"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.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
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.

Are you acting dumb to gain some laughs, or are you really that stupid?

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"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.



John, trying to hold a discussion with Basskisser is like talking to a brick
wall, realizing though that the wall is smarter than him.

"Jim--" wrote in message


John, trying to hold a discussion with Basskisser is like talking to a
brick
wall, realizing though that the wall is smarter than him.

Thanks, I know. As of about 5PM yesterday, I'm "bk-free."

John,
He is one of the funniest guys on here, you are missing out on a lot of
laughs.


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Jim--" wrote in message


John, trying to hold a discussion with Basskisser is like talking to a
brick
wall, realizing though that the wall is smarter than him.

Thanks, I know. As of about 5PM yesterday, I'm "bk-free."

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:01:07 -0500, "Jim--" wrote:


"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"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.



John, trying to hold a discussion with Basskisser is like talking to a brick
wall, realizing though that the wall is smarter than him.

Yup.

John H

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

John H wrote in message
John, trying to hold a discussion with Basskisser is like talking to a brick
wall, realizing though that the wall is smarter than him.

Yup.

John H


Speaking of holding a discussion, what was the name of that person you
spoke to at Yamaha, U.S.A.?

basskisser wrote:


Speaking of holding a discussion, what was the name of that person you
spoke to at Yamaha, U.S.A.?

b'asskisser's idea of a conversation is to keep asking the same question
over and over and over and over and over and over and...........

Makes one wonder if he is a child.

-- Charlie

Charles wrote in message ...
basskisser wrote:


Speaking of holding a discussion, what was the name of that person you
spoke to at Yamaha, U.S.A.?

b'asskisser's idea of a conversation is to keep asking the same question
over and over and over and over and over and over and...........

Makes one wonder if he is a child.

And your lack of understanding makes me wonder if you have any sense.