chumpy liar?
Don't cry mikey, you're making me laugh ;0)
--
krib
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
18 Feb 2005 12:40:30 PM |
|
|
Krib wrote:
repost: Caught in more lies eh freak? ;)
Contacting my school eh? Well I didn't hear anything tard.
Better start spewing names to get any credibility at *ALL.*
Ohh BTW freak - Here are your posts ;)
Have a nice day chump! ;)
Krib wrote:
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108664575.117906.245400@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Now that is funny - A libeling crap tard kribette offering advice.
Advice? no my opinion only mikey, I don't confuse it like you do.
repost:
Krib wrote:
Hey spazz boy. You ready to start responding? You said that you
contacted my school and forced me to apologize to you but never
supplied a name. You are a liar and have been running for over a
year
now.
You posted that mikey not me,
Just more lies there eh libeling crapshit? LOL.
Guess what, your school was *very* unhappy about your making false
allegations of criminal behaviour, (that's called libel mcdonald), from
their computers weren't they? - Krib Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:59:06
-0000
So how do you know?
I realise that for a subnormal, middle aged
I agree you are subnormal and a runt.
runt like you it's difficult to keep things in order,
Bwhahahahahaha on top of being a liar you are also a ignoramus, eh?
But we already knew that for years.
'Hey mcdonald, your school aren't happy about the abuse you've been
sending ;0)' Krib. Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:59:06 -0000
How so Krib? Care to explain?
what with you being
'speshul' and all but really you need to try to understand if you're
going to
debate a point it should be someone else's and not your own.
You want to bring them into this? You want to start libeling others
now?
You all upset about something schoolboy?
maybe you've been gargling something
unpleasant again eh? or perhaps you've not met one of your 'close
friends' for
a while?
Lets go Fool! ;)
You're so gullible mikey ;0)
So... care to tell us exactly why your school
demanded an apology? Krib Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:22:40 +0100
Looks as you are exposed as a liar yet as always.
Kinda frigged that you offer your moralities to posters like Tony
while
you spread your hatful/ sick perverted libel crap over USNEST, eh
chumpy liar?
Speaking of gullible,
Now you are going to be speaking in regards to your other self eh? ;)
did you know that's what is known as a pseudo-word?
it doesn't actually appear in any dictionary, weird eh?
Well, you have fun trying to learn to read and write in your 'speshul
needs'
class mikey, try not to fall to much, your head can't take any more
damage
can it? ;0)
When you prove you are not a liar then you get credibility back ;)
--
krib
Sources:
---
Guess what, your school was *very* unhappy about your making false
allegations of criminal behaviour, (that's called libel mcdonald), from
their computers weren't they? - Krib Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:59:06
-0000
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/f0e39075408b057a?dmode=source
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/browse_frm/thread/4bfacd454e13e2a3/8e27e866b5fdd184?q=Krib+Contacted+your+school&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fq%3DKrib+Contacted+your+school%26qt_s%3DSearch+Groups%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#8e27e866b5fdd184
'Hey mcdonald, your school aren't happy about the abuse you've been
sending ;0)' Krib. Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:59:06 -0000
--
So... care to tell us exactly why your school
demanded an apology? Krib Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:22:40 +0100
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/browse_frm/thread/72d029e8bfc2cf53/b6ca43e7b3f94936?q=Krib+Contacted+your+school&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fq%3DKrib+Contacted+your+school%26qt_s%3DSearch+Groups%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#b6ca43e7b3f94936
Reply-To: "Krib" <k...@address.invalid>
From: "Krib" <k...@address.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus
References: <dd3256f0.0406051051.3f41bbd7@posting.google.com>
<20040606081948.11868.00000426@mb-m27.aol.com>
<_CIwc.114$W14.30@newsfe4-gui>
<dd3256f0.0406061257.398aff87@posting.google.com>
<Uw0xc.115$o96.73@newsfe5-win>
<dd3256f0.0406071717.5eb4dfa8@posting.google.com>
<PBlxc.1188$ud5.478@newsfe4-gui>
<dd3256f0.0406081708.56ae917e@posting.google.com>
<zzIxc.250$kx4.74@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net>
<dd3256f0.0406091642.30c4e664@posting.google.com>
Subject: Re: Tony Z and his 'statistics'
Lines: 133
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Message-ID: <%k0yc.115$LX3.68@newsfe4-gui>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:22:40 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.106.174.127
X-Complaints-To: http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport
X-Trace: newsfe4-gui 1086886331 81.106.174.127 (Thu, 10 Jun 2004
16:52:11 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:52:11 GMT
Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/95e6e6cef86a96c5?dmode=source
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krib" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
18 Feb 2005 01:11:31 PM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108752030.215798.36040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
repost: Caught in more lies eh freak? ;)
" KLHFS, DUMBDEE, Zagzagel, Raider and many many more all from
you mcdonald, you're an expert in "promoting stolen id's" and
hiding behind them."
