Chuck,

I would be surprised if anyone felt hurt or damaged by my post. It was not
made mean spirited, did not attack anyone including Union Workers or anyone
who posts in rec.boats, was immediately corrected when someone took the
bait, AND it is very possible that it is true, yet you used this posts as
an opportunity to launch into a anti propaganda post directed towards
conservatives.

If you read Snoops you will see urban legends and misinformation knows no
political bounds.

If you want to read some of the most mean spirited rumor monger in
rec.boats, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who comes close you
Harry Krause.

Sorry, but I have no remorse for my little joke.


wrote in message
oups.com...

Lord Reginald Smithers wrote:
Don,

Of course you didn't. It wasn't in the article. But that does not make
it
false.

Pssss - Don I was just tweaking you and Harry since you are both pro
Union.
I have no idea if it was a union job or not.

Then you should have dropped a clue. You sucked in somebody from your
own side entirely, (as they joined in with an anti-union "tee hee").
How do your fellow conservatives like being hoodwinked by one of their
own? Deliberate misstatements like this are how rumors start. Somebody
will read what you wrote, and without following down the thread to read
your confession they will email 10 anti-union people, who email another
10 anti-union people, and pretty soon you've got it spewing forth from
the Gospel according to Limbaugh.

You could still make your point with one of my personally favorite
propaganda phrases. "Is there any truth to the rumor that......." (the
bridge was built by illegal immigrants working off the clock for
WalMart), (the bridge is actually a cleverly disguised listening device
that can monitor private conversations in households suspected of
embracing liberal politics), etc..... The phrase is a dirty trick that
probably accomplishes the same purpose, but by including a large
element of doubt in the statement it alerts the original readers or
listeners that some fact-checking would be in order.

Conservative talk show people pull the same stuff all the time. One of
them will start a show
with a comment like, "Ted Kennedy will probably {keyword} begin his day
in Washington DC by calling for the US govt. to issue white flags to
all of our troops so that they can more easily and safely surrender in
Iraq." They will then take 20 calls from people absolutley *outraged*
that Ted Kennedy, all democrats, all liberals, all gay people, any Jews
not employed by the stock exchange, all racial minorities except Condi
Rice, and nearly everybody in the press is in favor of an immediate
surrender in Iraq. By the end of the afternoon, "Ted Kennedy and all
the liberals want to surrender!" will be the buzz of most right wing
conversations. Nobody would do the basic research to discover that not
only did Ted Kennedy *not* begin his day by calling for white flags to
be issued to the troops, but that he was in a comittee meeting trying
to get funding for better armor for the HUMVEES.