OT Lying ****-weasel

[Ken Fortenberry]

St. Bart, Bartlett Giamatti, former commissioner of baseball absolutely
did the right thing kicking that sleaze ball out of baseball for life.
Where he screwed up was in letting the lying little **** weasel sign a
letter accepting a lifetime ban instead of proceeding with the official
hearing which would have done the same thing without subjecting us, 14
years later, to this sorry spectacle and self-serving circus.

Pete Rose bet on baseball, he shat on the game, close the book on the
son of a bitch.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[rb608]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
> Pete Rose bet on baseball, he shat on the game, close the book on the
> son of a bitch.

I couldn't agree more. I'm apalled by the sympathetic attention Rose's
confession seems to be receiving. If I follow the story line, Rose was
kicked out of baseball for betting on the game, something he has repeatedly
denied in the ensuing years. Now, years later, he confesses. From where I
stand, this not only re-validates the grounds for his banishment, but adds
being a chronic liar to his list of offenses. I'm mystefied as to why
anyone would consider this grounds for reinstatement.

Joe F.

[Lat705]

Ken

If he were a Democrat liberal, he'd probably be the front runner, presidential
candidate.

How's that for my first attempt at trolling?

Lou T

[Charlie Choc]

On 06 Jan 2004 15:25:59 GMT, (Lat705) wrote:

>Ken
>
>If he were a Democrat liberal, he'd probably be the front runner, presidential
>candidate.

Not necessarily: I believe he's currently a republican and yet he
isn't president. <g>
--
Charlie...

[tim_s]

i'll agree he is a lying ****-bum poor excuse for a human being and
should not be allowed in the game again

at the same time, he is arguably the game's greatest all-time hitter
and belongs in the Hall

the Hall is full of law-breaking men, of lousy human beings, that
played the game better than most, and Rose should be included in that
group,,,,it is about being a great player, not a quality human
being....if quality human was a prerequisite, the Hall would be
missing Ty Cobb and Roger Clemens would have no shot of ever getting
in.....(how's my troll??)

[Bill McDonald]

Well.. my 2 ct. worth. I would just like to know if he had ever
betted AGAINST his team. If not, so what! IIRC, the superbowl team
owners put up a wager on the game that's made public! And now hearing
his latest interviews, it appears he aint the brightest bulb in the
make-up mirror! AND always remember, Its a game! Bill

[Ken Fortenberry]

Bill McDonald wrote:
> Well.. my 2 ct. worth. I would just like to know if he had ever
> betted AGAINST his team. If not, so what! ...

OK Bill, try to follow along here. Pete Rose, the manager of the
Cincinnati Reds, is a known gambler and he places bets, always ON
the Cincinnati Reds, some 4 or 5 times a week. With me so far ?
Now, go out and beg borrow or steal another active brain cell
to rub against the only one you've ever had and see if you can
figure out what a professional gambler would do on the days that
Pete Rose DIDN'T bet.

--
Ken Fortenberry- anybody got a clue bat I can borrow ;-)

[Ken Fortenberry]

tim_s wrote:
> ...
> the Hall is full of law-breaking men, of lousy human beings, that
> played the game better than most, and Rose should be included in that
> group,,,,it is about being a great player, not a quality human
> being....if quality human was a prerequisite, the Hall would be
> missing Ty Cobb and Roger Clemens would have no shot of ever getting
> in.....(how's my troll??)

The Hall is NOT full of people who shat on the game. Ty Cobb was a
misogynist and a terrible racist, and by all accounts a miserable
excuse of a **** poor human being, but he didn't caught betting on
baseball. (Some say he did, but he was never caught.)

I wouldn't mind a separate section of the Hall to enshrine scum
like Joe Jackson and Pete Rose for their play on the field, but
enshrinement in that section of the Hall would be posthumously
ONLY, and there would be no induction ceremony. Just a plaque in
the Shameful Section which would include a description of their
crimes against the game.

As for Clemens, **** Texas and **** Texans, you could give the
whole damn lot of them to the Mexican League for all I care.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Lat705]

>
>Not necessarily: I believe he's currently a republican and yet he
>isn't president. <g>
>--
>Charlie...
>

Char;ie

I was trolling for Ken.

Lou T

[Wolfgang]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in
message gy.com...
> St. Bart, Bartlett Giamatti, former commissioner of baseball
absolutely
> did the right thing kicking that sleaze ball out of baseball for
life.
> Where he screwed up was in letting the lying little **** weasel sign
a
> letter accepting a lifetime ban instead of proceeding with the
official
> hearing which would have done the same thing without subjecting us,
14
> years later, to this sorry spectacle and self-serving circus.
>
> Pete Rose bet on baseball, he shat on the game, close the book on
the
> son of a bitch.

Hm......so, you think he should be impeached?

Wolfgang

[Lat705]

>K Bill, try to follow along here. Pete Rose, the manager of the
>Cincinnati Reds, is a known gambler and he places bets, always ON
>the Cincinnati Reds, some 4 or 5 times a week. With me so far ?
>Now, go out and beg borrow or steal another active brain cell
>to rub against the only one you've ever had and see if you can
>figure out what a professional gambler would do on the days that
>Pete Rose DIDN'T bet.
>
>--
>Ken Fortenberry- anybody got a clue bat I can borrow ;-)
>
>
I asked a horse trainer one day if his horse was going to win. He said "Lou,
If I could tell who was going to win a horse race, do you think I'd be getting
up 6AM every day to work with horses?" Back when my daughter was intrerested
in being a vet, she worked at the track to pump up her resume (and make money).
In one race, she, and the people who knew the horse, were predicting if the
horse would come in last or beat one horse. The horse won. Baseball is like
most sports in predicting outcomes. I don't think Pete Rose knew if his team
would win or lose. If Pete Rose did "know" is not the situation, I hope.
Let's face the facts though. Pete broke rules that he knew the league was
adamant about and should expect the promised outcome..

[Charlie Choc]

On 06 Jan 2004 19:19:41 GMT, (Lat705) wrote:

>I was trolling for Ken.
>
Hope you catch him... and keep him. <g>
--
Charlie...

[Ernie]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in
message
gy.com...
> I wouldn't mind a separate section of the Hall to enshrine scum
> like Joe Jackson and Pete Rose for their play on the field, but
> enshrinement in that section of the Hall would be posthumously
> ONLY, and there would be no induction ceremony. Just a plaque
in
> the Shameful Section which would include a description of their
> crimes against the game.
> Ken Fortenberry

Ken,
What makes you so passionate about a game when you don't seem
to have much respect for things like honor, duty, service and
country?
Ernie

[Dave LaCourse]

Ernie writes:

>Ken,
> What makes you so passionate about a game when you don't seem
>to have much respect for things like honor, duty, service and
>country?

<SPLORK>

Too phunny!
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

[Ken Fortenberry]

Dave LaCourse wrote:

> Ernie writes:
>
>
>>Ken,
>> What makes you so passionate about a game when you don't seem
>>to have much respect for things like honor, duty, service and
>>country?
>
>
> <SPLORK>
>
> Too phunny!
> Dave
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I love my country, I am patriotic, but I don't march in lockstep
with the policies of the greedy corporate thugs who would destroy
the very things that make this country great. Dissent is good,
especially now.

I get sick and ****ing tired of ex-military who think they're
some sort of Uber American because they were in the service. They
think they're more patriotic, they think their opinions carry
more weight, they think their dicks are longer and their teeth
are whiter, but most of them are just poor dumb schmucks who
couldn't afford to go to college and they are no better or worse
than any other citizen in this republic.

Both of you silly old bitches can go straight to hell.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Scott Seidman]

(Bill McDonald) wrote in
om:

> Well.. my 2 ct. worth. I would just like to know if he had ever
> betted AGAINST his team. If not, so what! IIRC, the superbowl team
> owners put up a wager on the game that's made public! And now hearing
> his latest interviews, it appears he aint the brightest bulb in the
> make-up mirror! AND always remember, Its a game! Bill
>

He says he never bet against his team, but I says that not betting on his
team to win is nearly as bad as betting on his team to lose. You can't
tell me that he wouldn't think differently about his bullpen when he knew
there was no money on the game, and he wouldn't burn up his bullpen when
there was alot on the game.

He was also exposing baseball to the risk that some bookie or mobster would
threaten him into throwing a game.


Scott

[Tim J.]

"Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
.4...
> (Bill McDonald) wrote in
> om:
>
> > Well.. my 2 ct. worth. I would just like to know if he had ever
> > betted AGAINST his team. If not, so what! IIRC, the superbowl team
> > owners put up a wager on the game that's made public! And now hearing
> > his latest interviews, it appears he aint the brightest bulb in the
> > make-up mirror! AND always remember, Its a game! Bill
> >
>
> He says he never bet against his team, . . .<snip>

Exactly. Is he going to change THAT story fourteen years from now? He's lost any
and all credibility, and anything out of his mouth at this point is suspect.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Ernie]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in
message
> but most of them are just poor dumb schmucks who
> couldn't afford to go to college and they are no better or
worse
> than any other citizen in this republic.
> Both of you silly old bitches can go straight to hell.
> Ken Fortenberry

No Ken,
Most of them are laying in cemeteries scattered around the world
so you can spout your drivel on the Internet.
Ernie

[Dave LaCourse]

Ken Fortenberry writes:

<sour grapes and wimpy whine snipped>

My, my, my. Seems like a nerve was severed on that one. Time to get out your
seven iron and attack, old brave dissenter.

Never said or claimed any of the things you said. I just thought you ultra
liberals were supposed to be a little more tolerant. Guess I was wrong. Are
most liberals as intoleratant as you are, Ken? Are they *all* prigs?

You are correct on one thing, however. Yep, I couldn't afford to go to
college. Mom and dad both worked, but, you see, we were just a poor
blue-collar-Democrat-voting family. We had very little except work ethic, a
love of family, and a love for fly fishing.

My plan was to join the Navy and get my education - and I did, but you don't
approve because it wasn't a liberal arts education. Makes me laugh, really,
because of how very successful I've been when compared to many of my edumacated
friends.

Is every day in your life miserable, Ken, or is that just your Usenet persona?

Toodles.
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

[Dave LaCourse]

Scott Seidman writes:

>He was also exposing baseball to the risk that some bookie or mobster would
>threaten him into throwing a game.

No more so than President Clinton risked national security with his actions.

He gambled while he was coach, not while he was playing (caveat - as far as we
know). He should be in the HofF for what he did as a player, not as a coach.
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

[Wolfgang]

"Dave LaCourse" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Seidman writes:
>
> >He was also exposing baseball to the risk that some bookie or mobster
would
> >threaten him into throwing a game.
>
> No more so than President Clinton risked national security with his
actions......

Damn, you just don't ****in' learn, do you?

How many grandchildren's deaths was Clinton responsible for? :)

Wolfgang

[Scott Seidman]

(Dave LaCourse) wrote in
:

> Scott Seidman writes:
>
>>He was also exposing baseball to the risk that some bookie or mobster
>>would threaten him into throwing a game.
>
> No more so than President Clinton risked national security with his
> actions.
>
> He gambled while he was coach, not while he was playing (caveat - as
> far as we know). He should be in the HofF for what he did as a
> player, not as a coach. Dave
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html
>
>
>
>
>
Dave,

You know as well as I do that if someone tried to blackmail Clinton, he
would have simply had them killed :-)

Scott

[Ken Fortenberry]

Dave LaCourse wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>
> My, my, my. Seems like a nerve was severed on that one. ...

Exactly. Like I said, I am sick and ****ing tired of having my
honor and my patriotism attacked by my fellow Americans who, if
they had a shred of either, would be embarrassed of themselves.

> Never said or claimed any of the things you said.

Liar. You're the MOST vocal, and yours are the most persistent
attacks in the category of "honor and patriotism".

> Is every day in your life miserable, Ken, or is that just your Usenet persona?

I've had a miserable couple of months lately. Thanks for asking.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Tom Littleton]

Bill McDonald writes:
>Well.. my 2 ct. worth. I would just like to know if he had ever
>betted AGAINST his team. If not, so what!

so what? So he had chosen a game in which gambling is forbidden. He could read
the rule book, and shouldn't be above it.

Tom

[Tom Littleton]

Ernie feels compelled to note:
>Ken,
> What makes you so passionate about a game when you don't seem
>to have much respect for things like honor, duty, service and
>country?

Ya know, Ernie....I've had my differences with Ken over the years, but Ken is
passionate about most everything. Simply disagreeing with your view of
patriotic doesn't make him less so, does it? I think Ken thinks a great deal
about his country, which is the ultimate respect. He certainly has mine more so
that those who want to turn a baseball thread into their little two bit
political soapbox......
Tom

[Lat705]

>they're more patriotic, ... their opinions carry
>more weight, ... their dicks are longer and their teeth
>are whiter,

Glad you got that part of your post correct.

Lou T

[Dave LaCourse]

Scott writes:

>Dave,
>
>You know as well as I do that if someone tried to blackmail Clinton, he
>would have simply had them killed

LOL, Or so the story goes. <g>
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

[walt winter]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
> St. Bart, Bartlett Giamatti, former commissioner of baseball absolutely
> did the right thing kicking that sleaze ball out of baseball for life.
> Where he screwed up was in letting the lying little **** weasel sign a
> letter accepting a lifetime ban instead of proceeding with the official
> hearing which would have done the same thing without subjecting us, 14
> years later, to this sorry spectacle and self-serving circus.
>
> Pete Rose bet on baseball, he shat on the game, close the book on the
> son of a bitch.
>

would you feel the same if he had been a cardinal? think about it
before you can a reply.

--wally... pete rose was the "natural."... sure, he ****ed up
later.... we all do.

[Ernie]

"Tom Littleton" > wrote in message
...
> Ya know, Ernie....I've had my differences with Ken over the
years, but Ken is
> passionate about most everything. Simply disagreeing with your
view of
> patriotic doesn't make him less so, does it? I think Ken thinks
a great deal
> about his country, which is the ultimate respect. He certainly
has mine more so
> that those who want to turn a baseball thread into their little
two bit
> political soapbox......
> Tom

Tom,
The last time I looked this was a Flyfishing News Group, it is
Ken who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
Ernie

[walt winter]

Ernie wrote:

> Tom,
> The last time I looked this was a Flyfishing News Group, it is
> Ken who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
> Ernie
>

Ernie, yes, it is a ff group. Have you ever ff'd with Ken? Have
you ever ff'd with anyone else? If so, did you speak of
*anything* other than ff'g?

If you have done so than, you are being hypocritical now.

wally

[Larry]

Yeah, but out of curiosity... how do you REALLY feel about it??

=)

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

> St. Bart, Bartlett Giamatti, former commissioner of baseball absolutely
> did the right thing kicking that sleaze ball out of baseball for life.
> Where he screwed up was in letting the lying little **** weasel sign a
> letter accepting a lifetime ban instead of proceeding with the official
> hearing which would have done the same thing without subjecting us, 14
> years later, to this sorry spectacle and self-serving circus.
>
> Pete Rose bet on baseball, he shat on the game, close the book on the
> son of a bitch.
>

[Ken Fortenberry]

Ernie wrote:
> ...
> The last time I looked this was a Flyfishing News Group, it is
> Ken who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
> Ernie

I started a baseball thread because I must have waded through seventy
articles this morning about that **** weasel Pete Rose. In other words,
it was topical, of interest, and, no surprise, I had a strong opinion
about it. I tossed it into roff because it's below zero outside, I have
no fishing to talk about, and I like conversing with most of my fellow
roffians.

YOU were the one who took a clearly marked OT thread and turned it into
a personal insult.

So shame on you and,

Why do you hate America so much ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Larry]

> Both of you silly old bitches can go straight to hell.
>

Criminy! Will YOU QUIT beatin around the bush on issues and let someone
know where you REALLY stand??? every friggin post from you is
non-committal, mamby-pamby and fails to get the point across... how do
you ever expect ANYONE to gauge your opinion on an issue?

[Wayne Knight]

"Lat705" > wrote in message
...
> I don't think Pete Rose knew if his team
> would win or lose.

But he ensure his team had a harder time winning therefore making it more
possible for them to loose. From a manager's perspective more so. All it
would take is calling the "wrong" pitches and placing the fielders in
position contrary to the pitch and the hitters' tendecies.

[Wolfgang]

"Wayne Knight" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lat705" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I don't think Pete Rose knew if his team
> > would win or lose.
>
> But he ensure his team had a harder time winning therefore making it more
> possible for them to loose. From a manager's perspective more so. All it
> would take is calling the "wrong" pitches and placing the fielders in
> position contrary to the pitch and the hitters' tendecies.

All of which, if you think about it, would make the game very interesting.

He didn't do it.

QED

Wolfgang

[rb608]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> He didn't do it.
>
> QED

Hell, that's good enough for me. <g>

Joe F.

[Lat705]

That's what I tried to infer by the "know", which is not the issue. It's the
gambling. The perception of a coach that bets on his team and then lays off
for a game is bad. I think the league's rule is there to cover not only
incentive to cheat, but also public perception of improprity.

Lou T

[daytripper]

On 06 Jan 2004 22:37:09 GMT, (Tom Littleton) wrote:

>Ernie feels compelled to note:
>>Ken,
>> What makes you so passionate about a game when you don't seem
>>to have much respect for things like honor, duty, service and
>>country?
>
>Ya know, Ernie....I've had my differences with Ken over the years, but Ken is
>passionate about most everything. Simply disagreeing with your view of
>patriotic doesn't make him less so, does it? I think Ken thinks a great deal
>about his country, which is the ultimate respect. He certainly has mine more so
>that those who want to turn a baseball thread into their little two bit
>political soapbox......
> Tom

Hear! Hear!

[daytripper]

On 06 Jan 2004 20:28:19 GMT, (Dave LaCourse) wrote:

>Ernie writes:
>
>>Ken,
>> What makes you so passionate about a game when you don't seem
>>to have much respect for things like honor, duty, service and
>>country?
>
><SPLORK>
>
>Too phunny!
>Dave

You're doing it again.

[Wolfgang]

"daytripper" > wrote in message
...
> On 06 Jan 2004 20:28:19 GMT, (Dave LaCourse) wrote:
>
> >Ernie writes:
> >
> >>Ken,
> >> What makes you so passionate about a game when you don't seem
> >>to have much respect for things like honor, duty, service and
> >>country?
> >
> ><SPLORK>
> >
> >Too phunny!
> >Dave
>
> You're doing it again.

Hee, hee, hee.

