I was misled

[email hidden] (g.daniels) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

wavy gravy dude!

dirty martini or bahama mama?

On 7/2/04 5:12 PM, in article [email hidden],

Quoted post said:

JUST-DEPARTED PAUL BREMER WAS OUT OF TOUCH WITH IRAQIS

They're angry about the occupation and want U.S. to leave.

By Daniel Sneider Bullcrap snipped.......

phillyburbs.com93 06282004Open ↗
323737.html

AGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi voices filled the airwaves of the
nation's first independent talk radio station Monday,
applauding a surprise move by the U.S.-led coalition to
return sovereignty to Iraq two days early.

The callers clogged Radio Dijla's telephone lines to
congratulate interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, urging
him to be strong, while warning insurgents against
continued violence.

"I send my congratulations to all Iraqis and every Iraqi
home," a woman who identified herself as Um Yassin gushed,
her voice choked with emotion. "I want to tell Dr. Allawi to
be bold, to be strong. We need him to build up the army
because we need them at a time like this."

Her message was echoed by dozens on the day Prime Minister
Allawi was given a letter transferring sovereignty back to
the citizens of Iraq after about 14 months of coalition
administration.

But in the midst of adulation for the new government,
callers urged that all must be vigilant for insurgents
seeking to sow more chaos in a country plagued by violence
since Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled.

"I send all the Iraqi people my blessings," said Ali, a
caller from Baghdad. "But I warn these terrorists, all the
Iraqis will rise up and strike them with steel."

With that threat, the station switched to an upbeat song by
a Lebanese singer.

"People have been calling in all day, sending their
greetings to the new government," said Ahmed al-Rikabi, who
founded Radio Dijla about two months after working for years
with broadcasters in Europe. "There is a feeling of joy
among the listeners. But they are also expressing hope that
the day will pass with no problems and no explosions."

"But we've also had calls from people pleading with the
terrorists to let Iraqis live this day in peace."

Until well into the afternoon, the car bombings, insurgent
attacks on police and government buildings and coalition
forces that have become synonymous with daily life in post-
Saddam Iraq were conspicuously absent. But the memory of
past attacks were still fresh in listeners' memories.

On Baghdad FM, another channel that also hosts callers as
well as music, Um Ali, a woman from Hillah, recalled the
twin car bombings that struck the heart of her city Saturday
night. The blasts claimed 17 lives in the predominantly
Shiite city 60 miles south of the capital and injured about
40 others.

"It was nothing short of murder," she said. "Nobody wants
any more incidents like this."

Callers to both stations also used the opportunity to stress
that all Iraqis
- Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and Christians - should stand
together in the face of the challenges the country is
likely to face in the coming months.

"I say to our new government that everyone here is one,"
said Layla, calling in from the northern city of Kirkuk,
where ethnic tensions have flared among the Arab, Kurdish
and Turkomen populations. June 28, 2004 10:25 PM

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

daily.misleader.orgctt.aspOpen ↗

Yep, it's still misleading all right.

The story says that Ridge says we're now compliant.

The GAO says last report they did we weren't yet.

They try to twist that to make you think the GAO report
contradicts Ridge....

I believe that Ridge meant to say, "firm, yet compliant". 😉

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

andres muro said:

...I do spell like a nincaupoop and I am not sure how to
do a spell check aside from copying and pasting the entire
text in Word and then repasting it here...

And what exactly is the problem with doing that? I have
posted a few thousand messages to Usenet that were spell
checked with a word processor. Cutting and pasting with a
mouse [1] is easy.

[1] Thumb trackball in my case.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

Tom Sherman said:

andres muro said:

...I do spell like a nincaupoop and I am not sure how to
do a spell check aside from copying and pasting the
entire text in Word and then repasting it here...

And what exactly is the problem with doing that? I have
posted a few thousand messages to Usenet that were spell
checked with a word processor.

If Andres has Word, why would he have to do that? Tools,
Options, Spelling, check box, presto.

Bill "word" S.

Tim McNamara said:

Mark Hickey said:

(Jonesy) said:

Even if I were to let you have the point that Rush is
somehow a "source of news," you'd still find some way to
weasel out of logically defending your commentary on
torture.

LMAO.

Keep going - some day you'll get it. Or not.

He'll someday get what?

That Mark never said Rush was a legitimate "source of news".

Bill "context, context, context" S.

"S o r n i" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Tom Sherman said:

andres muro said:

...I do spell like a nincaupoop and I am not sure how
to do a spell check aside from copying and pasting the
entire text in Word and then repasting it here...

