| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"DGVREIMAN" |
| Date: |
10 May 2004 11:08:32 AM |
| Object: |
THE PRISONER ABUSE DEBACLE |
THE PRISONER ABUSE DEBACLE
I said before that if any coalition force personnel have violated
any military regulations or the Geneva Convention in respect to
"prisoner abuse" they should be court martialed along with their
commanders.
However, with that said, I must wonder if what we are being told
by the screaming liberal CBS 60 Minutes in respect to the reasons
these "pictures" of prisoners were taken is true? We all know the
60 Minutes program is infamous for lying and reporting what
people say out of context, and infamous for their liberal slant
on everything. So did 60 Minutes tell us the entire truth about
these photographs or not?
Consider, if you will, the typical interrogation procedures the
U.S..Military and our CIA use: If our interrogators believe they
must extract information from a prisoner immediately so as to
deter, avoid or thwart an enemy attack and thereby save coalition
lives, they have been known to use some very ingenious
interrogation tactics. (Of course all of the tactics they use
results in at least "humiliating" a prisoner).
Can you imagine an intense interrogation of a prisoner of war
under the scenario above that would not terrify or humiliate the
prisoner?
In Vietnam as an example, interrogators would remove the powder
from a round (bullet) place that dud bullet into a revolver, and
play "Russian Roulette" with the Viet Cong prisoner. (This very
common interrogation tactic probably was the basis for the scenes
in the movie "The Deer Hunter). Of course only the interrogators
knew the single round in the chamber was a dud. In some cases the
interrogators would use a live round, spin the chamber and fire
the round next to the prisoner's head. Then with the prisoner
watching the dud round would be placed in the chamber and the
revolver spun and pointed at the prisoner's head and the trigger
pulled.
This tactic of course never jeopardized the prisoners' life, but
it was very effective in extracting instant information that
would result in saving American and allied lives on the
battlefield.
Question: Do you believe the above interrogation tactic
"humiliated" the prisoner? Do you believe that when the prisoner
was crying and blubbering for his life he perhaps felt just a
little twinge of "humiliation?" The facts are it is impossible to
extract information from a prisoner that does not want to
volunteer information without terrifying or humiliating him!
Sitting on a prisoner, or cuffing him to bars, or restraining
him, or otherwise humiliating him in respect to his ideology or
religion is a common and harmless method of interrogation. ( I
would suspect those methods of interrogation are far better than
the methods our enemies use on our prisoners). But if our
interrogators are hamstrung and we cannot even humiliate a
prisoner to break his will, then how many coalition lives are
going to be lost because we cannot "offend" the blood thirsty mad
dog murderous criminals and terrorists we are capturing?
We are not capturing "Girl Scouts" in this war, and these
maniacal murderers need to be humiliated at least before they
will ever give us any important information.
Another common interrogation tactic that worked well in Vietnam
was to place live prisoners in Helicopter #one, and dead VC
bodies in Helicopter # two. Then both Helicopters would fly in
formation together while the interrogators would roughly
interrogate the prisoners. The interrogator would tell the
prisoner that he would either (1) throw him out of the helicopter
if he did not reveal the information the interrogator wanted, or
(2) he would throw out his comrades if he did not talk. The
interrogator would then order the helicopter carrying the dead VC
bodies to "throw a prisoner from the chopper" and of course, much
to the horror of the prisoners being interrogated, the crew in
the helicopter carrying the dead bodies would fling a dead body
out of Helicopter # two in full sight of the prisoners. I wonder
if this tactic also "humiliated" and "terrified" our prisoners in
Helicopter # one? Gosh, I bet it did don't you?
In truth I have witnessed several interrogation methods during
war, and I cannot think of a single method that does not
humiliate or terrify the prisoner. Cooking fake babies in front
of female prisoners worked well in the village interrogations
(the baby was switched for a look alike doll that really was a
piece of beef). (This tactic also probably was the basis for the
Commies claiming that GI's "ate Vietnamese babies." )
So if we can neither humiliate nor terrify prisoners (without
harming them physically of course) then how can we interrogate
them in the future? Harsh language? Mean looks? Stamp our feet?
