I apologize for the cut and past. It's late and I'm tired. I should
never have resorted to such a Republican tactic.

"Jim" wrote in message

I apologize for the cut and past. It's late and I'm tired. I should
never have resorted to such a Republican tactic.

I saw no typical Republican tactic in use, just normal Democrat policy and
procedure.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"Jim" wrote in message

I apologize for the cut and past. It's late and I'm tired. I should
never have resorted to such a Republican tactic.

I saw no typical Republican tactic in use, just normal Democrat policy and
procedure.

Okay, John H.

I killed the post about 5 minutes after posting. The apology was just
in case it remained on any server, or anyone had picked it up in the interim

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

"Jim" wrote in message


I apologize for the cut and past. It's late and I'm tired. I should
never have resorted to such a Republican tactic.

I saw no typical Republican tactic in use, just normal Democrat policy and
procedure.


Okay, John H.

Jim....
Separate and apart from the fact that the cut & paste was completely out of
context, there's something else going on I can't quite follow.

By the times shown on my machine, your original cut/paste showed up at
11:19. You shortly thereafter killed the post and apologized at 11:26.
Then, under a separate post, your cut & paste was posted again at 11:45.
How does this happen?





"Jim" wrote in message
...
I killed the post about 5 minutes after posting. The apology was just
in case it remained on any server, or anyone had picked it up in the
interim

I have no idea -- I reposted aftr removing John H's name, but that's it.

John Gaquin wrote:
Jim....
Separate and apart from the fact that the cut & paste was completely out of
context, there's something else going on I can't quite follow.

By the times shown on my machine, your original cut/paste showed up at
11:19. You shortly thereafter killed the post and apologized at 11:26.
Then, under a separate post, your cut & paste was posted again at 11:45.
How does this happen?





"Jim" wrote in message
...

I killed the post about 5 minutes after posting. The apology was just
in case it remained on any server, or anyone had picked it up in the

interim

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 23:26:24 -0500, Jim wrote:

I apologize for the cut and past. It's late and I'm tired. I should
never have resorted to such a Republican tactic.

No sweat. I've not seen that before, but the technique has probably
been used by a Republican in the past. I take no offense, and didn't
have a mouthful of anything which would ruin my keyboard.

John H

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

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:50:21 -0500, Jim wrote:

I have no idea -- I reposted aftr removing John H's name, but that's it.

John Gaquin wrote:
Jim....
Separate and apart from the fact that the cut & paste was completely out of
context, there's something else going on I can't quite follow.

By the times shown on my machine, your original cut/paste showed up at
11:19. You shortly thereafter killed the post and apologized at 11:26.
Then, under a separate post, your cut & paste was posted again at 11:45.
How does this happen?





"Jim" wrote in message
...

I killed the post about 5 minutes after posting. The apology was just
in case it remained on any server, or anyone had picked it up in the

interim




Yup, it's on my machine twice, also. So,

No sweat.

No sweat.

John H

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

John Gaquin wrote:
I saw no typical Republican tactic in use, just normal Democrat policy and
procedure.

I suggest you go down the list and count the number of insults coming
from each side.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message news:uVi3c.32752

John Gaquin wrote:
I saw no typical Republican tactic in use, just normal Democrat policy
and
procedure.

I suggest you go down the list and count the number of insults coming
from each side.

Nothing to do with presence or absence of insults. I was referring to the
practice of cutting and pasting the context -- attaching response B to
statement A to make the speaker appear to have said something entirely
different from what was actually said.