"basskisser" wrote in message

I thought your point was that there is NO substance to the story of John
and
Jane. Now you say there IS substance. Which is it? Emulating Kerry?

Please provide any statements I've made that backs up your wild,
unsubstantiated allegations.

They're hardly wild, and not at all unsubstantiated.

In your post of 2/20/04 at approx 8AM, you wrote:

"The ultimate proof that scumbags doctored Kerry's photo:

"The photographer who snapped John Kerry attending a 1971 anti-war
rally ...." snip remaining five paragraphs

This post, (which I believe you cut and pasted from someone else and posted
as your own writing), clearly indicates your belief, with which I agree,
that the photo was doctored and the associated story has no substance. This
was the clearly implied message of your post, although you never actually
used the words "...the story has no substance..." in the post.

Then, in your post of 2/20/04 at approx 1PM, you wrote:

"...the connection between Kerry, and Fonda. Also, there is more substance
to the story, than just the picture..."

Repeat: "Also, there is more substance to the story, than just the
picture."

Summary: at 8AM -- the story has no substance; and,
at 1PM -- there is more substance to the story, than just
the picture.

I personally don't care. I'm no Kerry fan, but I do agree that that
particular photo and the associated story are false. I'm just trying to
figure out where you stand, which is difficult when you make contradictory
statements.