Once this debacle is over in respect to "humiliating prisoners"
and the truth comes out as to the real reasons these photographs
were taken (I believe some of these photographs were used to
intimidate and humiliate other prisoners) no doubt the Kerry camp
will howl that we can no longer "humiliate" our POW's. So when ol
"Abdul the Knife" surrenders, and we threaten him in any way, he
probably will produce a photograph of Hanoi John Kerry and wag
his finger in the face of our interrogators. Meanwhile, his chums
will launch an attack on coalition forces that coalition troops
could have avoided if the coalition interrogators had the right
to interrogate mad dog terrorists without one hand tied behind
their backs.
I have also heard some in the Kerry camp advocate that Jordanians
control our POW's instead of coalition troops. If this goofy
recommendation is enacted, it will result in the goons
infiltrating some of their own into the prison guards, and one
night we will wake up and all those POWS will have disappeared.
Then of course Kerry will blame Secretary Rumsfield and everyone
but himself (as usual) for the escape.
I do not believe POWS' should be "abused" or treated in any way
contrary to the "letter" of the Geneva Convention. But taking
their photograph is not "abuse." However with that said, if these
photographs are not being used for interrogation purposes, and
they were taken to be sold or for other more deviate purposes,
then those few that are involved should certainly be indicted and
court-martialed. If this is truly the case, I also believe the
actions of a few misguided troopers should not be used as an
excuse to hamstring our interrogators or to inform our enemies
that they can claim "abuse" to the Red Cross and thereby stop our
CIA and our coalition from interrogating them.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
| User: "Randy Cox" |
|
| Title: Re: THE PRISONER ABUSE DEBACLE |
10 May 2004 01:08:37 PM |
|
|
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4ONnc.39634$Ut1.1139055@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I do not believe POWS' should be "abused" or treated in any way
contrary to the "letter" of the Geneva Convention.
Doug, why do you guys keep saying things like this? Read this part of
article 17 of the Convention.
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be
inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind
whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened,
insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are
unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service.
The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means,
subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
Doug you are a liar! Do you get the part about a threat. You can't do
that! You can't threaten them with a bullet. You can't put a hood over
their face because that puts them at disadvantageous position. It violates
the Convention. You can't do any of those things you suggest. Everyone of
them violate the Convention you say POW's should be treated to the "letter"
of...............but you are not telling the truth.
Guys like you lost the Vietnam war with these tactics. You might have beat
them if you had used the higher ground approach....but you didn't....so you
lost and the lives of 55,000 men were spent in vain.
Now you are advocating losing the Iraq war in the same way.
What part of that article can you not understand. It is simple! You don't
believe freedom and due process by themselves are strong enough to win
against enemy, but our stength is in our principle. In Vietnam we had all
the might of a mighty Nation, but we compromised our morals and the people
chose them over us.
You say lives are at stake. You are correct, but when you compromise you
put even more lives at risk. 70 to 90% of the prisoners taken in raids in
Iraq are innocent. Those are the ones who were targeted with these sexual
tactics. They will go home to recruit hundreds against the cause they once
supported. There is a reason why attacks are increasing.
Randy R.Cox
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Grim Reaper" |
|
| Title: Re: THE PRISONER ABUSE DEBACLE |
11 May 2004 12:55:37 PM |
|
|
Those are the ones who were targeted with these sexual
tactics. They will go home to recruit hundreds against the cause they
once
supported. There is a reason why attacks are increasing.
Exactly right. And what annoys me, is that these American scum have invaded
another country and then are torturing the decent people who are trying to
defend their country. I would imagine that the Iraqis must be furious with
these abuse stories ... and of course the Americans have been incredibly
stupid and undisciplined in letting it getting to this stage.
It saddens me that some of the abuse stories are from British soldiers. I
would expect it from the Americans but the British should know better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "UnfitKerry" |
|
| Title: Re: THE PRISONER ABUSE DEBACLE |
11 May 2004 01:00:38 PM |
|
|
The Grim Reaper wrote:
Those are the ones who were targeted with these sexual
tactics. They will go home to recruit hundreds against the cause they
once
supported. There is a reason why attacks are increasing.