You must be used to getting caught mikey.
Contacting my school eh? Well I didn't hear anything tard.
Better start spewing names to get any credibility at *ALL.*
And yet the day after you were making your cringing apology to me in here ;0)
Have a nice day chump! ;)
Always do schoolboy, but then I'm able to hold down a job and don't sponge
off the welfare system like you do.
You "leftist" welfare scum just bleed your country dry, pity you're too subnormal
to actually support yourself, still.. at least this way you're not allowed to mix
with normal people.
See ya Raider, KLHFS or whatever 'nym you're using this week ;0)
--
krib
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
18 Feb 2005 01:19:19 PM |
|
|
Krib wrote:
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108752030.215798.36040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
repost: Caught in more lies eh freak? ;)
" KLHFS, DUMBDEE,
'Zagzagel?',
I believe you are referencing you terrorist supporting/ libeling freind
there freak;)
Raider and many many more all from
you mcdonald, you're an expert in "promoting stolen id's" and
hiding behind them."
You must be used to getting caught mikey.
Contacting my school eh? Well I didn't hear anything tard.
Better start spewing names to get any credibility at *ALL.*
And yet the day after you were making your cringing apology to me in
here ;0)
In which you imply that my school forced me and you know all about it
too. Here is prof something you have none of
Care to start spilling the names of the people you talked to at my
school? If not you are a liar! ;)
Have a nice day freak ;)
---
Guess what, your school was *very* unhappy about your making false
allegations of criminal behaviour, (that's called libel mcdonald), from
their computers weren't they? - Krib Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:59:06
-0000
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/f0e39075408b057a?dmode=source
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/browse_frm/thread/4bfacd454e13e2a3/8e27e866b5fdd184?q=Krib+Contacted+your+school&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fq%3DKrib+Contacted+your+school%26qt_s%3DSearch+Groups%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#8e27e866b5fdd184
'Hey mcdonald, your school aren't happy about the abuse you've been
sending ;0)' Krib. Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:59:06 -0000
--
So... care to tell us exactly why your school
demanded an apology? Krib Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:22:40 +0100
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/browse_frm/thread/72d029e8bfc2cf53/b6ca43e7b3f94936?q=Krib+Contacted+your+school&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fq%3DKrib+Contacted+your+school%26qt_s%3DSearch+Groups%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#b6ca43e7b3f94936
Reply-To: "Krib" <k...@address.invalid>
From: "Krib" <k...@address.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus
References: <dd3256f0.0406051051.3f41bbd7@posting.google.com>
<20040606081948.11868.00000426@mb-m27.aol.com>
<_CIwc.114$W14.30@newsfe4-gui>
<dd3256f0.0406061257.398aff87@posting.google.com>
<Uw0xc.115$o96.73@newsfe5-win>
<dd3256f0.0406071717.5eb4dfa8@posting.google.com>
<PBlxc.1188$ud5.478@newsfe4-gui>
<dd3256f0.0406081708.56ae917e@posting.google.com>
<zzIxc.250$kx4.74@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net>
<dd3256f0.0406091642.30c4e664@posting.google.com>
Subject: Re: Tony Z and his 'statistics'
Lines: 133
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Message-ID: <%k0yc.115$LX3.68@newsfe4-gui>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:22:40 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.106.174.127
X-Complaints-To: http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport
X-Trace: newsfe4-gui 1086886331 81.106.174.127 (Thu, 10 Jun 2004
16:52:11 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:52:11 GMT
Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/95e6e6cef86a96c5?dmode=source
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krib" |
|
| Title: Re: UN Iraq inspectors 'spent their days drinking' - telegraph.co news/2005/02/16/woil116.xml |
18 Feb 2005 01:41:35 PM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
" KLHFS, DUMBDEE,
'Zagzagel?',
I believe you are referencing you terrorist supporting/ libeling freind
there freak;)
So you're admitting to the rest eh? so you lied again when you said they
weren't from you? interesting ;0)
Raider and many many more all from
you mcdonald, you're an expert in "promoting stolen id's" and
hiding behind them."
You must be used to getting caught mikey.
Contacting my school eh? Well I didn't hear anything tard.
Better start spewing names to get any credibility at *ALL.*
And yet the day after you were making your cringing apology to me in
here ;0)
In which you imply that my school forced me and you know all about it
too. Here is prof something you have none of
Exactly, well done it goes to show that even though you don't know your
alphabet or even spell your own name wrong from time to time you
*can* learn something if you're told often enough.
It's a pity thouh, given you have the IQ of a plant you've likely
just lost another fact from your incredibly tiny mind since you
finally got that one to stick.
Make sure your nurses check your diaper before they put you down
for an afternoon nap with the other 'special needs' cabbages mikey ;0)
Care to start spilling the names of the people you talked to at my
school? If not you are a liar! ;)
Sure I'd be happy to answer you | | | | | | | | | | | |
