|
"-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Tue 14 Sep 2004 07:57:48p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: "dxAce" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: {snippage} Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a nick on his shin along with a purple heart. I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled on one side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear anyone who has ever served honorably. Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay! Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing hypocrite. Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that someone getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"? Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's "Technical" P.H. That you somehow think Kerry's "bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a rather compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine! To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled. Tough ****! After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's technique against Max Cleland. I've served with and know *real* Heros who would make Kerry look like Clinton in comparison. You're assessment of heroes and heroism means exactly squat. Just so you'll know. You have yet to demonstrate any ability to even begin to grasp the concept of "Hero" So does your support of a draft-dodging coke-addict who thinks "heroism" is dressing up in a flight suit. And please explain how one dodges the draft by serving in the Texas Air National Guard? By refusing direct orders and deserting your post. WRONG. That's not dodging the draft. When did he desert? Somewhere where they weren't giving flight physicals. Give us a break, rightie. The facts are out there. Bush was REQUIRED to take a physical and he didn't report. He put in his time Apparently not. We're still waiting for some documentation that he actually did put in his time. Still waiting. "Crickets.wav" You lose, rightie. Nope, you're off the mark *yet again*. The fact is he accrued more "duty points" than were required for six full years of ANG service. Guess again. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/0...ws/20guard.htm The service question A review of President Bush's Guard years raises issues about the time he served By Kit R. Roane Last February, White House spokesman Scott McClellan held aloft sections of President Bush's military record, declaring to the waiting press that the files "clearly document the president fulfilling his duties in the National Guard." Case closed, he said. But last week the controversy reared up once again, as several news outlets, including U.S. News, disclosed new information casting doubt on White House claims. A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard. Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement. The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably." Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty." Bush signed his commitment to the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968, shortly after becoming eligible for the draft. In his "statement of understanding," he acknowledged that "satisfactory participation" included attending "48 scheduled inactive-duty training periods" each year. He also acknowledged that he could be ordered to active duty if he failed to meet these requirements. Slump. Bush's records show that he did his duty for much of the first four years of his commitment. But as the Vietnam War wound down, his performance slumped, and his attendance at required drills fell off markedly. He did no drills for one five-month period in 1972. He also missed his flight physical. By May 2, 1973, his superiors said they could not evaluate his performance because he "has not been observed." Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a retired Air Force colonel who originally certified the White House position that Bush had completed his military obligation, stood by his analysis. After a reporter cited pertinent Air Force regulations from the period, he complained that if the entire unit were judged by such standards, "90 percent of the people in the Guard would not have made satisfactory participation." Some other experts disagree. "There is no 'sometimes we have compliance and sometimes we don't,' " says Scott Silliman, a retired Air Force colonel and Duke University law professor. "That is a nonsensical statement and an insult to the Guard to suggest it." The regulations must be followed, adds James Currie, a retired colonel and author of an official history of the Army Reserve. "Clearly, if you were the average poor boy who got drafted and sent into the active force," he says, "they weren't going to let you out before you had completed your obligation." -- -- FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --George Bush. Aug. 5th., 2004 "Because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence." ---George Bush, 3/4/01 |
Frank Dresser wrote:
No, I'm not kidding. I really think it seems likely that the IBM/Lotus word processors would have the same fonts the selectric had. Why would you think I'm kidding? Sorry Frank I simply misread your comment. |
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "Gandalf Grey" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message .. . In article , "Gandalf Grey" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message .. . 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? You mean the Kerry who admits to shooting a helpless woman and baby, and shooting a wounded teenage soldier in the back? You mean that Kerry? |