Exactly right. And what annoys me, is that these American scum have invaded
another country and then are torturing the decent people who are trying to
defend their country. I would imagine that the Iraqis must be furious with
these abuse stories ... and of course the Americans have been incredibly
stupid and undisciplined in letting it getting to this stage.
It saddens me that some of the abuse stories are from British soldiers. I
would expect it from the Americans but the British should know better.
Would it comfort you to learn that *all* of the American soldiers who
"abused" those prisoners by making them get naked were liberal Democrats?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: THE PRISONER ABUSE DEBACLE |
11 May 2004 12:06:02 PM |
|
|
"Randy Cox" <randd49@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:c7ogc8$mf2@library1.airnews.net...
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4ONnc.39634$Ut1.1139055@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I do not believe POWS' should be "abused" or treated in any
way
contrary to the "letter" of the Geneva Convention.
Doug, why do you guys keep saying things like this? Read this
part of
article 17 of the Convention.
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion,
may be
inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information
of any kind
whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be
threatened,
insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment
of any kind.
Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental
condition, are
unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the
medical service.
The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all
possible means,
subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
Doug you are a liar! Do you get the part about a threat. You
can't do
that! You can't threaten them with a bullet. You can't put a
hood over
their face because that puts them at disadvantageous position.
It violates
the Convention. You can't do any of those things you suggest.
Everyone of
them violate the Convention you say POW's should be treated to
the "letter"
of...............but you are not telling the truth.
Guys like you lost the Vietnam war with these tactics. You
might have beat
them if you had used the higher ground approach....but you
didn't....so you
lost and the lives of 55,000 men were spent in vain.
Doug Says: Randy, first please state the article of the Geneva
convention you are quoting. Article and Paragraph please.
Second, we did not lose the Vietnam war, you have been reading
too many communist comic books. Third, you cannot interrogate a
prisoner without using intimidation to gain information and
intimidation to gain information is not "coercion." We are not
intimidating the prisoner to "think in any certain way" only to
provide crucial information that will save lives on the
battlefield. The Geneva convention is explicit in that only
physical abuse or immoral tactics cannot be used during
interrogations. Further, there is a question whether the
terrorists, since they clearly do not follow the Geneva
convention when they mutilate and murder our soldiers and
citizens, are entitled to full Geneva convention protection?
Although I suspect they are in respect to treatment,
interrogations are covered by other rules and regulations.
Now you are advocating losing the Iraq war in the same way.
What part of that article can you not understand. It is
simple! You don't
believe freedom and due process by themselves are strong enough
to win
against enemy, but our stength is in our principle. In Vietnam
we had all
the might of a mighty Nation, but we compromised our morals and
the people
chose them over us.
Doug Says: Are you nuts? Where in the hell are you getting your
history? The South Vietnamese people rose up in 1968 and helped
us destroy the Viet Cong, and they certainly resisted when the
North Vietnamese communists invaded them years after our military
had left Vietnam. Just ask those Vietnamese Americans that have
been and are demonstrating against Hanoi John Kerry. Also, when
the North Vietnamese took Saigon they proceeded to murder about
two million South Vietnamese, not to mention those that tried to
escape on thousands of boats, not to mention those that were
imprisoned for life by the communists.
You say lives are at stake. You are correct, but when you
compromise you
put even more lives at risk. 70 to 90% of the prisoners taken
in raids in
Iraq are innocent. Those are the ones who were targeted with
these sexual
tactics. They will go home to recruit hundreds against the
cause they once
supported. There is a reason why attacks are increasing.
Doug Says: Where are you getting your figures? Goons R Us
newsletter? How do you know that 70 to 90% are "innocent?" Your
statements need some references.
Randy R.Cox
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
| User: "In The Darkness" |
|
| Title: Re: THE PRISONER ABUSE DEBACLE |
14 May 2004 02:18:14 PM |
|
|
DGVREIMAN wrote:
Doug Says: Randy, first please state the article of the Geneva
convention you are quoting. Article and Paragraph please.
I believe someone already did this, in another post, it
appeared the the Geneva convention protects non-combatant
detainees, during war.
Second, we did not lose the Vietnam war, you have been reading
too many communist comic books.
Wrong, the goal of the Vietnam war was to prevent
the Conversion of South Korea to Communism...
