In article ,
Horvath wrote:
On 7 Oct 2004 19:37:52 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:


You are really stupid, aren't you? I didn't see the debate. I never
said I did.

Ah, so not only are you stupid, but uninformed.


At least I'm a bozo.
--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 04:29:47 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:


You are really stupid, aren't you? I didn't see the debate. I never
said I did.


Then why did you make an ass out of yourself by proclaiming that it
was Edwards who provided the name of the factcheck website? Hey, I
guess you had a 50% chance of being right, which is well better than
your average.


That's what I read in the liberal-controlled media.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Like I said, Horass has no reading comprehension skills either.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 04:29:47 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:


You are really stupid, aren't you? I didn't see the debate. I never
said I did.


Then why did you make an ass out of yourself by proclaiming that it
was Edwards who provided the name of the factcheck website? Hey, I
guess you had a 50% chance of being right, which is well better than
your average.


That's what I read in the liberal-controlled media.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On 8 Oct 2004 16:48:33 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:38:24 GMT, felton said:

Cheney’s name didn’t appear on this letter but
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz signed it along with Insider luminaries Robert
Zoellick, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, and Richard
Armitage. These are the very individuals who fill many important posts
in the current Bush administration. "

You're digging yourself in deeper with every post. First you point me to a
website that falsely insinuates that Cheney sent such a letter. Then when
that's shown to be a lie you retort "Yea, but a bunch of his friends sent
it." LOL. You gonna try and wiggle out by pointing to the language that says
every "prominent" member signed it, and Cheney wasn't "prominent" like the
named individuals? That would be of a piece with the Dems' usual sophomoric
word games.

To repeat, it illustrates once again how you
and your friends repeatedly play fast and loose with the facts.

Is it possible he didn't sign it because he didn't agree with some of its
contents? Nah, not in your vast right-wing conspiracy world.


http://www.bushpresident2004.com/pnac.htm

"When PNAC was formed five years later, it was chaired by Paul
Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Libby, Richard
Perle, Jeb Bush and others."


I tire of explaining things to you, Dave, as everything that threatens
your ignorant and uninformed beliefs you dismiss as propaganda or from
"biased" sources. Cheney was not just on the mailing list of the
organization, he was a founder and chaired the PNAC, which sent the
letter. If you can conjure some mythical means by which to assume
that Cheney's *real* beliefs are substantially different from the
PNAC, then feel free.

Dave is a known LIAR. He and Cheney must be sleeping together. They're
stories are identical.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"felton" wrote in message
...
On 8 Oct 2004 16:48:33 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:38:24 GMT, felton said:

Cheney's name didn't appear on this letter but
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz signed it along with Insider luminaries Robert
Zoellick, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, and Richard
Armitage. These are the very individuals who fill many important posts
in the current Bush administration. "

You're digging yourself in deeper with every post. First you point me to a
website that falsely insinuates that Cheney sent such a letter. Then when
that's shown to be a lie you retort "Yea, but a bunch of his friends sent
it." LOL. You gonna try and wiggle out by pointing to the language that
says
every "prominent" member signed it, and Cheney wasn't "prominent" like the
named individuals? That would be of a piece with the Dems' usual
sophomoric
word games.

To repeat, it illustrates once again how you
and your friends repeatedly play fast and loose with the facts.

Is it possible he didn't sign it because he didn't agree with some of its
contents? Nah, not in your vast right-wing conspiracy world.


http://www.bushpresident2004.com/pnac.htm

"When PNAC was formed five years later, it was chaired by Paul
Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Libby, Richard
Perle, Jeb Bush and others."


I tire of explaining things to you, Dave, as everything that threatens
your ignorant and uninformed beliefs you dismiss as propaganda or from
"biased" sources. Cheney was not just on the mailing list of the
organization, he was a founder and chaired the PNAC, which sent the
letter. If you can conjure some mythical means by which to assume
that Cheney's *real* beliefs are substantially different from the
PNAC, then feel free.

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:34:54 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Don't answer the question honestly. We know you're not capable of that, and
we wouldn't
want you to strain yourself.

It is really both amusing and ironic that Dave is suggesting adopting
"creative" reporting with all new definitions, not accepted by anyone
except Dick Cheney and mentioning securities fraud in the course of
his dodging of the question. Wasn't Halliburton guilty of a bit of
"creative" reporting during Cheney's time as CEO? I guess some habits
are hard to break, but even Dave should have known better than to draw
attention to it.

On 8 Oct 2004 18:10:56 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:16:18 GMT, felton said:

Perhaps
then I'll help you with your accounting misconceptions.

Please explain the accounting misconception. I'm all ears. Tell me why the
statement I pointed to, without further explanation, is not misleading.

Well, the requirement was that you provide a source for the all new
definition of coalition before I help you with you accounting
homework. I am feeling generous, though, so I'll help you out.

Current assets are specifically defined as assets which are expected
to be converted to cash within a one year time frame. Assets, such as
inventories which fail to meet this test as a result of obsolescence
would be required to be written down to net realizable value. Same
with receivables if there is a collectibility issue. There is a
clearly right way and wrong way to account for and classify assets and
libialities and there is no "gray" area. No explanation should have
been required for the analysts. The numbers were bogus, and clearly
wrong based on generally accepted accounting principles, therefore the
"current ratio" was equally wrong. No disclosure to the contrary
would make it otherwise.

There. Now you can help Cheney with his accounting.

The misleading statement made by Cheney?? No, it wasn't misleading. It was
a bald-headed LIE.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 08 Oct 2004 22:49:24 GMT, (Bobsprit) said:

Dave, just admit it already. It's embarassing for you at this point.

On the contrary. I'm totally amazed that you and your friends continue to
defend the use of such misleading statements.

I can't fill in a blank as big as you.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:34:12 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

If a public company had overstated its earnings in similar fashion by
a
factor of 1/3 they would be sued for securities fraud the next day,
and
would lose. "Yea, but it was still a lot of money" wouldn't be a
defense.

Cheney LIED! And, YOU ARE A LIAR TOO.

I understand that that's your all-purpose mantra, but anyone with a
speck
of
brainpower and a miniscule familiarity with the law would confirm my
statement above is accurate.

You "statement" has nothing to do with the facts.

Even assuming it doesn't, that doesn't make it untrue. But as I said, your
all-purpose mantra seems to be that X (fill in the name) is a liar.

Please explain the accounting misconception. I'm all ears.


And no brains.


RB