"T. Early" wrote in message ...
"Mack Sambo" wrote in message
om...
"T. Early" wrote in message
...
"Da Green Hornet" wrote in message
groups.com...

I get a chuckle out of Jones on his own program, but when he
crosses
over to "legitimate" (or at least semi-legitimate) media, it
annoys
me. Noorey needs to stick to canals on Mars, ghostly apparitions,
remote viewers, and weird viruses; he is way too credulous on
political topics to donate three hours of a pretty highly rated
program to Jones.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++
I get a chuckle (not really) out of self appointed censors like you
who wish to determine what millions of others should, or should not,
be allowed to listen to. A paltry three hours of alternative views
out
of the tens of thousands of hours the "mainstream" political pundits
receive from the media isn't enough. People often speak of the need
for a "third party" in national politics. I'd settle for having a
second party in the country! The Repulican/Democrat, left/right ruse
has been going on forever and Alex Jones is working diligently to
expose the con game. He is deserving of a forum outside the limited
audience of shortwave radio to do so.
Mack

Let's have a brief intelligence (or in the case of a Jones,
non-intelligence) test. Show me anywhere in my previous post where I
suggested "censoring" Jones. My main regret, which may require some
degree of reading comprehension to follow, is that Noorey is not up to
the task of exposing Jones' absurd fallacies for what they are. I'm
guessing you aren't either.

I used to enjoy "The Power Hour" with Joyce Riley and Dave Von Kliest.
Then right after 9/11, they seemed to go off the deep end. I mean, its
probably legitimate to question whether the US was somehow involved in
the terrorist attacks. I personally believe that to be an absurd
position, but by all means, lets study the FACTS, not the theories,
and let the chips fall where they may.
But Good Lord, they just go on and on and on about it until you want
to call them up and scream at them "Will you PLEASE just give it a
rest??"
I actually stopped listening to them for about a six month stretch,
then one morning I decided to tune in to see if they had put their
crackpot 9/11 theories behind them. Within the first segment of the
show, I discovered that they had not.
They seem like nice enough folks,though, and I get the impression that
their concern for Gulf War vets is genuine and laudable. But the only
reason I find to listen to their program is that they usually have
some very informative guests. The rest of the program - from Dave's
corny music, lame jokes, and horrible impressions; and Joyce's contant
"ooooh"ing and forced chuckling at Dave's moronic antics, to their
bratty show-ending signature "We-Will-Not-STOP!!" - is juat a tedious
strain on my nerves.
MB

"Gray Shockley" wrote in message
.com...

Using that freq which you gave the other day, I picked him up
yesterday
(Friday).

His drooling has gotten worse.

/gray/



The price of Big Berkey drool filters must have gone up.

Frank Dresser

"T. Early" wrote in message
...


I get a chuckle out of Jones on his own program, but when he crosses
over to "legitimate" (or at least semi-legitimate) media, it annoys
me. Noorey needs to stick to canals on Mars, ghostly apparitions,
remote viewers, and weird viruses; he is way too credulous on
political topics to donate three hours of a pretty highly rated
program to Jones.



I've heard Art Bell was doing a alot of the black helicopter/government
conspiracy stories before the Oklahoma City bombing. So, Alex Jones
isn't totally out of character for the show.

I think the host of Coast to Coast must be credulous for the show to
work. It's the host's job to get the guest to share his special
knowledge. It won't take the skill of an Art Bell to get Alex Jones
talking.

It's the Coast to Coast listener's job to seperate reality from nonsense
and Alex Jones has plenty to offer.

Frank Dresser

"Mack Sambo" wrote in message
om...
"T. Early" wrote in message
...

I get a chuckle out of Jones on his own program, but when he crosses
over to "legitimate" (or at least semi-legitimate) media, it annoys
me. Noorey needs to stick to canals on Mars, ghostly apparitions,
remote viewers, and weird viruses; he is way too credulous on
political topics to donate three hours of a pretty highly rated
program to Jones.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I get a chuckle (not really) out of self appointed censors like you
who wish to determine what millions of others should, or should not,
be allowed to listen to. A paltry three hours of alternative views out
of the tens of thousands of hours the "mainstream" political pundits
receive from the media isn't enough.

No, I agree it should be more. Alex should have 4 hours
with Snorey to make a fool of himself. I for one am looking forward to
taping this show for my playback the next day.
Should be a real hoot if you ask me! The short-wave
videotape salesman of whackjob conspiracy theories to
trailer park dwelling white trash....meets the moderator
of the Face on Mars, tinfoil-hat wearing, UFoologists
and star trek geeks who can stay up late cause they
are all unemployable kooks. WHAT A NIGHT
ON AM RADIO THIS WILL BE ! woo-hoooo!

