|
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies, Despite Ban
As the nation headed for war last year, President Bush "clamped down" on the media, extending and expanding a controversial policy that banned reporters from photographing flag-draped caskets of soldiers killed in combat 1. The White House said the policy was enforced to "spare the feelings of military families." 2 Yet, in the very first television advertisement of his 2004 campaign, the president has blanketed the nation's airwaves with an image of "firefighters carrying a flag-draped body" from the 9/11 wreckage at Ground Zero 3. The hypocrisy of preventing Americans from receiving a "reminder of the toll of war" at the very same time the president exploits an image of a dead body for his own political gain has caused an outrage among victims' families 4. Chris Burke, whose brother Tom died in the attacks, said, "Using my dead friends and my dead brother for political expediency is dead wrong. It's wrong, it's bad taste and an insult to the 3,000 people who died on Sept. 11." 5 The president's actions have also raised new credibility questions because he previously promised not to exploit the 9/11 attacks. Speaking of 9/11 in January 2003, President Bush told the Associated Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." 6 Sources: 1. "Return of U.S. war dead kept solemn, secret", USA Today, 12/30/2003. 2. "Pentagon avoids the 'Dover test'", The News Journal, 11/26/2003. 3. "Relatives of those slain on 9-11 fault Bush ads", Star-Telegram, 03/05/2004. 4. "Return of U.S. war dead kept solemn, secret", USA Today, 12/30/2003. 5. "Ads' use of 9/11 upsets families", Miami Herald, 03/05/2004. 6. "Sept. 11 and Nov. 2", The New York Times, 03/05/2004. |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:29:43 -0500, Jim wrote:
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies, Despite Ban As the nation headed for war last year, President Bush "clamped down" on the media, extending and expanding a controversial policy that banned reporters from photographing flag-draped caskets of soldiers killed in combat 1. The White House said the policy was enforced to "spare the feelings of military families." 2 Yet, in the very first television advertisement of his 2004 campaign, the president has blanketed the nation's airwaves with an image of "firefighters carrying a flag-draped body" from the 9/11 wreckage at Ground Zero 3. The hypocrisy of preventing Americans from receiving a "reminder of the toll of war" at the very same time the president exploits an image of a dead body for his own political gain has caused an outrage among victims' families 4. Chris Burke, whose brother Tom died in the attacks, said, "Using my dead friends and my dead brother for political expediency is dead wrong. It's wrong, it's bad taste and an insult to the 3,000 people who died on Sept. 11." 5 The president's actions have also raised new credibility questions because he previously promised not to exploit the 9/11 attacks. Speaking of 9/11 in January 2003, President Bush told the Associated Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." 6 Sources: 1. "Return of U.S. war dead kept solemn, secret", USA Today, 12/30/2003. 2. "Pentagon avoids the 'Dover test'", The News Journal, 11/26/2003. 3. "Relatives of those slain on 9-11 fault Bush ads", Star-Telegram, 03/05/2004. 4. "Return of U.S. war dead kept solemn, secret", USA Today, 12/30/2003. 5. "Ads' use of 9/11 upsets families", Miami Herald, 03/05/2004. 6. "Sept. 11 and Nov. 2", The New York Times, 03/05/2004. The policy was Clinton's. Does Kerry exploit the Vietnam War? Which of the two events produced the most bodies? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
John H wrote: On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:29:43 -0500, Jim wrote: Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies, Despite Ban As the nation headed for war last year, President Bush "clamped down" on the media, extending and expanding a controversial policy that banned reporters from photographing flag-draped caskets of soldiers killed in combat 1. The White House said the policy was enforced to "spare the feelings of military families." 2 Yet, in the very first television advertisement of his 2004 campaign, the president has blanketed the nation's airwaves with an image of "firefighters carrying a flag-draped body" from the 9/11 wreckage at Ground Zero 3. The hypocrisy of preventing Americans from receiving a "reminder of the toll of war" at the very same time the president exploits an image of a dead body for his own political gain has caused an outrage among victims' families 4. Chris Burke, whose brother Tom died in the attacks, said, "Using my dead friends and my dead brother for political expediency is dead wrong. It's wrong, it's bad taste and an insult to the 3,000 people who died on Sept. 11." 5 The president's actions have also raised new credibility questions because he previously promised not to exploit the 9/11 attacks. Speaking of 9/11 in January 2003, President Bush told the Associated Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." 6 Sources: 1. "Return of U.S. war dead kept solemn, secret", USA Today, 12/30/2003. 2. "Pentagon avoids the 'Dover test'", The News Journal, 11/26/2003. 3. "Relatives of those slain on 9-11 fault Bush ads", Star-Telegram, 03/05/2004. 4. "Return of U.S. war dead kept solemn, secret", USA Today, 12/30/2003. 5. "Ads' use of 9/11 upsets families", Miami Herald, 03/05/2004. 6. "Sept. 11 and Nov. 2", The New York Times, 03/05/2004. The policy was Clinton's. Cite a reference please. And if Bush doesn't agree, why did he not change it? But apparently he DID for his political benefit Speaking of 9/11 in January 2003, President Bush told the Associated Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." Does Kerry exploit the Vietnam War? Which of the two events produced the most bodies? And how does this relate to what Bush says vs what he does? Speaking of 9/11 in January 2003, President Bush told the Associated Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