"-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Tue 14 Sep 2004 08:45:23p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Tue 14 Sep 2004 07:57:48p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: "dxAce" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: {snippage} Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a nick on his shin along with a purple heart. I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled on one side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear anyone who has ever served honorably. Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay! Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing hypocrite. Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that someone getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"? Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's "Technical" P.H. That you somehow think Kerry's "bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a rather compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine! To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled. Tough ****! After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's technique against Max Cleland. I've served with and know *real* Heros who would make Kerry look like Clinton in comparison. You're assessment of heroes and heroism means exactly squat. Just so you'll know. You have yet to demonstrate any ability to even begin to grasp the concept of "Hero" So does your support of a draft-dodging coke-addict who thinks "heroism" is dressing up in a flight suit. And please explain how one dodges the draft by serving in the Texas Air National Guard? By refusing direct orders and deserting your post. WRONG. That's not dodging the draft. When did he desert? Somewhere where they weren't giving flight physicals. Give us a break, rightie. The facts are out there. Bush was REQUIRED to take a physical and he didn't report. He put in his time Apparently not. We're still waiting for some documentation that he actually did put in his time. Still waiting. "Crickets.wav" You lose, rightie. Nope, you're off the mark *yet again*. The fact is he accrued more "duty points" than were required for six full years of ANG service. Guess again. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/0...ws/20guard.htm Even given those opinions, the ANG saw fit to issue him an Honorable Discharge for fullfilling his obligations. Squeaking by and getting an "honorable discharge" while failing to actually perform the services required has a long history among the sons of politicians. |
"-=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. |
"-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Tue 14 Sep 2004 08:26:45p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Tue 14 Sep 2004 07:06:09p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: {snippage} Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a nick on his shin along with a purple heart. I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled on one side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear anyone who has ever served honorably. Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay! Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing hypocrite. Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that someone getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"? Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's "Technical" P.H. That you somehow think Kerry's "bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a rather compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine! To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled. Tough ****! After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's technique against Max Cleland. Where did I say that getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay", eh chuckles? So you're on record that Dole didn't deserve his purple heart? Are you referring to Dole's crippling injuries, or some minor, self- inflicted scratch that barely warranted applying a band-aid? Go back and read the thread, moron. Dole threw a grenade, which hit a tree and the shrapnel nicked his shin. Again, you exaggerate and re-word my post into something it is not. So far, your "post" isn't anything except a collection of weasel words. "Weasel words"? Amazing that "weasel words" are sufficient to gut your argument and leave you with nothing When are you going to start? |
"Sir Cumference" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "Gandalf Grey" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message .. . In article , "Gandalf Grey" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message .. . 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. |
"-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Tue 14 Sep 2004 09:31:58p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Tue 14 Sep 2004 08:45:23p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Tue 14 Sep 2004 07:57:48p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: "dxAce" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: {snippage} Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a nick on his shin along with a purple heart. I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled on one side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear anyone who has ever served honorably. Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay! Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing hypocrite. Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that someone getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"? Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's "Technical" P.H. That you somehow think Kerry's "bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a rather compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine! To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled. Tough ****! After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's technique against Max Cleland. I've served with and know *real* Heros who would make Kerry look like Clinton in comparison. You're assessment of heroes and heroism means exactly squat. Just so you'll know. You have yet to demonstrate any ability to even begin to grasp the concept of "Hero" So does your support of a draft-dodging coke-addict who thinks "heroism" is dressing up in a flight suit. And please explain how one dodges the draft by serving in the Texas Air National Guard? By refusing direct orders and deserting your post. WRONG. That's not dodging the draft. When did he desert? Somewhere where they weren't giving flight physicals. Give us a break, rightie. The facts are out there. Bush was REQUIRED to take a physical and he didn't report. He put in his time Apparently not. We're still waiting for some documentation that he actually did put in his time. Still waiting. "Crickets.wav" You lose, rightie. Nope, you're off the mark *yet again*. The fact is he accrued more "duty points" than were required for six full years of ANG service. Guess again. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/0...ws/20guard.htm Even given those opinions, the ANG saw fit to issue him an Honorable Discharge for fullfilling his obligations. Squeaking by and getting an "honorable discharge" while failing to actually perform the services required has a long history among the sons of politicians. And Military Jet Airplane pilots have a long history of being higher than average in intelligence, fitness and leadership qualities than the average liberal career college student. Well, George sure proved there's an exception to that rule. |
"-=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. |
"-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Tue 14 Sep 2004 09:39:31p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message news:41479bf4$0$28049 : "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Tue 14 Sep 2004 08:26:45p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Tue 14 Sep 2004 07:06:09p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message news:41477805$0$27990 : "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: {snippage} Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a nick on his shin along with a purple heart. I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled on one side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear anyone who has ever served honorably. Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay! Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing hypocrite. Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that someone getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"? Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's "Technical" P.H. That you somehow think Kerry's "bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a rather compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine! To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled. Tough ****! After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's technique against Max Cleland. Where did I say that getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay", eh chuckles? So you're on record that Dole didn't deserve his purple heart? Are you referring to Dole's crippling injuries, or some minor, self- inflicted scratch that barely warranted applying a band-aid? Go back and read the thread, moron. Dole threw a grenade, which hit a tree and the shrapnel nicked his shin. I must be a moron for trusting you to accurately reveal the whole story. I just looked it up and read what you failed to mention. Lo and behold, Dole *himself* says that's basically what he did in his own autobiography! To confirm my previous opinion, I agree with Dole in that it was silly that he received that P.H. for his clumsy grenade toss. As for the other wound that crippled his shoulder and arm, that makes all three of Kerry's scratches absolutely pale in comparison. Too bad Dole's not running. Because in the race between Kerry and Bush, the only scars Bush has are the scarring in his nasal passages from the passage of so much cocaine into what was left of his brain. Again, you exaggerate and re-word my post into something it is not. So far, your "post" isn't anything except a collection of weasel words. "Weasel words"? Amazing that "weasel words" are sufficient to gut your argument and leave you with nothing When are you going to start? I'm way ahead of you. and when are you going to demonstrate that? |
"-=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. |
= = = Sir Cumference wrote in message
= = = ... clifto wrote: Dan wrote: These things are such obvious fakes that, if CBS had *any* integrity left at all, Dan Rather should be fired on the spot. The lies continue and compound. http://progresssivetrail.org/articles/040911Peralta.shtml says, "1. Times New Roman Fonts did not exist in 1972. "The Times New Roman font was developed in 1931 by Stanley Morison, Typographical Advisor to the Monotype Corporation who adapted the font to the IBM selectric [sic] Typewriter in 1947." The font *may* have been developed in 1931; Morison was NOT advisor to Monotype Corporation, but to the Times (newspaper) of London. Victor Lardent of the Times actually drew the original design. The IBM Selectric [tm] Typewriter was introduced in 1961. To my knowledge, there was never a proportional-space version of the Selectric. Certainly the mechanics of the Selectric would have made proportional spacing very difficult if not impossible. The Selectric Composer could do proportional font spacing, but it was a high-quality, high-end, expensive unit used mostly by commercial printing firms for producing camera ready type or firms needing high-quality printing. And they were not easy to use or repair. SC, Did a typewriter exist that could mimic these features ? Some suggest that an IBM Selectric Composer could have been used, theoretically, to type the memos. But with a $4,000 {in 1970s Dollars} price tag, it's unlikely that a small National Guard office would have had one. - N O ! - ~ RHF .. |
"-=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 |
"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 |
"Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m... "dxAce" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message m: {snippage} Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a nick on his shin along with a purple heart. I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled on one side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear anyone who has ever served honorably. Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay! Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing hypocrite. Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that someone getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"? Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's "Technical" P.H. That you somehow think Kerry's "bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a rather compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine! To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled. Tough ****! After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's technique against Max Cleland. I've served with and know *real* Heros who would make Kerry look like Clinton in comparison. You're assessment of heroes and heroism means exactly squat. Just so you'll know. You have yet to demonstrate any ability to even begin to grasp the concept of "Hero" So does your support of a draft-dodging coke-addict who thinks "heroism" is dressing up in a flight suit. And please explain how one dodges the draft by serving in the Texas Air National Guard? By refusing direct orders and deserting your post. WRONG. That's not dodging the draft. When did he desert? Somewhere where they weren't giving flight physicals. Give us a break, rightie. The facts are out there. Bush was REQUIRED to take a physical and he didn't report. He put in his time Apparently not. We're still waiting for some documentation that he actually did put in his time. Still waiting. "Crickets.wav" You lose, rightie. Silly liberal grasping at straws. |
"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. Liberal speak for I'm clueless and don't know jack. |
"-=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. |
"-=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. |
"-=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. |
Gandalf Grey wrote:
So does your support of a draft-dodging coke-addict who thinks "heroism" is dressing up in a flight suit. IF you were going to fly in a military jet fighter you would dress up in a flight suit as well, it is mandatory, it isn't optional. |
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. |
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"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. The diversion was started by CBS when they aired the story. The reason it's continued is stonewalling by CBS. |
"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "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. The diversion was started by CBS when they aired the story. Not at all. The FACTS about Bush's missing service time and his dodging, IS ALREADY KNOWN. The CBS report if anything was only more confirmation of WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW. Bush deserted his post and his daddy got him out with an honorable discharge. |
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "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. The diversion was started by CBS when they aired the story. Not at all. The FACTS about Bush's missing service time and his dodging, IS ALREADY KNOWN. The CBS report if anything was only more confirmation of WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW. Bush deserted his post and his daddy got him out with an honorable discharge. Sorry, but I don't see how your response ties in with my last message. But if they are facts that are already known, how will forged documents confirm them? As a reminder, you said: And possibly because your sound machine is a diversion from the real issues of this election. I pointed out this was started when CBS aired the story. If they hadn't dug up 30+ year old allegations and used what appear to be forged documents to create a story, we'd be discussing something else. |
"Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "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. The diversion was started by CBS when they aired the story. Not at all. The FACTS about Bush's missing service time and his dodging, IS ALREADY KNOWN. The CBS report if anything was only more confirmation of WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW. Bush deserted his post and his daddy got him out with an honorable discharge. Sorry, but I don't see how your response ties in with my last message. Well, it's probably a little late in life for me to teach you how to think. But if they are facts that are already known, how will forged documents confirm them? They don't need to be confirmed. The lapses are already there. The testimomy of witinesses is already there. CBS wasn't really showing anyone anything knew. Plus, Killian's secretary has come forward and testified that the memos, fake or not, completely support how Killian felt about Bush. As a reminder, you said: And possibly because your sound machine is a diversion from the real issues of this election. I pointed out this was started when CBS aired the story. If they hadn't dug up 30+ year old allegations and used what appear to be forged documents to create a story, we'd be discussing something else. I doubt it. |
