Dick Cheney shoots buddy - for real.
 

This is getting more publicity than Teddy got after murdering his mistress
MaryJoe and leaving her.

Dick Cheney shoots buddy - for real.
 

JimH wrote:
This is getting more publicity than Teddy got after murdering his mistress
MaryJoe and leaving her.

Jim, this isn't the place for political posts.

Dick Cheney shoots buddy - for real.
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
This is getting more publicity than Teddy got after murdering his
mistress
MaryJoe and leaving her.

Jim, this isn't the place for political posts.

It's merely an observation. And a correct one at that.

Dick Cheney shoots buddy - for real.
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:55:59 GMT, NOYB penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


wrote in message
groups.com...

JimH wrote:
This is getting more publicity than Teddy got after murdering his
mistress
MaryJoe and leaving her.

Jim, this isn't the place for political posts.

It's merely an observation. And a correct one at that.

Given your current age, how would you know?

Because there wasn't an internet, and there were far fewer late nite TV
hosts like Letterman and Leno.

Dick Cheney shoots buddy - for real.
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:14:33 GMT, NOYB penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:55:59 GMT, NOYB penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


wrote in message
legroups.com...

JimH wrote:
This is getting more publicity than Teddy got after murdering his
mistress
MaryJoe and leaving her.

Jim, this isn't the place for political posts.

It's merely an observation. And a correct one at that.

Given your current age, how would you know?

Because there wasn't an internet, and there were far fewer late nite TV
hosts like Letterman and Leno.

I thought that would be your highly erroneous take on that.

Back in 1969 nobody needed the Internet, nor did they need late night
TV personalities.

Before the dumbing down of America, people read books, newspapers,
magazines, watched TV news after dinner, and listened to the radio all
day long. They got the news.... and MUCH less spin.

At that time, and for months if not a year or two thereafter... you
could not turn on a TV, listen to the radio, pick up a magazine, or
read a newspaper without seeing or hearing the words Kennedy,
Chappaquiddick, or Kopechne. There have been enough books on the
subject to fill a small library. I think the National Enquirer kept
the story alive into the 1980's..

I don't think anybody in their right mind believes over about 5% of
what Kennedy said about that night (perhaps, since). It is clear to
most that he did not report the incident until the next day because he
wanted to do so when he had sobered up.

Personally, I see the same cowardice and lack of personal
responsibility in this matter with Cheney. I strongly suspect that he
hid behind the skirts of the Secret Service because he needed a pot of
strong coffee before he was presentable. If this was a simple accident
and nothing was amiss, I see NO reason that he should have prevented
the local police from interviewing him in a timely fashion (it took
him 14 hours to show up, Kennedy screwed up the minimum courage in 9);

Cheney at least reported the incident to the local sheriff less than an hour
after it happened. Hell, he had his personal ambulance on site...and
delivered Mr. Whittington to the hospital with in minutes.

It took Kennedy 9 hours to even inform authorities...or get rescue workers
to the scene. There's simply no comparison between the two events.

Dick Cheney shoots buddy - for real.
 

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

Cheney at least reported the incident to the local sheriff less than an
hour after it happened. Hell, he had his personal ambulance on
site...and delivered Mr. Whittington to the hospital with in minutes.

It took Kennedy 9 hours to even inform authorities...or get rescue
workers to the scene. There's simply no comparison between the two
events.


A D+ try, at best.


And contrary to Gene Kearn's assumptions, the police report indicated no
alcohol was involved.

RCE

Dick Cheney shoots buddy - for real.
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

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

Cheney at least reported the incident to the local sheriff less than an
hour after it happened. Hell, he had his personal ambulance on
site...and delivered Mr. Whittington to the hospital with in minutes.

It took Kennedy 9 hours to even inform authorities...or get rescue
workers to the scene. There's simply no comparison between the two
events.


A D+ try, at best.


And contrary to Gene Kearn's assumptions, the police report indicated no
alcohol was involved.

RCE


If you were one of the cops on the scene, and I specifically mean YOU, would
you "forget" what you smelled on his breath?