Next comes the rage. Then the sulking absence. Then the "darned old
political threads.....all they ever do is make us hurt one another, boo hoo.
:( "

Hee, hee, hee. :)

Wolfgang
we gotta get a new jukebox.

[Ernie]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in
message
gy.com...
> YOU were the one who took a clearly marked OT thread and turned
it into
> a personal insult.
> So shame on you and,
> Why do you hate America so much ?
> Ken Fortenberry

Ken,
It was not meant to be a personal insult. I think that war is
one of man's greatest follies, but until we find a way to
eliminate it I will be forever grateful to the people who fought
and died preserving our way of life. How about you?
Ernie

[Bill McDonald]

Ken, I really can't wait to meet you. I'll be the swine before your
pearls. Bill in Va.

[Tim Carter]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
gy.com...

> YOU were the one who took a clearly marked OT thread and turned it into
> a personal insult.

Interesting. What do you think Pete Rose would have thought about your post
had he read it? Maybe a tad insulted?

Ken, I don't think most people have a problem with the 'passion' you bring
to your posts. Your posts do, however, get a rise from many simply because
they are often insulting in some fashion.


> So shame on you

[Bill McDonald]

Aw ****.. just can't leave it alone.. The next time I'm on the golf
course, I'll not lay a wager. It might give my opponent and the
bookies the idea that my game is not up to snuff on that day. Damn,
even better! Next time a-stream with my friends, I'll not participate
in the pool of 1st, largest, most cuz I've got a feeling that day that
the trout are going to favor one of my bud's over my offerings! Yeah,
a conspiracy! So, Ken that's what I've utilized my other brain cell
for!. And ken, ya forgot to address my last issue. Get a life, IT'S
A FREAKING GAME! Bill in Va.

[Ken Fortenberry]

walt winter wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>
>> Pete Rose bet on baseball, he shat on the game, close the book on the
>> son of a bitch.
>>
>
> would you feel the same if he had been a cardinal? think about it before
> you can a reply.
>
> --wally... pete rose was the "natural."... sure, he ****ed up later....
> we all do.
>
The closest Cardinal I can come up with is Orlando "Cha-Cha" Cepeda.

And yeah, if he had shat on the game after his playing days were over
instead of just being caught with pot, I would feel the same.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Russell D.]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

> St. Bart, Bartlett Giamatti, former commissioner of baseball absolutely
> did the right thing kicking that sleaze ball out of baseball for life.
> Where he screwed up was in letting the lying little **** weasel sign a
> letter accepting a lifetime ban instead of proceeding with the official
> hearing which would have done the same thing without subjecting us, 14
> years later, to this sorry spectacle and self-serving circus.
>
> Pete Rose bet on baseball, he shat on the game, close the book on the
> son of a bitch.
>

FWIW, I couldn't agree more. I am truly tired of the man.

Russell

[Tim Carter]

> The closest Cardinal I can come up with is Orlando "Cha-Cha" Cepeda.
>
> And yeah, if he had shat on the game after his playing days were over
> instead of just being caught with pot, I would feel the same.

It is funny how we pick and choose which criteria for which to crucify
someone, isn't it? Certainly gambling is a problem for a sport, but one can
also argue that it's effect on the individual can be devastating and it's
overall effect on society is deleterious. Likewise, can be said about
alcohol, drugs, murder, rape, assault and many other activities...all
committed by various sports figures as well as everyday individuals.

Schwarzenegger used steroids and apparently was, and is, a sexual predator
of sorts. He's rewarded by now the governor of California. Charles Barkley
spit on a fan; did he ever suffer any real repercussions? Tyson's continued
repulsive activities only earn him larger and larger purses at a time when
his skills have turned mediocre. What do you think would be the true
outlook for Kobe Bryant if convicted but sentenced very lightly? Probably
not much. I could go on and on. But, I guess one can't expect any real
rationality until people can put sports in it's proper perspective (yeah, it
really is just a game...and likely a game *you* or *I* are not even
participating in) and recognize that just because someone is on television
doesn't make them some kind of superhero.

[rb608]

"Tim Carter" > wrote in message
> It is funny how we pick and choose which criteria for which to crucify
> someone, isn't it? Certainly gambling is a problem for a sport, but one
can
> also argue that it's effect on the individual can be devastating and it's
> overall effect on society is deleterious. Likewise, can be said about
> alcohol, drugs, murder, rape, assault and many other activities...all
> committed by various sports figures as well as everyday individuals.

The big difference for me is the potential for damage to the integrity of
the game of baseball. We all root for our teams, buy tickets, and buy fan
merchandise based on the belief that sports contests are played and decided
purely on the abilities of the players and coaches. If an individual
commits a crime such as illegal drug use, he (possibly) reduces his
individual capability and may affect the outcome of games in which he is
involved. That's a bad thing, but one that only casts a bad light on the
player, not on the sport.

There has been much lament about how the free-agent system, for example, has
eroded civic pride in teams composed of players with no history or loyalty
to the towns they represent. They're only in it for the money. It's just a
business. With player and coach salaries in the millions, that's an easy
stance to take. So how about if the gambling take is in the millions? Do
we expect players to put loyalty to the game first?

IMHO, if the general public loses faith in the overall integrity of the game
and begins to believe the outcomes are predetermined, it would be
devastating for the sport. As others have mentioned, at what point does a
betting player begin to alter his performance or actions to influence an
outcome? At what point does the gambling establishment have undue influence
of that player or a group of players? These are very difficult questions
with extreme importance for the game, and ones which are easiest solved by
strenuously prohibiting in-house gambling completely, as the rules clearly
state.

It's not about Rose, as much as he wants it to be, it's about the integrity
of the game. Despite his on-the-field performance, his off-the-field
activities bring serious harm to the sport. Maybe he bet on his tem, maybe
not. Maybe he made a managerial decision based on a phone call from his
bookie, maybe he didn't. The fact is that we cannot know. He brought the
integrity of the game into question, and that is exactly why he was banned
and should stay that way.

Joe F.

[Conan the Librarian]

(tim_s) wrote in message >...

> i'll agree he is a lying ****-bum poor excuse for a human being and
> should not be allowed in the game again

Agreed. And those who think it's not a big deal that he gambled on
the game don't really understand the nature of baseball. It is all
too easy for a manager to directly affect the outcome of a game.

Don't believe me? Anyone heard the name Grady Little? :-}

> at the same time, he is arguably the game's greatest all-time hitter
> and belongs in the Hall

He was arguably one of the most consistent players the game ever
saw, but off the top of my head I can think of a dozen guys who were
much better hitters than he was.

Williams, Ruth, Gehrig, Mays, Aaron, Musial, Foxx, Cobb, Hornsby,
Carew, Dimaggio and Joe Jackson come to mind.

And he was arguably one of the *worst* fielders to play the game,
besides having a ****-poor arm. But I can't really argue that his
offensive production should gain him entry in the Hall, if not for the
gambling.

> the Hall is full of law-breaking men, of lousy human beings, that
> played the game better than most, and Rose should be included in that
> group,,,,it is about being a great player, not a quality human
> being....if quality human was a prerequisite, the Hall would be
> missing Ty Cobb and Roger Clemens would have no shot of ever getting
> in.....(how's my troll??)

As a troll, it's not too good. It's too close to the standard
argument that's used for justifying Rose's entry into the Hall. :-)
Unfortunately for the Rose supporters, it's not a matter of character.
It's a matter of him gambling on the game.

The fact that he lied about it, then made a deal with Giamatti,
then lied about for years, then admitted to it when he thought it
would help him, are all just further indications of what a selfish,
arrogant ****-weasel he is. But the bottom line is, even if he had
come clean from the beginning, gambling on the game should preclude
him from being inducted into the Hall, IMHO.


Chuck Vance

[egildone]

"Tim Carter" > wrote in message
...
>
> It is funny how we pick and choose which criteria for which to crucify
> someone, isn't it? Certainly gambling is a problem for a sport, but one
can
> also argue that it's effect on the individual can be devastating and it's
> overall effect on society is deleterious. Likewise, can be said about
> alcohol, drugs, murder, rape, assault and many other activities...all
> committed by various sports figures as well as everyday individuals.
>
> Schwarzenegger used steroids and apparently was, and is, a sexual predator
> of sorts. He's rewarded by now the governor of California. Charles
Barkley
> spit on a fan; did he ever suffer any real repercussions? Tyson's
continued
> repulsive activities only earn him larger and larger purses at a time when
> his skills have turned mediocre. What do you think would be the true
> outlook for Kobe Bryant if convicted but sentenced very lightly? Probably
> not much. I could go on and on. But, I guess one can't expect any real
> rationality until people can put sports in it's proper perspective (yeah,
it
> really is just a game...and likely a game *you* or *I* are not even
> participating in) and recognize that just because someone is on television
> doesn't make them some kind of superhero.

You forgot Bill Clinton. Look what he did in the Oval office with the 21
year old daughter of one of his contributers to his campaign, then lied
about it for six months causing suffering and pain to his friends who
supported him. How was he rewarded? He was elected to a second term!

--
Ed (remove nospam to reply)

[Tim J.]

"rb608" wrote...
>
> "Tim Carter" wrote...
> > It is funny how we pick and choose which criteria for which to crucify
> > someone, isn't it? Certainly gambling is a problem for a sport, but one
> can
> > also argue that it's effect on the individual can be devastating and it's
> > overall effect on society is deleterious. Likewise, can be said about
> > alcohol, drugs, murder, rape, assault and many other activities...all
> > committed by various sports figures as well as everyday individuals.
>
<snip>
> It's not about Rose, as much as he wants it to be, it's about the integrity
> of the game. Despite his on-the-field performance, his off-the-field
> activities bring serious harm to the sport. Maybe he bet on his tem, maybe
> not. Maybe he made a managerial decision based on a phone call from his
> bookie, maybe he didn't. The fact is that we cannot know. He brought the
> integrity of the game into question, and that is exactly why he was banned
> and should stay that way.

More information (some of it may even be true) is coming out on an hourly basis.
Rose still says he never bet on games from the clubhouse, while several eye
witnesses say they saw him doing just that. He is also said to have called other
managers prior to games, asked who they were starting as pitchers, and how that
pitcher was doing prior to placing his bets. That smells of "insider trading"
that even corrupts his gambling, not to mention the game. There are people now
saying he bet on baseball while playing the game, but the claims are
unsubstantiated. Of course he denies all of this. We may yet find out the real
truth, but my guess is it won't be from Pete Rose. I heard on a local sports
show that there is some rule stating Rose can't be inducted into the Hall of
Fame without being reinstated into MLB. If they changed this rule so he could be
inducted without reinstatement, and he WERE inducted, I think I would most
certainly vomit listening to his acceptance speech. In any case, he should NEVER
be reinstated into MLB in any capacity.

BTW, his "confession" falls far short of admitting he was wrong and that he's
very sorry for what he did to the game: "For the last 14 years I've consistently
heard the statement: 'If Pete Rose came clean, all would be forgiven.' Well,
I've done what you've asked. The rest is up to the commissioner and the big
umpire in the sky." I don't think this latest confession comes anywhere close
to "coming clean." I'm still waiting, and no doubt will be for a LONG time, for
Rose's public apology to Dowd, Giamatti, and Vincent for calling THEM liars and
questioning THEIR integrity for fourteen years. He raked those men through hell
and back based on what he knew to be his own lies.

What a lying ****-weasel (hey, that sounds vaguely familiar. . .)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Tim J.]

"Conan the Librarian" wrote...

> It is all
> too easy for a manager to directly affect the outcome of a game.
>
> Don't believe me? Anyone heard the name Grady Little? :-}

You are a mean, nasty person who should have their Usenet license revoked.
--
TL,
Tim
(could you twist that knife a little to the left?)
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[riverman]

"egildone" > wrote in message
news:WiUKb.43932$a44.24956@okepread04...
>
>> You forgot Bill Clinton. Look what he did in the Oval office with the 21
> year old daughter of one of his contributers to his campaign, then lied
> about it for six months causing suffering and pain to his friends who
> supported him. How was he rewarded? He was elected to a second term!


Bull****. Clinton's actions never caused suffering and pain to his friends
who supported him, and that wasn't the issue, then or now. The entire
'scandal' was a purely political maneuver to try to discredit and oust him
in the pure slimy political fashion of modern politics. My guess is that not
one of the people who protested his actions really gave a **** about his
actions beyond what they harm they could cause him from their protestations.

Look at Gingrich and his protestations about the Book deal, or at the sexual
misconduct of half of DC. None of those hypocritical *******s are above
recrimination, and their fingerpointing at Clinton was purely political
mudslinging for partisan gain. He was elected to a second term because he
kept the economy cranking, and because most folks saw right through the
mudslinging. Even now, most folks are laughing at the people who still feign
offense at his actions.

--riverman

[Ken Fortenberry]

egildone wrote:
>
> You forgot Bill Clinton. Look what he did in the Oval office with the 21
> year old daughter of one of his contributers to his campaign, then lied
> about it for six months causing suffering and pain to his friends who
> supported him. How was he rewarded? He was elected to a second term!

What a pantload. What two adults do in private is nobody's damn business
but their own, and when one of them is married and what they're doing is
hanky-panky, lying about it is not only acceptable, it's downright gallant.

Most Americans know this, hence the second term.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[JR]

egildone wrote:
>
> You forgot Bill Clinton. Look what he did in the Oval office with the 21
> year old daughter of one of his contributers to his campaign, then lied
> about it for six months causing suffering and pain to his friends who
> supported him. How was he rewarded? He was elected to a second term!

Exactly. Or you suggesting baseball should sink to the level of
politics? :(

****

Dick: You like baseball?

Jane: No.

Dick: You like fishing?

Jane: No.

Spot: So, how long have you *been* a communist?

****

JR

[rb608]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
> lying about it is not only acceptable, it's downright gallant.


Never thought of it as gallant before, but I can see that. Kind of like
lying to the question, "Does my ass look fat in these pants?" :-)

Joe F.

[Tim J.]

"riverman" wrote...
<snip>
> Even now, most folks are laughing at the people who still feign
> offense at his actions.

Are the "most folks" the ones you know, or most folks altogether? Or are you
simply referring to most correct-thinking folks? I just want to know which group
I should jump to. At least it's good to know I'm just feigning - I appreciate
the news.

BTW, nice post - many would agree. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Scott Seidman]

Ken Fortenberry > wrote in
gy.com:

> Most Americans know this, hence the second term.
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry
>
>

I really think that Clinton would have won a third term, if it was still
allowed.

Scott

[JR]

Scott Seidman wrote:
>
> Ken Fortenberry > wrote
>
> > Most Americans know this, hence the second term.
> >
> I really think that Clinton would have won a third term, if it was still
> allowed.

Third? Hell, Hillary's 2nd will be Bill's 4th.

JR

[Ken Fortenberry]

Tim J. wrote:
> "riverman" wrote...
> <snip>
>
>>Even now, most folks are laughing at the people who still feign
>>offense at his actions.
>
> Are the "most folks" the ones you know, or most folks altogether? ...

From what I read at the time, most Europeans were astounded that a
sexual dalliance was even news, much less something a politician
could get into hot water over.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Sierra fisher]

Do you remeber Profumo?


"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> Tim J. wrote:
> > "riverman" wrote...
> > <snip>
> >
> >>Even now, most folks are laughing at the people who still feign
> >>offense at his actions.
> >
> > Are the "most folks" the ones you know, or most folks altogether? ...
>
> From what I read at the time, most Europeans were astounded that a
> sexual dalliance was even news, much less something a politician
> could get into hot water over.
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 12/26/2003

[Sierra fisher]

i believe that Bill was elected to his second term BEFORE the scandal



"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> egildone wrote:
> >
> > You forgot Bill Clinton. Look what he did in the Oval office with the
21
> > year old daughter of one of his contributers to his campaign, then lied
> > about it for six months causing suffering and pain to his friends who
> > supported him. How was he rewarded? He was elected to a second term!
>
> What a pantload. What two adults do in private is nobody's damn business
> but their own, and when one of them is married and what they're doing is
> hanky-panky, lying about it is not only acceptable, it's downright
gallant.
>
> Most Americans know this, hence the second term.
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 12/26/2003

[Ernie]

"riverman" > wrote in message
...
> Bull****. Clinton's actions never caused suffering and pain to
his friends
> who supported him, and that wasn't the issue, then or now. The
entire
> 'scandal' was a purely political maneuver to try to discredit
and oust him
> in the pure slimy political fashion of modern politics.
> --riverman

Well I don't imagine his wife and daughter enjoyed the
humiliation. I for one didn't like the idea of a president who
used the Oval office for BJ's. His judgement is a seriously
flawed.
Ernie

[Conan The Librarian]

Tim J. wrote:

> "Conan the Librarian" wrote...
>
>>It is all
>>too easy for a manager to directly affect the outcome of a game.
>>
>> Don't believe me? Anyone heard the name Grady Little? :-}
>
>
> You are a mean, nasty person who should have their Usenet license revoked.

Heh, heh. Sorry for the painful example, but I couldn't think of a
better way to make my point. :-)


Chuck Vance (who was rooting for the Bosox and Cubbies too ...
apocalypse be damned)

[Stan Gula]

"rb608" > wrote in message
...
> Kind of like lying to the question, "Does my ass look fat in these pants?"
:-)

The *wrong* answer to that, of course, is:
"It's not the pants, dear."

[Jeff]

Ernie wrote:

I for one didn't like the idea of a president who
> used the Oval office for BJ's. His judgement is a seriously
> flawed.

I much prefer an oval office used as the setting for a blowjob, rather
than as a place for concocting deceit and avaricious conduct that
ensures the death of thousands of innocents. It is absolutely astounding
to me that so many are so unforgivingly critical of so little, and yet
so forgivingly blind to so much...

[Lat705]

>. What two adults do in private is nobody's damn business

Not true! If a corporate CEO is screwing the interns he should get the axe,
regardless of race, sex, religion, or political persuasion.

Lou T

[Lat705]

Scenerio:
We have a job for you, but if you gamble on the game, you will not get in the
Hall of Fame. We're serious!

I gambled, but I'm a good guy, was a great player and all that jazz.

What did you not understand about the gambling prohibition??

