|
wrote in message oups.com... Don White wrote: This is rich! You have the gall to call another poster on the carpet for breaking an agreement. I can't decide if you are suffering some kind of dementia,,or are a natural born liar. *********** Consider the second possibility. If you check the archives, you'll discover that I *never* posted this group of f'd up "rules" that JimH keeps attributing to me. Sure you did. They may not have been specifically listed as rule #1, #2, etc. but you listed them to me when posting about things you don't like that I (and others) do here from time to time. All I did was number them. Here they are again Chuck. You may want to study and abide by them....they are, after all, *your* rules. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chuck's rule #1. No name calling. (Chuck, you can start by dropping the childish change of my last name.) Chuck's rule #2. No discussions about people No politics. No religion. No union talk. No talk about war. Boat talk only. Chuck's rule #3. Serious boating discussion only. No joking around about anything related to boats or anything else. One must remain focused and serious when discussing boating. Chuck's rule #4. No personal attacks. (I don't want to hear "but Mom, he started it".) Chuck's rule #5. A contributor to rec.boats is rated only on the percentage of boating related topics he/she contributes to the NG. In order to be considered a contributor one must be 100% on topic with no side bars on non related items. See rule #3. Chuck Gould will be the ultimate judge as to ones rating. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
How was the picture any different than you calling others "grammar school
pig-pillers? wrote in message oups.com... Why stir thing up? Oh well. At least a cut n' paste is on a more adult level than a picture of a couple of hillbillies standing outside a single wide, some childish assertion that it represents another poster's wedding picture, and four grammar school pig-pilers chiming in on a gang-bang attack post. Bad as this is, that was the low point of the week so far. |
Do as Chucky says.....not as he does. ;-)
"Dr. Jonathan Smithers, MD Phd." wrote in message ... How was the picture any different than you calling others "grammar school pig-pillers? wrote in message oups.com... Why stir thing up? Oh well. At least a cut n' paste is on a more adult level than a picture of a couple of hillbillies standing outside a single wide, some childish assertion that it represents another poster's wedding picture, and four grammar school pig-pilers chiming in on a gang-bang attack post. Bad as this is, that was the low point of the week so far. |
|
|
|
jps wrote:
In article , says... Damn, Jimcomma, where did you find an honest article? More proof that you're a complete ****in' idiot. She's makin' money off your stupidity as are 1% of the population. jps By now, almost everyone's heard of Jeff Gannon/James Guckert. He's the fake reporter with a false name given all-too-real press credentials by the White House. He's known for asking biased, leading questions during press briefings before finally being exposed a month ago as a right-wing operative with no journalism experience, a fake name, and a shady past. There are some serious ethical, professional and national security issues at stake. Now, "Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) is circulating a letter among his colleagues that asks President Bush to launch an investigation (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1000816326) " into how Gannon gained access to White House press briefings without any journalistic qualifications. Durbin and other concerned lawmakers are adding their voices to a previous investigation request by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), as well as a subpoena request by two leaders of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY), who want federal prosecutors to gain access to a record Gannon kept of his time over the past two years. Here are some basic questions that must be answered by the White House: HOW LONG CAN JOURNALISTS GAIN ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE WITHOUT AN FBI BACKGROUND CHECK? Most White House journalists have what is called a "hard pass," a permanent pass obtained after undergoing a rigorous FBI background check (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ert/print.html) . Gannon skipped over that step. Instead, as Salon's Eric Boehlert explains, "the White House waved him into press briefings for nearly two years using what's called a day pass." Now, day passes are special exceptions that are "designed for temporary use by out-of-town reporters who need access to the White House, not for indefinite use (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...non/print.html) by reporters." If the background check is necessary for reporters with extended access to the White House, why were the rules circumvented for Gannon? Is there a limit to how long a reporter can slide on "day" passes, as Gannon did for years? HOW DID GANNON GET A WHITE HOUSE PRESS PASS TWO MONTHS BEFORE HIS SUPPOSED PUBLICATION EVEN EXISTED? Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan admitted the White House gave Gannon his first day press pass in February 2003 (http://199.249.170.220/eandp/news/ar..._id=1000808705) .. The problem: His "publication," Talon News, didn't exist until April 2003. BY WHAT CRITERIA DID THE WHITE HOUSE EVALUATE TALON NEWS? Talon News is the brainchild (http://mediamatters.org/items/200501280006) of a Republican activist from Texas, Bobby Eberle. Eberle, who runs the aptly named "GOPUSA," told the New York Times he created Talon News because he wanted to quietly construct a news service with a conservative slant: "if someone were to see 'GOPUSA,' there's an instant built-in bias (http://199.249.170.220/eandp/news/ar..._id=1000808705) there." In denying Gannon a pass, the congressional press office pointed out Gannon was unable to show that "Talon News has any paid subscribers (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...non/print.html) ." They also found that while actual working reporters can show their principal income comes from reporting stories for publication in actual news services, Talon's "paying a single reporter a 'stipend' does not meet the intent of the rule." As the Washington Post's Dana Milbank put it, Gannon was "representing a phony media company (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/arts/20rich.html) that doesn't really have any such thing as circulation or readership." HOW DID GANNON GET A WHITE HOUSE PRESS PASS UNDER A FAKE NAME? Jeff Gannon's real name is James Guckert. (He told Wolf Blitzer that he changed his name because "Jeff Gannon" was easier to pronounce.) Although all applications for White