Dick Cheney shoots buddy - for real.
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

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

Cheney at least reported the incident to the local sheriff less than an
hour after it happened. Hell, he had his personal ambulance on
site...and delivered Mr. Whittington to the hospital with in minutes.

It took Kennedy 9 hours to even inform authorities...or get rescue
workers to the scene. There's simply no comparison between the two
events.


A D+ try, at best.


And contrary to Gene Kearn's assumptions, the police report indicated no
alcohol was involved.

RCE


If you were one of the cops on the scene, and I specifically mean YOU,
would you "forget" what you smelled on his breath?


No.

Give me a break. I am citing the official report. You and others are
considering conjecture, like a bunch of women at a hen party. He's
certainly to blame in a very unfortunate accident, but that's about as far
as it goes in my mind. It's amazing how this stuff gets spun out of
control.

RCE

Dick Cheney shoots buddy - for real.
 

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:49:24 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

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

Cheney at least reported the incident to the local sheriff less than an
hour after it happened. Hell, he had his personal ambulance on
site...and delivered Mr. Whittington to the hospital with in minutes.

It took Kennedy 9 hours to even inform authorities...or get rescue
workers to the scene. There's simply no comparison between the two
events.


A D+ try, at best.


And contrary to Gene Kearn's assumptions, the police report indicated no
alcohol was involved.

RCE


If you were one of the cops on the scene, and I specifically mean YOU,
would you "forget" what you smelled on his breath?


No.

Give me a break. I am citing the official report. You and others are
considering conjecture, like a bunch of women at a hen party. He's
certainly to blame in a very unfortunate accident, but that's about as far
as it goes in my mind. It's amazing how this stuff gets spun out of
control.

RCE


So, since no one is watching...did you buy that camera?

Sssshhh.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

OT: Camera ... was .. Dick Cheney shoots buddy - for real.
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:49:24 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


So, since no one is watching...did you buy that camera?

Sssshhh.
--
'Til next time,

John H

I tried three local places, two camera shops and Best Buy. None had the
D200. The girl at Ritz Camera suggested I buy direct from Nikon on the
'net. I'd rather buy from a camera shop in case I have questions or
issues. All told me it would be 2 weeks to a month to get it.

Meanwhile, I've also been looking at - ready for this? - the DX2. I need
to investigate this a bit more, but if I am going to make a significant
investment in a camera, I might as well consider it.

So, unlike me, I resisted the impulsive temptation to buy on-line or order
yet from the camera shop. I need to read and learn more first. It will
definitely be the D200 or the DX2.

RCE

OT: Camera ... was .. Dick Cheney shoots buddy - for real.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
RCE wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:49:24 -0500, "RCE" wrote:
So, since no one is watching...did you buy that camera?

Sssshhh.
--
'Til next time,

John H

I tried three local places, two camera shops and Best Buy. None had the
D200. The girl at Ritz Camera suggested I buy direct from Nikon on the
'net. I'd rather buy from a camera shop in case I have questions or
issues. All told me it would be 2 weeks to a month to get it.

Meanwhile, I've also been looking at - ready for this? - the DX2. I
need to investigate this a bit more, but if I am going to make a
significant investment in a camera, I might as well consider it.

So, unlike me, I resisted the impulsive temptation to buy on-line or
order yet from the camera shop. I need to read and learn more first. It
will definitely be the D200 or the DX2.

RCE




Naw. Get the D200 or the D70s. Or the Canon 5D.

I ruled the DX2 out. I was under the wrong impression that it was not that
much more than a D200, dollar wise. WoW! Was I wrong.

The camera shop did have the D70s in stock. I might go back for another
look. From what I understand, the D70s does not have some of the features
of the D200, but I haven't a clue what they are, except that the former does
not have the wireless transmission capability to the computer. What about
optics?

RCE

OT: Camera ... was .. Dick Cheney shoots buddy - for real.
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:57:05 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

So, unlike me, I resisted the impulsive temptation to buy on-line or
order
yet from the camera shop. I need to read and learn more first. It will
definitely be the D200 or the DX2.

It's your money, but the DX2 is a lot of camera - it is so versatile
that unless you are a professional, you'd never in a hundred years use
all the features and capabilities.