People often speak of the need
for a "third party" in national politics. I'd settle for having a
second party in the country!

Sure...2nd/3rd party...enough suckers fell for that line of
ultra virgin monkeyshi+ in 2000 when Ralph Nader was on the ballot and
the idiot voters in Florida frigged us up the
proverbial wazoo for the next 4 years with
a GW Bush Presidency. Smooth move
Ex-Lax!

The Republican/Democrat, left/right ruse
has been going on forever and Alex Jones is working diligently to
expose the con game. He is deserving of a forum outside the limited
audience of short-wave radio to do so.

OK we'll give him one night to make a complete
ass out of himself on mainstream late night radio.
After that however, he goes straight back to shortwave
"Paytriot Acres Trailer Park" out on the other side
of town to placate the losers who listen to his right
wing short-wave crapola with a beer in one hand and
a part of their anatomy in the other... PFHBLTTT!!

Mack

PLONK!

"T. Early" wrote in message ...
Let's have a brief intelligence (or in the case of a Jones,
non-intelligence) test. Show me anywhere in my previous post where I
suggested "censoring" Jones. My main regret, which may require some
degree of reading comprehension to follow, is that Noorey is not up to
the task of exposing Jones' absurd fallacies for what they are. I'm
guessing you aren't either.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your wish to censor Alex Jones is implicit in the post, your
"regret" that he is appearing on a show with such a large listening
audience reveals that. Your supposition that it is George Norry's
responsibility to "expose" Jones indicates a lack of understanding
regarding the genre of the show, it's not CNN's Crossfire or NBC's
Hardball. Also, the audience can call in and engage Jones directly if
they so desire.
If you were intellectually honest you would admit that you would
relish the opportunity to censor Alex Jones. Your assumption that the
listeners aren't able to determine the validity of what Jones says,
what is true or not true, also betrays an arrogance all too common
amongst people such as yourself.
Mack

"Mack Sambo" wrote in message
om...
"T. Early" wrote in message
...
Let's have a brief intelligence (or in the case of a Jones,
non-intelligence) test. Show me anywhere in my previous post
where I
suggested "censoring" Jones. My main regret, which may require
some
degree of reading comprehension to follow, is that Noorey is not
up to
the task of exposing Jones' absurd fallacies for what they are.
I'm
guessing you aren't either.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++
Your wish to censor Alex Jones is implicit in the post, your
"regret" that he is appearing on a show with such a large listening
audience reveals that. Your supposition that it is George Norry's
responsibility to "expose" Jones indicates a lack of understanding
regarding the genre of the show, it's not CNN's Crossfire or NBC's
Hardball. Also, the audience can call in and engage Jones directly
if
they so desire.
If you were intellectually honest you would admit that you would
relish the opportunity to censor Alex Jones. Your assumption that
the
listeners aren't able to determine the validity of what Jones says,
what is true or not true, also betrays an arrogance all too common
amongst people such as yourself.
Mack

Let's see if I'm too "arrogant" to follow your line of reasoning.
After admitting that I listen to Jones on SW, I express concern
(regret, if you want) that Jones is getting three hours on Coast to
Coast because I question Noorey's ability to appropriately question
Jones on some of his political fantasies.

This, in your mind, equates to advocating censoring Jones, which I did
not. When asked directly where I advocating censoring him, you say
it's "implied." In other words, I didn't say it, but we'll pretend
that wishing Jones would appear in a different forum with a better
interviewer equates to calling for censorship (i.e., taking him off
the air). Having put words in my mouth, and trying to pass that off
as "implied," you now suggest that *I'm* intellectually dishonest and
jump back on the censorship horse. So let's resolve that once and
for all--I'd like nothing better than to see Jones get as much
personal coverage as possible by seasoned interviewers who don't have
Noorey's penchant for tossing softballs. Noorey is a decent guy with
a good show within it's realm, but wouldn't it be great to hear Jones
explaining the "Secrets of the Bohemian Grove" to Mike Wallace?

It also strikes me as rather strange that you consider it "arrogant"
to desire that Jones be interviewed by someone with sufficient
knowledge of politics to put his "ideas" to the test, rather than
someone whose idea of a credible source is Richard C. Hoagland.
Still, you don't have to be arrogant to recognize that for anyone who
regards Jones as source of wisdom on current events, an informed,
politically astute interviewer probably is the last thing you'd want.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++
Your wish to censor Alex Jones is implicit in the post, your
"regret" that he is appearing on a show with such a large listening
audience reveals that. Your supposition that it is George Norry's
responsibility to "expose" Jones indicates a lack of understanding
regarding the genre of the show, it's not CNN's Crossfire or NBC's
Hardball. Also, the audience can call in and engage Jones directly
if
they so desire.
If you were intellectually honest you would admit that you would
relish the opportunity to censor Alex Jones. Your assumption that
the
listeners aren't able to determine the validity of what Jones says,
what is true or not true, also betrays an arrogance all too common
amongst people such as yourself.
Mack

Let's see if I'm too "arrogant" to follow your line of reasoning.
After admitting that I listen to Jones on SW, I express concern
(regret, if you want) that Jones is getting three hours on Coast to
Coast because I question Noorey's ability to appropriately question
Jones on some of his political fantasies.

This, in your mind, equates to advocating censoring Jones, which I did
not. When asked directly where I advocating censoring him, you say
it's "implied." In other words, I didn't say it, but we'll pretend
that wishing Jones would appear in a different forum with a better
interviewer equates to calling for censorship (i.e., taking him off
the air). Having put words in my mouth, and trying to pass that off
as "implied," you now suggest that *I'm* intellectually dishonest and
jump back on the censorship horse. So let's resolve that once and
for all--I'd like nothing better than to see Jones get as much
personal coverage as possible by seasoned interviewers who don't have
Noorey's penchant for tossing softballs. Noorey is a decent guy with
a good show within it's realm, but wouldn't it be great to hear Jones
explaining the "Secrets of the Bohemian Grove" to Mike Wallace?

It also strikes me as rather strange that you consider it "arrogant"
to desire that Jones be interviewed by someone with sufficient
knowledge of politics to put his "ideas" to the test, rather than
someone whose idea of a credible source is Richard C. Hoagland.
Still, you don't have to be arrogant to recognize that for anyone who
regards Jones as source of wisdom on current events, an informed,
politically astute interviewer probably is the last thing you'd want.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Okay so rather than keeping Jone's off the air you want him on as
much as possible with "seasoned interviewers." I think you'd be
surprised at how well Alex does in that setting. I've heard him
interviewed on Denver's KOA radio station by Rick Barber (one of the
best unknown radio interviwers in the business) and Alex was
outstanding. He was scheduled to do one hour and the host kept asking
him to stay for another hour and another. He ended up doing four hours
and effectively backing all his assertions with mainstream media
sources. Really quite an impressive performance by Jones.
As for Mike Wallace, yes I'm sure you would love to see that, as
would every other foe of Jone's. Wallace and 60 Minutes tape anywhere
from 3-6 hours of interview with their victim and then edit it down to
fit a 15 minute segment. Cutting and splicing to make their target
look like a complete fool and them like geniuses. The oldest trick in
the book and the reason 60 minutes won't do live interviews.
And this mercifully brings to a close this thread, for me anyway.
Best wishes.
Mack

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 19:11:26 -0600, Mack Sambo wrote
(in message ) :

Okay so rather than keeping Jone's off the air you want him on as
much as possible with "seasoned interviewers." I think you'd be
surprised at how well Alex does in that setting. I've heard him
interviewed on Denver's KOA radio station by Rick Barber (one of the
best unknown radio interviwers in the business) and Alex was
outstanding. He was scheduled to do one hour and the host kept asking
him to stay for another hour and another. He ended up doing four hours
and effectively backing all his assertions with mainstream media
sources.


But - as Alex "Drooling" Jones has explained - all the mass media is
leftwing, communist, socialistic, fascistic new world order and can't be
trusted.

And, as you wrote, " . . . and effectively backing all his assertions with
mainstream media sources."


So The Drooler is "backing all his assertions" with "mainstream media
sources" that can't be trusted?

The strange little man who listened to The Drooler and then broke into the
Bohemian Grove, armed and then went to sleep, is an absolutely perfect
personification of The Drooler's "true believer" listeners.



Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
See Eric Hoffer for your biography.

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 18:54:34 -0500, "T. Early"
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
A great way to hide a crime is to make it so outrageous no one would
believe it.

Actually, a great way to make people believe something totally
ridiculous is to invent out of nothing a crime so outrageous that
those who want to believe it will claim that a great way to hide a
crime is to make it so outrageous no one would believe it.



I'm getting dizzy...
--
V.G.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"People are more violently opposed to fur than leather, because it is easier to harrass
rich women than it is motorcycle gangs." - Bumper Sticker
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 19:14:08 -0900, "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)"
wrote:

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 18:54:34 -0500, "T. Early"
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:


"David" wrote in message
. ..
A great way to hide a crime is to make it so outrageous no one would
believe it.

Actually, a great way to make people believe something totally
ridiculous is to invent out of nothing a crime so outrageous that
those who want to believe it will claim that a great way to hide a
crime is to make it so outrageous no one would believe it.



I'm getting dizzy...


Who wouldn't be?




--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com

"Carl, you can lead a kook to wisdom, but you can't make him learn"
- Irony Alert