Gandalf Grey wrote:



There's quite a bit of it out there, including his own unwillingness to even
answer the question.

Where is this evidence? Can you vouch that Kerry never used coke or any
illegal drugs?

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...



Sorry Frank I simply misread your comment.



No problem. Dr. Nick says I won't be so crabby after he ups my meds.

Frank Dresser


Are you now taking those little blue pills? I'm still on the red ones.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:47:31 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote:

This has Rove's smell all over it, and your posting is proof that it's
definitely drawing flies.

I just *love* this part. "The memos are not fake, but if they are,
it was a set up by Rove"!

Right! Never take responsibility, always blame others.

Priceless.

Dan

Silly liberals. The downward spiral continues.

"-=jd=-" wrote:

Convincing anyone is none of my concern,
but I do reserve the right to wonder aloud
how a reasonable and prudent person
would ignore the mounting list of indicators
pointing to obvious forgeries. (snip)


Then I trust you won't mind if I reserve the right to wonder aloud why you
are so determined to establish, and publically declare, these documents to
be forgeries.


That rank-amateurs can reproduce the
documents so nicely without any
"computerized contortions" speaks
volumes. (snip)


Yes, it speaks volumes about the ability to reproduce documents on a
computer. But, of course, we already knew this. After all, that is exactly
why governments around the world have had to modify their currency, ID
cards, and other important documents, to decrease the likelyhood of fake
copies.


But you keep right on "keeping the faith"
with Rather and Co. and seeing only
what you want to see, if you so choose.


It's not a matter of keeping faith with anyone. I have no loyality to
either Dan Rather or CBS. Instead, as I said before, I base my views on what
I see and a little common sense.


(snip) two of the "experts" CBS used said
they advised the executives at CBS to *NOT*
place any reliance on the documents (snip)


Once CBS had those documents, with every reason to believe the documents
were accurate, they had an obligation to release the information to the
public. What else did you expect them to do? Forgetting your obvious bias
here, what would you have done?


(snip) Like I've said before, the experts will
need access to the originals to make a final
declaration. I'm betting CBS will *somehow*
be unable to provide the originals. (snip)


Of course, when saying that, you and I both know the originals are long
gone and will likely never be available. These are distant copies of those
originals (copies of copies), stored in a military archive somewhere. CBS
itself probably doesn't even know where those copies are stored. And the
source isn't likely going to talk because he/she very likely violated the
law by giving those internal military documents to the press. CBS is
probably trying to find where the copies came from, but a search like that
could take a very long time.

Stewart

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"-=jd=-" wrote:

Convincing anyone is none of my concern,
but I do reserve the right to wonder aloud
how a reasonable and prudent person
would ignore the mounting list of indicators
pointing to obvious forgeries. (snip)

Then I trust you won't mind if I reserve the right to wonder aloud why you
are so determined to establish, and publically declare, these documents to
be forgeries.


Possibly because they are fake?

Would you like voters to rely on forged documents when deciding who to vote for?

I think the fact someone apparently faked them is more significant than what they say.

The allegations about GWB are old - people have had close to 4 years to evaluate how he performs as President. You may or may not like what he's done, but it has more to do with how he will perform if he is re elected than what he may or may not have
done over 30 years ago.

Likewise, Sen. Kerry's performance in the Senate is a better indicator of what kind of leader he would be as President than what he did over 30 years ago. Unfortunately, Sen. Kerry keeps bringing up Vietnam.

anip


But you keep right on "keeping the faith"
with Rather and Co. and seeing only
what you want to see, if you so choose.

It's not a matter of keeping faith with anyone. I have no loyality to
either Dan Rather or CBS. Instead, as I said before, I base my views on what
I see and a little common sense.


But if what you're seeing is not real, can you make the best decision?

(snip) two of the "experts" CBS used said
they advised the executives at CBS to *NOT*
place any reliance on the documents (snip)

Once CBS had those documents, with every reason to believe the documents
were accurate, they had an obligation to release the information to the
public. What else did you expect them to do? Forgetting your obvious bias
here, what would you have done?


They didn't have every reason to believe they were real. Experts they checked with warned them they looked like obvious forgeries.

They also had the option of using the documents but mentioning they couldn't get experts to agree on if they were real or forged.

(snip) Like I've said before, the experts will
need access to the originals to make a final
declaration. I'm betting CBS will *somehow*
be unable to provide the originals. (snip)

Of course, when saying that, you and I both know the originals are long
gone and will likely never be available. These are distant copies of those
originals (copies of copies), stored in a military archive somewhere. CBS
itself probably doesn't even know where those copies are stored. And the
source isn't likely going to talk because he/she very likely violated the
law by giving those internal military documents to the press. CBS is
probably trying to find where the copies came from, but a search like that
could take a very long time.


Apparently the copies have been traced to a Kinkos that's about 21 miles from where Bill Burkett lives.

CBS is protecting their source, so we can't be sure it's Bill Burkett. Hopefully this will change when the documents are confirmed to be fake.

The only reason for CBS to protect a source of forged documents would seem to be to ensure the next person who has forged documents won't be afraid to turn them over.

Stewart

"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message
...
Dwight Stewart wrote:

"-=jd=-" wrote:

Convincing anyone is none of my concern,
but I do reserve the right to wonder aloud
how a reasonable and prudent person
would ignore the mounting list of indicators
pointing to obvious forgeries. (snip)

Then I trust you won't mind if I reserve the right to wonder aloud why
you
are so determined to establish, and publically declare, these documents
to
be forgeries.


Possibly because they are fake?

And possibly because your sound machine is a diversion from the real issues
of this election.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Wed 15 Sep 2004 09:47:31p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Wed 15 Sep 2004 09:29:18a, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote in message
ink.net:

"-=jd=-" wrote:

I'll base mine on information from the
leading expert in the field (Dr. Bouffard)
and the success of rank amateurs in
reproducing the document. You can
base your opinion on... umm...
whatever...


My own eyes and a little common sense. You talk about "rank
amateurs"
reproducing documents and use that as the basis to say the documents
are fake. All that tells me, instead, is that "rank amateurs" can
fake documents. That certainly doesn't prove to me these particular
documents are fake.

Further, I simply don't agree with your assessment of the documents
produced by those "rank amateurs." Their work does not look like the
documents in question. Their documents were clearly produced on a
computer, while the documents in question were clearly produced on a
typewriter.

Finally, the contents of the documents in question, including
military
document layout, dates, events, and signatures, all match what we
know of the situation at the time. That would be very difficult to
fake without intimate knowledge of each of those (a lot harder than
some "rank amatuers" simply copying what they see on a document in
front of them).

In other words, you'll have to work a lot harder if you want to
convince
me those documents are fake.

Stewart



Convincing anyone is none of my concern, but I do reserve the right to
wonder aloud how a reasonable and prudent person would ignore the
mounting list of indicators pointing to obvious forgeries.

You mean pointed out by freepers within literally minutes of their being
seen on television?

Hardly the sort of reaction designed to fill me with a sense of trust
toward the actual origin of those documents.

This has Rove's smell all over it, and your posting is proof that it's
definitely drawing flies.



Your overwhelming desperation is inherent in your lame attempt to spin and
divert. (Psssst.... no-one's buying that either...) If it helps you any,
see if you can look beyond the "freepers

Why should I? All the right wing sheep squad has going for them is the
sheep squad.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:47:31 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote:

This has Rove's smell all over it, and your posting is proof that it's
definitely drawing flies.

I just *love* this part.

Well, flies ARE easily amused it seems.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Wed 15 Sep 2004 08:39:22p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Tue 14 Sep 2004 11:09:24p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Tue 14 Sep 2004 09:40:55p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...
Gandalf Grey wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

news:telamon_spamshield-23C7AA.20511413092004@newssvr21-
ext.news.prodigy.
com...

In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:


"Telamon" wrote in
message



news:telamon_spamshield-B4D75A.22143811092004@newssvr21-
ext.news.prodigy.
com..

.

In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:


"Telamon" wrote
in

message


news:telamon_spamshield-B270F8.21573511092004@newssvr21-
ext.news.prodigy.
com..

.

In article ,
"-=jd=-" wrote:


On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:47:47p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
ting.com:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
8.45.22...

On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:10:02p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
osting.com:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
news:Xns9561E87116B71a216b130c132d203@63 .218.45.22...

On Sat 11 Sep 2004 09:20:11p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
shosting.com:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
news:Xns9561D6FF2776a216b130c132d203@6 3.218.45.22...

On Sat 11 Sep 2004 06:12:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
ewshosting.com:


"John" wrote in message
. com...

Isle Of The Dead wrote:

"John" wrote in message
s.com...


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are

fake.


Dude, what part of "computer age"
do you NOT understand?



I USED TYPEWRITERS THAT COULD DO IT BACK IN THE

EARLY

SEVENTIES DICKHEAD!

1. It's been established in the last 24 hours that

typewriters

of the time could do what we've seen.
2. Isle of the Dead is a known newsgroup psychotic.

Don't

waste your time.



It's only been established that some typewriters had

the

type-font. What has not been established is if *any*

typewriters

of the time could be used to reproduce what someone

(according

to

NPR) has done: - Type the content of the suspect

document

using

MS Word. - Print the MS-Word doc on a laser printer.
- Scan the MS-Word doc
- Scan a copy of the suspect document
- Superimpose the two over each other and marvel at
how

they

line

up.

Maybe it's not outside the realm of infinite

possibilities

that

a

chiefly mechanical device in the early seventies has

the

same

typographical characteristics of a current software

based

word-processing program to include type spacing,

kerning,

justification, character registration, etc, etc,
etc...

I wouldn't be so quick to declare it a definite or
even reasonable probability just yet...

Well, the raised "e" can only be accomplished in Word

with

great

difficulty.

It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate.

NPR or

no

NPR.


Apparently the raised "e" can also be attributed to a

defect

introduced by multiple-passes through a copier in an

attempt

to

artificially "age" a document. If you've seen the pdf
(I

downloaded

it from the Washington Post).

No. That wouldn't effect the "e"s alone.

Try again.


In the single position and no other "e" being affected,
I

would

think

it is an artifact from something other than the device
that

originally

produced the document.

Now you're reaching.


No need to try again.

Wrong.


The new discoveries along with the Rovian character of
the

first

criticism out make it clear that the docs are
legitimate.


Opinions vary...

Rove doesn't. He's a sleazeball trickster and this is
just

his

style.


Besides that, the docs don't reveal anything that
wasn't

already

known about Bush's desertion.



And there we have it. Who needs the docs, right? Enough

said - I

think

I see where you're coming from.

Yeah. I'm coming from the truth. The existing documents

without

Killian's documents already prove Bush wasn't where he
was

supposed to

be. Then there are the missing documents and the picture
put

together

by the AP. Bush was a technical deserter, Killian docs
or no

Killian

docs. That was never really a question. The Killian
docs are interesting, but they don't change much of
anything.




And Kerry received one or more of his decorations
"technically".

So

what?

Apparently, you come from "the truth" as only you can see
it

through

the

filter of your bias. Wherever Bush was, the ANG apparently
did

not

have

any problem with it, as can be determined by the honorable

discharge

Bush

received. Or is that particular document "forged" and/or
not up

to

your

standards of truth?


I think it is a mistake to spend much time on Kerry's 4
months in Vietnam since it's his word against others.

More like 3 plus years.

Excuse me, 4 months and 2 days.

Wrong.


I can understand your problem. Your boy, Bush deserted during
his
service
in the guard, so you've got to find a way to attack the actual
service
of
Kerry, who did two tours in Vietnam.

You mean the Kerry who gunned his swift boat and ran when another
swift boat hit a mine, while the other swift boats stayed to lend
assistance to the stricken boat?

Funny, that's not the official Navy Record. On the other hand, we
don't HAVE an official record for where Bush was when he was
supposed to be on duty.



Sure we do. The ANG says he had accumulated "Duty Points" in excess
of the minimum amount required to fully satisfy six full years of
service.

Actually, the record doesn't say where he was, moron.

That's your problem.



I don't have a problem at all

yes you do. The voters want to know where Bush was and Bush aint
talking.



None of the voters I know think it's all that important.

You should crawl out of the latrine where you hang out with your two friends
once in awhile.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Wed 15 Sep 2004 08:37:53p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message news:4148df02$0$28044
:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Tue 14 Sep 2004 11:05:34p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Tue 14 Sep 2004 09:32:48p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message news:41479a62$0
$28016
:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Tue 14 Sep 2004 08:44:05p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...


Bush's National Guard years
Before you fall for Dems' spin, here are the facts

More Questions than facts.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/0...ws/20guard.htm


The only "facts" that matter are the ANG's and the USN's in this
race.

That's what you say.


Wrong again

Dream on, moron.





LOL!

Oh look! One of the village idiots is having a fit.



A village idiot that has no capability of replying in a substantive manner

You just described yourself perfectly.