Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

The ultimate proof that scumbags doctored Kerry's photo:

The photographer who snapped John Kerry attending a 1971 anti-war
rally says he and his photo agency intend to track down -- and
possibly sue -- whoever doctored and circulated a photo that made it
appear that the then 27-year-old Vietnam veteran was appearing
alongside actress Jane Fonda.

Ken Light, now a UC Berkeley professor of journalism ethics, says he
photographed Kerry at an anti-war rally in Mineola, N.Y., on June 13,
1971. The decorated Vietnam veteran was preparing to give a speech at
the rally -- but Fonda was never at the event.

Light's photo gained prominence when someone took it and merged the
shot of the now Democratic presidential front-runner with another
separate photo of Fonda -- one taken by photographer Owen Franken as
the actress spoke to a 1972 rally in Miami Beach, Fla.

The fabricated Kerry-Fonda photo was circulated with an identifying
logo of the Associated Press and became the subject of talk show
fodder after it was placed on many Web sites as evidence of Kerry's
"anti-American" activities after his war service.

Light said this week that the use -- and misuse -- of his copyrighted
photo might result in legal action.

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

evidence of Kerry's
"anti-American" activities after his war service.

Analogy: If you disagree with your wife about where to hang a picture,
you're thinking about murdering her or divorcing her. :-)

Anti-American my ass.....I protested that war, too.

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

That photo, and the subsequent debunking, circulated the web 3 weeks ago.
Try to keep up.

-W

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
The ultimate proof that scumbags doctored Kerry's photo:

The photographer who snapped John Kerry attending a 1971 anti-war
rally says he and his photo agency intend to track down -- and
possibly sue -- whoever doctored and circulated a photo that made it
appear that the then 27-year-old Vietnam veteran was appearing
alongside actress Jane Fonda.

Ken Light, now a UC Berkeley professor of journalism ethics, says he
photographed Kerry at an anti-war rally in Mineola, N.Y., on June 13,
1971. The decorated Vietnam veteran was preparing to give a speech at
the rally -- but Fonda was never at the event.

Light's photo gained prominence when someone took it and merged the
shot of the now Democratic presidential front-runner with another
separate photo of Fonda -- one taken by photographer Owen Franken as
the actress spoke to a 1972 rally in Miami Beach, Fla.

The fabricated Kerry-Fonda photo was circulated with an identifying
logo of the Associated Press and became the subject of talk show
fodder after it was placed on many Web sites as evidence of Kerry's
"anti-American" activities after his war service.

Light said this week that the use -- and misuse -- of his copyrighted
photo might result in legal action.

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

"basskisser" wrote in message

The ultimate proof that scumbags doctored Kerry's photo:

The photographer who snapped John Kerry attending a 1971 anti-war


Please try to keep up. That photo was rejected as false by thinking persons
on both sides almost immediately after display.

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

The ultimate proof that scumbags doctored Kerry's photo:

The photographer who snapped John Kerry attending a 1971 anti-war


Please try to keep up. That photo was rejected as false by thinking persons
on both sides almost immediately after display.


Please try to use your brain.
Uh, hate to disappoint you, but your fellow republicans are STILL
trying to make the connection between Kerry, and Fonda. Also, there is
more substance to the story, than just the picture.

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

"basskisser" wrote in message

......republicans are STILL
trying to make the connection between Kerry, and Fonda.

people may be trying to establish a connection, but the subject of your post
was the legitimacy of that particular picture.

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

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?

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message news:yZWdnYxtld8c-
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.

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

"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.

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

"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?

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

"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.

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

"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."

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

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!

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

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."

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

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.?

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

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

Yet ANOTHER Republican Lie
 

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.