Dan J.S. wrote:
NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why?



Certain segments of the public have no respect for people with
differing views. It's never political, it's always personal. I wonder
if some of the people in that group are cancelling subscriptions to
"punish" the Times?

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...
NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder
why?


Don't read much news, eh? Print newspapers everywhere are losing
readership for a number of reasons, none of which you're likely to be
aware of.

I use Mozilla Firefox and a plug-in called BugMeNot when "logging" into
any
of the online newspapers that require free registration.

It won't work on pay sites like the Wall Street Journal. Yet,
surprisingly,
the Journal isn't seeing the same large decrease in readership.


It is no wonder the subscriptions are plummeting when they have no
credibility........

4 corrections on the same story? LMAO.....but the brain dead liebrals will
still lap it up.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea...sp?vnu_content
_id=1001220139

On 3 Oct 2005 13:55:37 -0700, wrote:


Dan J.S. wrote:
NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why?



Certain segments of the public have no respect for people with
differing views. It's never political, it's always personal. I wonder
if some of the people in that group are cancelling subscriptions to
"punish" the Times?

Maybe they're just sick of lies and innuendoes and 'well placed sources'.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just
that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan



--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:30:32 +0000, NOYB wrote:

What is there to spin? As the article points out, it doesn't appear that
there was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
So, instead, the article goes on to *speculate* that Fitzgerald may be
considering charges of perjury or criminal conspiracy.

At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of
whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from.

I don't know if any charges will come from the Plame investigation, but I
will point out, it wasn't the Watergate burglary that brought Nixon down,
it was the cover-up.

Shoot. You could very well be talking about Able Danger now.


If anyone in the Bush administration is charged, it
will be another nail in this lame duck's coffin. Bush is already wounded,
additional bleeding will put his numbers in the Carter area. Can you say
failed Presidency?

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/...l_approval.htm

Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite record
gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major hurricane
that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels.

There's hardly a similarity to Carter or Nixon, who finished 12 approval
points, and 22 approval points, respectively, behind where Bush is right
now.

When you're fighting a war like we're fighting in Iraq, 2 1/2 years isn't
enough time to decide how things are going to turn out. Talk to me in 3
years if his numbers have dipped to below 40% by then. I'd bet not.


Let's see...
Almost 2 1/2 years after the US entered WWII, our forces got obliterated by
Rommel at Kasserine Pass. What do you suppose FDR's approval rating would
have been if CNN/Gallup was around back then taking weekly approval ratings?

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:54:07 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:23:56 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:30:32 +0000, NOYB wrote:

What is there to spin? As the article points out, it doesn't appear
that there was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection
Act. So, instead, the article goes on to *speculate* that Fitzgerald
may be considering charges of perjury or criminal conspiracy.

At this point, it's nothing more speculation and wishing on the part of
whichever left-wing conspiracy site you lifted this from.

I don't know if any charges will come from the Plame investigation, but I
will point out, it wasn't the Watergate burglary that brought Nixon down,
it was the cover-up. If anyone in the Bush administration is charged, it
will be another nail in this lame duck's coffin. Bush is already
wounded, additional bleeding will put his numbers in the Carter area.
Can you say failed Presidency?

http://uspolitics.about.com/library/...l_approval.htm

What was there to cover up? According to what I've read, everybody in the
known universe knew that Valerie Palme was Wilson's wife and she worked at
the CIA.

Everyone seems to be concentrating on the IIPA. There are quite a few
more laws that could apply and may have been broken. Try the Espionage
Act, perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy, all could apply.

I would also point out, that the IIPA may indeed apply. The CIA initially
filed the complaint, with the Justice Dept., that started this
investigation. I'm just guessing here, because we know how frivolous the
CIA can be, but perhaps, their lawyers felt a law may have been broken.


Jesus - doesn't take a freakin' intelligence genius to put two and two
together and come up with four.

That's truly fortunate, because we are not talking intelligence geniuses,
we are talking the Bush administration.

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...
NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder
why?


Don't read much news, eh? Print newspapers everywhere are losing
readership for a number of reasons, none of which you're likely to be
aware of.

I use Mozilla Firefox and a plug-in called BugMeNot when "logging" into
any of the online newspapers that require free registration.

It won't work on pay sites like the Wall Street Journal. Yet,
surprisingly, the Journal isn't seeing the same large decrease in
readership.


I suspect it's because WSJ has something that's not so easy to find in a
print newspaper: More complete financial data. I don't mean articles - I'm
talking about the charts. Without that, it would be just another newspaper.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan J.S. wrote:
NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder
why?



Certain segments of the public have no respect for people with
differing views. It's never political, it's always personal. I wonder
if some of the people in that group are cancelling subscriptions to
"punish" the Times?


You're a journalist, Chuck. You know what grade level the Times is aimed at
(8th, IIRC). Others like the Gannett rags shoot for 6th. The articles
sometimes read like Hardy Boy novels.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:53:42 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


The point is that her given name, her married name, her CV and employment
situation were all available through public sources.

Do you have a cite for this? Has the CIA gone so far downhill that NOC
agents' identities are available through public sources?

There is no "crime". It's a joke to spend another 20 bizillion dollars on
a false "crime" and "investigation".

I don't know a crime has been committed, but I'm willing to wait and see.
How can you be so sure no crime has been committed?

Bull**** is bull**** and this smells like bull****.

No, you know what is bull****, the catty way this administration attempts
to ruin careers of anyone that remotely doesn't tow their line.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper 40's...despite
record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a major
hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all levels.

Damn, NOYB, a realistic assessment. That doesn't sound like the Bush
cheerleader we all know. ;-)

There's hardly a similarity to Carter or Nixon, who finished 12 approval
points, and 22 approval points, respectively, behind where Bush is right
now.

The blood bleeds slowly, NOYB. Remember, Nixon actually did win
reelection by a landslide, over 60% of the vote and all but one state. I
doubt that Bush will reach Nixon's lows, without Bush himself being
indicted (I don't expect that he will be). His core support is larger
than that, but Carter? He could easily reach Carter's lows.


When you're fighting a war like we're fighting in Iraq, 2 1/2 years isn't
enough time to decide how things are going to turn out. Talk to me in 3
years if his numbers have dipped to below 40% by then. I'd bet not.


Let's see...
Almost 2 1/2 years after the US entered WWII, our forces got obliterated
by Rommel at Kasserine Pass. What do you suppose FDR's approval rating
would have been if CNN/Gallup was around back then taking weekly approval
ratings?

Probably quite high. The country was overwhelmingly in support of that
war. Remember, there were very, very, few protesting our invasion of
Afghanistan. Our country was fully in support Bush going after bin Laden.
Iraq is Bush's downfall and the news from there, isn't looking like it
will improve. To me, it's looking like a Civil War is a very real
possibility.

The Sunnis have always been problematic, but now the Kurds are also
unhappy with the Shias. Jaafari in all probability is an Iranian agent.
Between Chalabi and Jaafari it's looking like the Iranians have played
Bush for a chump, and we are holding the dirty end of the stick. It's a
real mess.

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...
NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder why?


They are blind to its cause!