So, I guess it really is a twist on an old
saying....
"You can win all the battles and still lose the war."
Third, you cannot interrogate a
prisoner without using intimidation to gain information and
intimidation to gain information is not "coercion."
Wrong, -We- know methods of interrogation that involve
none of these things...
But, not out at the soldier level... that is
operative knowledge.
We are not
intimidating the prisoner to "think in any certain way" only to
provide crucial information that will save lives on the
battlefield.
You compare coercion to brainwashing, two entirely
different things.
The Geneva convention is explicit in that only
physical abuse or immoral tactics cannot be used during
interrogations.
See the cites form the actual Geneva convention...
Further, there is a question whether the
terrorists, since they clearly do not follow the Geneva
convention when they mutilate and murder our soldiers and
citizens, are entitled to full Geneva convention protection?
Well, as combatants in war, I am afraid they are..
We do not beat our enemy by becoming our enemy.
(At least, until Bush arrived on the scene, we didn't.)
Although I suspect they are in respect to treatment,
interrogations are covered by other rules and regulations.
Not really, interrogations of Intelligence, or Covert
Operatives fall under a different set of rules, I think...
I know there are certain exception clauses relating
to Operatives, but, not all the details...
Now you are advocating losing the Iraq war in the same way.
What part of that article can you not understand. It is
simple! You don't
believe freedom and due process by themselves are strong enough
to win
against enemy, but our stength is in our principle. In Vietnam
we had all
the might of a mighty Nation, but we compromised our morals and
the people
chose them over us.
Doug Says: Are you nuts? Where in the hell are you getting your
history?
I have to second Doug on this one....
The South Vietnamese people rose up in 1968 and helped
us destroy
^^^^^^ fight
the Viet Cong, and they certainly resisted when the
North Vietnamese communists invaded them years after our military
had left Vietnam.
Yup.
Just ask those Vietnamese Americans that have
been and are demonstrating against Hanoi John Kerry.
All -two- of them ?
I will see if I can get their numbers....
Also, when
the North Vietnamese took Saigon they proceeded to murder about
two million South Vietnamese, not to mention those that tried to
escape on thousands of boats, not to mention those that were
imprisoned for life by the communists.
Sure sounds like we won, huh ?
You say lives are at stake. You are correct, but when you
compromise you
put even more lives at risk. 70 to 90% of the prisoners taken
in raids in
Iraq are innocent. Those are the ones who were targeted with
these sexual
tactics. They will go home to recruit hundreds against the
cause they once
supported. There is a reason why attacks are increasing.
Doug Says: Where are you getting your figures? Goons R Us
newsletter? How do you know that 70 to 90% are "innocent?" Your
statements need some references.
Randy R.Cox
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
10 May 2004 12:03:43 PM |
|
|
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4ONnc.39634$Ut1.1139055@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
THE PRISONER ABUSE DEBACLE
I said before that if any coalition force personnel have violated
any military regulations or the Geneva Convention in respect to
"prisoner abuse" they should be court martialed along with their
commanders.
However, with that said, I must wonder if what we are being told
by the screaming liberal CBS 60 Minutes in respect to the reasons
these "pictures" of prisoners were taken is true? We all know the
60 Minutes program is infamous for lying
Interesting theory
Prove it.
Cite ten times "60 Minutes" has lied. As you claim they are "infamous for
lying" I'm sure you can prove it easily.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
11 May 2004 11:45:02 AM |
|
|
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PBOnc.5116$KE6.2700@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4ONnc.39634$Ut1.1139055@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
THE PRISONER ABUSE DEBACLE
I said before that if any coalition force personnel have
violated
any military regulations or the Geneva Convention in respect
to
"prisoner abuse" they should be court martialed along with
their
commanders.
However, with that said, I must wonder if what we are being
told
by the screaming liberal CBS 60 Minutes in respect to the
reasons
these "pictures" of prisoners were taken is true? We all know
the
60 Minutes program is infamous for lying
Interesting theory
Prove it.
Cite ten times "60 Minutes" has lied. As you claim they are
"infamous for
lying" I'm sure you can prove it easily.
Doug Says: That's easy, just look at their last ten programs.
