"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:22:08 -0400, DSK wrote:

Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!!
{to any rebuttal}


JohnH wrote:
Have I posted some of that, Doug?
--

Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were
cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only
about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls.

Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of
posts/thread I regularly skip.

DSK

Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't see
the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't
noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since before
Christmas.

John H

You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so
indirectly by supporting their policies without mentioning their names
often.


How the hell did I get thrown into this????

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:22:08 -0400, DSK wrote:

Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!!
{to any rebuttal}


JohnH wrote:
Have I posted some of that, Doug?
--

Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were
cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only
about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls.

Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of
posts/thread I regularly skip.

DSK

Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't
see
the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't
noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since
before
Christmas.

John H

You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so
indirectly by supporting their policies without mentioning their names
often.


How the hell did I get thrown into this????


You woke up this morning.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:22:08 -0400, DSK wrote:

Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!!
{to any rebuttal}


JohnH wrote:
Have I posted some of that, Doug?
--

Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were
cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only
about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls.

Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of
posts/thread I regularly skip.

DSK

Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't
see
the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't
noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since
before
Christmas.

John H

You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so
indirectly by supporting their policies without mentioning their names
often.


How the hell did I get thrown into this????


You woke up this morning.


No I didn't. I am still asleep.

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:46:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:22:08 -0400, DSK wrote:

Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!!
{to any rebuttal}


JohnH wrote:
Have I posted some of that, Doug?
--

Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were
cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only
about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls.

Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of
posts/thread I regularly skip.

DSK

Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't see
the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't
noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since before
Christmas.

John H

You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so indirectly
by supporting their policies without mentioning their names often.


You've found a bunch of political posts I've made since Christmas?
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:46:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:22:08 -0400, DSK wrote:

Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!!
{to any rebuttal}


JohnH wrote:
Have I posted some of that, Doug?
--

Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were
cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only
about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls.

Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of
posts/thread I regularly skip.

DSK

Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't
see
the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't
noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since
before
Christmas.

John H

You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so
indirectly
by supporting their policies without mentioning their names often.


You've found a bunch of political posts I've made since Christmas?

Ease off the heroin, scotch and baklava, John. You've been saying these
things for over a year.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:46:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:22:08 -0400, DSK wrote:

Let all the pro-Bush/Cheney BS get posted, then holler "OT!!
{to any rebuttal}


JohnH wrote:
Have I posted some of that, Doug?
--

Have you ever once complained about the OT posts that were
cheerleading for Bush/Cheney? AFAIK you have complained only
about those whom you perceive as libby-rulls.

Maybe you did, and I haven't spotted it. There are a lot of
posts/thread I regularly skip.

DSK

Ask JimH if I've ever commented on one of his posts. I honestly don't
see
the need for *any* pro- or anti- Bush/Cheney posts. In case you haven't
noticed, there haven't been a whole lot of Bush/Cheney posts since
before
Christmas.

John H

You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so
indirectly
by supporting their policies without mentioning their names often.


You've found a bunch of political posts I've made since Christmas?

Ease off the heroin, scotch and baklava, John. You've been saying these
things for over a year.


Doug, why do you find it necessary to resort to insults or other personal
attacks when you are backed into a corner with *facts*? I had the same
experience with you in another thread and find that this to be a reoccurring
MO of yours.........and one that is certainly not becoming of you.

You do not have to be the expert on everything and it is OK to be wrong once
and a while. ;-)

Relax Doug. Happy Easter to you and your family.

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so
indirectly
by supporting their policies without mentioning their names often.


You've found a bunch of political posts I've made since Christmas?

Ease off the heroin, scotch and baklava, John. You've been saying these
things for over a year.


Doug, why do you find it necessary to resort to insults or other personal
attacks when you are backed into a corner with *facts*? I had the same
experience with you in another thread and find that this to be a
reoccurring MO of yours.........and one that is certainly not becoming of
you.

You do not have to be the expert on everything and it is OK to be wrong
once and a while. ;-)

Relax Doug. Happy Easter to you and your family.


It's my reaction to a game John likes to play. He likes it, too. This is the
game:

1) He says he didn't vote for Bush.
2) He visibly supports policies specific ONLY to Bush's administration.
3) He says he doesn't support Bush's policies. IIRC, the logic is that he
supports any commander in chief, and since that's Bush at the moment....you
understand the rest, right?

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 08:28:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

You actually *do* contribute posts like that, John, but you do so
indirectly
by supporting their policies without mentioning their names often.


You've found a bunch of political posts I've made since Christmas?

Ease off the heroin, scotch and baklava, John. You've been saying these
things for over a year.


Doug, why do you find it necessary to resort to insults or other personal
attacks when you are backed into a corner with *facts*? I had the same
experience with you in another thread and find that this to be a
reoccurring MO of yours.........and one that is certainly not becoming of
you.

You do not have to be the expert on everything and it is OK to be wrong
once and a while. ;-)

Relax Doug. Happy Easter to you and your family.


It's my reaction to a game John likes to play. He likes it, too. This is the
game:

1) He says he didn't vote for Bush.
2) He visibly supports policies specific ONLY to Bush's administration.
3) He says he doesn't support Bush's policies. IIRC, the logic is that he
supports any commander in chief, and since that's Bush at the moment....you
understand the rest, right?


You'd best go back and read some of my posts. I would especially like to
see the one which you use as the basis for 1), above.

There are Bush policies I support, and Bush policies I don't support. Where
you come up with your convoluted logic is beyond me.

You've obviously not been able to find any political posts I've made since
Christmas, so you now reference posts made 'for over a year'.

I see no need for the political rhetoric here. As you've shown above, it
leads only to personal attacks.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

Relax Doug. Happy Easter to you and your family.


It's my reaction to a game John likes to play. He likes it, too. This is
the
game:

1) He says he didn't vote for Bush.
2) He visibly supports policies specific ONLY to Bush's administration.
3) He says he doesn't support Bush's policies. IIRC, the logic is that he
supports any commander in chief, and since that's Bush at the
moment....you
understand the rest, right?


You'd best go back and read some of my posts. I would especially like to
see the one which you use as the basis for 1), above.

There are Bush policies I support, and Bush policies I don't support.
Where
you come up with your convoluted logic is beyond me.

You've obviously not been able to find any political posts I've made since
Christmas, so you now reference posts made 'for over a year'.

John, I haven't even bothered to look.

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:32:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

Relax Doug. Happy Easter to you and your family.


It's my reaction to a game John likes to play. He likes it, too. This is
the
game:

1) He says he didn't vote for Bush.
2) He visibly supports policies specific ONLY to Bush's administration.
3) He says he doesn't support Bush's policies. IIRC, the logic is that he
supports any commander in chief, and since that's Bush at the
moment....you
understand the rest, right?


You'd best go back and read some of my posts. I would especially like to
see the one which you use as the basis for 1), above.

There are Bush policies I support, and Bush policies I don't support.
Where
you come up with your convoluted logic is beyond me.

You've obviously not been able to find any political posts I've made since
Christmas, so you now reference posts made 'for over a year'.

John, I haven't even bothered to look.


You made a wise decision.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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