Lou T

[Wayne Harrison]

"Lat705" > wrote in message
...
> >. What two adults do in private is nobody's damn business
>
> Not true! If a corporate CEO is screwing the interns he should get the
axe,
> regardless of race, sex, religion, or political persuasion.
>
> Lou T

what the **** is *wrong* with you, man?

wayno

[riverman]

"Tim J." > wrote in message
...
>
> "riverman" wrote...
> <snip>
> > Even now, most folks are laughing at the people who still feign
> > offense at his actions.
>
> Are the "most folks" the ones you know, or most folks altogether? Or are
you
> simply referring to most correct-thinking folks? I just want to know which
group
> I should jump to. At least it's good to know I'm just feigning - I
appreciate
> the news.
>

No, I mean pretty much everyone on earth who knows about the 'scandal'. I
have it from a very reliable source...


> BTW, nice post - many would agree. ;-)

;-)

--riverman

[Ken Fortenberry]

Lat705 wrote:

>>. What two adults do in private is nobody's damn business
>
>
> Not true! ...

You and the fundamentalist Christian, far right wing of the Republican
party both scare and disgust normal people.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[rw]

Jeff wrote:
>
>
> Ernie wrote:
>
> I for one didn't like the idea of a president who
>
>> used the Oval office for BJ's. His judgement is a seriously
>> flawed.
>
>
> I much prefer an oval office used as the setting for a blowjob, rather
> than as a place for concocting deceit and avaricious conduct that
> ensures the death of thousands of innocents. It is absolutely astounding
> to me that so many are so unforgivingly critical of so little, and yet
> so forgivingly blind to so much...

Being a POTUS is a stressful, demanding job. If the POTUS needs BJs to
keep focused on turning a huge deficit into a huge surplus, passing
welfare reform, protecting the environment, keeping the nation out of
deadly, pointless, and expensive wars, etc., etc., maybe we should make
Lewinsky's position an official one. :-)

"One close associate of Lincoln's who did not agree with him about
whiskey was General Ulysses S. Grant, who President Lincoln eventually
placed in command of the Union army and who is generally credited with
winning the war for the North. Grant was a notorious consumer of
Kentucky Bourbon Whiskey, for which he was often criticized. Responding
to that criticism, at the height of the war, Lincoln supposedly asked
what brand of whiskey Grant preferred, so he could send some of it to
all of his other generals. (Grant is said to have favored Old Crow.)"

from http://www.straightbourbon.com/articles/cclincoln.html

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[riverman]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> Lat705 wrote:
>
> >>. What two adults do in private is nobody's damn business
> >
> >
> > Not true! ...
>
> You and the fundamentalist Christian, far right wing of the Republican
> party both scare and disgust normal people.


What's worse, is they considerer THEMSELVES to be normal people, and are
trying to convince everyone ELSE that THEY are not.

The rock-and-roll version of this is David Bowie's career. When he came to
the US, he was a mediocre pop star in Britain with no real following. His
manager decided to introduce him to the US public as some huge rocker, so he
rented a limo, bought expensive clothes, hotels, booked huge concert
halls...pretty much bankrupted himself in the process, as Bowie was not a
big-ticket seller. However, the American Public bought it, thought he was
some huge star that they were uncool for not hearing of before, so his
concerts sold out and he became what he was presented as.


--riverman

[Tim J.]

"Greg Pavlov" wrote...
> "riverman" wrote:
>
> >No, I mean pretty much everyone on earth who knows about the 'scandal'. I
> >have it from a very reliable source...
>
> The three recent presidents that I know of who
> engaged in illicit relationships while they were
> in the White House were all Democrats: Roosevelt,
> Kennedy, and Clinton. I wonder if that means
> anything.

Dems are more lovable?
--
TL,
Tim
(what about "lusting in your heart"? does that count?)
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[rw]

Tim J. wrote:

> "Greg Pavlov" wrote...
>
>>"riverman" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No, I mean pretty much everyone on earth who knows about the 'scandal'. I
>>>have it from a very reliable source...
>>
>> The three recent presidents that I know of who
>> engaged in illicit relationships while they were
>> in the White House were all Democrats: Roosevelt,
>> Kennedy, and Clinton. I wonder if that means
>> anything.
>
>
> Dems are more lovable?

Repubs have limp dicks?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Tim J.]

"rw" > wrote in message
m...
> Tim J. wrote:
>
> > "Greg Pavlov" wrote...
> >
> >>"riverman" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>No, I mean pretty much everyone on earth who knows about the 'scandal'. I
> >>>have it from a very reliable source...
> >>
> >> The three recent presidents that I know of who
> >> engaged in illicit relationships while they were
> >> in the White House were all Democrats: Roosevelt,
> >> Kennedy, and Clinton. I wonder if that means
> >> anything.
> >
> >
> > Dems are more lovable?
>
> Repubs have limp dicks?

It's that ol' "is the glass half empty" thingy. I took the optimistic approach.
:)
--
TL,
Tim
(BTW, at least we HAVE dicks. Well, not our women. . .)
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Tim J.]

"Tim J." wrote...
<snip>
> (BTW, at least we HAVE dicks.

Oh, crap! What a straight man set up.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Stan Gula]

"Greg Pavlov" > wrote in message
...
> The three recent presidents that I know of who
> engaged in illicit relationships while they were
> in the White House were all Democrats: Roosevelt,
> Kennedy, and Clinton. I wonder if that means
> anything.

Loose women don't like Republicans?

[Ernie]

"Tim J." > wrote in message
...
> Dems are more lovable?
> --
> TL,

No, it means Democrats think with the head of their penis. :)
Ernie

[riverman]

"Tim J." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tim J." wrote...
> <snip>
> > (BTW, at least we HAVE dicks.
>

Oh yeah: DICK Nixon, DICK Cheney, DICK Shelby.... you can have your dicks.

--riverman

[Scott Seidman]

(Greg Pavlov) wrote in news:3ffc5b1e.167593626
@news.cis.dfn.de:

> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:02:14 +0100, "riverman" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>No, I mean pretty much everyone on earth who knows about the 'scandal'. I
>>have it from a very reliable source...
>>
>
> The three recent presidents that I know of who
> engaged in illicit relationships while they were
> in the White House were all Democrats: Roosevelt,
> Kennedy, and Clinton. I wonder if that means
> anything.
>

George Bush the first was accused of having an illicit affair with a State
department employee who worked for him in the '70s that went on for 20
years.

When the press asked him about it, he basically said they were out of line
to ask him about that.

Scott

[Wolfgang]

"riverman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tim J." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tim J." wrote...
> > <snip>
> > > (BTW, at least we HAVE dicks.
> >
>
> Oh yeah: DICK Nixon, DICK Cheney, DICK Shelby.... you can have your
dicks.

Just goes to show you.......you can't eat your dicks and have 'em too.

Wolfgang

[Danl]

"Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> (Greg Pavlov) wrote in news:3ffc5b1e.167593626
> George Bush the first was accused of having an illicit affair with a State
> department employee who worked for him in the '70s that went on for 20
> years.
>
> When the press asked him about it, he basically said they were out of line
> to ask him about that.
>
> Scott

.....and he was correct.

Danl

[Wolfgang]

"Danl" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
> . 1.4...
> > (Greg Pavlov) wrote in
news:3ffc5b1e.167593626
> > George Bush the first was accused of having an illicit affair with
a State
> > department employee who worked for him in the '70s that went on
for 20
> > years.
> >
> > When the press asked him about it, he basically said they were out
of line
> > to ask him about that.
> >
> > Scott
>
> ....and he was correct.
>
> Danl

The difference then, is that no one in the other party launched a 40
million dollar investigation to determine whether or not it was indeed
out of line.

Wolfgang

[Scott Seidman]

"Danl" > wrote in
:

>
> "Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
> . 1.4...
>> (Greg Pavlov) wrote in news:3ffc5b1e.167593626
>> George Bush the first was accused of having an illicit affair with a
>> State department employee who worked for him in the '70s that went on
>> for 20 years.
>>
>> When the press asked him about it, he basically said they were out of
>> line to ask him about that.
>>
>> Scott
>
> ....and he was correct.
>
> Danl
>
>
>

Agreed,

And the Democrats would have been wrong if they had asked a special
prosecutor to look into the matter.

Scott

[Danl]

"Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "Danl" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
> > . 1.4...
> >> (Greg Pavlov) wrote in news:3ffc5b1e.167593626
> >> George Bush the first was accused of having an illicit affair with a
> >> State department employee who worked for him in the '70s that went on
> >> for 20 years.
> >>
> >> When the press asked him about it, he basically said they were out of
> >> line to ask him about that.
> >>
> >> Scott
> >
> > ....and he was correct.
> >
> > Danl
> >
> >
> >
>
> Agreed,
>
> And the Democrats would have been wrong if they had asked a special
> prosecutor to look into the matter.
>
> Scott

....and you are correct!


Danl

[Danl]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Danl" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
> > . 1.4...
> > > (Greg Pavlov) wrote in
> news:3ffc5b1e.167593626
> > > George Bush the first was accused of having an illicit affair with
> a State
> > > department employee who worked for him in the '70s that went on
> for 20
> > > years.
> > >
> > > When the press asked him about it, he basically said they were out
> of line
> > > to ask him about that.
> > >
> > > Scott
> >
> > ....and he was correct.
> >
> > Danl
>
> The difference then, is that no one in the other party launched a 40
> million dollar investigation to determine whether or not it was indeed
> out of line.
>
> Wolfgang


....and you are correct!


Danl
>
>

[B J Conner]

Rumor was that it was Phyllis Oakley, she kept her mouth shut ( most of the
time ) and now she's a professor at JH
"Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> (Greg Pavlov) wrote in news:3ffc5b1e.167593626
> @news.cis.dfn.de:
>
> > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:02:14 +0100, "riverman" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>No, I mean pretty much everyone on earth who knows about the 'scandal'.
I
> >>have it from a very reliable source...
> >>
> >
> > The three recent presidents that I know of who
> > engaged in illicit relationships while they were
> > in the White House were all Democrats: Roosevelt,
> > Kennedy, and Clinton. I wonder if that means
> > anything.
> >
>
> George Bush the first was accused of having an illicit affair with a State
> department employee who worked for him in the '70s that went on for 20
> years.
>
> When the press asked him about it, he basically said they were out of line
> to ask him about that.
>
> Scott

[Scott Seidman]

"B J Conner" > wrote in
:

> Rumor was that it was Phyllis Oakley, she kept her mouth shut ( most
> of the time ) and now she's a professor at JH

My alma mater, no less.

Scott

[rb608]

"Lat705" > wrote in message
...
> If a corporate CEO is screwing the interns he should get the axe,
> regardless of race, sex, religion, or political persuasion.

For the record, that is *not* why I lost my job. :-)

Joe F.

[Tom Littleton]

Ernie writes:
>The last time I looked this was a Flyfishing News Group, it is
>Ken who keeps trying to turn it into something else.

I've been here from the start and NEVER has it been limited to fly fishing. Get
over it.
Tom
p.s. There are some courtesies regarding
thread continuity which seem lost on
some folks, though.

[egildone]

"JR" > wrote in message ...
> egildone wrote:
> >
> > You forgot Bill Clinton. Look what he did in the Oval office with the
21
> > year old daughter of one of his contributers to his campaign, then lied
> > about it for six months causing suffering and pain to his friends who
> > supported him. How was he rewarded? He was elected to a second term!
>
> Exactly. Or you suggesting baseball should sink to the level of
> politics? :(
>
> ****
>
> Dick: You like baseball?
>
> Jane: No.
>
> Dick: You like fishing?
>
> Jane: No.
>
> Spot: So, how long have you *been* a communist?
>
> ****
>
> JR

Pretty good job of trolling, huh? I think I limited out!


--
Ed (remove nospam to reply)

[Tim J.]

"Tom Littleton" wrote...
> Ernie writes:
> >The last time I looked this was a Flyfishing News Group, it is
> >Ken who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
>
> I've been here from the start and NEVER has it been limited to fly fishing.
Get
> over it.
> Tom
> p.s. There are some courtesies regarding
> thread continuity which seem lost on
> some folks, though.

Yup. Just the other day I was driving down the same road and the wife says,
"Honey, you missed that turn." Well, I threw the car into reverse right on that
highway and backed all the way down the onramp. It sounds like you had a similar
experience.
--
TL,
Tim
(how's THAT for an IJ!)
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"riverman" > wrote in message
...

No matter what, Clinton lied straight faced to the Amerikan public, I
despise the *******. If he couldn't satisfy himself with the power mad
bitch he married, he should have kept it to himself--at least while
occupyin' OUR (that's your and mine) office. For a brilliant political
strategist, the dumb-ba-**** ain't got **** for brains.

Hie lied repeatedly to you, me and all the GODS, he ain't no better than
Dubaya!

Op

> --riverman
>
>

[Tim Carter]

"rb608" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tim Carter" > wrote in message
> > It is funny how we pick and choose which criteria for which to crucify
> > someone, isn't it? Certainly gambling is a problem for a sport, but one
> can
> > also argue that it's effect on the individual can be devastating and
it's
> > overall effect on society is deleterious. Likewise, can be said about
> > alcohol, drugs, murder, rape, assault and many other activities...all
> > committed by various sports figures as well as everyday individuals.
>
> The big difference for me is the potential for damage to the integrity of
> the game of baseball. We all root for our teams, buy tickets, and buy fan
> merchandise based on the belief that sports contests are played and
decided
> purely on the abilities of the players and coaches. If an individual
> commits a crime such as illegal drug use, he (possibly) reduces his
> individual capability and may affect the outcome of games in which he is
> involved. That's a bad thing, but one that only casts a bad light on the
> player, not on the sport.

When kids (and more adults than I care to think of) look up to these sports
figures as role models, I consider many of the normal failings of
individuals (gambling, drugs (oh I know many of you won't agree with that
one), sex/violence problems, etc.) to be damaging to the sport, and more
importantly, to society; this damage is only magnified by both the apparent
extreme percentage of these 'professional' athletes who engage in such
behavior as well as the commonplace acceptance of this behavior on the part
of fans.

In a world where government officials & corporate employees, for example,
are facing criminal and popular prosecution (and rightfully so) and where
there is a general abhorrence amongst many (especially the left) regarding
the huge disparity between rich and poor, it strikes me as exceptionally
disheartening that there is a popular acceptance of such incredibly
distasteful and often illegal behavior amongst these athletes. And this for
those whose sole product from their profession is simply recreation.
Damaging to the sport?? I say, who cares? It's high time the professional
sports industry gets a good housecleaning.

[Dave LaCourse]

Joe Fleischman writes:

>For the record, that is *not* why I lost my job. :-)

We all know that, Joe. You were juggling the books is what I heard.
d;o)
Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"Danl" > wrote in message
...
> > Scott
>
> ...and you are correct!
>
>
> Danl

I sure could, and would most appreciate a "...and you are correct!" I don't
think I have ever received one?

Op --TIA--

[Ken Fortenberry]

Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:
>
> ... I don't
> think I have ever received one?

.... and you are correct.

HTH

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:
> >
> > ... I don't
> > think I have ever received one?
>
> ... and you are correct.
>
> HTH

YES! And all is right with the world now, least wise for me things are
swell.

Op --thanks Ken--

> --
> Ken Fortenberry

[Lat705]

>
>Lat705 wrote:
>
>>>. What two adults do in private is nobody's damn business
>>
>>
>> Not true! ...
>
>You and the fundamentalist Christian, far right wing of the Republican
>party both scare and disgust normal people.
>
>--
>Ken Fortenberry
>
>
Sorry. I was just echoing the Democratic, liberal, Woman's Lib position, a
position that was long in coming and hard fought for.

Lou T

[Lat705]

>No, it means Democrats think with the head of their penis. :)
>Ernie
>

It's God's fault. When he made man, He gave him a brain and a penis, but only
enough blood to operate one at a time.

Lou T

[Jeff Miller]

hmmm... now, let me ask you: have you ever lied straight faced to
someone? sanctimony is a mighty big albatross to drape about yourself.

Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:

> "riverman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> No matter what, Clinton lied straight faced to the Amerikan public, I
> despise the *******. If he couldn't satisfy himself with the power mad
> bitch he married, he should have kept it to himself--at least while
> occupyin' OUR (that's your and mine) office. For a brilliant political
> strategist, the dumb-ba-**** ain't got **** for brains.
>
> Hie lied repeatedly to you, me and all the GODS, he ain't no better than
> Dubaya!
>
> Op
>
>
>>--riverman
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Willi]

Ernie wrote:

>
> Tom,
> The last time I looked this was a Flyfishing News Group, it is
> Ken who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
> Ernie
>
>

And you're doing just a FINE job of continuing the politics in this
thread and others. Seems to me that you don't object to political
threads, but just object to them if they present a position
you disagree with.

Willi

[jack van volkenburgh]

>
> wGreg Pavlov wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:02:14 +0100, "riverman" >rote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> The three recent presidents that I know of who
>

Key words here "that I know of "

[Ken Fortenberry]

Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:
>
> They don't call me MR. President!

.... you are correct.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
news:f70Lb.70245$hf1.6647@lakeread06...
> hmmm... now, let me ask you: have you ever lied straight faced to
> someone? sanctimony is a mighty big albatross to drape about yourself.

They don't call me MR. President!

Op

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:
> >
> > They don't call me MR. President!
>
> ... you are correct.
>

Okay, now you're just mockin' me, right? I think you're mockin' me?
There's no one else here to mock; so, you must be mockin' me.

Op --Is he mockin' me?--

> --
> Ken Fortenberry
>

[Ken Fortenberry]

Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:
>
> Okay, now you're just mockin' me, right? ...

.... you are correct.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[daytripper]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 11:32:47 -0600, Conan The Librarian > wrote:

>Tim J. wrote:
>
>> "Conan the Librarian" wrote...
>>
>>>It is all
>>>too easy for a manager to directly affect the outcome of a game.
>>>
>>> Don't believe me? Anyone heard the name Grady Little? :-}
>>
>>
>> You are a mean, nasty person who should have their Usenet license revoked.
>
> Heh, heh. Sorry for the painful example, but I couldn't think of a
>better way to make my point. :-)

As penance for your heinous crimes, you shall listen to this song until game
time:

http://www.wbcn.com/BCN_Audio/Meat%20Depressed.mp3

/daytripper (that ought to fix ya right good ;-)

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:
> >
> > Okay, now you're just mockin' me, right? ...
>
> ... you are correct.

You are too good to me. I can't wait to take ya to one of the finest -5
star restaurants in Caldwell County, when ya get down here next!