There has been so many complaints filed against the 60 Minutes
program and lawsuits (such as the one General Westmoreland won
against CBS in respect to CBS 60 Minutes lying about him, and
that win was on several counts). I am not just talking about
lawsuits won, but if you look at those that were filed in the
past against CBS due to 60 Minutes lying, and were settled out of
court, they clearly prove that 60 Minutes has a clear and
unmistakable pattern of lying.
Your demand for specific qualifications of the history of 60
Minutes lying to the public is meager compared to what could be
amassed. (Don't temp me).
Further, 60 Minutes has a policy of refusing all "live"
interviews. They will only shoot an interview on film so they
can edit it later to reflect what they want the audience to
hear. 60 Minutes' policy alone of refusing all "live"
interviews clearly indicates they are deceptive. Do you know of
any other news program that will refuse to conduct "live"
interviews? Fox? CNN? Of course not.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
12 May 2004 05:06:09 PM |
|
|
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:iq7oc.43289$Ut1.1237691@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PBOnc.5116$KE6.2700@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4ONnc.39634$Ut1.1139055@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
THE PRISONER ABUSE DEBACLE
I said before that if any coalition force personnel have
violated
any military regulations or the Geneva Convention in respect
to
"prisoner abuse" they should be court martialed along with
their
commanders.
However, with that said, I must wonder if what we are being
told
by the screaming liberal CBS 60 Minutes in respect to the
reasons
these "pictures" of prisoners were taken is true? We all know
the
60 Minutes program is infamous for lying
Interesting theory
Prove it.
Cite ten times "60 Minutes" has lied. As you claim they are
"infamous for
lying" I'm sure you can prove it easily.
Doug Says: That's easy, just look at their last ten programs.
LOL
No, Doug, you claim that 60 minutes has lied.
List their lies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: ABA snipping and lying again( Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
13 May 2004 10:50:33 AM |
|
|
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ldxoc.3778$zO3.3697@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:iq7oc.43289$Ut1.1237691@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PBOnc.5116$KE6.2700@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4ONnc.39634$Ut1.1139055@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
THE PRISONER ABUSE DEBACLE
I said before that if any coalition force personnel have
violated
any military regulations or the Geneva Convention in
respect
to
"prisoner abuse" they should be court martialed along
with
their
commanders.
However, with that said, I must wonder if what we are
being
told
by the screaming liberal CBS 60 Minutes in respect to the
reasons
these "pictures" of prisoners were taken is true? We all
know
the
60 Minutes program is infamous for lying
Interesting theory
Prove it.
Cite ten times "60 Minutes" has lied. As you claim they are
"infamous for
lying" I'm sure you can prove it easily.
Doug Says: That's easy, just look at their last ten
programs.
LOL
No, Doug, you claim that 60 minutes has lied.
List their lies.
Doug Says: I listed the Westmoreland lawsuit they lost, you
snipped it out, I listed the other dozens of lawsuits they lost,
you snipped it out, and I listed the fact 60 Minutes will not
allow "live" interviews, and that tactic is designed to deceive.
You also snipped that out. So stop lying and snipping, and you
will look less like the idiot we all know you are.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, I'm still waiting for your list of 60 Minutes lies. Can't you find any? Not even 5? |
13 May 2004 04:46:47 PM |
|
|
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:dPMoc.532$hH.8040@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ldxoc.3778$zO3.3697@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:iq7oc.43289$Ut1.1237691@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PBOnc.5116$KE6.2700@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4ONnc.39634$Ut1.1139055@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
THE PRISONER ABUSE DEBACLE
I said before that if any coalition force personnel have
violated
any military regulations or the Geneva Convention in
respect
to
"prisoner abuse" they should be court martialed along
with
their
commanders.
However, with that said, I must wonder if what we are
being
told
by the screaming liberal CBS 60 Minutes in respect to the
reasons
these "pictures" of prisoners were taken is true? We all
know
the
60 Minutes program is infamous for lying
Interesting theory
Prove it.
Cite ten times "60 Minutes" has lied. As you claim they are
"infamous for
lying" I'm sure you can prove it easily.
Doug Says: That's easy, just look at their last ten
programs.
LOL
No, Doug, you claim that 60 minutes has lied.
List their lies.
