They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't
totally, 100%, biased!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

Wow, John! Congrats! The funny thing is...you probably have now been
published in the NY Times more times than Harry. And he writes for a
living!



"John H" wrote in message
...
In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't
totally, 100%, biased!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:43:44 -0500, John H wrote:

In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't
totally, 100%, biased!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John, is it your belief that the story that prompted your letter to the editor
("No-Name Reporting") was a fabrication?

Or do you think there might be a possibility that many of the sources used in
Dana Priest's story spoke "not for attribution?"

It is definitely true that, journalistically speaking, being able to name every
single source is preferable--but it is not responsible journalism to refuse to
report a statement merely because someone speaks not-for-attribution.

For anyone who might be interested, the original news article ("Hussein's
Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda") is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec25.html.

Apart from those sources who spoke not-for-attribution, what do you find in the
article that was non-credible? And do you find the named sources (Michael
Pillsbury, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Rand Beers) to be credible because
they are named?

But it's always a treat to see one's name in print, isn't it!

And we knew you back when...

Joe Parsons

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

Joe Parsons wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:43:44 -0500, John H wrote:

In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't
totally, 100%, biased!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John, is it your belief that the story that prompted your letter to the editor
("No-Name Reporting") was a fabrication?

Or do you think there might be a possibility that many of the sources used in
Dana Priest's story spoke "not for attribution?"

It is definitely true that, journalistically speaking, being able to name every
single source is preferable--but it is not responsible journalism to refuse to
report a statement merely because someone speaks not-for-attribution.

For anyone who might be interested, the original news article ("Hussein's
Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda") is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec25.html.

Apart from those sources who spoke not-for-attribution, what do you find in the
article that was non-credible? And do you find the named sources (Michael
Pillsbury, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Rand Beers) to be credible because
they are named?

But it's always a treat to see one's name in print, isn't it!

And we knew you back when...

Joe Parsons


Herring's just looking for ways, *any* ways, to pump up his
simple-minded belief in George W. Bush. The fact that the Post ran his
little note to the editor on Saturday tells it all - Saturday's reader
letters are mostly run as an inside joke. Remember that old feature on
Johnny Carson's Tonight Show...the one where Johnny comes out in a
lumberjack's plaid jacket and makes some idiotic response to an item in
the news? That's our Johnny...Herring.

--
Email sent to is never read.

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Joe Parsons wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:43:44 -0500, John H
wrote:

In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't
totally, 100%, biased!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John, is it your belief that the story that prompted your letter to the
editor
("No-Name Reporting") was a fabrication?

Or do you think there might be a possibility that many of the sources
used in
Dana Priest's story spoke "not for attribution?"

It is definitely true that, journalistically speaking, being able to
name every
single source is preferable--but it is not responsible journalism to
refuse to
report a statement merely because someone speaks not-for-attribution.

For anyone who might be interested, the original news article
("Hussein's
Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda") is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec25.html.

Apart from those sources who spoke not-for-attribution, what do you find
in the
article that was non-credible? And do you find the named sources
(Michael
Pillsbury, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Rand Beers) to be credible
because
they are named?

But it's always a treat to see one's name in print, isn't it!

And we knew you back when...

Joe Parsons


Herring's just looking for ways, *any* ways, to pump up his
simple-minded belief in George W. Bush. The fact that the Post ran his
little note to the editor on Saturday tells it all - Saturday's reader
letters are mostly run as an inside joke.

Funny. Doug Kanter was arguing awhile back that letters written to the
newspaper actually did some good.

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Joe Parsons wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:43:44 -0500, John H
wrote:

In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't
totally, 100%, biased!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John, is it your belief that the story that prompted your letter to the
editor
("No-Name Reporting") was a fabrication?

Or do you think there might be a possibility that many of the sources
used in
Dana Priest's story spoke "not for attribution?"

It is definitely true that, journalistically speaking, being able to
name every
single source is preferable--but it is not responsible journalism to
refuse to
report a statement merely because someone speaks not-for-attribution.

For anyone who might be interested, the original news article
("Hussein's
Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda") is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec25.html.

Apart from those sources who spoke not-for-attribution, what do you find
in the
article that was non-credible? And do you find the named sources
(Michael
Pillsbury, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Rand Beers) to be credible
because
they are named?

But it's always a treat to see one's name in print, isn't it!

And we knew you back when...

Joe Parsons


Herring's just looking for ways, *any* ways, to pump up his
simple-minded belief in George W. Bush. The fact that the Post ran his
little note to the editor on Saturday tells it all - Saturday's reader
letters are mostly run as an inside joke.

Funny. Doug Kanter was arguing awhile back that letters written to the
newspaper actually did some good.




Here's another example of a rightie not really able to think: I made no
comment on the impact of letters to the editor, but, rather, on the fact
that Herring's letter ran on Saturday.



--
Email sent to is never read.

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

Herring's just looking for ways, *any* ways, to pump up his
simple-minded belief in George W. Bush. The fact that the Post ran his
little note to the editor on Saturday tells it all - Saturday's reader
letters are mostly run as an inside joke.

Funny. Doug Kanter was arguing awhile back that letters written to the
newspaper actually did some good.

Yeah, but Doug has a half a brain.
Harry is nothing but a binary thinking two bit PR man who works for a
corrupt union company run by crooks.

Did you really expect any other response from him?

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

"Joe" wrote in message
...

Herring's just looking for ways, *any* ways, to pump up his
simple-minded belief in George W. Bush. The fact that the Post ran his
little note to the editor on Saturday tells it all - Saturday's reader
letters are mostly run as an inside joke.

Funny. Doug Kanter was arguing awhile back that letters written to the
newspaper actually did some good.

Yeah, but Doug has a half a brain.
Harry is nothing but a binary thinking two bit PR man who works for a
corrupt union company run by crooks.

Did you really expect any other response from him?

Of course not. But that's the fun in playing on rec.boats. Pull the right
string, and the puppet moves just as planned.

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

NOYB wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message
...

Herring's just looking for ways, *any* ways, to pump up his
simple-minded belief in George W. Bush. The fact that the Post ran his
little note to the editor on Saturday tells it all - Saturday's reader
letters are mostly run as an inside joke.

Funny. Doug Kanter was arguing awhile back that letters written to the
newspaper actually did some good.

Yeah, but Doug has a half a brain.
Harry is nothing but a binary thinking two bit PR man who works for a
corrupt union company run by crooks.

Did you really expect any other response from him?

Of course not. But that's the fun in playing on rec.boats. Pull the right
string, and the puppet moves just as planned.




Ahh, the right-wing circle-jerkers made it through the weekend. Where's
Wally...emptying the jar?

--
Email sent to is never read.

They (Washington Post) printed it! OT
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message
...

Herring's just looking for ways, *any* ways, to pump up his
simple-minded belief in George W. Bush. The fact that the Post ran
his
little note to the editor on Saturday tells it all - Saturday's
reader
letters are mostly run as an inside joke.

Funny. Doug Kanter was arguing awhile back that letters written to
the
newspaper actually did some good.

Yeah, but Doug has a half a brain.
Harry is nothing but a binary thinking two bit PR man who works for a
corrupt union company run by crooks.

Did you really expect any other response from him?

Of course not. But that's the fun in playing on rec.boats. Pull the
right
string, and the puppet moves just as planned.




Ahh, the right-wing circle-jerkers made it through the weekend. Where's
Wally...emptying the jar?

He just dropped off that sample you requested. Hope you got it in time for
dinner.