Oh, and that's pretty much what I said in my very first post. All
responses since then have avoided that issue and focused on an
irrelavent aside comment.

Sneekers wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:59:07 GMT, "somd_jim" <

"Sneekers" <coadviolators@mail.com> wrote in message
news:7mcod1tcuvpn07j4rnst18i6e618cfugel@4ax.com...

I truly understand that the nature of my post is so truthfully
contradictary to your belief in Bush (and not to mention that you have
the empathy of leader who hasn't any compunction to send your child to
his/her death for his personal agenda), that you had to omitt half of
it. That's ok--because I am one of those USENET annoyers who'll put
the post back together to force you to look at what's written in
whole, and who'll shame you until you get grow increasingly frustrated
(and perhaps, embarassed) from it that your pussiness will prevail and
you won't have any other *****-like option but to killfile me.

No, you don't. I answered your entire post -

and let me tell you, it
sure was hard to tell how you feel about Bush

- regardless of how much
of it I reposted.

You do realize that your original post remains,
don't you?

It doesn't vanish when someone responds to it. And, unlike
you, I'm not offended when someone doesn't feel the need to waste
bandwidth and storage space by not including all the text in their
response.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying your last post was a relavent
response to mine where you just didn't feel the need to include all the
original text, because it wasn't. It was just like JK's response - a
long-winded, childish whine...

because I didn't include each and every
single ascii character

that you pecked off your keyboard.
Facts:
a) we don't know if this women really met Bush.
b) we do know through her use of Moveon.Org bumper sticker slogans
from the cited article and her own website statements that she's been a
Bush hater long before Iraq.

I therefore conclude that even if she did meet with Bush, her
characterizations is based on hatred,

not on what he did or did not do.
I do not believe there is anything he could have done that would have
resulted in a kind word. This is certainly supported by the fact that
even the staunchests of Bush's political opponents (those not blinded
by hatred, anyway) say he always comes off as a straight-shooter and a
genuine person.

Oh, and that's pretty much what I said in my very first post. All
responses since then have avoided

issue and focused on an
irrelavent aside comment.