Take a close look at the D200 or the Canon 5D. I'd say the Olympus
E-500, but that's for odd balls like me who have stuck with Olympus
from the old film days.

You also have to remember that a good 50% of digital work is done on a
computer after the image is off loaded, so really good processing
software will be part of the investment. Paint Shop Pro X is a choice
for guys like me who have been the program from the JASC days and
really know how to work with it. It's a bit quirky. For other folks,
Adobe's Photoshop is an excellant choice - I still think CS2 is a bit
of overkill (I have it, but prefer PSPX), but it's very intutive and
has a bunch of artistic capacity.


As I mentioned to Harry, I ruled out the DX2. Too much money for a total
amateur like me. I am going to go back and look again at the D70s. They
also carry Canon there. They let you shoot some pics then display them on
some machine. I'll play around. I have a new copy of Paint Shop Pro X on
my computer and have been slowly experimenting with it. Love doing black
objects against an illuminated background with white borders. .......


Thanks,

RCE

OT: Camera ... was .. Dick Cheney shoots buddy - for real.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



The optics are the same...the same Nikkor lenses fit on both. The D200 has
a few evolutionary refinements over the D70s, but none of great
significance. Are you planning to make prints of what you photograph, or
are you going to be satisfied with viewing them on your computer screens?

I suspect that 95 percent will stay on the computer and eventually be
discarded. Once in a while, if I get lucky and happen to capture something
worth keeping or giving, I might want to make prints.

Why?

RCE

Dick Cheney shoots buddy - for real.
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:24:29 -0500, RCE penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:




And contrary to Gene Kearn's assumptions, the police report indicated no
alcohol was involved.

After 14 hours, I suspect that was true. Anyway, since my post and
your comment, Cheney has admitted drinking that day. I don't think the
truth will ever be known... and I don't think we have heard it yet....

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.


I saw that in his interview. Claims to have had "a beer". You are right, we
will never know.

RCE

OT: Camera ... was .. Dick Cheney shoots buddy - for real.
 

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:08:22 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:49:24 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


So, since no one is watching...did you buy that camera?

Sssshhh.
--
'Til next time,

John H

I tried three local places, two camera shops and Best Buy. None had the
D200. The girl at Ritz Camera suggested I buy direct from Nikon on the
'net. I'd rather buy from a camera shop in case I have questions or
issues. All told me it would be 2 weeks to a month to get it.

Meanwhile, I've also been looking at - ready for this? - the DX2. I need
to investigate this a bit more, but if I am going to make a significant
investment in a camera, I might as well consider it.

So, unlike me, I resisted the impulsive temptation to buy on-line or order
yet from the camera shop. I need to read and learn more first. It will
definitely be the D200 or the DX2.

RCE



Personally, I think I'd be throwing money away to get the D2X. Here are
some comments from one of the better known review sites:

"The Nikon D200 was announced on 1st November 2005, some three and a half
years since Nikon revealed their first prosumer digital SLR, the D100. It's
fair to say however that the D200 is a completely different beast
altogether, it shares far more with its 'bigger brother' the the D2X than
its earlier namesake. The D200 has the robust build quality of the D2X, a
10.2 million pixel CCD sensor and a compact design more like the D100. Just
as the D100 the D200 has a CCD sensor, unlike the D2X which utilized a CMOS
sensor. It's clear that this camera is aimed at the same kind of market as
the recently announced Canon EOS 5D. From a features, control and
performance point of view the D200 is closer to the D2X than any other
model."

and...

"It would be fair to describe the D200 as a 'compact D2X', while some
features have been removed to preserve the D2X's uniqueness you would be
hard pressed to find a situation (other than high-speed crop continuous
shooting) where the D200 couldn't stand up to its bigger brother."

The full D200 review and comparison is at:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond200/

With so little difference in the way of capabilities, I could no way
justify the D2X. It would be overkill. I'd rather have the D200 now, and in
three years spend the same amout of money for its successor, which will
undoubtedly have more capabilities than the D2X of today.

But...if you want everyone to know you have the best, go for it!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************