Does Kerry exploit the Vietnam War? Which of the two events produced the most bodies? John H There is a BIG difference...using pictures of yourself fighting and using pictures of an event that happened when you were supposed to be in charge of our contries security. Oh, that's right, there are NO pictures of Bush in combat...that never happened. So he's using pictures of others dying in hope of getting some sympathy for himself....pretty sad. |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 21:21:07 -0500, John H wrote:
The policy was Clinton's. More than a little disingenuous, wouldn't you say. Yes, the policy was continued under the Clinton administration, but it was instituted by Bush I, and was limited to Dover. Under the present administration, just before the Iraq War, the ban on filming caskets was extended to all bases. http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/houseofthedead/85.html |
(OT) Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies 2
President Bush told the Associated Press that
he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." John H wrote: What horse****! President Bush told the Associated Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." John H wrote: What horse****! President Bush told the Associated Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." John H wrote: What horse****! President Bush told the Associated Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." John H wrote: What horse****! For once we agree |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
"Jim" wrote in message
......policy that banned reporters from photographing flag-draped caskets of soldiers killed in combat . ..... an image of "firefighters carrying a flag-draped body" from the 9/11 wreckage at Ground Zero . A photo of an attack 2-1/2 years ago, and a photo of the coffin of a soldier killed last week are two very different things. I can see the difference, and I'm sure you can, too -- should you care to admit it. The avoidance of news images of dead US soldiers is not at all new, much as you'd love to blame it on the President. In WW-II, I believe it was some time in late 1943 before any image at all of a killed GI was shown in a US newspaper. |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
"jchaplain" wrote in message ... There is a BIG difference...using pictures of yourself fighting and using pictures of an event that happened when you were supposed to be in charge of our contries security. You can't truly be this stupid - Bush had been in office for a very short time when 9/11 happened, and nobody predicted it would happen. We (the country as a whole) should have been more proactive in preventing the spread of terrorism but we did not. Hindsight is 20/20. I know the fact that Bush cannot be blamed for not foreseeing 9/11 doesn't fit your agenda, but it's the truth. Oh, that's right, there are NO pictures of Bush in combat...that never happened. So he's using pictures of others dying in hope of getting some sympathy for himself....pretty sad. No, he's using the fact that he stepped up to fight terrorism as a pillar of his campaign. He is leading the country, making the tough decisions, I doubt your buy Gore would have been able to handle it. Can't wait till November, it's gonna be a blast! |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
"Jim" wrote in message ... John H wrote: Does Kerry exploit the Vietnam War? Which of the two events produced the most bodies? And how does this relate to what Bush says vs what he does? Blinded by stupidity. Both Bush and Kerry are using an issue where americans died to advance ascended to the presidency or remain president. However, Kerry has a leadership problem. The last time he led anyone was in Vietnam, since then he has been a consensus builder and not a leader. Bush has been a governor and the president. |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"Jim" wrote in message ......policy that banned reporters from photographing flag-draped caskets of soldiers killed in combat . ..... an image of "firefighters carrying a flag-draped body" from the 9/11 wreckage at Ground Zero . A photo of an attack 2-1/2 years ago, and a photo of the coffin of a soldier killed last week are two very different things. I can see the difference, and I'm sure you can, too -- should you care to admit it. And I can see the similarities, and I'm sure you can too, should you care to admit it. |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message ... John H wrote: Does Kerry exploit the Vietnam War? Which of the two events produced the most bodies? And how does this relate to what Bush says vs what he does? Blinded by stupidity. Both Bush and Kerry are using an issue where americans died to advance ascended to the presidency or remain president. However, Kerry has a leadership problem. The last time he led anyone was in Vietnam, since then he has been a consensus builder and not a leader. Bush has been a governor and the president. And a total failure at both, just as he has failed at everything in his adult life. |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
