"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

"Ed Price" wrote in message
news:NmC3c.2729$uh.336@fed1read02...

"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

[snip]
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

You are free to call John Kerry whatever you like: it's a free country,
after all. :-) I am free to call George Bush whatever I like, so long as
it's clear that I'm voicing my personal opinion. Both men are standing for
election to public office, and it's not a game for the faint-hearted.

I don't label "anyone who disagrees" with me: I used the "GOP PR" metaphor
as a sarcastic reply to an unattributed, and untracable, piece of
disinformation. If it wasn't clear to you that I was being sarcastic, then I
suggest you need to get out mo please recall that within 24 hours it had
gone from being the alleged report of a "Retired Rear Admiral" to being a
putative contribution by "Marine Master Sergeant" in a chat room, and I
think I was able to shoot _that_ nonsense down as well.

I don't, and haven't, smeared anyone: I've never lied and I never invented
tall tales about George Bush, but if I call him by a nickname you don't
like, well, as I said, it's not a game for the faint-hearted. I think he
_is_ a Shrub compared to his father, and I think his father was a dwarf pine
to begin with.

As I said, I don't attack those "not in the limelight". You, for example,
are simply a ham operator with an opinion to share.

Me too.

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

How? In what way? _WHAT_ moral credentials?

Have at it. Bring it on. Stand up and be counted.

You have the right. ;-)

Bill

(Modify my return address in an obvious way for direct replies)

William Warren wrote:



I don't label "anyone who disagrees" with me: I used the "GOP PR" metaphor
as a sarcastic reply to an unattributed, and untracable, piece of
disinformation. If it wasn't clear to you that I was being sarcastic, then I
suggest you need to get out mo please recall that within 24 hours it had
gone from being the alleged report of a "Retired Rear Admiral" to being a
putative contribution by "Marine Master Sergeant" in a chat room, and I
think I was able to shoot _that_ nonsense down as well.

Go read this, it even gives the Marine Master Sargent's name, you can
call him and verify it yourself.

http://www.keepingapace.com/blogarch...ontroversy.php

JJ wrote:

William Warren wrote:



I don't label "anyone who disagrees" with me: I used the "GOP PR"
metaphor
as a sarcastic reply to an unattributed, and untracable, piece of
disinformation. If it wasn't clear to you that I was being sarcastic,
then I
suggest you need to get out mo please recall that within 24 hours
it had
gone from being the alleged report of a "Retired Rear Admiral" to being a
putative contribution by "Marine Master Sergeant" in a chat room, and I
think I was able to shoot _that_ nonsense down as well.


Go read this, it even gives the Marine Master Sargent's name, you can
call him and verify it yourself.

http://www.keepingapace.com/blogarch...ontroversy.php




Correction, Marine Major.

"JJ" wrote in message
...
JJ wrote:

William Warren wrote:



I don't label "anyone who disagrees" with me: I used the "GOP PR"
metaphor as a sarcastic reply to an unattributed, and untracable, piece
of
disinformation. If it wasn't clear to you that I was being sarcastic,
then I suggest you need to get out mo please recall that within 24
hours
it had gone from being the alleged report of a "Retired Rear Admiral"
to being a
putative contribution by "Marine Master Sergeant" in a chat room, and I
think I was able to shoot _that_ nonsense down as well.

Go read this, it even gives the Marine Master Sargent's name, you can
call him and verify it yourself.


http://www.keepingapace.com/blogarch...ontroversy.php


Correction, Marine Major.

You post implies that you have confirmed the authenticity of what was
originally posted here, and that's not the case: the material at that URL is
an opinion piece by a commentator, who quotes nine sentences from the former
Major Stolz, none of which appeared in the original post or the followup
that I responded to. I stand by my opinion concerning my previous messages:
that there never was any such thing published in a chat room, by a "Retired
Rear Admiral", a "Master Sergeant", or anyone else who was ever in a
possition to know didly about the 'nam. It's GOP FUD, plain and simple.

As to _this_ publication: it's author, Thomas D. Seigal, says at the start
of the second paragraph that

"I would argue that anyone who experienced shots fired in
anger has the right to ask questions about any other person
who makes similar claims. "

.... but he does not provide any information as to whether he or the two
officers he quoted were ever in Vietnam or even in combat : in its absence,
I assume they were not.

Let's leave that aside, though: there is a larger issue, and it is getting
swamped (no doubt as the spindoctors at the RNC planned), in minutiae about
whether John Kerry acted wisely in conducting operations during close-order
combat. I submit that it is unimportant whether Kerry "should" have gotten
off his boat or whether he "should" have acted differently under fire.

Senator Kerry was a commander of a combat crew that was regularly involved
in life or death struggles with hardened, experienced Viet Minh cadres, at
the same time that the current President was evading even the minimal
obligations to the Texas Air National Guard which his father had arranged
for him.

There's a phrase that's used a lot in substance-abuse counseling: "Don't
should on yourself". I don't care what Kerry "should" have done: he was
there, and Shrub wasn't.

Bill Warren

P.S. This really has gotten too far off the subject of ham radio. I've set
the followups to talk.politics.

(My email address has an anti-spam meassure you must remove for direct
replies)