Op --you're gonna love the place: ya ride your ATV up to the drive thru
window.--

> --
> Ken Fortenberry
>

[daytripper]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:46:14 GMT, Jeff > wrote:

>
>
>Ernie wrote:
>
> I for one didn't like the idea of a president who
>> used the Oval office for BJ's. His judgement is a seriously
>> flawed.
>
>I much prefer an oval office used as the setting for a blowjob, rather
>than as a place for concocting deceit and avaricious conduct that
>ensures the death of thousands of innocents. It is absolutely astounding
>to me that so many are so unforgivingly critical of so little, and yet
>so forgivingly blind to so much...
>

It is indeed.

Well said and rightly spoken...

/daytripper (follow the money?)

[daytripper]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 23:30:08 GMT, "Guyz-N-Flyz"
> wrote:

>
>"Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
>news:f70Lb.70245$hf1.6647@lakeread06...
>> hmmm... now, let me ask you: have you ever lied straight faced to
>> someone? sanctimony is a mighty big albatross to drape about yourself.
>
>They don't call me MR. President!

So...A married guy lies when asked to publicly acknowledge getting blowjobs
from an over-eager person of the feminine gland who was not his wife.

Exactly how many dead innocents does that outweigh?

/daytripper (I just want to get the math right. Thanks...)

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"daytripper" > wrote in message
...

See this is the problem with you overly thinkin' folks, 'tripper. Y'all
think it's about a comparison issue, and it aint. It's a trust thing with
me. If I don't think I can trust your word on a simple matter, such as
marital fidelity, why on Earth would I trust ya in matters concernin'
national security. For Christ sake, the son-of-a-drunken-bitch, couldn't
come clean when caught with his pants down. If he had never been caught I
wouldn't have a problem with this, but he did get caught--with his pants
down--and he couldn't be trusted to tell the truth to his wife, his
daughter, nor the American electorate.

If you fellas want a somewhat decent government--via a very flawed,
so-called leader, then have at it. I, personally, don't intend to settle
for worthless ****heads! I don't give a rats-ass about what the Europeans
or others think about this issue, as we are obviously very different
culturally. If it's okay for Clinton to lie to the American people, then
you and Jeff should have no problem with Bush's lies about WMD. Clinton
killed innocent people--via the military--during his term, and certainly
allowed tens of thousands of people to be killed in Bosnia and Rowanda thru
inaction.

Sorry, but y'all can't lay the lame-ass decisions of YOUR candidate at my
feet.

Op --It's time to demand better of our leader! I won't vote for known
liars, Dem, Repub. or otherwise!

> /daytripper (I just want to get the math right. Thanks...)

[Stan Gula]

"Dave LaCourse" > wrote in message
...
> Joe Fleischman writes:
>
> >For the record, that is *not* why I lost my job. :-)
>
> We all know that, Joe. You were juggling the books is what I heard.
> d;o)
> Dave

At least they weren't on fire...

[Stan Gula]

"daytripper" > wrote in message
...

>
> http://www.wbcn.com/BCN_Audio/Meat%20Depressed.mp3
>
> /daytripper (that ought to fix ya right good ;-)

At least we have the Pats! Go Pats!

[Danl]

"Guyz-N-Flyz" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Op --It's time to demand better of our leader! I won't vote for known
> liars, Dem, Repub. or otherwise!


But Op, don't you think you should vote for someone? Or do you plan to find
a candidate that is not a "known liar"? mmmphh...mmmmmmpphh...
Bwa-ha-ha-ha!!!

Sorry Op, but if you can find one of them, ask them to ride their unicorn
over the Rainbow Bridge and come see me.



Danl

[Lat705]

>hmmm... now, let me ask you: have you ever lied straight faced to
>> someone?

Is this a trick question that some one asks a fisherman? "G"

[daytripper]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 23:30:03 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:

>Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:
>>
>> They don't call me MR. President!
>
>... you are correct.

Many would agree ;-)

[daytripper]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:31:49 GMT, "Stan Gula"
> wrote:

>"daytripper" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> http://www.wbcn.com/BCN_Audio/Meat%20Depressed.mp3
>>
>> /daytripper (that ought to fix ya right good ;-)
>
>At least we have the Pats! Go Pats!

Word!

And the next few days will see us whipped into a frenzy.

As a New Englander, of course, I must always maintain that inner sense of
foreboding doom, during both seasons of the year ("Baseball" and "Football").

But unlike the Sox, the Pats have "Been There, Done That Super Thang" before
in recent history, so I'm working through it...

/daytripper ("Titans Suck! Go Pats!" ;-)

[[email protected]]

On 6 Jan 2004 19:31:13 -0800, (Bill McDonald) wrote:

>Aw ****.. just can't leave it alone.. The next time I'm on the golf
>course, I'll not lay a wager. It might give my opponent and the
>bookies the idea that my game is not up to snuff on that day. Damn,
>even better! Next time a-stream with my friends, I'll not participate
>in the pool of 1st, largest, most cuz I've got a feeling that day that
>the trout are going to favor one of my bud's over my offerings! Yeah,
>a conspiracy! So, Ken that's what I've utilized my other brain cell
>for!. And ken, ya forgot to address my last issue. Get a life, IT'S
>A FREAKING GAME! Bill in Va.


It's a profession for the teams. It's not something they do a lot
outside the stadium for fun.


--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 12:56:38 GMT, "Tim Carter"
> wrote:


>
>Schwarzenegger used steroids

I don't think they were illegal in body building at the time.


>and apparently was, and is, a sexual predator
>of sorts. He's rewarded by now the governor of California.

California can be a very strange place. From what I've (skimmingly)
read and heard, it's politics can be among the most strange parts of
it. And who can account for what voters will do?


> Charles Barkley
>spit on a fan; did he ever suffer any real repercussions? Tyson's continued
>repulsive activities only earn him larger and larger purses at a time when
>his skills have turned mediocre.


Had I not long since formed the opinion that pro boxing is fixed, I'd
have been even more disgusted with the ruling bodies for letting that
scum ever get in a ring again.

> What do you think would be the true
>outlook for Kobe Bryant if convicted but sentenced very lightly? Probably
>not much. I could go on and on. But, I guess one can't expect any real
>rationality until people can put sports in it's proper perspective (yeah, it
>really is just a game...and likely a game *you* or *I* are not even
>participating in) and recognize that just because someone is on television
>doesn't make them some kind of superhero.
>

--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

[Stan Gula]

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 12:56:38 GMT, "Tim Carter"
> >and apparently was, and is, a sexual predator
> >of sorts. He's rewarded by now the governor of California.
>
> California can be a very strange place. From what I've (skimmingly)
> read and heard, it's politics can be among the most strange parts of
> it. And who can account for what voters will do?

Or juries. How about the case of the Heisman trophy winning ex-footballer?

[Tim Carter]

> wrote in message
...
> On 6 Jan 2004 19:31:13 -0800, (Bill McDonald) wrote:
>
> >Aw ****.. just can't leave it alone.. The next time I'm on the golf
> >course, I'll not lay a wager. It might give my opponent and the
> >bookies the idea that my game is not up to snuff on that day. Damn,
> >even better! Next time a-stream with my friends, I'll not participate
> >in the pool of 1st, largest, most cuz I've got a feeling that day that
> >the trout are going to favor one of my bud's over my offerings! Yeah,
> >a conspiracy! So, Ken that's what I've utilized my other brain cell
> >for!. And ken, ya forgot to address my last issue. Get a life, IT'S
> >A FREAKING GAME! Bill in Va.
>
>
> It's a profession for the teams. It's not something they do a lot
> outside the stadium for fun.

Not to be wholly contrarian, but while I agree it is certainly a profession,
it's kinda like being a fly fishing guide, I suppose. I suspect many of
them get out in the water for the love of their sport. There have been
enough reports of players being injured in pickup games, and I've personally
worked with a couple ex-professional football players, to know that they do,
in fact, get out an play on their own time.

>
>
> --
>
> rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
> Often taunted by trout.
> Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely
on it.
>
> http://www.visi.com/~cyli

[Tim Carter]

> >Schwarzenegger used steroids
>
> I don't think they were illegal in body building at the time.

But I believe it is illegal now, and I have not an inkling of doubt it's
still quite widely used, though admittedly, I have no direct information.
It's also illegal in professional cycling, for example, but is known to be
extremely rampant there. Of course, there's the on-going question of which
of the latest home run kings are on what drugs, Daryl Strawberry was
certainly no poster child for baseball, Lawrence Taylor and many other
football players have admitted widespread drug use, there have been a number
of arrests of both NBA and NFL players with drugs, and I'm sure this list
could be quite significantly enhanced to make the point that drugs can
easily be found in the professional sports world (and of course, the
non-professional world -- how many Olympians are caught for drug use?).

>
>
> >and apparently was, and is, a sexual predator
> >of sorts. He's rewarded by now the governor of California.
>
> California can be a very strange place. From what I've (skimmingly)
> read and heard, it's politics can be among the most strange parts of
> it. And who can account for what voters will do?

I think it all starts at home.

[Wayne Knight]

"Ernie" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> No, it means Democrats think with the head of their penis. :)
> Ernie
>
>
Or perhaps the obvious?

Dems screw women, Repubs screw a country.

[Ernie]

"Stan Gula" > wrote in
message ...
> > California can be a very strange place. From what I've
(skimmingly)
> > read and heard, it's politics can be among the most strange
parts of
> > it. And who can account for what voters will do?
>
> Or juries. How about the case of the Heisman trophy winning
ex-footballer?

Hell, I still haven't recovered from the OJ trial.
Ernie

[Wolfgang]

"Wayne Knight" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ernie" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > No, it means Democrats think with the head of their penis. :)
> > Ernie
> >
> >
> Or perhaps the obvious?
>
> Dems screw women, Repubs screw a country.

If it was just A country......well, we all understand the benefits of
monogamy. But they are SO promiscuous!

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"Guyz-N-Flyz" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "riverman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> No matter what, Clinton lied straight faced to the Amerikan public, I
> despise the *******. If he couldn't satisfy himself with the power mad
> bitch he married, he should have kept it to himself--at least while
> occupyin' OUR (that's your and mine) office.

From our "Belabor the Obvious Department": Actually, he did keep it to
himself......or tried to anyway. I believe a careful perusal of the record
will show that Clinton wasn't real keen on the publicity.

> For a brilliant political
> strategist, the dumb-ba-**** ain't got **** for brains.
> Hie lied repeatedly to you, me and all the GODS, he ain't no better than
> Dubaya!

Um......yeah, that part is true enough

Wolfgang

[Mike Connor]

"Guyz-N-Flyz" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
link.net...
<SNIP>
> Op --It's time to demand better of our leader!

> I won't vote for known liars, Dem, Repub. or otherwise!
>

Have you tried fluorocarbon?

Ahhh at last!!!! A reasonable explanation for the "silent majority"!".

TL
MC

[Mike Connor]

"Tim Carter" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

> -- how many Olympians are caught for drug use?).

If you call it "nectar", and there are no Titans about, it´s OK.

TL
MC

[Wolfgang]

"Guyz-N-Flyz" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
> ...he couldn't be trusted to tell the truth to his wife, his
> daughter, nor the American electorate......

The American electorate I'm pretty clear on, but how do you know what he
told his wife or daughter? I'm not privy to anything that passed among them
with regard to this matter......did I miss something everybody else knows?

Wolfgang

[Mike Connor]

"Wolfgang" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
>
> "Tim Carter" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > ....I think it all starts at home.
>
> I don't think so. I've been here all evening.......and I ain't seen ****.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>

Me to, and I have seen plenty! Which posts are you reading?

TL
MC

[Wolfgang]

"Tim Carter" > wrote in message
...


> ....I think it all starts at home.

I don't think so. I've been here all evening.......and I ain't seen ****.

Wolfgang

[Tim Carter]

"Mike Connor" <Mike-Connor> wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Tim Carter" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> ...
>
> > -- how many Olympians are caught for drug use?).
>
> If you call it "nectar", and there are no Titans about, it´s OK.

Ya, well nectar's all well and good, that is, until you wake up next to your
mom.

[Tim Carter]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tim Carter" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > ....I think it all starts at home.
>
> I don't think so. I've been here all evening.......and I ain't seen ****.

but what about the voices??

[Wolfgang]

"Tim Carter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tim Carter" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> > > ....I think it all starts at home.
> >
> > I don't think so. I've been here all evening.......and I ain't seen
****.
>
> but what about the voices??

Depends on what they're saying. I mean, if they tell you that it's o.k. to
rub it....well, that's up to you. If they say you should play with the big
kids, I think you should ask first.

Your turn. :)

Wolfgang

[Monte Porche]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> Dave LaCourse wrote:
>
> I get sick and ****ing tired of ex-military who think they're
> some sort of Uber American because they were in the service.

You misintrepret the way a soldier feels. They don't feel their
UberAmerican because
they were in the service. They just have a better outlook on how important
freedom
is. You wake up every day and probably don't think twice about all of the
freedoms
you have.

They spend months at a time away from their family and friends, eating crap
most
people would turn their nose up at, worrying every day about the nut with
the rifle
who's out there waiting to put one in their head. They realize just what
the cost of
your freedom is.

Then, they come home, and hear people badmouth the military......How would
you react?

[Ken Fortenberry]

Monte Porche wrote:

> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
>>
>>I get sick and ****ing tired of ex-military who think they're
>>some sort of Uber American because they were in the service.
>
> You misintrepret the way a soldier feels. They don't feel their
> UberAmerican because
> they were in the service.

New around here, aren't you ?

They just have a better outlook on how important
> freedom is.

No, actually they do not. That was my point, sorry you missed it.

> Then, they come home, and hear people badmouth the military......How would
> you react?

I badmouth stupid, dangerous, counterproductive foreign policy and an
illegal, immoral war based on lies that has killed thousands of innocent
civilians, but apart from the chimp in chief I don't badmouth the poor
kids in the military.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Jeff Miller]

Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:

>
> If you fellas want a somewhat decent government--via a very flawed,
> so-called leader, then have at it. I, personally, don't intend to settle
> for worthless ****heads!

so...do you reserve this principled position just for politicians and
presidents...or, when looking in the mirror and remembering your own
past as a worthless ****head, do you get any sense of the crevices and
bottomless pits in your philosophical landscape?

imo, in the end, it really is about comparisons, and things that can and
can't be tolerated or forgiven... or else, what's a death penalty for?
or impeachment? or the vote? ...or friendship?

perhaps i've eaten more razor-bladed principles and suffered more scars
from my personal flaws than most hereabouts, but it has been a very
enlightening and humbling experience.

jeff

[Tim J.]

"daytripper" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 23:30:08 GMT, "Guyz-N-Flyz"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
> >news:f70Lb.70245$hf1.6647@lakeread06...
> >> hmmm... now, let me ask you: have you ever lied straight faced to
> >> someone? sanctimony is a mighty big albatross to drape about yourself.
> >
> >They don't call me MR. President!
>
> So...A married guy lies when asked to publicly acknowledge getting blowjobs
> from an over-eager person of the feminine gland who was not his wife.
>
> Exactly how many dead innocents does that outweigh?
>
> /daytripper (I just want to get the math right. Thanks...)

Looks like 23.4
I've got the calculator right here:
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/pics/inno-bj-calc.jpg
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[riverman]

"Guyz-N-Flyz" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "riverman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> No matter what, Clinton lied straight faced to the Amerikan public, I
> despise the *******. If he couldn't satisfy himself with the power mad
> bitch he married, he should have kept it to himself--at least while
> occupyin' OUR (that's your and mine) office. For a brilliant political
> strategist, the dumb-ba-**** ain't got **** for brains.
>
> Hie lied repeatedly to you, me and all the GODS, he ain't no better than
> Dubaya!
>
> Op
>


Hey hey HEY, you lyin weasel sack of **** scumbag. Those weren't my words!!
Pretty creative writing on yer part, but total fiction, and VERY lame
strategy.

--riverman
(just setting the records straight)

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Guyz-N-Flyz" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> >
> > ...he couldn't be trusted to tell the truth to his wife, his
> > daughter, nor the American electorate......
>
> The American electorate I'm pretty clear on, but how do you know what he
> told his wife or daughter? I'm not privy to anything that passed among
them
> with regard to this matter......did I miss something everybody else knows?

Granted, I don't have any personal knowledge of his discussions with Hillary
nor Chelsea (Sp.?); however, the look on Hillary's face after the addmission
seems to tell all.

Op --hell, he could have been foolin' around on Monica with Chelsea, for
all I know--

> Wolfgang
>
>

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
news:SQcLb.70329$hf1.1469@lakeread06...
>
> so...do you reserve this principled position just for politicians and
> presidents...

Yes, I do reserve this *principle* for said positions. See there is a very
big difference between what you and I can do on an international level, and
what folly/evil can be wrought by so-called heads of state.

>or, when looking in the mirror and remembering your own
> past as a worthless ****head, do you get any sense of the crevices and
> bottomless pits in your philosophical landscape?

I deal with such matters differently, as you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't
vilify Bush as I do both Bush and Clinton. What I do has no international
implications. When deciding who should be the leader of this country, I
base my decision on criteria that I couldn't hope to subject my potential
friends to (if I had any friends, of course).


> imo, in the end, it really is about comparisons, and things that can and
> can't be tolerated or forgiven... or else,

>what's a death penalty for?

You got me. I'm against it and abortion (synonymous, IMMHFO), but if you
wanna support either of the two, go for it.

> or impeachment?

I say get rid of it, and go straight for the time/money savin' trial!

>or the vote?

Really seems pretty useless, this day and time. If I had my own PAC, I
wouldn't bother with it.

>...or friendship?

Disposable/Fleeting, Indispensable/Lifelong? You tell me, I got mine
figured out?

> perhaps i've eaten more razor-bladed principles and suffered more scars
> from my personal flaws than most hereabouts, but it has been a very
> enlightening and humbling experience.

or perhaps it's a matter of trust. You are willin' to trust someone that I
am not so willin' to trust?

It's no nevermind to me Jeff. I vote my conscience and you vote yours. I
don't have to justify myself to anyone, for any reason, concernin' my votin'
habits, and neither do you.

Op --I don't find anything to be humbling about political affairs--

>
> jeff
>

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"riverman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Guyz-N-Flyz" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "riverman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > No matter what, Clinton lied straight faced to the Amerikan public, I
> > despise the *******. If he couldn't satisfy himself with the power mad
> > bitch he married, he should have kept it to himself--at least while
> > occupyin' OUR (that's your and mine) office. For a brilliant political
> > strategist, the dumb-ba-**** ain't got **** for brains.
> >
> > Hie lied repeatedly to you, me and all the GODS, he ain't no better than
> > Dubaya!
> >
> > Op
> >
>
>
> Hey hey HEY, you lyin weasel sack of **** scumbag. Those weren't my
words!!
> Pretty creative writing on yer part, but total fiction, and VERY lame
> strategy.
>
> --riverman
> (just setting the records straight)

My apologies, if you honestly thought that I was attemptin' to attribute the
above to you.

Op

[Wayne Knight]

"Guyz-N-Flyz" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> hell, he could have been foolin' around on Monica with Chelsea, for
>

got ya states wrong there Mark, he's from Arkansas, not North Carolina. In
Arkansas it's sisters.

[Wayne Knight]

"Guyz-N-Flyz" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> heads of state.
>

So that's where Clinton got the idea?

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"Wayne Knight" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Guyz-N-Flyz" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > hell, he could have been foolin' around on Monica with Chelsea, for
> >
>
> got ya states wrong there Mark, he's from Arkansas, not North Carolina. In
> Arkansas it's sisters.

Okay, the glove is comin' off tonight, I guess.

What state did ya say you'z from Wayne? Not that I'd say anything demeanin'
about it, or nothin'.

However, I here that the first thing *insert your state's name here* girls
say after sex is: "Get off me Pa, yer crushin' my cigarettes."

Op --btw, still smokeless--

[Wayne Knight]

"Guyz-N-Flyz" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> What state did ya say you'z from Wayne? Not that I'd say anything
demeanin'
> about it, or nothin'.
>

That would be Louisiana Beaudreau, we be too busy drinking and chasing them
gators most of the time to have any interest in women folks. But in between
Tiger football and cane cutting time we do have our cousins. Its a French
thing, you wouldn't understand. ;)

> However, I here that the first thing *insert your state's name here* girls
> say after sex is: "Get off me Pa, yer crushin' my cigarettes."
>

Beudreau, for a boy of the south ya sure got yer states wrong. That's what
they say in South Carolina.

> Op --btw, still smokeless--
>

Bite me

[Bill Kiene]

Good.............I thought he was after me again.

--
Bill Kiene

Kiene's Fly Shop
Sacramento, CA, USA
www.kiene.com

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> St. Bart, Bartlett Giamatti, former commissioner of baseball absolutely
> did the right thing kicking that sleaze ball out of baseball for life.
> Where he screwed up was in letting the lying little **** weasel sign a
> letter accepting a lifetime ban instead of proceeding with the official
> hearing which would have done the same thing without subjecting us, 14
> years later, to this sorry spectacle and self-serving circus.
>
> Pete Rose bet on baseball, he shat on the game, close the book on the
> son of a bitch.
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry
>

[riverman]

"Guyz-N-Flyz" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "riverman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Guyz-N-Flyz" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > >
> > > "riverman" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > No matter what, Clinton lied straight faced to the Amerikan public, I
> > > despise the *******. If he couldn't satisfy himself with the power
mad
> > > bitch he married, he should have kept it to himself--at least while
> > > occupyin' OUR (that's your and mine) office. For a brilliant
political
> > > strategist, the dumb-ba-**** ain't got **** for brains.
> > >
> > > Hie lied repeatedly to you, me and all the GODS, he ain't no better
than
> > > Dubaya!
> > >
> > > Op
> > >
> >
> >
> > Hey hey HEY, you lyin weasel sack of **** scumbag. Those weren't my
> words!!
> > Pretty creative writing on yer part, but total fiction, and VERY lame
> > strategy.
> >
> > --riverman
> > (just setting the records straight)
>
> My apologies, if you honestly thought that I was attemptin' to attribute
the
> above to you.
>

Awww, rats. And <my>apologies if you actually thought I was calling you a
lyin weasel sack of **** scumbag. :-(
You're a gentleman among gentlemen, and although I'd rather suck grub guts
through a used nasal cannula than accept an apology on ROFF, apology
accepted anyway.

--riverman

[Monte Porche]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
gy.com...
>
> They just have a better outlook on how important
> > freedom is.
>
> No, actually they do not. That was my point, sorry you missed it.

I must have missed it. I missed the part where you talked about how much
time you spent in the military.

Sorry.

[Jeff Miller]

and - to plagiarize a superb author - ..."so it goes."

Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:

> <center of the universe post snipped>

[rb608]

"Monte Porche" > wrote in message
> "Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
> > They just have a better outlook on how important
> > > freedom is.
> >
> > No, actually they do not. That was my point, sorry you missed it.
>
> I must have missed it. I missed the part where you talked about how much
> time you spent in the military.

Well obviously you missed Ken's point as well. It is NOT necessary to spend
time in the military to have an appreciation for the freedoms they defend,
not is it necessary to serve in the military to defend those freedoms. Ken
objects, as do I, with the self-importance frequently displayed by some
active and retired military personnel as though they are the only ones
qualified to comment on our freedoms or the only ones responsible for its
continuation. As the implicatins of the Patriot Act and other present
administration actions show, erosion and terminations of our freedoms
requires their defense from within as well as without. Lawyers, activists,
politicians, and ordinary citizens who speak up, often at risk to their
lives, are every bit as responsible for our freedom as servicemen. The
miltary personnel may have a different outlook on the importance of freedom,
but it is certainly not "better".

Joe F.

[Tim Carter]

"rb608" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Monte Porche" > wrote in message
> > "Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in
message
> > > They just have a better outlook on how important
> > > > freedom is.
> > >
> > > No, actually they do not. That was my point, sorry you missed it.
> >
> > I must have missed it. I missed the part where you talked about how
much
> > time you spent in the military.
>
> Well obviously you missed Ken's point as well. It is NOT necessary to
spend
> time in the military to have an appreciation for the freedoms they defend,
> not is it necessary to serve in the military to defend those freedoms.
Ken
> objects, as do I, with the self-importance frequently displayed by some
> active and retired military personnel as though they are the only ones
> qualified to comment on our freedoms or the only ones responsible for its
> continuation. As the implicatins of the Patriot Act and other present
> administration actions show, erosion and terminations of our freedoms
> requires their defense from within as well as without. Lawyers,
activists,
> politicians, and ordinary citizens who speak up, often at risk to their
> lives, are every bit as responsible for our freedom as servicemen. The
> miltary personnel may have a different outlook on the importance of
freedom,
> but it is certainly not "better".

I have never been in the military nor ever had a desire to join. I enjoy my
life and appreciate those things/qualities/people that have made it so,
either in the past or current. I look forward to raising children in this
country, and them being responsible citizens.

But I guarantee you, if those feelings were tempered by the risk of
potentially losing my life to defend the country that gave them to me, I
would have a much better understanding and appreciation of what it is that
I'd be ready to lose my life for. I suspect anyone would start to think
long and hard about it.

That being said, I believe those in the military can be as wrong as those in
their ivory towers about any number of topics. But I don't begrudge the
perceived 'been there, done that' attitude...'cuz they earned it.

[slenon]

Tim Carter:
>That being said, I believe those in the military can be as wrong as those
in
>their ivory towers about any number of topics. But I don't begrudge the
>perceived 'been there, done that' attitude...'cuz they earned it.


Agreed, and thanks.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[rb608]

"Tim Carter" > wrote in message
> I have never been in the military nor ever had a desire to join. I enjoy
my
> life and appreciate those things/qualities/people that have made it so,
> either in the past or current. I look forward to raising children in this
> country, and them being responsible citizens.

Same here.

> But I guarantee you, if those feelings were tempered by the risk of
> potentially losing my life to defend the country that gave them to me, I
> would have a much better understanding and appreciation of what it is that
> I'd be ready to lose my life for. I suspect anyone would start to think
> long and hard about it.

There are problems all around us that need service and dedication and that
would necessitate our relinquishing that safety and security we enjoy.
Whenever I hear that phrase "defend our country" I'm puzzled as to what is
meant. The geographic aspect is the easiest to comprehend; but for me "our
country" isn't just this big chunk of North America, it's the democratic
system of government and the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the
Constitution. The military cannot defend that, we must do that at home, in
the courts, in the ballot box, and in the streets, at risk to our lives if
necessary. You don't need to put on a uniform to take up that defense.

> That being said, I believe those in the military can be as wrong as those
in
> their ivory towers about any number of topics. But I don't begrudge the
> perceived 'been there, done that' attitude...'cuz they earned it.

I don't begrudge them that either. They can have their hoo-wah's and secret
handshakes all they want.

Joe F.

[Allen Epps]

In article >,
rb608 > wrote:

> "Tim Carter" > wrote in message
> > I have never been in the military nor ever had a desire to join. I enjoy
> my
> > life and appreciate those things/qualities/people that have made it so,
> > either in the past or current. I look forward to raising children in this
> > country, and them being responsible citizens.
>
> Same here.
>
> > But I guarantee you, if those feelings were tempered by the risk of
> > potentially losing my life to defend the country that gave them to me, I
> > would have a much better understanding and appreciation of what it is that
> > I'd be ready to lose my life for. I suspect anyone would start to think
> > long and hard about it.
>
> There are problems all around us that need service and dedication and that
> would necessitate our relinquishing that safety and security we enjoy.
> Whenever I hear that phrase "defend our country" I'm puzzled as to what is
> meant. The geographic aspect is the easiest to comprehend; but for me "our
> country" isn't just this big chunk of North America, it's the democratic
> system of government and the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the
> Constitution. The military cannot defend that, we must do that at home, in
> the courts, in the ballot box, and in the streets, at risk to our lives if
> necessary. You don't need to put on a uniform to take up that defense.
>
> > That being said, I believe those in the military can be as wrong as those
> in
> > their ivory towers about any number of topics. But I don't begrudge the
> > perceived 'been there, done that' attitude...'cuz they earned it.
>
> I don't begrudge them that either. They can have their hoo-wah's and secret
> handshakes all they want.
>
> Joe F.
>
There was a secret handshake... Damn I missed it. Show me tomorrow Joe!
:)
Allen

[rb608]

"Allen Epps" > wrote in message
> There was a secret handshake... Damn I missed it. Show me tomorrow Joe!
> :)

Okay, but I'm gonna hafta bring the wife. :-)

Joe F.

[slenon]

rb608:
>The geographic aspect is the easiest to comprehend; but for me "our
>country" isn't just this big chunk of North America, it's the democratic
>system of government and the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the
>Constitution. The military cannot defend that, we must do that at home, in
>the courts, in the ballot box, and in the streets, at risk to our lives if
>necessary. You don't need to put on a uniform to take up that defense.

Also agreed, Joe. But the people here at home would not have the liberty to
defend or not defend those freedoms were it not for the willing and
sometimes unwilling sacrifice of long lines of soldiers, sailors, and airmen
who won and maintain that external security.

National service need not be only military. But I do believe we would be
much better off as a nation, less divided among ourselves to some degree, if
national service in some form were required of all citizens and would be
citizens. We treasure more what we sweat for.


--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[slenon]

>There was a secret handshake... Damn I missed it. Show me tomorrow Joe!
>:) Allen

Y'all want the real official grunt handshake or the one they teach the nasal
radiators? Ours is more of a gesture than a handshake! (VBSEG)

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Allen Epps]

In article >, slenon
> wrote:

> >There was a secret handshake... Damn I missed it. Show me tomorrow Joe!
> >:) Allen
>
> Y'all want the real official grunt handshake or the one they teach the nasal
> radiators? Ours is more of a gesture than a handshake! (VBSEG)

I think I'm familiar with that gesture no need to demo :^
My wife is know to give it to me as soon as the words "You know what I
really need need at the flyshow this year honey" slips out of my mouth.


Allen

"If a man does away with his traditional way of living and throws away
his good customs, he had better first make certain that he has
something of value to replace them"

Robert Ruark

[Dave LaCourse]

Allen Epps writes:

>In article >, slenon
> wrote:
>
>> >There was a secret handshake... Damn I missed it. Show me tomorrow Joe!
>> >:) Allen
>>
>> Y'all want the real official grunt handshake or the one they teach the
>nasal
>> radiators? Ours is more of a gesture than a handshake! (VBSEG)
>
>I think I'm familiar with that gesture no need to demo :^
>My wife is know to give it to me as soon as the words "You know what I
>really need need at the flyshow this year honey" slips out of my mouth.
>
>
>Allen

Allen, I lived and worked with grunts for almost 8 years of my 20 in the Canoe
Club. Let me tell you, they have no secret handshake or sign. Hell, they can
barely stop their knuckles from dragging on the ground, nevermind lifting them
for a handshake.

d;o)

[Wayne Harrison]

"B J Conner" > wrote

contstrainde if it ment

simply breathtaking, bj.

yfitons
wayno (not that i didn't agree with the sentiment that i could decipher...)

[slenon]

>I think I'm familiar with that gesture no need to demo :^
>My wife is know to give it to me as soon as the words "You know what I
>really need need at the flyshow this year honey" slips out of my mouth.
>Allen

Don't know if you recall the "daps" that the brothers used in-country
passing power in some arcane manner? Some of those secret handshakes took
five minutes to complete and changed so often even the black troops had
trouble keeping up with them.

The gesture I feared making most of all was a very small and hardly
observable one. From what I can gather it was about the same as some of you
aviators made lining up for the final on a carrier at night in the rain.


--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[slenon]

>Allen, I lived and worked with grunts for almost 8 years of my 20 in the
Canoe
>Club. Let me tell you, they have no secret handshake or sign. Hell, they
can
>barely stop their knuckles from dragging on the ground, nevermind lifting
them
>for a handshake.
>d;o)

That's cause they gave us so much gear to carry and only gave us a one way
ride. It takes strength and determination to hold onto a Huey's skids when
the pilots are spinning the ship.
--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Ken Fortenberry]

B J Conner wrote:

> ... I typed real real slow.
>
> Al Shapton is my man for presidnet ...

Not slow enough, apparently. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

[B J Conner]

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> B J Conner wrote:
>
> > ... I typed real real slow.
> >
> > Al Shapton is my man for presidnet ...
>
> Not slow enough, apparently. ;-)
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry
>

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
news:kIxLb.70613$hf1.69657@lakeread06...
> > <center of the universe post snipped>
>

My candidate didn't win whine snipped...

Op

[Lat705]

The sign we saw most involved taping the center of your forehead one time with
the bottom of the palm of your right hand while uttering the words; "Oh ****!"

Lou T

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"slenon" > wrote in message
.. .
> National service need not be only military. But I do believe we would be
> much better off as a nation, less divided among ourselves to some degree,
if
> national service in some form were required of all citizens and would be
> citizens. We treasure more what we sweat for.
>
>
> --
> Stev Lenon

This is a VERY BAD idea! How in the hell do you expect anyone to be able to
take the moral high ground, if everyone is on the same plane?

Op --**** ROFF would die a quick and painless death, if proof of trout
stamp and 2 years of compulsory service were enacted--

[Frank Reid]

> Op --I'm gonna get me some religion and pray that both major party
> candidates get killed in a plane crash on their way to a PAC fund raiser!
> God's people always prevail, I hear--

Which god, Cthulhu?
--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

[Frank Reid]

> > Op --I'm gonna get me some religion and pray that both major party
> > candidates get killed in a plane crash on their way to a PAC fund
raiser!
> > God's people always prevail, I hear--
>
> Which god, Cthulhu?

Think first, post second. I fogot, Cthulhu is a Republican.

--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

"Frank Reid" <moc.deepselbac@diersicnarf> wrote in message
...
> > Op --I'm gonna get me some religion and pray that both major party
> > candidates get killed in a plane crash on their way to a PAC fund
raiser!
> > God's people always prevail, I hear--
>
> Which god, Cthulhu?

Pick a God. Any God will do.

Op --Godless heathens-r-us--

> --
> Frank Reid
> Reverse email to reply
>
>

[B J Conner]

How about Loki- the god of theives.
http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/europe/norse/articles.html

"Guyz-N-Flyz" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Frank Reid" <moc.deepselbac@diersicnarf> wrote in message
> ...
> > > Op --I'm gonna get me some religion and pray that both major party
> > > candidates get killed in a plane crash on their way to a PAC fund
> raiser!
> > > God's people always prevail, I hear--
> >
> > Which god, Cthulhu?
>
> Pick a God. Any God will do.
>
> Op --Godless heathens-r-us--
>
> > --
> > Frank Reid
> > Reverse email to reply
> >
> >
>
>

[Tim Carter]

"slenon" > wrote in message
...
> Tim Carter:
> >That being said, I believe those in the military can be as wrong as those
> in
> >their ivory towers about any number of topics. But I don't begrudge the
> >perceived 'been there, done that' attitude...'cuz they earned it.
>
>
> Agreed, and thanks.

And you and your brothers in arms have my deepest appreciation as well.

>
> --
> Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
> Drowning flies to Darkstar
>
> http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm
>
>
>

[Tim Carter]

"B J Conner" > wrote in message
...
> Eye halve a spelling chequer
> It came with my pea sea
> It plainly marques four my revue
> Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.
>
> Eye strike a key and type a word
> And weight four it two say
> Weather eye am wrong oar write
> It shows me strait a weigh.
>
> As soon as a mist ache is maid
> It nose bee fore two long
> And eye can put the error rite
> Its rare lea ever wrong.
>
> Eye have run this poem threw it
> I am shore your pleased two no
> Its letter perfect awl the weigh
> My chequer tolled me sew.


Beautiful.

>
> "Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
> gy.com...
> > B J Conner wrote:
> >
> > > ... I typed real real slow.
> > >
> > > Al Shapton is my man for presidnet ...
> >
> > Not slow enough, apparently. ;-)
> >
> > --
> > Ken Fortenberry
> >
>
>

[Tim Carter]

"rb608" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tim Carter" > wrote in message
> > I have never been in the military nor ever had a desire to join. I
enjoy
> my
> > life and appreciate those things/qualities/people that have made it so,
> > either in the past or current. I look forward to raising children in
this
> > country, and them being responsible citizens.
>
> Same here.
>
> > But I guarantee you, if those feelings were tempered by the risk of
> > potentially losing my life to defend the country that gave them to me, I
> > would have a much better understanding and appreciation of what it is
that
> > I'd be ready to lose my life for. I suspect anyone would start to think
> > long and hard about it.
>
> There are problems all around us that need service and dedication and that
> would necessitate our relinquishing that safety and security we enjoy.
> Whenever I hear that phrase "defend our country" I'm puzzled as to what is
> meant. The geographic aspect is the easiest to comprehend; but for me
"our
> country" isn't just this big chunk of North America, it's the democratic
> system of government and the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the
> Constitution. The military cannot defend that, we must do that at home,
in
> the courts, in the ballot box, and in the streets, at risk to our lives if
> necessary. You don't need to put on a uniform to take up that defense.

I agree with what you are saying and I fully agree that informed dissent is
part of that defense. Informed defense in the comfort of one's home,
however, is a far cry different that leaving one's family and comfort and
risking one's life.

>
> > That being said, I believe those in the military can be as wrong as
those
> in
> > their ivory towers about any number of topics. But I don't begrudge the
> > perceived 'been there, done that' attitude...'cuz they earned it.
>
> I don't begrudge them that either. They can have their hoo-wah's and
secret
> handshakes all they want.

Nor do I begrudge the knowing look in Dave Whitlock's eye when I tell him
everything I know about flyfishing after my miraculous one year of it.

>
> Joe F.
>
>

[Lat705]

>Op --Godless heathens-r-us--
>

The heathen is a good fly to use during a BWO hatch. Tying instructions on the
Larva Lace web site. It is OK to post fishing stuff on this thread, isn't it?



Lou T

[Frank Church]

(Lat705) wrote in
:

>>Op --Godless heathens-r-us--
>>
>
> The heathen is a good fly to use during a BWO hatch. Tying
> instructions on the Larva Lace web site. It is OK to post fishing
> stuff on this thread, isn't it?
>
>
>
> Lou T
>

........I'm beginning to wonder Lou, seems cabin fever is in full swing.

Frank Church

[Jeff Miller]

so op, who was my candidate? you're spinning out of control, imo.

Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:

> "Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
> news:kIxLb.70613$hf1.69657@lakeread06...
>
>>><center of the universe post snipped>
>>
>
> My candidate didn't win whine snipped...
>
> Op
>
>

[Guyz-N-Flyz]

**** you! Is this out of control enuff for ya.

Mark

"Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
news:A4ULb.70931$hf1.3202@lakeread06...
> so op, who was my candidate? you're spinning out of control, imo.
>
> Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:
>
> > "Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
> > news:kIxLb.70613$hf1.69657@lakeread06...
> >
> >>><center of the universe post snipped>
> >>
> >
> > My candidate didn't win whine snipped...
> >
> > Op
> >
> >
>

[Jeff Miller]

it'll do... thanks.

Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:

> **** you! Is this out of control enuff for ya.
>
> Mark
>
> "Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
> news:A4ULb.70931$hf1.3202@lakeread06...
>
>>so op, who was my candidate? you're spinning out of control, imo.
>>
>>Guyz-N-Flyz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
>>>news:kIxLb.70613$hf1.69657@lakeread06...
>>>
>>>
>>>>><center of the universe post snipped>
>>>>
>>>My candidate didn't win whine snipped...
>>>
>>>Op
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[slenon]

>This is a VERY BAD idea! How in the hell do you expect anyone to be able
to
>take the moral high ground, if everyone is on the same plane?

>Op --**** ROFF would die a quick and painless death, if proof of trout
>stamp and 2 years of compulsory service were enacted--

We'd still find plenty to argue about. There's the question of what grade
of olive oil to use for sauteing, whether or not using spam on the end of a
streamer constitutes bait fishing or poisoning the stream with toxic
material, and I'm sure we can find other things to backbite about.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[slenon]

>Which god, Cthulhu?
--
>Frank Reid

Yog Sotthoth, of course.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Wolfgang]

"slenon" > wrote in message
...
> >There was a secret handshake... Damn I missed it. Show me tomorrow Joe!
> >:) Allen
>
> Y'all want the real official grunt handshake or the one they teach the
nasal
> radiators? Ours is more of a gesture than a handshake! (VBSEG)

Well, you be sure to wash those hands before handling any foodstuffs......we
know what they've been shaking, don't we?

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"slenon" > wrote in message
.. .
> ....We treasure more what we sweat for.

As we hoard what we treasure......thus explaining your stinginess with a
coherent thought.

Wolfgang
sometimes it really is as easy as it looks.

[JR]

Lat705 wrote:
>
> >Op --Godless heathens-r-us--
> >
>
> The heathen is a good fly to use during a BWO hatch. Tying instructions on the
> Larva Lace web site. It is OK to post fishing stuff on this thread, isn't it?

As long as you say "recipe" instead of "tying instructions." ;)

JR

[slenon]

>As we hoard what we treasure......thus explaining your stinginess with a
>coherent thought.
>Wolfgang
>sometimes it really is as easy as it looks.

And perhaps, old sod, someday you'll find it as easy as you think it is.
I'm certain you'll keep trying. The nitre stains on your boots are
sufficient proof.

As for what my hands may have been shaking, well, let's just recall that
your dissections involve rodents which don't survive the process. Mine
involved humans who, on good days, survived.

And now, with regard to washing hands, we've come full circle. Perhaps it
is time to tell you what really used to put me off my feed. But trust me,
it is a tale for daylight and you really don't want to hear it.
--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Wolfgang]

"slenon" > wrote in message
...
> >As we hoard what we treasure......thus explaining your stinginess
with a
> >coherent thought.
> >Wolfgang
> >sometimes it really is as easy as it looks.
>
> And perhaps, old sod, someday you'll find it as easy as you think it
is.

Well, I think you THINK I'll find it as easy as I think it is.

> I'm certain you'll keep trying. The nitre stains on your boots are
> sufficient proof.

Nitre? :)

> As for what my hands may have been shaking, well, let's just recall
that
> your dissections involve rodents which don't survive the process.
Mine
> involved humans who, on good days, survived.

Hm......well, it's really none of my business and I don't much care
how you spend your time, but I suggest it would be in your best
interest not to make such confessions in a public forum. Dissecting
living human beings without a license to practice medicine is illegal
in most states......hell, there are some that don't allow that sort of
thing even WITH the M.D. That said, the careful reader will also note
that your experimental subjects probably don't have many good days
after a single bad one, ainna? Meanwhile, what any of this has to do
with your inability to form a coherent thought (other than serving as
yet another superfluous example) will doubtless remain a
mystery......for the obvious reason.

> And now, with regard to washing hands, we've come full circle.

Given the context in which hand washing came up here, I feel confident
that I speak for all of ROFF in hoping that you will tell us no more
about how it relates to what you do in circles.

> Perhaps it
> is time to tell you what really used to put me off my feed. But
trust me,
> it is a tale for daylight and you really don't want to hear it.

Ah yes, the old "I could tell you stories" routine. It's wearing a
little thin by now, don't you think?

Oh, by the way, I'm still waiting for that list of malfeasant
chiropractors and hapless victims you promised. Can I expect to get
that sometime today?

Wolfgang

[slenon]

Wolfgang:
>Nitre? :)

> but I suggest it would be in your best

>interest not to make such confessions in a public forum.

> Dissecting living human beings without a license to practice medicine is
illegal
>in most states..

>ainna?

>Ah yes, the old "I could tell you stories" routine. It's wearing a
>little thin by now, don't you think?

>Oh, by the way, I'm still waiting for that list of malfeasant
>chiropractors and hapless victims you promised. Can I expect to get
>that sometime today?

Nitre is an archaic, and in this case, a diagnostic device to the observant.
It must surely be present in one of your many dictionaries. Given the
nature of our interactions to date, it will be in abundant evidence at your
end.

Jews don't believe in the necessity of confession, public or otherwise.

While vivisection of humans is illegal, dissection is often part of
perfectly legal and necessary surgeries. Again, consult your dictionaries.

"ainna?" A colloqialism, perhaps. Since I've never lived in your region of
residence, I'm not familiar with it.

"I could tell you stories.." And you do. I might, perhaps. If you are
truly interested in the tale, contact me offlist and I'll relate it. I
suspect your interest lies more in sniping than in hearing the tale.

Wearing thin? Well, perhaps you need to review your layering system before
venturing out. On the other hand, if the sun is high and the wind light,
thin layers may suffice. Choose wisely. Frostbitten fingers make this form
of communication difficult.

As for the list of chiropractic misdeeds, I stated originally that I would
only relate that privately. If you want it, contact me off list.
Otherwise, this is merely another round of ineffective sniping and poorly
played on your part.

As for coherency, lad, I've never claimed that patrolineal descent. I'm a
Levite.

TTFN & TANSTAAFL

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69


http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Wolfgang]

"slenon" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nitre is an archaic, and in this case, a diagnostic device to the
observant.
> It must surely be present in one of your many dictionaries. Given
the
> nature of our interactions to date, it will be in abundant evidence
at your
> end.
>
> Jews don't believe in the necessity of confession, public or
otherwise.
>
> While vivisection of humans is illegal, dissection is often part of
> perfectly legal and necessary surgeries. Again, consult your
dictionaries.
>
> "ainna?" A colloqialism, perhaps. Since I've never lived in your
region of
> residence, I'm not familiar with it.
>
> "I could tell you stories.." And you do. I might, perhaps. If you
are
> truly interested in the tale, contact me offlist and I'll relate it.
I
> suspect your interest lies more in sniping than in hearing the tale.
>
> Wearing thin? Well, perhaps you need to review your layering system
before
> venturing out. On the other hand, if the sun is high and the wind
light,
> thin layers may suffice. Choose wisely. Frostbitten fingers make
this form
> of communication difficult.
>
> As for the list of chiropractic misdeeds, I stated originally that I
would
> only relate that privately. If you want it, contact me off list.
> Otherwise, this is merely another round of ineffective sniping and
poorly
> played on your part.
>
> As for coherency, lad, I've never claimed that patrolineal descent.
I'm a
> Levite.
>
> TTFN & TANSTAAFL

Sometimes it's more interesting to leave gibberish undissected. I
think this swill stand as one of those instances.

Meanwhile, the disingenuous bull**** about the list of Satanic
chiropractors and their prey was hardly unexpected. But, I'll play
along.....an emailed request will shortly be on it's way to the centre
of your operations. :)

Wolfgang

[slenon]

>Meanwhile, the disingenuous bull**** about the list of Satanic
>chiropractors and their prey was hardly unexpected. But, I'll play
>along.....an emailed request will shortly be on it's way to the centre
>of your operations. :)
>Wolfgang

Ah! You expected Satanic implications? Then you will be sadly
disappointed. I never inquired into the religous belief of any DC I spoke
with or met. OTOH, a short response describing several events I personally
know of at 1st hand level is now available to you. Whether you believe it
or not, all the events took place as described. You were given no names, as
those events all happened at least 12 years ago and I honestly don't recall
the names of the DC's involved. I wrote them off as of no consequence.

And if you want more reading, I can describe in limited detail, the Glenwood
Springs CO event involving a colonic irrigation clinic and multiple cases of
Entamoeba hystolitica infestation leading to illness and deaths. I omitted
that from the material sent to you because I really can't recall if a DC was
involved in the clinic management or if it was some other alternative
medicine quacks.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Wolfgang]

"slenon" > wrote in message
. ..
> >Meanwhile, the disingenuous bull**** about the list of Satanic
> >chiropractors and their prey was hardly unexpected. But, I'll play
> >along.....an emailed request will shortly be on it's way to the
centre
> >of your operations. :)
> >Wolfgang
>
> Ah! You expected Satanic implications? Then you will be sadly
> disappointed. I never inquired into the religous belief of any DC I
spoke
> with or met. OTOH, a short response describing several events I
personally
> know of at 1st hand level is now available to you.

Yeah, I got it. Presumably you've also seen my response by now.

> Whether you believe it
> or not, all the events took place as described.

Actually, I don't believe a word of it. That sort of goes to the
heart of the documentation issue, wouldn't you say?

> You were given no names,

Of course not. We already knew that no names would be forthcoming,
didn't we? That WAS the point of the exercise.

> as
> those events all happened at least 12 years ago and I honestly don't
recall
> the names of the DC's involved.

Uh huh.

> I wrote them off as of no consequence.

To be sure. Why would anyone in his right mind think that people
being crippled by witch doctors was of consequence?

> And if you want more reading, I can describe in limited detail, the
Glenwood
> Springs CO event involving a colonic irrigation clinic and multiple
cases of
> Entamoeba hystolitica infestation leading to illness and deaths.

Thanks, but I mostly limit my reading to non-fiction these days.

> I omitted
> that from the material sent to you because I really can't recall if
a DC was
> involved in the clinic management or if it was some other
alternative
> medicine quacks.

Uh huh.

Wolfgang
who would bet a shiny new nickel that the irony of this tripe showing
up in a thread titled "Lying ****-weasel" will not be lost on the
discerning reader. :)

[slenon]

>Wolfgang
>who would bet a shiny new nickel that the irony of this tripe showing
>up in a thread titled "Lying ****-weasel" will not be lost on the
>discerning reader. :)

How droll. But I believe that the larger members of the particular genus
Mustela fecaelis live in more northern climes than I.


Of course, old sod, I can not legally provide you patient names. Anyone
with a professional medical background would understand that. I gave you
instances and state locations which you chose to ignore. As I sincerely
doubt that you recall the names of every person you have dealth with over
the last thirty or so years, why would you expect me to recall such a list
of names?

However, since your goal was not information but merely more sniping and
pettyness, I would imagine you would have responded in your usual manner
even if I had sent you a stack of medical records equal in size to your lust
for recognition and desire to be the local uber-whatever.

Although, removing such a large amount of paper from the various filing
warehouses involved would go a long way toward satisfying the recent local,
state, and federal acts regarding paperwork reduction.

I'd really suggest working on the nitre contamination. Might just improve
your day and that of those around you.
--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Wolfgang]

"slenon" > wrote in message
. ..
> >Wolfgang
> >who would bet a shiny new nickel that the irony of this tripe
showing
> >up in a thread titled "Lying ****-weasel" will not be lost on the
> >discerning reader. :)
>
> How droll. But I believe that the larger members of the particular
genus
> Mustela fecaelis live in more northern climes than I.

Unless someone is looking to start a collection and I missed reference
to it, it hardly matters where the majority live. Moreover, for the
purposes of this sub-thread physical location is irrelevant. We know
where to find you.

> Of course, old sod, I can not legally provide you patient names.

No ****?

> Anyone
> with a professional medical background would understand that.

Most people without a medical background are probably aware of that
these days.

> I gave you
> instances and state locations which you chose to ignore.

"I have personally seen the events listed below:

While working in a referral house in Wichita, I repeatedly saw blood
samples
submitted by a DC from a patient who obviously had CML. When we
contacted
the DC to question which MD or DO he wished to have copied, as DC's
were not
legally able to treat myelodsycrasias, he indicated that he was the
sole
treating physician and that he was treating the patient with herbal
medication. I personally recall doing work on this patient for 6
months
while the patient's blood picture marched toward lethality. At the
same
time, the lab was also providing results to a Chiropractic group that
promoted weight loss by inducing serum sickness, sort of a low grade
hepatitis/immune response. Again, this was not legal in that state.



When I worked in CO, a local DC was forced to refrain from treating
cervical
dsyplasia with herbal douches when it came to the attention of the
Garfield
and Pitkin CO MD's that he was doing so. My personal involvement with
this
case was that I was present at the gross dissection and dictation of
one of
the uteri removed from one of his patients - diagnosed by an MD as
malignant despite the cervical douches. I questioned the pathologist
who
was involved in the case about others like it after he made a few
telling
remarks. His office and mine were across the corridor. This same DC
later
called me and wanted to purchase Rh immune globulin for his wife prior
to
her delivery. He failed to understand why I would not sell him the
product
based upon his word that his wife needed it. I indicated that only
physicians on staff were allowed to prescribe the product. When he
finally
sent his wife to a local MD for her pregnancy, it was discovered that
the
workup was erroneous and that she was not a candidate for the product.

In MO, I was present in ER when a 93 year old female was brought into
the ER
with fractured cervical vertebrae after one of the local DC's was too
aggressive in manipulation.

In another MO hospital, I was contacted by a local DC who wished me to
perform clinlab studies so that she could diagnose and treat diabetes.
When
I asked her how she would treat diabetes, she indicated that
chiropractic
could cure diabetes.

These, Wolfgang, are not rumors, urban myths, or figments of my
imagination.
They are examples of DC's over-reaching, over-practicing, and just
flat
screwing up patients.

I am well aware that MD's and DO's are also capable of errors. I have
also
been present at some of those. But, from my vantage point,
chiropractic is
a fraudulent theory of healing. I attribute most of the sucess
stories I
hear to placebo effect and tincture of time."

All of that is absolutely worthless in an endeavor to verify your
little fables. You did NOT give me what you promised.

> As I sincerely
> doubt that you recall the names of every person you have dealth with
over
> the last thirty or so years, why would you expect me to recall such
a list
> of names?

"I can cite locations, offending practitioner..."

I am still waiting.

> However, since your goal was not information but merely more
sniping and
> pettyness, I would imagine you would have responded in your usual
manner
> even if I had sent you a stack of medical records equal in size to
your lust
> for recognition and desire to be the local uber-whatever.

Prove it. Send the information.

> Although, removing such a large amount of paper from the various
filing
> warehouses involved would go a long way toward satisfying the recent
local,
> state, and federal acts regarding paperwork reduction.

blah, blah, blah....

> I'd really suggest working on the nitre contamination. Might just
improve
> your day and that of those around you.

Nitre? :)

Wolfgang

[Scott Seidman]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in news:btv32k$bauge$1@ID-
205717.news.uni-berlin.de:

>
> Prove it. Send the information.

There's a great critical treatment at www.chirobase.org, a division (I
believe) of quackwatch.org.

I'm particularly impressed by
http://www.chirobase.org/01General/controversy.html

This discussion seems favorable for spinal manipulation, but unfavorable
on many other "treatments". They also talk about reformists movements
within (or possibly, without) the chiropractic community, who will treat
only functional back disorders that aren't disease related.

The site lists some very sensible guidelines for choosing and using a
chiropractor. My favorite is

"4. Avoid practitioners who:

Appear overconfident or cultist in their zeal for chiropractic care

Disparage regular medicine as jealously antichiropractic

Criticize prescription drugs or surgery in an ideological manner

Attack immunization, fluoridation, pasteurization, or other public health
practices

X-ray all of their patients, or routinely use full-spine x-rays.

Use scare tactics such as claiming that the failure to undergo
chiropractic care could lead to serious problems in the future

Sell herbs or dietary supplements

Perform colonic irrigations. These have no medical value and can be
dangerous [23].

Claim that subluxations exist and that their correction is important. "


Where do I stand (as if that matters). My father seemed to have been
helped by a chiropractor, after having back problems for years. My own
back problems were dealt with by a physical therapist, on referral from
my PCP. My wife's MD tried some chiropractic manipulations on her, and
they helped for a little bit, then the pain came back. I was miffed, to
say the least-- I don't pay an MD to do manipulations. If he wanted to
refer her to a chiropractor, that would be a different story, though I
would try PT first.


Scott

[Wolfgang]

"Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in news:btv32k$bauge$1@ID-
> 205717.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> >
> > Prove it. Send the information.
>
> There's a great critical treatment at www.chirobase.org, a division (I
> believe) of quackwatch.org.

So far, I've only looked at the biographical sketches of Barrett, Jarvis and
Homola; I'll look at the rest later this evening. All three look like
they're pretty well qualified, but Jarvis makes a little nervous. He
reminds me a bit of the folks at "The Skeptic" and http://www.skeptic.com/ .
A lot of those people are as crazy and stupid as the whackos they try (with
mixed success) to debunk.......sorta like St. Le. Zealots are scary
wherever you find them and whatever mixed bag of philosophical and
scientific mumbo-jumbo they spout. Of course, this is only a first
impression from a biographical sketch written by who knows who and that
hasn't been updated in two years (the latter, in itself, somewhat suspicious
in a field where currency is extremely important), so I may change my mind
after reading further.



> I'm particularly impressed by
> http://www.chirobase.org/01General/controversy.html
>
> This discussion seems favorable for spinal manipulation, but unfavorable
> on many other "treatments". They also talk about reformists movements
> within (or possibly, without) the chiropractic community, who will treat
> only functional back disorders that aren't disease related.

<snip>

Looks pretty good for a compact history and critique. However, as I know
you are aware, several of Jarvis's criticism can be applied to just about
any field, including the practice of medicine. "...the chiropractic
health-care system has failed to meet the most fundamental standards applied
to medical practices: to clearly define itself...", for example, is a charge
that, if levelled at traditonal western medicine, many of it's practioners
would be unable to defend themselves against. More particularly, the
internecine strife among various chiropractic factions that Jarvis makes
much of exists in virtually all scientific fields and is often rancorous to
a degree undreamed of by the lay public.

> Where do I stand (as if that matters). My father seemed to have been
> helped by a chiropractor, after having back problems for years. My own
> back problems were dealt with by a physical therapist, on referral from
> my PCP. My wife's MD tried some chiropractic manipulations on her, and
> they helped for a little bit, then the pain came back. I was miffed, to
> say the least-- I don't pay an MD to do manipulations. If he wanted to
> refer her to a chiropractor, that would be a different story, though I
> would try PT first.

A thoughtful analysis always matters.....and that's a good one.

Wolfgang

[Monte Porche]

"rb608" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well obviously you missed Ken's point as well.

No, I didn't. I was being sarcastic. The point I was making was that Ken
seems to have a better
grasp of what goes on in the mind of a military member than those of us who
do serve. I don't think
he can honestly tell me how a military member feels, especially if he's
never been one. That's what I
objected to. Him telling me I was wrong when I said that a military member
has a better view of the
cost of freedom than the average civilian. I don't think that he has any
basis for telling me I'm wrong
about that.

>It is NOT necessary to spend time in the military to have an appreciation
for the freedoms they defend,
> not is it necessary to serve in the military to defend those freedoms.

This is true. I'm sure most people outside of the military do appreciate the
freedoms they have.
But, Ken seems to think that it's possible for the average person here to
have a better grasp
of the cost of freedom than a military member. And, I would hope that you
would agree that
missing the birth of your children, spending holidays with your families,
and other such events
while you are living in a tent for 6 months to a year will give you a
different outlook on freedom,
and it will give you a better grasp of the cost of freedom. Because, to be
honest, until you've
lived that life, you can't possibly imagine what it's like.


> with the self-importance frequently displayed by some active and retired
> military personnel as though they are the only ones qualified to comment
> on our freedoms or the only ones responsible for its continuation.

I agree with you, and I too have little respect for a person who swears his
life to defend
freedom, and then pretends as though they are the only ones entitled to
those freedoms.

> The miltary personnel may have a different outlook on the importance of
freedom,
> but it is certainly not "better".

Well, let me rephrase what I said then, so as not to mislead anyone to my
original point.
A military member, who has served overseas, away from his family and
friends, has a
better grasp of the cost of freedom.

[rw]

Wolfgang wrote:
> "Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
> . 1.4...
>
>>"Wolfgang" > wrote in news:btv32k$bauge$1@ID-
>>205717.news.uni-berlin.de:
>>
>>
>>>Prove it. Send the information.
>>
>>There's a great critical treatment at www.chirobase.org, a division (I
>>believe) of quackwatch.org.
>
>
> So far, I've only looked at the biographical sketches of Barrett, Jarvis and
> Homola; I'll look at the rest later this evening. All three look like
> they're pretty well qualified, but Jarvis makes a little nervous. He
> reminds me a bit of the folks at "The Skeptic" and http://www.skeptic.com/ .
> A lot of those people are as crazy and stupid as the whackos they try (with
> mixed success) to debunk.......sorta like St. Le. Zealots are scary
> wherever you find them and whatever mixed bag of philosophical and
> scientific mumbo-jumbo they spout.

Speaking of whackos and zealots ...

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rb608]

"Monte Porche" > wrote in message
> Well, let me rephrase what I said then, so as not to mislead anyone to my
> original point. A military member, who has served overseas, away from his
family and
> friends, has a better grasp of the cost of freedom.

Don't get me wrong; I appreciate that sacrifice made by those serving in the
military; but I must still disagree with the value judgement of "better".
Different, unique, intense? Yes. Better? Not necessarily, IMO. I don't
disagree there are specific examples where the comparison would be true; but
I cannot accept it as a gross generalization.

Joe F.

[Ken Fortenberry]

Monte Porche wrote:
> ...
> Well, let me rephrase what I said then, so as not to mislead anyone to my
> original point.
> A military member, who has served overseas, away from his family and
> friends, has a
> better grasp of the cost of freedom.

No, as a matter of fact he, or she, does not. They may have a different
take on some things, but on the cost of freedom their take is no better,
or worse, than any other citizen in this republic.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Wolfgang]

"Monte Porche" > wrote in message
news:PpGMb.75$_H5.4@lakeread06...
>
> ....I don't think
> he can honestly tell me how a military member feels

You're probably right, but I'd bet a shiny new nickel that you can,
sweetheart. :)

But, don't. :(

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
m...


> Speaking of whackos and zealots ...


Yes? Go on.

Wolfgang

[slenon]

Wolfgang:
> (snip) Prove it. Send the information.

No, I think not. I offered you first hand anecdotal material based upon my
observation and omitted those things required by medico-legal constraints.

I was actually considering providing you a bit more, as if it truly matters
whether or not you and I can ever reach a civil accord. But I chose to
maintain my professional ethic and I find that to have been a good thing.

You, sir, have violated a longstanding usenet rule against posting private
e-mails to usegroups. Should I, then, have trusted you sufficiently to name
patients and DC's? Obviously not. Your action in this situation indicates,
to me, a lack of ethical behavior.

Whether or not we reach a civil solution to our mutual presence on this
ethereal group is really of little matter. You may have acquired more
dictionaries than most of us. You may have mastered an ascerbic writing
style, somewhat suggestive of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and you may
have an ego which demands to be stroked at every waking moment.

I hope, sincerely, that you find someone to help you satisfy your need to be
the uber-whatever. You seem to need it greatly. To say anything more
regarding this and much of your other observed behavior toward me and others
would be conjecture and require more hours of deviant psychology/sociology
than I have in my transcript.

Much of your apparent dislike of me seems rooted in your anti-war stance.
Too bad you haven't bothered to read what I have written elsewhere on the
subject. You might actually have learned something about me and other
medics beyond your own blindered beliefs.

No, I won't post names. I will pass the ethical test in the end, as you
have failed it.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[rw]

Wolfgang wrote:

> "rw" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>
>
>>Speaking of whackos and zealots ...
>
>
>
> Yes? Go on.

Your turn.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Wayne Knight]

"Monte Porche" > wrote in message
news:PpGMb.75$_H5.4@lakeread06...
> Him telling me I was wrong when I said that a military member
> has a better view of the
> cost of freedom than the average civilian. I don't think that he has any
> basis for telling me I'm wrong
> about that.
>

Oh bullcrap, if you served in the military since the mid-1970's, you went in
voluntarily. You knew all about long separations from the family and the
other sacrifices. And as much as I know this sounds cold, there was a chance
you could be shot at. The one thing you in the military shoud have over us
civilian types is you know too well the cost of political folly using the
armed services as fodder to win political brownie points. Or sticking them
in situations where there is not a military objective just to say our
presidents did something.

Don't begin to sit here and tell us non-military types we don't know the
true cost of freedom. We know it and we get reminded of it us every April
15th. Remember, our ability to outspend "won" the cold war. We know it as
our parents and grand parents pass away and we re-read of the generational
sacrifices they made at home on or on the beaches of Anzio, Iwo Jima,
Guadacanal, Utah Beach, etc. Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, our grand parents
and parents hunkered down for the common good, Some murderers highjack
airplanes and start a "war", Georgie tells us to shopping while he gets
ready to kill lots of young boys and girls to oust a dictater and not the
crooks who caused the carnage.

In the end, how many of our military were killed in Korea and Vietnam in the
name of "freedom"? I've got news for you, Korea is still split, Vietnam is
run from the North, and ....we're still free. And they're still dead and not
coming back or scarred for the remainder of their lives. (My uncle spent
time in a Korean POW camp 53 years later he still has nightmares)

But do not begin to state you know more of the cost of freedom than the rest
of us. I'm sorry our president wants to use you for his re-election, I'll do
what i can as one voter to see he doesn't get another chance. Problem is
every President since Truman has sent the military to fight and die
somewhere, it's just too easy and a matter of degree to how much they commit
them.

Am I glad we have the best military in the world? Yes. It should be a crime
to see those volunteers put in danger when the rest of us aren't.

[Ken Fortenberry]

slenon wrote:
>
> No, I think not. I offered you first hand anecdotal material based upon my
> observation and omitted those things required by medico-legal constraints.
>
> I was actually considering providing you a bit more, as if it truly matters
> whether or not you and I can ever reach a civil accord. But I chose to
> maintain my professional ethic and I find that to have been a good thing.

You promised to name names, on request, to anyone who doubted your claim
to have witnessed first hand many instances of chiropractic malpractice.
You reneged, you lied. And what professional ethic is it that governs
pompous gasbag unemployed ex-lab techs ? The Hypocrites Oath ? :-)

> ...
> Much of your apparent dislike of me seems rooted in your anti-war stance.
> ...

Well I don't know about Wolfie, but I find you despicable Stevee because
from what you have posted here about Arabs, you appear to be a racist.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Wayne Knight]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
gy.com...

> ex-lab techs

Point of order, that would be ex-medical techologists

Carry on.

[Wolfgang]

"slenon" > wrote in message
m...
> Wolfgang:
> > (snip) Prove it. Send the information.
>
> No, I think not. I offered you first hand anecdotal material based upon
my
> observation and omitted those things required by medico-legal constraints.

Sweet baby Jesus! Here I am trying to have an intelligent discussion with
an incomparable twit who doesn't have a clue what "first hand" means! So,
Ste, remind me, if you please, just how many of these inane anecdotes relate
to things that happened to YOU at the hands of the dread chiropractors?

> I was actually considering providing you a bit more,

No you weren't. You were desperately trying to figure out how you were
going to get your ass out of the jam that it inevitably got into by virtue
of it's close association with the parts that make noises resembling human
speech.

> as if it truly matters
> whether or not you and I can ever reach a civil accord.

You STILL haven't figured that out?! It ain't gonna happen till you are at
least accepted for an apprenticeship in the human race.

> But I chose to maintain my professional ethic

Promising to divulge information which you don't have about the malfeasance
of health care workers is what you call professional ethics? You are one
seriously twisted individual.

> and I find that to have been a good thing.

In your brief tenure here, you have demonstrated as clearly as one possibly
could that we, as a species, were well advised to avoid assiduously whatever
a boy who don't know whether he's Rudyar Kiplin, Rober Heinlei, or Edga Alla
Po finds to be a good thing.

> You, sir, have violated a longstanding usenet rule against posting private
> e-mails to usegroups.

Sue me.

> Should I, then, have trusted you sufficiently to name
> patients and DC's? Obviously not.

At risk of taxing what you are evidently pleased to think of as your mind,
please allow me to ask, just what the **** did you think I was going to do
with that list of names?

> Your action in this situation indicates,
> to me, a lack of ethical behavior.

Harumph! Well, good sirrah, were I not the cultured gentleman that all and
sundry here know me to be, I would indulge myself with the no doubt
unnecessary observation that yer ass sucks wind! Hah!

> Whether or not we reach a civil solution to our mutual presence on this
> ethereal group is really of little matter.

Hm......nobody told you, did they? The nineteenth century is like SO over.

> You may have acquired more dictionaries than most of us.

Actually, I've only got eight or ten in hard copy.....and most of those are
in languages I don't know. Oh, the online stuff is voluminous, but
everybody here has access to that, so it hardly counts. More to the point,
I guess nobody told you.....I AM a ****in' dictionary.

> You may have mastered an ascerbic writing style,

I'm working on it, anyway.

> somewhat suggestive of obsessive-compulsive disorder,

Ah, all this and a psychiatric diagnostician to boot! On the other hand,
one of us has never lopped off any parts to appease the restive spirits,
ainna?

> and you may
> have an ego which demands to be stroked at every waking moment.

My ego, were you familiar with it, would doubtless shock you. Frankly, it
bores me. It's that pesky little id that keeps me amused.

> I hope, sincerely, that you find someone to help you satisfy your need to
be
> the uber-whatever.

Thank you. You'd be surprised how few people even recognize, let alone
appreciate, that need to be the uber-whatever.

> You seem to need it greatly.

More than you can imagine. But then, I guess that really isn't saying all
that much, is it?

> To say anything more regarding this and much of your other observed
> behavior toward me and others would be conjecture

As opposed to the self evident truths with which you have thus far engaged
us, eh?

> and require more ours of deviant psychology/sociology
> than I have in my transcript.

Or in your naughty little mind for that matter. :)

> Much of your apparent dislike of me

Dislike? ****, I don't even KNOW you! What's to dislike? Um.....this
matter of how things SEEM has been dealt with once or twice in this forum,
if I'm not badly mistaken. Hm........ask Willi.

> seems rooted in your anti-war stance.

Anti-war? Huh? What the ****, did I take a stance and nobody told me?
:(

> Too bad you haven't bothered to read what I have written elsewhere on the
> subject.

See now, this is exactly the sort of muddleheaded **** that gets you in so
much trouble. How in hell would I know where else you may have spewed your
noxious twaddle?

> You might actually have learned something about me and other
> medics beyond your own blindered beliefs.

Revelations! Yeah, I read that book.......tendentious, but not altogether
lacking in bathos.

> No, I won't post names.

No ****. That WAS the point. And, you STILL don't get it. Um......any
Colliers in that cul de sac you think of as your branch of the tree of life?

> I will pass the ethical test in the end, as you
> have failed it.

Wow. No, really! :)

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
m...
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> >
> >
> >>Speaking of whackos and zealots ...
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes? Go on.
>
> Your turn.

What, four....maybe five years here, and still nothing to say?

Well, thanks for reading anyway, you never disappoint.

Wolfgang
feelin' warm. :)

[Tim J.]

"Wolfgang" wrote...
<snip>
> You'd be surprised how few people even recognize, let alone
> appreciate, that need to be the uber-whatever.

This could be arranged, but you'll have to go through the nominations process,
the primary elections, and the entire election process. I mean, we don't really
know how many others may want to run for Uber-Whatever. Just remember, according
to the official ROFF rules committee (back me up here, Scott), you may win the
popular vote, but that doesn't assure your position - and Florida is a bitch.
--
TL,
Tim
(I've got dibs on Vice Uber)
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Wolfgang]

"Tim J." > wrote in message
news:bfKMb.38366$na.33089@attbi_s04...
>
> "Wolfgang" wrote...
> <snip>
> > You'd be surprised how few people even recognize, let alone
> > appreciate, that need to be the uber-whatever.
>
> This could be arranged, but you'll have to go through the nominations
process,
> the primary elections, and the entire election process. I mean, we don't
really
> know how many others may want to run for Uber-Whatever. Just remember,
according
> to the official ROFF rules committee (back me up here, Scott), you may win
the
> popular vote, but that doesn't assure your position -

Well, ****! It's gotten to where a boy can't even be
Uberwhatevergoddamnever without some bull**** electoral prep-school rules
committee bureaucratic meddling functionary techie spinal dysfunctional lab
geekie oarless pointy headed effete eastern ivory tower twit gotta get his
pound of flesh!

> and Florida is a bitch.

Uh oh.....I'm screwed. :(

> TL,
> Tim
> (I've got dibs on Vice Uber)

Sure, all you gotta do is ride the wave of popular support!

Wolfgang
megalomania ain't what it used to was!

[Monte Porche]

"Wayne Knight" > wrote in message
...
> "Monte Porche" > wrote in message
> news:PpGMb.75$_H5.4@lakeread06...
>
> Oh bullcrap, if you served in the military since the mid-1970's, you went
in
> voluntarily. You knew all about long separations from the family and the
> other sacrifices. And as much as I know this sounds cold, there was a
chance
> you could be shot at.

Yes, I did know what would and could happen. And, I'm not complaining
about the conditions. I knew what I was getting myself into. But, until
you've
done it, you can't imagine what it's like. By your rationale, a Dr.
shouldn't
say that we can't imagine the pressure he's under when he's doing surgery,
because he knew that was going to be there.

> Don't begin to sit here and tell us non-military types we don't know the
> true cost of freedom. We know it and we get reminded of it us every April
> 15th. Remember, our ability to outspend "won" the cold war.

So you think that the 20something percent of your income tax is the true
cost of freedom? Military members pay the same taxes as you, *AND*
they get those other things I talked about...and guess what, since you're
talking about spending....Guess who's helping pay for the war...the
military,
who's annual 4.7% pay raise was cut to 3.8% to help pay for that war.

> We know it as our parents and grand parents pass away and we re-read of
the generational
> sacrifices they made at home on or on the beaches of Anzio, Iwo Jima,
> Guadacanal, Utah Beach, etc. Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, our grand parents
> and parents hunkered down for the common good, Some murderers highjack
> airplanes and start a "war", Georgie tells us to shopping while he gets
> ready to kill lots of young boys and girls to oust a dictater and not the
> crooks who caused the carnage.

Do you think military members have been suffering thru harsh living
conditions, missing
their families for the last 2 1/2 years? It's been going on for decades.
And, reading
about sacrifices other people made is not the same as making those
sacrifices yourself.

> (My uncle spent time in a Korean POW camp 53 years later he still has
nightmares)

My thoughts and prayers go out to your uncle. I have friends and relatives
who are in
similar situations, and I know how it can affect them.


> But do not begin to state you know more of the cost of freedom than the
rest
> of us. I'm sorry our president wants to use you for his re-election, I'll
do
> what i can as one voter to see he doesn't get another chance. Problem is
> every President since Truman has sent the military to fight and die
> somewhere, it's just too easy and a matter of degree to how much they
commit
> them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I don't understand how
someone
who's never sacrificed in the name of freedom like military members can say
that
we see things on an equal level. And, bringing up the current situation is
irrelevant.
As I said earlier, soldiers have been sacrificing long before Dubya was
elected, and
they'll be suffering long after he's gone.

> Am I glad we have the best military in the world? Yes. It should be a
crime
> to see those volunteers put in danger when the rest of us aren't.

Yes, it should.

[Warren]

wrote...
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> >
> >
> >>Speaking of whackos and zealots ...
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes? Go on.
>
> Your turn.

****ing CLASSIC!
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt3/MadisonConclave.html

[rw]

Warren wrote:
> wrote...
>
>>Wolfgang wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"rw" > wrote in message
m...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Speaking of whackos and zealots ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes? Go on.
>>
>>Your turn.
>
>
> ****ing CLASSIC!

Apparently Wolfgang wants to engage me in one of his lengthy, tedious
gotcha sessions, with the aim of proving his intellectual superiority,
which, from his point of view, should be self-evident, and which enrages
him that no one else sees it as such. No, thanks.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Wayne Knight]

"Monte Porche" > wrote in message
news:3JKMb.303$_H5.284@lakeread06...
>
>
> Do you think military members have been suffering thru harsh living
> conditions, missing
> their families for the last 2 1/2 years? It's been going on for decades.
> And, reading
> about sacrifices other people made is not the same as making those
> sacrifices yourself.
>

Father was career Navy, I remember him being gone for year at a time, also
remember the other stuff

> someone
> who's never sacrificed in the name of freedom like military members can
say
> that
> we see things on an equal level. And, bringing up the current situation
is
> irrelevant.
> As I said earlier, soldiers have been sacrificing long before Dubya was
> elected, and
> they'll be suffering long after he's gone.
>

For the record I had an Anapolis appointment, something about fully
uncorrectable 20/400 vision in the post vietnam draw down made me
unacceptable.

You miss the point, we can understand the cost of freedom, actually pavlov
said it better than i could in less words.

[Warren]

wrote...
> Apparently Wolfgang wants to engage me in one of his lengthy, tedious
> gotcha sessions, with the aim of proving his intellectual superiority,
> which, from his point of view, should be self-evident, and which enrages
> him that no one else sees it as such. No, thanks.

What's new?
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt3/MadisonConclave.html

[rw]

Warren wrote:
> wrote...
>
>>Apparently Wolfgang wants to engage me in one of his lengthy, tedious
>>gotcha sessions, with the aim of proving his intellectual superiority,
>>which, from his point of view, should be self-evident, and which enrages
>>him that no one else sees it as such. No, thanks.
>
>
> What's new?

Not much. Same old ****.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
m...
> Warren wrote:
> > wrote...
> >
> >>Apparently Wolfgang wants to engage me in one of his lengthy, tedious
> >>gotcha sessions...

> > What's new?
>
> Not much. Same old ****.

Sometimes a boy don't even have to participate.....he can just sit back and
watch it unfold all by itself. :)

Wolfgang

[Francis Reid]

> > (I've got dibs on Vice Uber)
>
> Sure, all you gotta do is ride the wave of popular support!

I'd have a better shot with Michael Jackson.

Frank Reid
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave..."

[Jeff Miller]

damn frank...the freudian edge of that one cuts kinda deep, don't it? <g>

jeff

Francis Reid wrote:

>>>(I've got dibs on Vice Uber)
>>
>>Sure, all you gotta do is ride the wave of popular support!
>
>
> I'd have a better shot with Michael Jackson.
>
> Frank Reid
> "Oh, what a tangled web we weave..."

[Francis Reid]

> >>>(I've got dibs on Vice Uber)
> >>
> >>Sure, all you gotta do is ride the wave of popular support!
> >
> >
> > I'd have a better shot with Michael Jackson.
>
> damn frank...the freudian edge of that one cuts kinda deep, don't it? <g>
>
> jeff

Man, thats sick. I like it. Besides, I just want to own Neverland. He
don't live there anymore. Heard its got a cool roller coaster (and the
beds are pretty big too!).
Frank

[slenon]

>Well I don't know about Wolfie, but I find you despicable Stevee because
>from what you have posted here about Arabs, you appear to be a racist.
>Ken Fortenberry

No, Kenny, I'm not a racist. I simply don't buy into the pro-Arab
propaganda that you've swallowed, hook, line, and sinker.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[slenon]

Wolfgang:
>At risk of taxing what you are evidently pleased to think of as your mind,
>please allow me to ask, just what the **** did you think I was going to do
>with that list of names?

That is not the question. I should not have offered to provide names to you
or anyone else.

So, here's wishing you many hours of profitable chiropractic therapy.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[slenon]

Kenny:
>And what professional ethic is it that governs
>pompous gasbag unemployed ex-lab techs ? The Hypocrites Oath ? :-)

A better one than you've ever known, Kenny. Mine doesn't require me to
behave like a poorly paper-trained attack asshole.
--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Ken Fortenberry]

slenon wrote:

>>... I find you despicable Stevee because
>>from what you have posted here about Arabs, you appear to be a racist.
>>Ken Fortenberry
>
> No, Kenny, I'm not a racist. ...

Well then, you deserve an Oscar for your Usenet act, an absolutely
believable and stunningly accurate portrayal, a tour de force.

And who says you're nothing but a pompous gasbag. Oh wait a minute,
that was me. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Ken Fortenberry]

slenon wrote:

> Kenny:
>
>>And what professional ethic is it that governs
>>pompous gasbag unemployed ex-lab techs ? The Hypocrites Oath ? :-)
>
>
> A better one than you've ever known, Kenny. ...

Uh huh, do you really think you're fooling anyone with this desperate
"ethics" gag ? You lied through your teeth, Wolfie called your bluff,
you've been exposed. Nothing left now but to be a mensch, if you can.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[slenon]

>Well then, you deserve an Oscar for your Usenet act, an absolutely
>believable and stunningly accurate portrayal, a tour de force.

As I've told you here and other places, you should learn to ignore that
pro-Arab propaganda. They don't really want to kill all the Jews, do they,
Kenny? Not any more than than bin Laden wanted to destroy the WTC.

>And who says you're nothing but a pompous gasbag. Oh wait a minute,
>that was me. ;-)
>Ken Fortenberry

You really should think about getting someone to help you write. You're
having trouble recognizing your own material. Have fun boiling your ducks.
--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Willi]

Wolfgang wrote:


>
> What, four....maybe five years here, and still nothing to say?
>
> Well, thanks for reading anyway, you never disappoint.
>
> Wolfgang
> feelin' warm. :)
>
>

Forget your Depends again?

Willi

[slenon]

>Nothing left now but to be a mensch, if you can.
>Ken Fortenberry

I've made both public and private acknowledgement that I should not have
offered names.

However, Kenny, drop the Yiddish. It really rings hollow coming from your
lips.
--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Russell D.]

Willi wrote:
>
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
>
>>
>> What, four....maybe five years here, and still nothing to say?
>>
>> Well, thanks for reading anyway, you never disappoint.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>> feelin' warm. :)
>>
>>
>
> Forget your Depends again?
>

<SPLORK>

Russell
Took me a second though.

[Ken Fortenberry]

slenon wrote:

>>Nothing left now but to be a mensch, if you can.
>>Ken Fortenberry
> ...
> However, Kenny, drop the Yiddish. It really rings hollow coming from your
> lips.

I don't run my prose through a pompous gasbag filter, Stevee.

Mensch is a perfectly acceptable English word and its use in this
situation was intentional, suggestive and sardonic.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Charlie Choc]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:10:52 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:

>I don't run my prose through a pompous gasbag filter, Stevee.
>
Now *that's* funny!
--
Charlie...

[Ken Fortenberry]

Charlie Choc wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>
>>I don't run my prose through a pompous gasbag filter, Stevee.
>
> Now *that's* funny!

**** you, Choc.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Charlie Choc]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:18:14 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:

>Charlie Choc wrote:
>> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>
>>>I don't run my prose through a pompous gasbag filter, Stevee.
>>
>> Now *that's* funny!
>
>**** you, Choc.

And when you filter out the pompous gasbag prose, that's all you have
left. <g> What a schmuck.
--
Charlie...

[Ken Fortenberry]

Charlie Choc wrote:
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>
>>**** you, Choc.
>
> ... What a schmuck.

Careful, you're not allowed to use English words of Yiddish
origin unless you clear it with Stevee first. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

[slenon]

>I don't run my prose through a pompous gasbag filter, Stevee.

Perhaps you should invest in multiple filters, Kenny. Your online errors of
commission are as widespread and glaring as any of mine. And I'll do some
filter shopping of my own.

>Mensch is a perfectly acceptable English word and its use in this
>situation was intentional, suggestive and sardonic.
>Ken Fortenberry

Despite its common usage in American English, the word is Yiddish in origin.
Given your repeated statements that you would like to see Israel vanish as a
state, perhaps you can come up with some Arabic synonym.


OBROFF ( SUAF )
--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[slenon]

>> ... What a schmuck.

>Careful, you're not allowed to use English words of Yiddish
>origin unless you clear it with Stevee first. ;-)
>Ken Fortenberry

Sorry, Kenny, I decline the appointment as ROFF Yiddische Arbeiter.

Besides, Until I engaged my new filter, I was going to say that, in this
instance, the word, in Charlie's usage, seemed appropriate. But I didn't.
Filter disengaged.
--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Ken Fortenberry]

slenon wrote:
>
> Sorry, Kenny, I decline the appointment as ROFF Yiddische Arbeiter.

Not to worry, Stevee. Pompous gasbag fits you to a T, and it's
easier to spell to boot. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

[slenon]

>(Snip)
>Ken Fortenberry

RWBNS
--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Dave LaCourse]

Charlie Choc writes:

>On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:18:14 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:
>
>>Charlie Choc wrote:
>>> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't run my prose through a pompous gasbag filter, Stevee.
>>>
>>> Now *that's* funny!
>>
>>**** you, Choc.
>
>And when you filter out the pompous gasbag prose, that's all you have
>left. <g> What a schmuck.

Now that *is* funny.

[Ken Fortenberry]

slenon wrote:
>
> RWBNS

Yet another self-aggrandizing lie by our resident pompous gasbag ?

That's the thing, Stevee, once you get caught lying through your
teeth here, especially for no reason other than to make yourself
appear more authoritative than you are, there's no reason to
believe anything you post here and ample evidence to suggest it
may be another lie.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[asadi]

Yeah, well that's easy for 'you' to just sit there and 'say' Wolfgang, I on
the other hand have no idea what this thread is about ..

john....ever grateful God put back buttons on browsers..
"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rw" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Warren wrote:
> > > wrote...
> > >
> > >>Apparently Wolfgang wants to engage me in one of his lengthy, tedious
> > >>gotcha sessions...
>
> > > What's new?
> >
> > Not much. Same old ****.
>
> Sometimes a boy don't even have to participate.....he can just sit back
and
> watch it unfold all by itself. :)
>
> Wolfgang
>
>

[Wayne Harrison]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> slenon wrote:
> >
> > RWBNS
>
> Yet another self-aggrandizing lie by our resident pompous gasbag ?
>
> That's the thing, Stevee, once you get caught lying through your
> teeth here, especially for no reason other than to make yourself
> appear more authoritative than you are, there's no reason to
> believe anything you post here and ample evidence to suggest it
> may be another lie.
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry
>
how, and more importantly, *why*, does this kind of **** follow you
around, forty?
i mean, really: in my experience with you in the real world, you are no
more like the guy who engages in these endless, morose, wasteland threads,
than a t&t is to a kpos. yeah, i know, it's always been like that: i
remember 1999 and the tooth and nail gut bitings we had before the first
clave. but, ****, don't you get tired of it, at some point?
i don't know. i just don't know. i still think it's a shame that you
have this bizarre need to be abstractly abrasive, and so unreal. as bill
kiene might type, "maybe you ought to enjoy the time we have together a
little more?"

yfitons
wayno (no mas, after this)

[slenon]

>especially for no reason other than to make yourself
> appear more authoritative than you are, there's no reason to
> believe anything you post here and ample evidence to suggest it
> may be another lie.
>
> --
> Ken Fortenberry

If you, Kenny, or Wolfgang, or anyone else feel that chiropractic is a
valid form of healthcare, well, you get what you pay for, or what your
insurance company pays for.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Wolfgang]

"asadi" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah, well that's easy for 'you' to just sit there and 'say' Wolfgang, I
on
> the other hand have no idea what this thread is about ..

Ain't no thang....no one does. :)

By the way, I found......well, actually, Becky found.....the pictures of you
and the baby deer about a week ago! The bad news is I seem to have
misplaced them again. :(

But, they'll turn up again, sometime soon! :)

Meanwhile, you going to Penn's this year? I thought it might be a good idea
I were the first to tour the new Dayton Fly Fishing Freak Museum and then
maybe ride shotgun with you......um.....just to keep track of any parts that
fall off en route. Whattaya think?

Wolfgang

[Tom Littleton]

wayno asks of 40:
> how, and more importantly, *why*, does this kind of **** follow you
>around, forty?

I've told you before, and will repeat publicly....sometimes, it is the personal
appearances you can't believe.

>but, ****, don't you get tired of it, at some point?

he doesn't, that IS the freakin point, wayno
.....as I indicated in an earlier post, you do
have the matter of dignity and class. Just because you can convince the masses
that you create the "classic bruscietta" or what-have-you, doesn't mean you
have any more class or dignity than a Newark crack whore. Let's get real,
wayno, you aren't going to get a sensible response to your plea from ol'
Kenny-boy are you? I've listened to the strains of "Ken is a great guy when he
fly fishes", which, to my mind is useless drivel unless you add the part about
being a smallminded asshole the good part of the rest of the time. Did you like
Ken's reply a few weeks back about
"nothing more pathetic than a 40 year old undergraduate"? Says a lot about open
mindedness and the nature of the ongoing learning process with Ken(at least it
spoke volumes to me). The stuff written regarding Op and Snakefiddler of the
past weekend was pretty revolting as well.

> i still think it's a shame that you
>have this bizarre need to be abstractly abrasive

he's an idiot. the world is full of them. Sad,
but simple explanation.
Tom

[Ken Fortenberry]

Tom Littleton wrote:
>
> ... dignity and class. Just because you can convince the masses
> that you create the "classic bruscietta" or what-have-you, doesn't mean you
> have any more class or dignity than a Newark crack whore. Let's get real,
> wayno, you aren't going to get a sensible response to your plea from ol'
> Kenny-boy are you? ...

Wayno's post hasn't shown up on my ISP's NNTP server. I guess I'll
have to read it on Google tomorrow. But rest assured, I'll respond
to it.

> Did you like
> Ken's reply a few weeks back about
> "nothing more pathetic than a 40 year old undergraduate"?

Get it right, please. Exact quote:

Well, smirk this dearie. A twenty year old "Appalachian Studies"
major who has breathlessly made the Dean's list and talks dirty
on a Usenet newsgroup is kinda cute. A 44 year old with the same
credentials, doing the same thing, is kinda pathetic.

> ... The stuff written regarding Op and Snakefiddler of the
> past weekend was pretty revolting as well.

Tough ****. You want to talk about dignity and class ? Would
that be the dignity dildo from the classy sock drawer she was
using to jack off with on the drive to West Virginia ? I don't
like the way she walked in roff's front door and I don't
particularly care who knows it. And after all the cutesy and
not so cutesy sexual innuendo she and Bowen were bantering
about you're a ****ing hypocrite if you want to put the back
of your hand to your forehead and have a case of the fainting
vapors over anything *I* said.

> he's an idiot. the world is full of them. Sad,
> but simple explanation.

Yeah, that's a whole lot of dignity and class right there.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Wolfgang]

"Tom Littleton" > wrote in message
...
> wayno asks of 40:
> > how, and more importantly, *why*, does this kind of **** follow you
> >around, forty?
>
> I've told you before, and will repeat publicly....sometimes, it is the
personal
> appearances you can't believe.
>
> >but, ****, don't you get tired of it, at some point?
>
> he doesn't, that IS the freakin point, wayno
> ....as I indicated in an earlier post, you do
> have the matter of dignity and class. Just because you can convince the
masses
> that you create the "classic bruscietta" or what-have-you, doesn't mean
you
> have any more class or dignity than a Newark crack whore. Let's get real,
> wayno, you aren't going to get a sensible response to your plea from ol'
> Kenny-boy are you? I've listened to the strains of "Ken is a great guy
when he
> fly fishes", which, to my mind is useless drivel unless you add the part
about
> being a smallminded asshole the good part of the rest of the time. Did you
like
> Ken's reply a few weeks back about
> "nothing more pathetic than a 40 year old undergraduate"? Says a lot about
open
> mindedness and the nature of the ongoing learning process with Ken(at
least it
> spoke volumes to me). The stuff written regarding Op and Snakefiddler of
the
> past weekend was pretty revolting as well.
>
> > i still think it's a shame that you
> >have this bizarre need to be abstractly abrasive
>
> he's an idiot. the world is full of them. Sad,
> but simple explanation.

Hm........ya know, for reasons that are not entirely clear even to myself, I
somehow feel that I am, if not uniquely then at least singularly, qualified
to address this issue......but I won't. :)

That said, you're right.

Wolfgang
INCOMING! :(

[Ken Fortenberry]

"Wayne Harrison" wrote:
> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
> >
> > Yet another self-aggrandizing lie by our resident pompous gasbag ?
> >
> how, and more importantly, *why*, does this kind of **** follow you
> around, forty?
> ...
> but, ****, don't you get tired of it, at some point?

No, I rather enjoy poking holes in pompous gasbags. It's hard to
sit back and watch Wolfie have all the fun, especially with Stevee
Lenon who is one of very few residents of this asylum I wouldn't
cross the street to **** on if he was on fire.

> yfitons
> wayno (no mas, after this)

Yeah, no mas for you, but you got little Tommy Littleton wound up
tighter than a guitar string. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry