Aren't you people listening?

If you read this group you can tell which writers are Americans: they never
let the facts get in the way of a good opinion.

Jen writes:

Aren't you people listening?

Oops. You've posted in rec.photo.equipment.35mm and it should have gone to
rec.photo.digital. Give that a shot.
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

Phil Stripling wrote:
Jen writes:


Aren't you people listening?


Oops. You've posted in rec.photo.equipment.35mm and it should have gone to
rec.photo.digital. Give that a shot.

C'mon, Phil! I see the humor in that, but some others won't and will
feel all right starting really political threads there. Enuf, already!

--
John McWilliams

"Jim Phelps" writes:

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message
...
Dallas writes:

Boggles the mind. Frank Zappa for president!

Frank Zappa is dead.

Say it isn't so!

Doesn't mean he can't do the job, as history has proven (i.e. Jimmy Carter,
Gerald Ford, etc...)

Probably have some unsightly bulges in the back of his jacked from the
animatronics attachments. Heeeey, wait one minute!



B

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message
...
Dallas writes:

Boggles the mind. Frank Zappa for president!

Frank Zappa is dead.

Say it isn't so!



Doesn't mean he can't do the job, as history has proven (i.e. Jimmy Carter,
Gerald Ford, etc...)

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message
...
"Mark M" writes:

Lying is deception.
An incorrect conclusion about WMD status is not lying.
Amazing you guys won't admit there's a difference.

It should be fairly clear to any objective observer that the
(extremely shaky) evidence for war was vigorously misrepresented for
the political convenience of the hawks.

To try and apply a word suitable for chastising a small child is
hardly helpful in this situation.

What's the part about chastising small children?
I don't understand what you mean there.

I am simply trying to draw a distinction between a lie, and a determination
that turns out to be flawed in hind-sight.

Bruce Murphy wrote:

Mark Morgan writes:

Lying is deception.
An incorrect conclusion about WMD status is not lying.
Amazing you guys won't admit there's a difference.

It should be fairly clear to any objective observer that the
(extremely shaky) evidence for war was vigorously misrepresented for
the political convenience of the hawks.

Interesting to see how minds work hard to explain away the situation.
I'll be curious to know when Mark & Wm recognize the sophistry.

Certainly the administration lied about the aluminum tubes and uranium
supposedly imported from Africa. The CIA advised them not to use this
false information in the State of the Union and UN speeches.

Here's a statement by Dick Cheney. Lacking the "no doubt" clause,
perhaps it wouldn't be a lie, but the way it is, I don't see how any
reasonable person could fail to call it a lie.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons
of mass destruction." 8/26/2002 Speech to VFW National Convention

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:44:08 +0800, Bruce Murphy had this to say:

"Jim Phelps" writes:

"Bruce Murphy" wrote in message
...
Dallas writes:

Boggles the mind. Frank Zappa for president!

Frank Zappa is dead.

Say it isn't so!

Doesn't mean he can't do the job, as history has proven (i.e. Jimmy
Carter, Gerald Ford, etc...)

Probably have some unsightly bulges in the back of his jacked from the
animatronics attachments. Heeeey, wait one minute!

Have you ever read Tom Sharpe's "The Throwback"? It'll have you in
stitches. Funniest book I have ever read.

--
DD™
"And that's all I got to say about that" ~ FG

Bruce Graham wrote:

of course, but I believe that the people who go to war are primarily
accountable for their actions, with their suppliers and backers in a less
culpable role.


So Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are less culpable than Mohammed Atta
and the other 9/11 hijackers?

Bruce Graham wrote:

of course, but I believe that the people who go to war are primarily
accountable for their actions, with their suppliers and backers in a less
culpable role.


So Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are less culpable than Mohammed Atta
and the other 9/11 hijackers?