Gandalf Grey wrote: "Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "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. The diversion was started by CBS when they aired the story. Not at all. The FACTS about Bush's missing service time and his dodging, IS ALREADY KNOWN. The CBS report if anything was only more confirmation of WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW. Bush deserted his post and his daddy got him out with an honorable discharge. Sorry, but I don't see how your response ties in with my last message. Well, it's probably a little late in life for me to teach you how to think. But if they are facts that are already known, how will forged documents confirm them? They don't need to be confirmed. The lapses are already there. The testimomy of witinesses is already there. CBS wasn't really showing anyone anything knew. Plus, Killian's secretary has come forward and testified that the memos, fake or not, completely support how Killian felt about Bush. Ever hear of 'hearsay'? It's pretty hard for a dead guy to come back and dispute what anyone says about how he felt or what he did. How convenient for both you, Dan Rather and See'BS' News. dxAce |
"dxAce" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "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. The diversion was started by CBS when they aired the story. Not at all. The FACTS about Bush's missing service time and his dodging, IS ALREADY KNOWN. The CBS report if anything was only more confirmation of WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW. Bush deserted his post and his daddy got him out with an honorable discharge. Sorry, but I don't see how your response ties in with my last message. Well, it's probably a little late in life for me to teach you how to think. But if they are facts that are already known, how will forged documents confirm them? They don't need to be confirmed. The lapses are already there. The testimomy of witinesses is already there. CBS wasn't really showing anyone anything knew. Plus, Killian's secretary has come forward and testified that the memos, fake or not, completely support how Killian felt about Bush. Ever hear of 'hearsay'? Yeah. It's what the Smearboat Vets for Lies use in their Bushfront mudslinging campaign against Kerry. |
= = = "Gandalf Grey" wrote in message
= = = om... "Mark S. Holden" wrote in message ... Gandalf Grey wrote: "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. The diversion was started by CBS when they aired the story. Not at all. The FACTS about Bush's missing service time and his dodging, IS ALREADY KNOWN. The CBS report if anything was only more confirmation of WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW. Bush deserted his post and his daddy got him out with an honorable discharge. GG, The 'issue' for "Informed Voters" is not President George "W" Bush's Texas National Guard Service Record, or Senator John 'ff' Kerry's Vietnam Service Record. Both of which occurred more that Thirty Years (30 Yrs) ago. The 'issue' for "Informed Voters" is President George "W" Bush's record of accomplishments during his Four Years (4 Yrs) as the US President; contrasted with Senator John 'ff' Kerry's of doing nothing during his Twenty Years (20 Yrs) in the US Senate. ssi ~ RHF .. |
"Mark S. Holden" wrote: The allegations about GWB are old - people (snip) I doubt we would even be talking about Bush's military service today if there had not been almost fanatical attempts to discredit Kerry's military service prior to that. But, once those attempts were made to discredit Kerry's service, there were obviously going to be attempts to look more closely at Bush's military service during that same time period. And I think even you would agree that Bush's military service was rather lackluster. 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. I must have missed where Kerry claimed Vietnam was an "indicator of what kind of leader he would be as President." At the very most, his prior military service might illustrate some limited knowledge of military procedures and technology, but that is only one, relatively small, aspect of the presidency (the president doesn't fight wars, he simply orders others to do so). (snip) Experts they checked with warned them they looked like obvious forgeries. (snip) I saw no mention of the "experts" saying that ("they looked like obvious forgeries"). Instead, as I understand it, they said it would be difficult to fully verify the authenticity of photocopies. Stewart |
"-=jd=-" wrote:
There might be no need. Dan Rather himself has now begun to disaccociate authenticty from the docs. (snip) Of course he has. For the reasons already stated, it is going to be almost impossible to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, the authenticty of the documents. Now we also have the purported author's secretary chiming in with a high degree of confidence that the docs are "fakes" that *she* (at least) never typed. (snip) This is a clear example of where a little common sense should apply. There is no possible way for this secretary, who likely typed thousands of documents in her career, to remember what she did or did not type thirty years ago. (snip) Then we have rank-amateurs who have illustrated over and over that the documents can be reproduced (snip) Again, that simply tells me that "rank-amateurs" can reproduced documents on a computer today. It certainly doesn't prove these particular documents are fake. Still, I guess if one has aligned himself against Bush, then having these docs turn out to be forged is not very good news. (snip) And, I guess if one has aligned himself with Bush, the idea the documents might be fake is very good news. Of course, that is probably exactly why you are working so hard to spread that very idea. Stewart |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... I doubt we would even be talking about Bush's military service today if there had not been almost fanatical attempts to discredit Kerry's military service prior to that. Ahem, errrr, Dwight, I know this is going to be really hard to believe, seeing as you're all of twenty or twenty-five years old and know everything.... but Kerry discredited *himself* by committing treason almost thirty years before George Bush became president. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com