"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Clams Canino wrote:

Harry - minus the "nutcase" part - he's right.

You **of all people** know the proper methods of inserting editorial
comment(s) into the work of another author. I'm dissapointed.

-W


"Jim" wrote in message
news:9Ov5b.259521$cF.81478@rwcrnsc53...

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

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

Wow, isn't it funny how you managed to get that "right wing
conservative" into
the
first sentence when the original story did not state that? Here is
the original
story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Sep3.html


Indeed, rather than just post a news story, I added editorial
comment.

No you didn't. You added your own text to the original story, making
it appear as
though that is the way it was originally written.


I don't recall reading where anyone put you in charge of anything at
all, much less deciding what is or is not an editorial comment.


LOL!

Any news story you now post is suspect as you have been proven to change
the wording in
the story to suit your needs.

That is not called editorial comment.

You continue to prove yourself to be a class A nutcase Harry.




As I said before, nothing is beneath you. You are pathetic. And a
true nutcase.


High praise indeed, especially when it emanates from right-wing scum
like you. Thanks.


That is your only defense? On par with what a 10 year old may present.

Get help Harry. Really.




Oh, puh-lease. You don't really think I take any of these pathetic
right-wingers here seriously. As I have stated over and over, I toss
them a line or two when I feel like it, just to watch them act like
Pavlov's dog. Jim is a first-rate drooler, right up there with NOYB and
a few other of the "anon" righties here.

I see no need to waste any time typing in "reasoned" responses to their
drivel. If I did, it might be interpreted that I take any of the crap
they post seriously.

None of them are worth more than a few seconds of effort.

Get help Harry. Please.

As I was driving up the freeway late this afternoon, I dialed in the local
conservative talk radio station to see what the right wing buzz would be.

The moderator, (some local), actually had a reasonable perspective: Whether or
not
abortion is morally right it is legal, whereas
murder is neither morally right nor legal.

About a third of the callers to this talk show defended Hill, and praised his
actions. One guy went so far as to suggest that homosexuals should be targeted
as well as abortion doctors.
Scary to think that those people are loose in society- but they have a right to
think any way they want until it turns into actual violence.

The good news was the even with an ultra-conservative audience the majority of
callers seemed to feel that Hill's case was
an absolute tragedy on all fronts.

Just as many people were prepared with
biblical quotes to condemn Hill as were prepared with bibilcal quotes to defend
his action. Some of the people on both sides left the Bible out of the question
and only discussed the law and general morality.

Personally, I am farther to the right on the abortion issue than 99% of the
people on the planet. It should never be used for birth control. No exceptions
where the only issue is birth control. Rape and situations where the mother's
life could be endangered by a pregnancy.....reluctantly. BUT, the difference
between Hill and me.....I'd never interfere with another person's legal right
to
obtain one or presume to execute somebody for perfoming one. I mean, what if
Hill and I are wrong? Who are we to impose our standards on others?

Hill thought he was doing God's work and was an instrument of justice. What
goes around, comes around and this afternoon the instrument of justice was a
lethal injection gurney.

No winners in this deal. None.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
As I was driving up the freeway late this afternoon, I dialed in the local
conservative talk radio station to see what the right wing buzz would be.

The moderator, (some local), actually had a reasonable perspective: Whether or
not
abortion is morally right it is legal, whereas
murder is neither morally right nor legal.

Correct.


About a third of the callers to this talk show defended Hill, and praised his
actions. One guy went so far as to suggest that homosexuals should be targeted
as well as abortion doctors.

Truly an accurate representation, wouldn't you say Chuck? Or are you generalizing once
again?

BTW: Were the 1/3 radicals, conservatives or liberals? There are extremists among all
the groups Chuck. Or didn't you know that? Your friend Harry is a prime example.

Scary to think that those people are loose in society- but they have a right to
think any way they want until it turns into actual violence.

I agree. We have nut cases on both ends of the political spectrum.


The good news was the even with an ultra-conservative audience the majority of
callers seemed to feel that Hill's case was
an absolute tragedy on all fronts.
snip

Once again you generalize, this time about the make up of the audience.

Personally, I am farther to the right on the abortion issue than 99% of the
people on the planet. It should never be used for birth control. No exceptions
where the only issue is birth control. Rape and situations where the mother's
life could be endangered by a pregnancy.....reluctantly. BUT, the difference
between Hill and me.....I'd never interfere with another person's legal right
to
obtain one or presume to execute somebody for perfoming one. I mean, what if
Hill and I are wrong? Who are we to impose our standards on others?

We agree on something. Fantastic. I knew with enough work you would slowly turn
around.

May the force be with you Chuck. Leave the darkside behind you.

About a third of the callers to this talk show defended Hill, and praised
his
actions. One guy went so far as to suggest that homosexuals should be
targeted
as well as abortion doctors.

Truly an accurate representation, wouldn't you say Chuck? Or are you
generalizing once
again?

You question fails any test of basic logic.
Reporting what a single caller suggested is not a "generalization," nor can it
be since it only concerns a single individual. What do you mean by the first
sentence? The intent is unclear. Do you agree that homosexuals should be
targeted along with abortion doctors? Is that what you meant by an "accurate
representation."

BTW: Were the 1/3 radicals, conservatives or liberals? There are extremists
among all
the groups Chuck. Or didn't you know that? Your friend Harry is a prime
example.

Again, your question has no basis in logic.
It is conceivable that the roughly 1/3 of the
people who felt that Hill had acted properly and were prepared to defend his
murder of the abortion doctor had *nothing* in common except their defense of
Hill. Unless Harry was calling a conservative talk station in Seattle using an
assumed name, there is no reason to bring him into the conversation.

Scary to think that those people are loose in society- but they have a
right to
think any way they want until it turns into actual violence.

I agree. We have nut cases on both ends of the political spectrum.

I've got to clean the monitor screen. Almost thought that "Jim" agreed with
Gould on something. Has to be an electronic misprint.



Once again you generalize, this time about the make up of the audience.

Actually, no, I do not. There is a science called demographics. Demographic
studies scientifically define the nature of the audience for TV and radio
programming. Demographics for this particular station is an audience that is
predominantly male, primarily white, average listener age about 55, middle to
upper middle income bracket. This is the station that broadcasts Limbaugh,
Hannity, et al in our market. They self proclaim to be the home of
"conservative talk radio" in Seattle. I'm an ultra liberal, and I often listen
for short periods of time, but I can tell by the phone calls from the local
audience that there are either very few liberals listening or the screener does
not let them on the air.

If you care to dispute my analysis, I would suggest that you first listen to
the station in question. At that point we'd be discussing a single set of known
variables rather than the question of whether a liberal could ever accurately
represent his observation of a radio station.

Personally, I am farther to the right on the abortion issue than 99% of the
people on the planet. It should never be used for birth control. No
exceptions
where the only issue is birth control. Rape and situations where the
mother's
life could be endangered by a pregnancy.....reluctantly. BUT, the
difference
between Hill and me.....I'd never interfere with another person's legal
right
to
obtain one or presume to execute somebody for perfoming one. I mean, what
if
Hill and I are wrong? Who are we to impose our standards on others?


We agree on something. Fantastic. I knew with enough work you would slowly
turn
around.

Sorry, but you get no credit for my opinion.
I've felt this way for at least 30-years, soon after I came to realize/believe
that all living things have a soul.....(bet we don't agree on that!) :-)

LOL!

If I said white, you would say black.

You just love to argue Chuck. As a result, you are, however, coming across as bitter.

Lighten up Chuck. The sky is not falling. The US is actually a pretty nice place to
live.

And don't believe everything you read or hear on the radio. Often times it is not
true. ;-)

"Jim" wrote in message
et...
LOL!

If I said white, you would say black.

You just love to argue Chuck. As a result, you are, however, coming
across as bitter.

Lighten up Chuck. The sky is not falling. The US is actually a pretty
nice place to
live.

And don't believe everything you read or hear on the radio. Often times
it is not
true. ;-)


Another proclamation from Dennis the Menace Compton. Oftentimes more
astounding than fiction.

LOL!

If I said white, you would say black.

You just love to argue Chuck. As a result, you are, however, coming across
as bitter.

Lighten up Chuck. The sky is not falling. The US is actually a pretty nice
place to
live.

And don't believe everything you read or hear on the radio. Often times it
is not
true. ;-)


Personal comments are not germane to the subject at hand. While I'm sure there
are many legitimate areas in which any of us could be criticized, your personal
defects (or mine) are a separate topic. A debate tests ideas against one
another, not personalities.

On 04 Sep 2003 03:56:54 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:
A debate tests ideas against one
another, not personalities.
=================================

*THAT* is a radical concept for "wrecked.boats". Let me check the
FAQ.

Still checking...

Still checking..

Still checking..

It's not here, can't be true, not on this news group. Perhaps you
were thinking of "alt.reasonable.discussions" ?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
LOL!

If I said white, you would say black.

You just love to argue Chuck. As a result, you are, however, coming
across
as bitter.

Lighten up Chuck. The sky is not falling. The US is actually a pretty
nice
place to
live.

And don't believe everything you read or hear on the radio. Often times
it
is not
true. ;-)


Personal comments are not germane to the subject at hand. While I'm sure
there
are many legitimate areas in which any of us could be criticized, your
personal
defects (or mine) are a separate topic. A debate tests ideas against one
another, not personalities.

Nicely said; firm Jeffersonian debate in action!

Mark Browne

I guess from that we can assume God uses 'OO buck.
JR

Gould 0738 wrote:
snip


Hill thought he was doing God's work
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth