"- - ex - -" wrote in message
...
William Warren wrote:


At a time in our nation's history when the rich and well connected
were scurrying to park their sons' yachts in safe backwaters, a well
connected young man raised his hand, took an oath, and took
everything that came with it. You can't fake that kind of courage,
and you can't spin his opponent's kind of cowardice. John Kerry was
there.

Bill Warren


THE FOLLOWING ITEM APPEARED IN A NON-PARTISAN (BUT EXTREMELY
CYNICAL) NEWSLETTER FOR INVESTORS. THE NEWSLETTER HAS BEEN RELENTLESSLY
CRITICAL OF BUSH ADMINISTRATION ECONOMIC POLICIES.

(unatributed rant snipped)

They really ought to give you GOP PR types a quick course in Netiquette
before they set you loose on the world: your ALL CAPS post shows you haven't
been associating with the hoi poloi for a long time.

Let's see, where can I start:

"Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com. "

Nice one! No inconvenient IP address to trip you up. Win 98, too, at least
according to your headers. You guys _do_ occasionally learn from your
mistakes, don't you?

"Non partison (but extremely cynical) newsletter for investors..."

Wow, I'm impressed. In terms of FUD and intimidation, that's at least a 5
out of 10. I can't question your honesty because I'm not an "investor", and
I'm ashamed to admit that I don't hang around with non-partisan and cynical
newletter types. Way to go, GOP PR man!

"The newsletter has been relentlessly critical of Bush administration
economic policies".

Oh, of course, and that's -so- easily verifiable, given your thorough
coverage of the "newsletter" and it's background. I'm just brimming with
patriotic left-wing fervor now that I know your "newletter" is "critical" -
nea, "relentlessly critical" - of shrub and his let-them-eat-dog-food
economic policies. I'm all warm and fuzzy, you've won me over, I trust you
without reservation. With the issue of your background, credentials, agenda,
and employer settled, let's get to the good part.

"...from a source we`re not sure we can reveal, said to be a retired Rear
Admiral..."

Ah, jeez, Mom, can't I meet the Real (sorry, "Rear") Admiral? Can I? Huh?
Puhleeze?

I can't reveal *my* source, but (s)he said that it was really a retired
corporate huckster collecting corporate welfare from the big island in
Hawai, who dusts off his traveling salesman cap and majik elixar bottles
every four years when the oil boys throw enough money at him. Trust me: my
source is just as unimpeachable as yours!

"1) Kerry was in-country less than four months and collected, a Bronze Star,
a Silver Star and three purple hearts. I never heard of anybody with any
outfit I worked with (including SEAL One, the Sea Wolves, Riverines and the
River Patrol Force) collecting that much hardware so fast, and for such
pedestrian actions. "

Hmmm - "collecting" is a nice choice he it infers that Kerry didn't
deserve that "hardware", but leaves me a little flat on the impedimenta of
how he "collected" that "hardware" without his commander and (IIRC) four
other senior offices certifying that he deserved it. Oh, well, let's not get
bogged down in details like exactly which Admiral's rear this came from.

BTW, that use of "pedestrian" is first rate FUD: it infers that nobody was
really shooting at anybody, nobody got wounded, nobody killed, nothing much
except the usual humdrum routine of having men in black pajamas shoot at you
with - heaven forfend! - real 7.63 mm ammunition - instead of the deadly
innuendo and poisonous slander that Kerry's own countrymen would shoot at
him 30+ years later.

Of course, in the world of big oil, big banks, big "investors", and big
lies, only the ungrateful and unapreciative working man - like me - would be
so rude as to ask why this "Rear Admiral" didn't come forward way back when.
Only someone who didn't understand the winks and nods that those-in-the-know
trade during $5,000 per plate dinners could possibly be so impertinent as to
ask how an arrogant, rich, drunk daddy's boy could have the gall to hire you
to slander a reputation built on blood and deeds, when his was built on
daddy's money and a PR firm's expertise.

It's a great country: only in America could someone type out bald-faced lies
and not mention that Shrub was, depending on which version is currently
being floated, either in Alabama, Arkansas, or Georgia - but not Texas,
where he was supposedly assigned. Only in America could an unnamed,
unavailable, unattributed "Real (sorry, 'Rear') Admiral" be created out of
whole cloth so that the oilmen could grasp for another four years of
let-them-eat-dog-food.

Shrub was drunk, although the details are, uh, foggy.

John Kerry was there.

And that, Mr. PR expert, is for attribution.

Bill Warren.

(Email address contains anti-spam measure)

William Warren wrote:

(unatributed rant snipped)

They really ought to give you GOP PR types a quick course in Netiquette
before they set you loose on the world: your ALL CAPS post shows you haven't
been associating with the hoi poloi for a long time.

Not my post. It was copied and pasted from elsewhere. You're correct,
I should have attributed the writer but he was anonymous.

Let's see, where can I start:

"Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com. "

Nice one! No inconvenient IP address to trip you up. Win 98, too, at least
according to your headers. You guys _do_ occasionally learn from your
mistakes, don't you?

email address is exray at coqui dot net if you need to know. and its
Win98 Second Edition, I'll have you know!

"Non partison (but extremely cynical) newsletter for investors..."

Wow, I'm impressed. In terms of FUD and intimidation, that's at least a 5
out of 10. I can't question your honesty

I'll try to locate the source so that you can rant to the original
writer. You're not real fond of opposing opinions are you?

-Bill M

- - ex - - wrote:
William Warren wrote:

(unatributed rant snipped)



This explains the source of the article, FWIW. Drop them a line and
maybe they can direct you how to locate the person who wrote it so that
you can personally assess his credibility.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/article...e.asp?ID=12272

-BM

"- - ex - -" wrote in message
...
- - ex - - wrote:
William Warren wrote:

(unatributed rant snipped)


This explains the source of the article, FWIW. Drop them a line and
maybe they can direct you how to locate the person who wrote it so that
you can personally assess his credibility.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/article...e.asp?ID=12272

-BM

I've never read "Front Page Magazine", and it's qualifications as an "Non
partison (but extremely cynical) newsletter for investors..." remain open to
question. The appeals for money on the splash page leave me to wonder which
investors it's appealing to, but for the sake of argument, let's assume they
really are an actual magazine with a meaningful readership.

The story you cite begins with the line

"The following was sent to a Marine chat net by a retired Marine Master
Sergeant
who was in S-2, 3rd Bn, 1st Marines, Korea in 1954."

But, from there, it is a copy of the smear attributed to a "Rear Admiral" in
your original post. I don't believe it was actually posted by a Marine,
either: there's too much wrong with it.

1. The gratuitous reference to Korea, and the way in backfires on the PR
man:

I don't know if being in the "3rd Bn., 1st Marines" has some cachet amoung
Marines, but it smells like FUD put in to catch the eye of a key swing
vote - older veterans. Anyone in Korea in 1954 would have to be at least 68
years old now, and I have never seen anyone of that age group participating
in something as new as a "chat net".

2. "I know the tactics and the doctrine used, and I know the equipment. ".

This doesn't make sense: why would a Marine be trained in small boat
tactics? What "doctrine" is he talking about? How would a Marine learn about
Swift boats or PBR's, when the Marines pride themselves on being combat
infantrymen and not "Rust pickers"? Don't forget, he'd have been an Sergeant
at the time of Vietnam, only ~30 years old: hardly an age or rank that would
be expected to cross-train with Navy boat crews. More to the point, how many
Marine Corps Master Sergeants would write like that?

3. Finally, the coup-de-grace that reveals this to be just more
disinformation: "The details of the event for which he was given the Silver
Star make no sense at all."

If whoever wrote that was actually a Marine, and had actually been in
combat, he'd know that nothing ever goes according to the book. When the
shooting starts, men revert to their most basic capabilities, and if Kerry
chose to confront an attacher directly, instead of running away ("put your
stern to the action and go balls to the wall") that speaks volumes about the
fact that he put himself first in the line of fire. I don't doubt for a
second that it wasn't the correct "Standard procedure", but procedures are
designed by statisticians who want commanders to do what will give the
greatest probability of success in an average encounter. Kerry threw away
the book and did it himself instead of risking his men's lives: that's why
he got the medal.

This all smells: second and third-hand slander, without a name attached,
without confirmation (something a real "magazine" would be expected to do
routinely). I don't believe it.

Of course, the Republicans hope it doesn't matter: having thrown the manure
in front of the fan, they're hoping that it will stick to Senator Kerry and
he'll be too busy cleaning it off for anyone to trace it back to the source
before the election.

Concerning your earlier post:

You're not real fond of opposing opinions are you?

I welcome opinions of all sorts, whether or not they support my viewpoint.
So long as the sources are available, I'll accept quotes without prejudice,
too.

Mostly, I'm "not fond of" Shrub's attitude that not being caught in a lie is
the same thing as telling the truth. What I am especially "not fond of" is
unattributed slander, quotes-out-of-context (as you did to me), nameless and
unverifiable attacks, or the attitude some people take that it's OK to
question Senator Kerry's courage while forgetting George Bush, Junior's
cowardice.

Bill Warren

(My email address must be modified in an obvious way for direct replies)

William Warren wrote:


Mostly, I'm "not fond of" Shrub's attitude that not being caught in a lie is
the same thing as telling the truth. What I am especially "not fond of" is
unattributed slander, quotes-out-of-context (as you did to me), nameless and
unverifiable attacks, or the attitude some people take that it's OK to
question Senator Kerry's courage while forgetting George Bush, Junior's
cowardice.

Ok, then, take Kerry's own quotes and ask why he refuses to release his
military medical records to the pundits to 'prove' the PHs that got him
out of Nam in four months.

And while you're at it, see if you can find a copy of his book - you
know, the one with the upside-down American flag on the cover.

What we don't need in the White House is another liar or hypocrite and
his self-proclaimed "war hero" status raises some serious concerns about
his integrity.

You're having way too much fun with this topic and clearly you have the
ability to rant much better than I so I'm going to bow out now. Maybe
Stinson will continue to give you more rant opportunities. I think
you're a nut and I'm going back to messing with radios.

-Adios,
Bill M

"- - ex - -" wrote in message
...
[snippage]
You're having way too much fun with this topic and clearly you have the
ability to rant much better than I so I'm going to bow out now. Maybe
Stinson will continue to give you more rant opportunities. I think
you're a nut and I'm going back to messing with radios.

-Adios,
Bill M

If expecting those who write here to back up their posts with facts,
attribution to verifiable names, and/or citations from reputable sources is
insane, then call me a nut. If I'm having fun exposing GOP FUD for what it
is, then I'll keep laughing while the voters - you really _can't_ fool all
the people all the time - send the junior Bush back to the farm.

Just remember that I didn't start it, have never pretended to be anything I
wasn't, and have never started ad hominem attacks on those not in the
limelight. Please feel free to come back and stand on the soapbox anytime
you can support yourself with resonable and well-researched argument.

I'd say I support your right to do so, but I think that's already obvious.

Bill Warren

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 12:28:11 -0400, - - ex - -
wrote:

William Warren wrote:


Mostly, I'm "not fond of" Shrub's attitude that not being caught in a lie is
the same thing as telling the truth. What I am especially "not fond of" is
unattributed slander, quotes-out-of-context (as you did to me), nameless and
unverifiable attacks, or the attitude some people take that it's OK to
question Senator Kerry's courage while forgetting George Bush, Junior's
cowardice.

Ok, then, take Kerry's own quotes and ask why he refuses to release his
military medical records to the pundits to 'prove' the PHs that got him
out of Nam in four months.


Taking a page from Shrub, maybe? Bush wants all kinds of
"transparency" and "accountability" for everyone except the swells who
surround him. Try getting transcripts of Cheney's meetings with the
energy industry when our national enregy policy was being written.
That's at least as relevant to his fitness to govern as whatever went
on thirty years ago.

I am a conservative. Yet, I have respect for John Kerry's war record. I am
troubled because I don't believe he respects his war record.

Argus

"Argus" wrote in message
y.com...
I am a conservative. Yet, I have respect for John Kerry's war record. I
am
troubled because I don't believe he respects his war record.

Argus



Kerry lost most right thinking peoples respect when he joined up with Hanoi
Jane.

Dan/W4NTI

"William Warren" wrote in message
news:4Qa3c.151291$4o.186727@attbi_s52...
"- - ex - -" wrote in message
...
William Warren wrote:


At a time in our nation's history when the rich and well connected
were scurrying to park their sons' yachts in safe backwaters, a well
connected young man raised his hand, took an oath, and took
everything that came with it. You can't fake that kind of courage,
and you can't spin his opponent's kind of cowardice. John Kerry was
there.

Bill Warren


THE FOLLOWING ITEM APPEARED IN A NON-PARTISAN (BUT EXTREMELY
CYNICAL) NEWSLETTER FOR INVESTORS. THE NEWSLETTER HAS BEEN RELENTLESSLY
CRITICAL OF BUSH ADMINISTRATION ECONOMIC POLICIES.

(unatributed rant snipped)

They really ought to give you GOP PR types


Thus far, the name-calling has been initiated by WW. He has chosen to use
the term "Shrub", so I suppose we are now free to degenerate to his level
and refer to Mr. Kerry as The Curr. Further, anyone who disagrees with WW
will be given the label of a "GOP PR type." Yes, WW seems quite adept and at
ease wielding a smear technique

It's unfortunate that the Democratic machine has chosen to conduct the
initial 2004 campaign by attacking the President's moral credentials.
Desperation and hatred color and distort their entire position.

Ed
wb6wsn