Bert Robbins wrote:
...Kerry has a leadership problem. The last time he led anyone was in Vietnam, since then he has been a consensus builder and not a leader. Bush has been a governor and the president. Well, golly gee, Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. The Bush/Cheney campaign promoted his record of 'building concensus' in Texas, although his actual record didn't seem to show it much. So you are saying that Bush is *not* a concensus builder, but instead tries to stamp out dissent? That sounds about right to me... but it is not IMHO a desirable characteristic in the leader of a "free" country. DSK |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:29:15 -0500, DSK wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote: ...Kerry has a leadership problem. The last time he led anyone was in Vietnam, since then he has been a consensus builder and not a leader. Bush has been a governor and the president. Well, golly gee, Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. The Bush/Cheney campaign promoted his record of 'building concensus' in Texas, although his actual record didn't seem to show it much. So you are saying that Bush is *not* a concensus builder, but instead tries to stamp out dissent? That sounds about right to me... but it is not IMHO a desirable characteristic in the leader of a "free" country. DSK Here is an example of consensus building: The Coalition Forces The world, working together, to make a difference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At this time, 35 countries, in addition to the United States, have contributed a total of approximately 22,000 troops to ongoing stability operations in Iraq. These 34 are Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 02:49:14 GMT, jchaplain wrote:
Does Kerry exploit the Vietnam War? Which of the two events produced the most bodies? John H There is a BIG difference...using pictures of yourself fighting and using pictures of an event that happened when you were supposed to be in charge of our contries security. Oh, that's right, there are NO pictures of Bush in combat...that never happened. So he's using pictures of others dying in hope of getting some sympathy for himself....pretty sad. I've seen no pictures of Kerry fighting. I've seen pictures he had taken of himself carrying an M-16. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
(OT) Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies 2
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 23:19:25 -0500, Jim wrote:
President Bush told the Associated Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." John H wrote: What horse****! President Bush told the Associated Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." John H wrote: What horse****! President Bush told the Associated Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." John H wrote: What horse****! President Bush told the Associated Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." John H wrote: What horse****! For once we agree You're getting quite creative. Cool! John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
Harry Krause wrote: And a total failure at both, just as he has failed at everything in his adult life. Bush is POTUS. You're a sad little man. According to you, Bush is a failure. What's wrong with this picture? -- Charlie |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
John H wrote:
Here is an example of consensus building: The Coalition Forces The world, working together, to make a difference ROFL Thanks John! Always start the day with a good laugh. DSK |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
John H wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:29:15 -0500, DSK wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: ...Kerry has a leadership problem. The last time he led anyone was in Vietnam, since then he has been a consensus builder and not a leader. Bush has been a governor and the president. Well, golly gee, Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. The Bush/Cheney campaign promoted his record of 'building concensus' in Texas, although his actual record didn't seem to show it much. So you are saying that Bush is *not* a concensus builder, but instead tries to stamp out dissent? That sounds about right to me... but it is not IMHO a desirable characteristic in the leader of a "free" country. DSK Here is an example of consensus building: The Coalition Forces The world, working together, to make a difference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At this time, 35 countries, in addition to the United States, have contributed a total of approximately 22,000 troops to ongoing stability operations in Iraq. These 34 are Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom John H 35 out of 90-something. That's almost a third, and most of those have only commited to humanitarian efforts. |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
Charles wrote in message ...
Harry Krause wrote: And a total failure at both, just as he has failed at everything in his adult life. Bush is POTUS. You're a sad little man. According to you, Bush is a failure. What's wrong with this picture? -- Charlie Nothing wrong with that picture. Bush IS a failure. |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:39:10 -0500, DSK wrote:
John H wrote: Here is an example of consensus building: The Coalition Forces The world, working together, to make a difference ROFL Thanks John! Always start the day with a good laugh. DSK Thought you'd like it! John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
|
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
basskisser wrote: Charles wrote in message ... Harry Krause wrote: And a total failure at both, just as he has failed at everything in his adult life. Bush is POTUS. You're a sad little man. According to you, Bush is a failure. What's wrong with this picture? -- Charlie Nothing wrong with that picture. Bush IS a failure. Not to disappoint you, but I wasn't expecting the class dunce to see anything wrong with that picture. -- Charlie |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
John H wrote:
Thought you'd like it! Actually, as for the real situation, I don't like it one bit. BushCo telling the UN to bugger off, while using UN resolutions as a reason for the war, then begging them to come back and help... aggravating the Turks (along with several other long standing & staunch allies) to play up to the Kurds, who are more complicit with Al Queda than with the US... using various foreign aid goodies to bribe a long list of countries to agree to be part of the "coalition" while turning a deaf ear to suggestions for earnest cooperation from other major powers... the list goes on. For you to say "I'm NOT a BushCo cheerleader, really I'm not!" while touting the Iraq war as an example of consensus building.... now *that* was funny... in a sick sort of way. DSK |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 16:10:53 -0500, DSK wrote:
John H wrote: Thought you'd like it! Actually, as for the real situation, I don't like it one bit. BushCo telling the UN to bugger off, while using UN resolutions as a reason for the war, then begging them to come back and help... aggravating the Turks (along with several other long standing & staunch allies) to play up to the Kurds, who are more complicit with Al Queda than with the US... using various foreign aid goodies to bribe a long list of countries to agree to be part of the "coalition" while turning a deaf ear to suggestions for earnest cooperation from other major powers... the list goes on. For you to say "I'm NOT a BushCo cheerleader, really I'm not!" while touting the Iraq war as an example of consensus building.... now *that* was funny... in a sick sort of way. DSK Once Kerry won the Democrat nomination, I became an official Bush cheerleader. Below is an example of Bush being a consensus builder. What countries must be added for you to be happy? Regardless of how much the countries contributed, they *approved* the war. Are the "major powers" to which you refer Germany, Russia, and France? Personally, I'd put Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom ahead of all of them. Here is an example of consensus building: The Coalition Forces The world, working together, to make a difference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At this time, 35 countries, in addition to the United States, have contributed a total of approximately 22,000 troops to ongoing stability operations in Iraq. These 34 are Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
"basskisser" wrote in message m... John H wrote in message . .. On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:29:15 -0500, DSK wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: ...Kerry has a leadership problem. The last time he led anyone was in Vietnam, since then he has been a consensus builder and not a leader. Bush has been a governor and the president. Well, golly gee, Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. The Bush/Cheney campaign promoted his record of 'building concensus' in Texas, although his actual record didn't seem to show it much. So you are saying that Bush is *not* a concensus builder, but instead tries to stamp out dissent? That sounds about right to me... but it is not IMHO a desirable characteristic in the leader of a "free" country. DSK Here is an example of consensus building: The Coalition Forces The world, working together, to make a difference -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ At this time, 35 countries, in addition to the United States, have contributed a total of approximately 22,000 troops to ongoing stability operations in Iraq. These 34 are Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom John H 35 out of 90-something. That's almost a third, and most of those have only commited to humanitarian efforts. 35 out of 90 is *almost* a third? LMAO!! |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
"Jim--" wrote in message news:RYCdnYXn2eAzydPdRVn-
35 out of 90-something. That's almost a third, and most of those have only commited to humanitarian efforts. 35 out of 90 is *almost* a third? LMAO!! Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow, but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed, almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms, than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation, I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark. |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
"Jim--" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message m... John H wrote in message . .. On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 11:29:15 -0500, DSK wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: ...Kerry has a leadership problem. The last time he led anyone was in Vietnam, since then he has been a consensus builder and not a leader. Bush has been a governor and the president. Well, golly gee, Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider. The Bush/Cheney campaign promoted his record of 'building concensus' in Texas, although his actual record didn't seem to show it much. So you are saying that Bush is *not* a concensus builder, but instead tries to stamp out dissent? That sounds about right to me... but it is not IMHO a desirable characteristic in the leader of a "free" country. DSK Here is an example of consensus building: The Coalition Forces The world, working together, to make a difference -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ At this time, 35 countries, in addition to the United States, have contributed a total of approximately 22,000 troops to ongoing stability operations in Iraq. These 34 are Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom John H 35 out of 90-something. That's almost a third, and most of those have only commited to humanitarian efforts. 35 out of 90 is *almost* a third? LMAO!! Oh, yeah, and another thing, the actual number of countries of the world, although slightly debatable, is 193, I was wrong. It's more like ALMOST 18% |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
"basskisser" wrote in message Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow, but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed, almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms, than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation, I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark. God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning! |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow, but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed, almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms, than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation, I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark. God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning! Old Basskisser is quite a commedian John. He is obviously not too good at math though, which should be an engineers strong point. |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:19:10 -0500, "Jim--" wrote:
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow, but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed, almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms, than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation, I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark. God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning! Old Basskisser is quite a commedian John. He is obviously not too good at math though, which should be an engineers strong point. What's worse is that b'asskisser thinks someone really cares what he thinks! John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
John H wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 13:19:10 -0500, "Jim--" wrote: "John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow, but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed, almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms, than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation, I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark. God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning! Old Basskisser is quite a commedian John. He is obviously not too good at math though, which should be an engineers strong point. What's worse is that b'asskisser thinks someone really cares what he thinks! John H Please show where the above is false. |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
"Jim--" wrote in message ...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow, but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed, almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms, than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation, I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark. God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning! Old Basskisser is quite a commedian John. He is obviously not too good at math though, which should be an engineers strong point. What math above is false, Jim--? Remember now, these are approximations, hence the ALMOST. |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow, but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed, almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms, than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation, I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark. God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning! what in the above is "tap dancing"? True statements, all. |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
"basskisser" wrote in message om... "Jim--" wrote in message ... "John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow, but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed, almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms, than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation, I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark. God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning! Old Basskisser is quite a commedian John. He is obviously not too good at math though, which should be an engineers strong point. What math above is false, Jim--? Remember now, these are approximations, hence the ALMOST. In the context of your original post you should have said "more than" a third, not "almost" a third. No big deal. Laugh it off and move on. We all make mistakes. |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
"Jim--" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message om... "Jim--" wrote in message ... "John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message Are you saying that it's NOT almost a third? The number is greater than 90, to start with. I know your comprehension is a little slow, but, that is why I said 90-something. Now, if it's 99, then the percentage would be 35.353535%. Now, I contend that that is, indeed, almost a third. It is greater than a third by 2.0202020%, making it quite close to a third, would you not agree? SO, why would someone think that a number that is a mere 2% off, would not be "almost" a third? It is closer, if we are using commonly used fractional terms, than half, or a quarter. If you were going to use an approximation, I'd say almost a third, is right on the mark. God, I love the sound of tap-dancing in the morning! Old Basskisser is quite a commedian John. He is obviously not too good at math though, which should be an engineers strong point. What math above is false, Jim--? Remember now, these are approximations, hence the ALMOST. In the context of your original post you should have said "more than" a third, not "almost" a third. No big deal. Laugh it off and move on. We all make mistakes. Please show where I made a mistake. Almost can be less than, or more than. If you don't understand that, then you shouldn't be reading and trying to undermine ANY post. |
Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com