Peter Skelton wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:27:11 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Andrew Swallow wrote:

:Jack Linthicum wrote:
:[snip]
:
:
: I would think that just talking about the act, and qualifying it with
: certain criteria, would be sufficient. If you own books and someone
: came to your place of residence and said certain of those books are
: not acceptable to them, what would be your reaction?
:
:The books Sarah Palin tried to ban will reveal a lot about her character
:and the real believes of her advisers .
:

Now if only there was any evidence that she actually tried to ban
any...

The evidence is that early in her term as mayor she tried to fire
a librarian who, some months earlier, had responded to a
hypothetical question about book banning in the negative. It was
not their only point of disagreement. After public pressure, she
backed down.

There's lots there to yap about but not a hell of a lot of
significant substance.


Peter Skelton


"There's lots there to yap about but not a hell of a lot of
significant substance."


Yep...that's Sarah Palin.

hk wrote:

:Peter Skelton wrote:
: On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:27:11 -0700, Fred J. McCall
: wrote:
:
: Andrew Swallow wrote:
:
: :Jack Linthicum wrote:
: :[snip]
: :
: :
: : I would think that just talking about the act, and qualifying it with
: : certain criteria, would be sufficient. If you own books and someone
: : came to your place of residence and said certain of those books are
: : not acceptable to them, what would be your reaction?
: :
: :The books Sarah Palin tried to ban will reveal a lot about her character
: :and the real believes of her advisers .
: :
:
: Now if only there was any evidence that she actually tried to ban
: any...
:
: The evidence is that early in her term as mayor she tried to fire
: a librarian who, some months earlier, had responded to a
: hypothetical question about book banning in the negative. It was
: not their only point of disagreement. After public pressure, she
: backed down.
:
: There's lots there to yap about but not a hell of a lot of
: significant substance.
:
:
:"There's lots there to yap about but not a hell of a lot of
: significant substance."
:
:Yep...that's Sarah Palin.
:

Why are you lot so terrified of her? For her being such a political
lightweight, you guys sure are running scared. So far your assaults
have done nothing but boost her, what with being so heavy on yap and
so light on fact.

You've all done a very good job of convincing me that there must be a
lot more to like about her than I would otherwise have thought.,,

--
"Der Feige droht nur, wo er sicher ist."
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Fred J. McCall wrote:
hk wrote:

:Peter Skelton wrote:
: On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:27:11 -0700, Fred J. McCall
: wrote:
:
: Andrew Swallow wrote:
:
: :Jack Linthicum wrote:
: :[snip]
: :
: :
: : I would think that just talking about the act, and qualifying it with
: : certain criteria, would be sufficient. If you own books and someone
: : came to your place of residence and said certain of those books are
: : not acceptable to them, what would be your reaction?
: :
: :The books Sarah Palin tried to ban will reveal a lot about her character
: :and the real believes of her advisers .
: :
:
: Now if only there was any evidence that she actually tried to ban
: any...
:
: The evidence is that early in her term as mayor she tried to fire
: a librarian who, some months earlier, had responded to a
: hypothetical question about book banning in the negative. It was
: not their only point of disagreement. After public pressure, she
: backed down.
:
: There's lots there to yap about but not a hell of a lot of
: significant substance.
:
:
:"There's lots there to yap about but not a hell of a lot of
: significant substance."
:
:Yep...that's Sarah Palin.
:

Why are you lot so terrified of her? For her being such a political
lightweight, you guys sure are running scared. So far your assaults
have done nothing but boost her, what with being so heavy on yap and
so light on fact.

You've all done a very good job of convincing me that there must be a
lot more to like about her than I would otherwise have thought.,,



My fear is that if by some fluke McCain is elected, he'll die in office
and we'll have another simple-minded, religious idiot in the white
house, like we have now.

Simple enough?

hk wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: hk wrote:
:
: :Peter Skelton wrote:
: : On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:27:11 -0700, Fred J. McCall
: : wrote:
: :
: : Andrew Swallow wrote:
: :
: : :Jack Linthicum wrote:
: : :[snip]
: : :
: : :
: : : I would think that just talking about the act, and qualifying it with
: : : certain criteria, would be sufficient. If you own books and someone
: : : came to your place of residence and said certain of those books are
: : : not acceptable to them, what would be your reaction?
: : :
: : :The books Sarah Palin tried to ban will reveal a lot about her character
: : :and the real believes of her advisers .
: : :
: :
: : Now if only there was any evidence that she actually tried to ban
: : any...
: :
: : The evidence is that early in her term as mayor she tried to fire
: : a librarian who, some months earlier, had responded to a
: : hypothetical question about book banning in the negative. It was
: : not their only point of disagreement. After public pressure, she
: : backed down.
: :
: : There's lots there to yap about but not a hell of a lot of
: : significant substance.
: :
: :
: :"There's lots there to yap about but not a hell of a lot of
: : significant substance."
: :
: :Yep...that's Sarah Palin.
: :
:
: Why are you lot so terrified of her? For her being such a political
: lightweight, you guys sure are running scared. So far your assaults
: have done nothing but boost her, what with being so heavy on yap and
: so light on fact.
:
: You've all done a very good job of convincing me that there must be a
: lot more to like about her than I would otherwise have thought.,,
:
:
:My fear is that if by some fluke McCain is elected, he'll die in office
:and we'll have another simple-minded, religious idiot in the white
:house, like we have now.
:

Sorry, but that doesn't explain the level of venom and the lying
smears.

:
:Simple enough?
:

Yes, you're more than simple enough. And you're lying.

So why so afraid of a girl, sonny?

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:51:07 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Fred, would you please consider responding to Harry only in the 'naval'
group. Or, better yet, ignore him completely?

Thanks!

John H wrote:

:On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:51:07 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:wrote:
:
:Fred, would you please consider responding to Harry only in the 'naval'
:group. Or, better yet, ignore him completely?
:

I'd rather you people kept your idiots home. Then I wouldn't see
them.

--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

John H wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:51:07 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Fred, would you please consider responding to Harry only in the 'naval'
group. Or, better yet, ignore him completely?

Thanks!


I wonder why Herring is crossposting...again?

Fred J. McCall wrote:
John H wrote:

:On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:51:07 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:wrote:
:
:Fred, would you please consider responding to Harry only in the 'naval'
:group. Or, better yet, ignore him completely?
:

I'd rather you people kept your idiots home. Then I wouldn't see
them.


We can't control where he posts. He's a narcissistic asshole and he
can't control what he does either. Sorry for the interruption.

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:18:38 -0400, DK wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote:
John H wrote:

:On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:51:07 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:wrote:
:
:Fred, would you please consider responding to Harry only in the 'naval'
:group. Or, better yet, ignore him completely?
:

I'd rather you people kept your idiots home. Then I wouldn't see
them.


We can't control where he posts. He's a narcissistic asshole and he
can't control what he does either. Sorry for the interruption.

Uh, Dan. Join us, please!

On Sep 8, 7:18*pm, DK wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
John H wrote:

:On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:51:07 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:wrote:
:
:Fred, would you please consider responding to Harry only in the 'naval'
:group. Or, better yet, ignore him completely?
:

I'd rather you people kept your idiots home. *Then I wouldn't see
them.

We can't control where he posts. *He's a narcissistic asshole and he
can't control what he does either. *Sorry for the interruption.

Here is an option, please consider joining us to clean up the group:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...34881f48773a0#

It has been working pretty well today, see what happens after a
week.... read the whole thread, then make up your own mind