And what exactly is the problem with doing that? I have
posted a few thousand messages to Usenet that were spell
checked with a word processor.

If Andres has Word, why would he have to do that? Tools,
Options, Spelling, check box, presto.

Bill "word" S.

Tom's idea is too hard for me. I only do it when I am trying
to impress someone or to make a point. For cathartic
exercises, I don't care that much. Regardign your idea bill,
I don't have a tool icon w/spell check. I am posting from
Google groups. The icons that I have in my tool bars are the
internet explorer icons.

Andres

Tom Sherman said:

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

daily.misleader.orgctt.aspOpen ↗

Yep, it's still misleading all right.

The story says that Ridge says we're now compliant.

The GAO says last report they did we weren't yet.

They try to twist that to make you think the GAO report
contradicts Ridge....

I believe that Ridge meant to say, "firm, yet
compliant". 😉

From a polititian (or most bicycle marketing departments),
that's about as good as it gets... ;-)

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of
the $695 ti frame

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

andres muro said:

...I do spell like a nincaupoop and I am not sure how to
do a spell check aside from copying and pasting the
entire text in Word and then repasting it here...

Quoted message said:

Tom Sherman said:

And what exactly is the problem with doing that? I have
posted a few thousand messages to Usenet that were spell
checked with a word processor.

S o r n i said:

If Andres has Word, why would he have to do that? Tools,
Options, Spelling, check box, presto. Bill "word" S.

yeah, but Edlin is so less cluttered.

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1
April, 1971

S o r n i said:

Bill "mine made fried chicken that would have made the
Colonel weep like a little Northerner" S.

Lunch today included a Hungry Man XXL Southern Fried
Chicken. Well, it would have, if I could have eaten it, but
it was not so great.
--
Rick "Hungry NOW" Onanian

Tim McNamara said:

S o r n i said:

Tim McNamara said:

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> writes:

> [email hidden] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
>> Even if I were to let you have the point that Rush is
>> somehow a "source of news," you'd still find some way
>> to weasel out of logically defending your commentary
>> on torture.
>>
>> LMAO.
>
> Keep going - some day you'll get it. Or not.

He'll someday get what?

That Mark never said Rush was a legitimate "source
of news".

Ah. I agree with Mark, then, that Rush is not a legitmate
source of news.

Nice one 🙂

Bill "now cut that out" S.

Rick Onanian said:

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 00:29:57 GMT, "S o r n i" <sorni@bite-

me.san.rr.com said:

Bill "mine made fried chicken that would have made the
Colonel weep like a little Northerner" S.

Lunch today included a Hungry Man XXL Southern Fried
Chicken. Well, it would have, if I could have eaten it,
but it was not so great.

Sauce too blue?

Bill "ode to ZZ Top" S.

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(Jonesy) said:

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Jonesy) wrote:

>"S o r n i" <[email hidden]> wrote in
>message
>news:<[email hidden]>...
>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>
>> > daily.misleader.orgctt.aspOpen ↗
>> > 814
>>
>> And the /name/ of this august e-lication doesn't
>> tell you something, JB?!?
>>
>> Bill "more apt than they knew" S.
>
>Sorry, Bill - could you point out the parts that are
>an intent to mislead? I can't seem to locate much
>opinion in the article.

Note that Ridge's comments are current tense and the
GAO's report is past tense.

And Ridge's comments were made two weeks ago. Did you
miss that part?

Get the date on the GAO report and get back to me.

Why does that matter?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I happened to hear a news blurb on this subject on the
radio today (on a non-political program, BTW), and they
mentioned (if I caught the details) that they have just
finalized the ability to inspect virtually all incoming
ships.

So, Ridge's comments were not entirely accurate?

How would I know?

You're claiming that somehow this website is not spinning it
"correctly." So, that must mean you have data, *some* data,
*somewhere*, that proves your point? Or is it that you will
argue any conservative position, no matter how silly?

Quoted message said:

I heard a short report on the radio. Would you like me to
take a polygraph test?

Yes. Go right ahead and do that, then post the result.

Or, you could say what radio report and what "news source"
you are using.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, unless I mis-heard the report - the website IS
trying to mislead you, though they don't "exactly" lie.

In what way? Be specific. As in, refute the facts as
presented.

Read the above.

