NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.


Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.

And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:

"...Berger inadvertently removed..."

Inadvertently? According to whom? Berger? Eyewitnesses say that he
"inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.




This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.

The guy admitted to removing documents. That's illegal. If it was
inadvertent, then it's not quite as egregious an infraction as intentionally
removing them...but it's illegal nonetheless.

I suspect it was intentional. The NY Times suspects it was "inadvertent".
However, as an unbiased news outlet, the NY Times should not say
unequivocally that it was inadvertent.



You suspect? Is that from your perspective as a 32-year-old dentist
inexperienced in the world, living in a backwater part of the country,
who gets his news from CBN?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.


Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.

And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:

"...Berger inadvertently removed..."

Inadvertently? According to whom? Berger? Eyewitnesses say that he
"inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.




This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.

The guy admitted to removing documents. That's illegal. If it was
inadvertent, then it's not quite as egregious an infraction as
intentionally
removing them...but it's illegal nonetheless.

I suspect it was intentional. The NY Times suspects it was
"inadvertent".
However, as an unbiased news outlet, the NY Times should not say
unequivocally that it was inadvertent.



You suspect? Is that from your perspective as a 32-year-old dentist
inexperienced in the world, living in a backwater part of the country,
who gets his news from CBN?

Yeah. That's my perspective. And I'm 33, not 32 you dimwit. Interestingly,
when I first came on rec.boats and starting slapping you around, I was not
even 30. That's pretty sad for you.

The CBN news link was from a Yahoo news search. The same story was
confirmed in the Reuters link that I provided.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.


Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.

And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:

"...Berger inadvertently removed..."

Inadvertently? According to whom? Berger? Eyewitnesses say that
he
"inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.




This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.

The guy admitted to removing documents. That's illegal. If it was
inadvertent, then it's not quite as egregious an infraction as
intentionally
removing them...but it's illegal nonetheless.

I suspect it was intentional. The NY Times suspects it was
"inadvertent".
However, as an unbiased news outlet, the NY Times should not say
unequivocally that it was inadvertent.



You suspect? Is that from your perspective as a 32-year-old dentist
inexperienced in the world, living in a backwater part of the country,
who gets his news from CBN?

Yeah. That's my perspective. And I'm 33, not 32 you dimwit.
Interestingly,
when I first came on rec.boats and starting slapping you around, I was not
even 30. That's pretty sad for you.

The CBN news link was from a Yahoo news search. The same story was
confirmed in the Reuters link that I provided.



Krause cannot attack the message, only the messenger...his typical MO.

"jim--" wrote in message news:4Zqdna0T-
Krause cannot attack the message, only the messenger...his typical MO.

That is why Krause ignore posts where he does not know something personal
about the person.

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.


Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.

And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:

"...Berger inadvertently removed..."

Inadvertently? According to whom? Berger? Eyewitnesses say that he
"inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.




This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.

The guy admitted to removing documents. That's illegal. If it was
inadvertent, then it's not quite as egregious an infraction as
intentionally
removing them...but it's illegal nonetheless.

I suspect it was intentional. The NY Times suspects it was
"inadvertent".
However, as an unbiased news outlet, the NY Times should not say
unequivocally that it was inadvertent.



You suspect? Is that from your perspective as a 32-year-old dentist
inexperienced in the world, living in a backwater part of the country,
who gets his news from CBN?

Yeah. That's my perspective. And I'm 33, not 32 you dimwit. Interestingly,
when I first came on rec.boats and starting slapping you around, I was not
even 30. That's pretty sad for you.

If I thought you or your remarks had any significance in the real world,
I'd remember your age, and I'd refer to you by name. But as you are an
anonymous twit, why should I attribute any real meaning to anything you
post?