House press passes are supposed to be thoroughly vetted, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said he was unaware (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/arts/20rich.html) that Gannon was using an alias. His predecessor, Ari Fleischer, also pleads ignorance (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000807754) .. Gannon signed in to the White House each day as "Jeff Guckert," (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...10/wbr.01.html) a name which did not match his pass -- yet no one seemed to thing that was strange. In fact, no one at the White House seems overly concerned with what amounts to a stunning national security breach. WHAT IS GANNON'S CONNECTION TO THE VALERIE PLAME CASE? Jeff Gannon has been interviewed by FBI agents who are investigating another security breach in the White House, namely, the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the press. So far, Gannon has been coy, giving " conflicting signals (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1000816326) , over many months, concerning whether he saw a secret document or merely knew about it from other sources." Today he says he never really saw the memo, he'd only read about it in the Wall Street Journal. Reps. Conyers and Slaughter are asking Patrick Fitzgerald, the lead prosecutor in the Plame investigation, to subpoena the journal Gannon kept over the past two years to find out what Gannon actually knew, and when. |
Dr. Jonathan Shmithers asked:
How was the picture any different than you calling others "grammar school pig-pillers? ********************* How can you be so obtuse? The comment about grammar school pig-pilers was an opinion expressed about a deliberate behavior exhibited in this forum. To gratify a sick, twisted, predatory sense of "humor", one of your crew posted a photo (so full of stereoypes it almost had to be staged) and claimed "This is the recent wedding photo for so and so." In fact, the predatory personality felt the idea was so inspired it deserved an entire thread of its own. An easily predicted group of folks jumped on the sick, twisted, predatory bandwagon with celebratory high fives and gratuitous reach arounds. What portion of the previous two paragraphs would you care to factually refute? Now let's address the photo, as you're asking how posting the photo compares to expressing an opinion that doing so was juvenile. Unlike the activites upon which I based my opinion, all of which were easily observable in the NG, the photo was not based in fact or reality. It was, as I have said, the internet equivalent of a grade school drawing with distorted features and some poor *******'s name penciled in below. The hillbillie picture thread didn't say a thing about the guy it was purported to represent, but it spoke volumes about the guy who launched the thread and the easily led group of hypocritical psychophant pile-ons unable to distinguish between adult or juvenile behaviors. |
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:25:28 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
jps wrote: In article , says... Damn, Jimcomma, where did you find an honest article? More proof that you're a complete ****in' idiot. She's makin' money off your stupidity as are 1% of the population. jps By now, almost everyone's heard of Jeff Gannon/James Guckert. He's the fake reporter with a false name given all-too-real press credentials by the White House. He's the one who asked the only literate question at the press briefing, to wit: "Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?" You gotta love it! John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
wrote in message oups.com... Dr. Jonathan Shmithers asked: How was the picture any different than you calling others "grammar school pig-pillers? ********************* How can you be so obtuse? The comment about grammar school pig-pilers was an opinion expressed about a deliberate behavior exhibited in this forum. To gratify a sick, twisted, predatory sense of "humor", one of your crew posted a photo (so full of stereoypes it almost had to be staged) and claimed "This is the recent wedding photo for so and so." In fact, the predatory personality felt the idea was so inspired it deserved an entire thread of its own. An easily predicted group of folks jumped on the sick, twisted, predatory bandwagon with celebratory high fives and gratuitous reach arounds. What portion of the previous two paragraphs would you care to factually refute? Now let's address the photo, as you're asking how posting the photo compares to expressing an opinion that doing so was juvenile. Unlike the activites upon which I based my opinion, all of which were easily observable in the NG, the photo was not based in fact or reality. It was, as I have said, the internet equivalent of a grade school drawing with distorted features and some poor *******'s name penciled in below. The hillbillie picture thread didn't say a thing about the guy it was purported to represent, but it spoke volumes about the guy who launched the thread and the easily led group of hypocritical psychophant pile-ons unable to distinguish between adult or juvenile behaviors. A five minute google search turned up these Chucky classics: ============================================= Will I continue to respond to childish name calling and personal insult? Not for long. Name calling and personal attack? Desperate, fearful acts that betray a weak personality. As you're not an extreme idiot, I'm genuinely surprised you would lump *all* of any group into a single category. Are you as much an idiot as a wise ass, xxxxx? Ah, whatsa matter xxxxxx? The big bad discussion get so cereberal for ya that you're left with no recourse except launching unprovoked personal attacks? What a lightweight. xxxxx is an incompetant and blithering idiot Probably a good thing there's no truth to the rumor that your ass is where your brains are, you'd be a stupid frickin' Jose by now. Or is enough to imply that people who have not been impressed with some aspects of his intellectual profile are just too stupid to appreciate the man's obvious brilliance? I've been taking lessons from an asshole in Ohio. The half-witted SOB never posts a line without attacking somebody, and then runs crying about his hurt feelings whenever anybody says "boo" back at him. My little sister used to act the same way, before she grew out of it. Come to think of it, Jim, you live in Ohio too! On the off chance that you run into the asshole I'm referring to, give him my regards, OK? ================================================== ============= I pasted only a fraction of what I found, and this was with a search of only 3 foul words. A 5 minute search. Do as I say, not as I do.....eh Chuck? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com