I see very few verifiable facts above. Some spin and a
phantom "news" report. Go ahead and actually link up some
facts - if you think that somehow the website presented it
incorrectly. Otherwise, follow our esteemed vice president's
advice to Sen. Leahy.
--
Jonesy

Jonesy said:

"S o r n i" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> writes:

> [email hidden] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
>> Even if I were to let you have the point that Rush is
>> somehow a "source of news," you'd still find some way
>> to weasel out of logically defending your commentary
>> on torture.
>>
>> LMAO.
>
> Keep going - some day you'll get it. Or not.

He'll someday get what?

That Mark never said Rush was a legitimate "source
of news".

I never claimed any such thing. Mark did indeed say Rush
was a "source of news." Legit, biased, right-wing,
brownshirt, drug-addled, self-important - add whichever
modifier suits your fancy, and it's STILL wrong to
consider Rush anything more than an op-ed guy - a "news
analyst", to be very generous.

But I never, anywhere, claimed that Mark was calling Rush
"legitimate" in any way, shape or form

I'll try to say this as clearly as possible. Mark's comment
was made in the CONTEXT of discussing sources and agendas.
His response mentioning Limbaugh was juxtaposed with someone
using, say, The Daily Misleader as a "news source". He
simply meant that, if THAT is OK, then so would be using,
say, Rush Limbaugh.

IOW, /both/ are equally biased and therfore NOT true "news
sources". He was merely pointing out a double standard that
not only exists but thrives heartily in some of these
threads lately.

HTH.

Bill "no doubt in my mind you already know all that and are
just arguing to hear your own keyboard clicks" S.

S o r n i said:

Sauce too blue? Bill "ode to ZZ Top" S.

Remind me to listen to more ZZ Top.
--
Rick Onanian

Jonesy said:

"S o r n i" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

[snip]

Quoted message said:

I'll try to say this as clearly as possible.

[snip]

LOL. I love the irony. See, when you come into the
discussion in the middle, sometimes you don't know what
was said previously.

See, Bill, this is not the first time Mark and I have
discussed this issue, and it always comes down the
same way.

Mark hems and haws about his views, throws down the PC
version, then comes back at some point and gives away the
real game. Just like in this thread.

Quoted message said:

Bill "no doubt in my mind you already know all that and
are just arguing to hear your own keyboard clicks" S.

Wow. Talk about "pot, kettle black." Stick to double-
entendres and puns, Bill.

Or maybe I'll call someone out and then cower in a cafe when
THEY actually have the stones to show up.

Bill "you're getting too mean-spirited lately, Spider" S.

Jonesy said:

"S o r n i" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Jonesy said:

"S o r n i" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

[snip]

> I'll try to say this as clearly as possible.

[snip]

LOL. I love the irony. See, when you come into the
discussion in the middle, sometimes you don't know what
was said previously.

See, Bill, this is not the first time Mark and I have
discussed this issue, and it always comes down the
same way.

Mark hems and haws about his views, throws down the PC
version, then comes back at some point and gives away
the real game. Just like in this thread.

> Bill "no doubt in my mind you already know all that and
> are just arguing to hear your own keyboard clicks" S.

Wow. Talk about "pot, kettle black." Stick to double-
entendres and puns, Bill.

Or maybe I'll call someone out and then cower in a cafe
when THEY actually have the stones to show up.

Wow, again. You call *me* mean-spirited, then throw this
in my face?

But...but...you posted BRAGGING about it! And I never said a
single word.

Quoted message said:

On top of that, it is a complete non sequitur. You know,
has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You're a
real class act, Bill.

Ah, but it does, because in your reply a few posts down to
Mark you mention his "stones" (or supposed lack thereof).
Mean, nasty, choose your own term for it; I've seldom seen
Mark resort to personal attacks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bill "you're getting too mean-spirited lately, Spider" S.

Yeah, sure. And your opinion is meaningful in what way?
No, really - I have been honest, sarcastic, caustic and
quick to poke fun at the self-important. In addition, I'm
always willing to eat crow when I screw up. That hasn't
changed at all.

If all that doesn't pass muster with you, who gives a
[censored], really? And if you have to bring up personal
failings, I'm sure your's are available to mention as
well. But at least I was kind enough to explain to you
that you don't have all the context of the Rush/Mark/"news
source" argument, instead of my usual "buy a clue,
asshat."

If you don't like my posts, or me personally, or whatever,
use your newsreader in an appropriate manner.

I liked you a lot better when you were friendly and funny.
Lately you've been caustic, full of yourself, and WAY too
long-winded. (But that's just me; maybe everyone else enjoys
your lengthy diatribes on every subject under the sun.)

When I was a kid, I was called "contrary"; my mother even
said I'd argue with Jesus Christ Himself. Guess they shamed
it out of me, but I just don't like long, drawn-out
arguments any more. That's why I usually keep it to "double
entendres and puns" -- short and sweet beats mind-numbingly
long and sour (again, just IMO)...

Bill "promise to let Mark defend himself from now on,
though" S.

Jonesy said:

"S o r n i" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Jonesy said:

"S o r n i" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> Jonesy wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Or maybe I'll call someone out and then cower in a cafe
> when THEY actually have the stones to show up.

Wow, again. You call *me* mean-spirited, then throw this
in my face?

But...but...you posted BRAGGING about it! And I never
said a single word.

It was not meant to be taken that way, but I cannot
control how anyone wishes to spin it. It was an honest
account of events, as promised. Integrity is telling the
truth even if it makes you look bad. I'm saddened that
it's not the norm, but I won't compromise for you or
anyone else.

I'm way too lazy to go retrieve it, but you were laughing at
the other guy (the one who had the balls to show up and meet
you). I, for one, had no idea of any "promise" to report
anything; just don't follow your sagas that closely.

Judging by the tone you used, I highly doubt you were
expecting the reaction you got (sort of like Tom with
his $5 freewheel removal), but again if you'll recall I
never commented at all (until finally provoked, at least
in my mind).

Quoted message said:

Still, arguing against ad hominem by using ad hominem is
not the epitome of a "class act." One could even say it's
"mean-spirited", right?

First of all, I never claimed to be a class act, but you're
right. I was offended at your abusive tone (toward others
and me) lately, and finally lashed out. I've never liked
bullies, and that's how you've been acting
IMO. Sorry.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On top of that, it is a complete non sequitur. You know,
has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You're a
real class act, Bill.

Ah, but it does, because in your reply a few posts down
to Mark you mention his "stones" (or supposed lack
thereof). Mean, nasty, choose your own term for it; I've
seldom seen Mark resort to personal attacks.

Then you haven't read them carefully. If you don't see the
derisive tone, then you are just reading it with a rose-
colored monitor.

I've read Mark's posts plenty. While he can flame with the
best of them, I don't recall him EVER resorting to name-
calling or personal attacks (FIRST, at least). You, on the
other hand, don't seem content with merely arguing; you like
to insult people (a lot).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you don't like my posts, or me personally, or
whatever, use your newsreader in an appropriate manner.

I liked you a lot better when you were friendly and
funny.

Like I said, who gives a [censored]? Nobody forces you to read
my drivel, do they?

Quoted message said:

Lately you've been caustic, full of yourself, and WAY too
long-winded.

Again, your lack of control is not my problem. In any
case, you complaining about anyone else's USENET posting
content is highly ironic, Mr. Low Signal:Noise.

Quoted message said:

(But that's just me; maybe everyone else enjoys your
lengthy diatribes on every subject under the sun.)

LOL. My self-important drivel is easily avoided.

Quoted message said:

When I was a kid, I was called "contrary"; my mother even
said I'd argue with Jesus Christ Himself. Guess they
shamed it out of me, but I just don't like long, drawn-
out arguments any more.

Fine - I'm sure I'll change my posting style *just for
you.* Or, you can learn your newsreader functions. Or how
to operate a mouse.

Who said anything about YOU?!? Keep on posting however the
hell you want. Other than this thread with Mark, I seldom
read the long back & forths (like you and Dan V. or the
current Zaumen and JustThisGuy) because they're so damned
boring. (Like this one is to others, I'm sure!)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's why I usually keep it to "double entendres and
puns" -- short and sweet beats mind-numbingly long and
sour (again, just IMO)...

And your opinion is meaningful in what way, again?

So why are you kickin' so much then?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bill "promise to let Mark defend himself from now on,
though" S.

A sensible thing. As is avoiding political discussions in
cycling newsgroups.

Now you tell me.

Quoted message said:

Ah, [censored].

Indeed.

Bill "bowing out now; go ahead and get in your last
word(sssssssssss 🙂 " S.

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]

[...]

Quoted message said:

The torture that has occurred puts the Bush II
administration's prior vehement opposition to the ICC in a
new light, does it not?

Bush opposed the International Cricket Council? Geez,
'muricans don't even play the game!

--

A: Top-posters.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?