Doug Says: I listed the Westmoreland lawsuit they lost, you
snipped it out,
Did the lawsuit conclude that 60 Minutes lied?
I listed the other dozens of lawsuits they lost,
You wrote
" That's easy, just look at their last ten programs.
There has been so many complaints filed against the 60 Minutes
program and lawsuits (such as the one General Westmoreland won
against CBS in respect to CBS 60 Minutes lying about him, and
that win was on several counts). I am not just talking about
lawsuits won, but if you look at those that were filed in the
past against CBS due to 60 Minutes lying, and were settled out of
court, they clearly prove that 60 Minutes has a clear and
unmistakable pattern of lying."
That equals exactly ZERO lies you have provided.
But again, feel free to list them now!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: ABA snipping and lying again( Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
14 May 2004 12:06:26 AM |
|
|
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:dPMoc.532$hH.8040@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ldxoc.3778$zO3.3697@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:iq7oc.43289$Ut1.1237691@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PBOnc.5116$KE6.2700@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4ONnc.39634$Ut1.1139055@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
THE PRISONER ABUSE DEBACLE
I said before that if any coalition force personnel have
violated
any military regulations or the Geneva Convention in
respect
to
"prisoner abuse" they should be court martialed along
with
their
commanders.
However, with that said, I must wonder if what we are
being
told
by the screaming liberal CBS 60 Minutes in respect to the
reasons
these "pictures" of prisoners were taken is true? We all
know
the
60 Minutes program is infamous for lying
Interesting theory
Prove it.
Cite ten times "60 Minutes" has lied. As you claim they are
"infamous for
lying" I'm sure you can prove it easily.
Doug Says: That's easy, just look at their last ten
programs.
LOL
No, Doug, you claim that 60 minutes has lied.
List their lies.
Doug Says: I listed the Westmoreland lawsuit they lost, you
snipped it out, I listed the other dozens of lawsuits they lost,
you snipped it out, and I listed the fact 60 Minutes will not
allow "live" interviews, and that tactic is designed to deceive.
You also snipped that out. So stop lying and snipping, and you
will look less like the idiot we all know you are.
Liar.
From http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/W/htmlW/wallacemike/wallacemike.htm
Westmoreland sued the network. The charges Wallace aired--conspiracy to
cover-up the size of Viet Cong troop strength--were substantiated by trial
evidence, but CBS' editorial tactics proved suspect. Early in 1985, just
before Wallace was to testify, CBS issued an apology and Westmoreland
dropped the suit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: ABA snipping and lying again( Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
17 May 2004 11:12:42 AM |
|
|
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mtYoc.48262$aC6.13099@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:dPMoc.532$hH.8040@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ldxoc.3778$zO3.3697@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:iq7oc.43289$Ut1.1237691@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PBOnc.5116$KE6.2700@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4ONnc.39634$Ut1.1139055@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
THE PRISONER ABUSE DEBACLE
I said before that if any coalition force personnel
have
violated
any military regulations or the Geneva Convention in
respect
to
"prisoner abuse" they should be court martialed along
with
their
commanders.
However, with that said, I must wonder if what we are
being
told
by the screaming liberal CBS 60 Minutes in respect to
the
reasons
these "pictures" of prisoners were taken is true? We
all
know
the
60 Minutes program is infamous for lying
Interesting theory
Prove it.
Cite ten times "60 Minutes" has lied. As you claim they
are
"infamous for
lying" I'm sure you can prove it easily.
Doug Says: That's easy, just look at their last ten
programs.
LOL
No, Doug, you claim that 60 minutes has lied.
List their lies.
Doug Says: I listed the Westmoreland lawsuit they lost, you
snipped it out, I listed the other dozens of lawsuits they
lost,
you snipped it out, and I listed the fact 60 Minutes will not
allow "live" interviews, and that tactic is designed to
deceive.
You also snipped that out. So stop lying and snipping, and
you
will look less like the idiot we all know you are.
Liar.
From
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/W/htmlW/wallacemike/wallacemike.htm
Westmoreland sued the network. The charges Wallace
aired--conspiracy to
cover-up the size of Viet Cong troop strength--were
substantiated by trial
evidence, but CBS' editorial tactics proved suspect. Early in
1985, just
before Wallace was to testify, CBS issued an apology and
Westmoreland
dropped the suit.
Doug Says: Wallace lied and apologized. Your account is false.
Trial evidence proved Westmorland did not lie about anything.
Where did you get the above blurb?
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Duane Call" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
12 May 2004 06:26:32 PM |
|
|
Well, I guess Doug needs some help. It is a matter of record that Mike
Wallace has, on numerous occasions had to "correct" or "recant" stories that
he has presented on the program in question. I don't know if it is ten
times, yet I have to report that I do not trust CBS News at all. Then there
was the "truck with the gas tank problem" on another network. They actually
blew up a truck and represented it as having been caused by a supposed
manufacturing glitch.
So, before challenging, look up the facts. I suppose you have access to the
Internet. Use it!
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ldxoc.3778$zO3.3697@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:iq7oc.43289$Ut1.1237691@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PBOnc.5116$KE6.2700@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4ONnc.39634$Ut1.1139055@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
THE PRISONER ABUSE DEBACLE
I said before that if any coalition force personnel have
violated
any military regulations or the Geneva Convention in respect
to
"prisoner abuse" they should be court martialed along with
their
commanders.
However, with that said, I must wonder if what we are being
told
by the screaming liberal CBS 60 Minutes in respect to the
reasons
these "pictures" of prisoners were taken is true? We all know
the
60 Minutes program is infamous for lying
Interesting theory
Prove it.
Cite ten times "60 Minutes" has lied. As you claim they are
"infamous for
lying" I'm sure you can prove it easily.
Doug Says: That's easy, just look at their last ten programs.
LOL
No, Doug, you claim that 60 minutes has lied.
List their lies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "qwerty" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
12 May 2004 07:39:18 PM |
|
|
"Duane Call" <ddcjr@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:Hoyoc.35396$536.6531481@attbi_s03...
Well, I guess Doug needs some help. It is a matter of record that Mike
Wallace has, on numerous occasions had to "correct" or "recant" stories
that
he has presented on the program in question.
Which occasions where they and what was "corrected" or "recanted"? Credible
cite please.....
I don't know if it is ten
times, yet I have to report that I do not trust CBS News at all. Then
there
was the "truck with the gas tank problem" on another network. They
actually
blew up a truck and represented it as having been caused by a supposed
manufacturing glitch.
So, before challenging, look up the facts. I suppose you have access to
the
Internet. Use it!
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it up with credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Agosta" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
12 May 2004 07:57:45 PM |
|
|
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:Wszoc.47752$zM2.16491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Duane Call" <ddcjr@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:Hoyoc.35396$536.6531481@attbi_s03...
Well, I guess Doug needs some help. It is a matter of record that Mike
Wallace has, on numerous occasions had to "correct" or "recant" stories
that
he has presented on the program in question.
Which occasions where they and what was "corrected" or "recanted"?
Credible
cite please.....
I don't know if it is ten
times, yet I have to report that I do not trust CBS News at all. Then
there
was the "truck with the gas tank problem" on another network. They
actually
blew up a truck and represented it as having been caused by a supposed
manufacturing glitch.
So, before challenging, look up the facts. I suppose you have access to
the
Internet. Use it!
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it up with
credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
Why does one bother to question
the Bush babies when all they can say is "moo?"
It's a waste of time.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
13 May 2004 07:05:51 AM |
|
|
"John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote in message
news:e9GdnV5f0JeRVT_dRVn-sw@wideopenwest.com...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:Wszoc.47752$zM2.16491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Duane Call" <ddcjr@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:Hoyoc.35396$536.6531481@attbi_s03...
Well, I guess Doug needs some help. It is a matter of record that
Mike
Wallace has, on numerous occasions had to "correct" or "recant"
stories
that
he has presented on the program in question.
Which occasions where they and what was "corrected" or "recanted"?
Credible
cite please.....
I don't know if it is ten
times, yet I have to report that I do not trust CBS News at all. Then
there
was the "truck with the gas tank problem" on another network. They
actually
blew up a truck and represented it as having been caused by a supposed
manufacturing glitch.
So, before challenging, look up the facts. I suppose you have access
to
the
Internet. Use it!
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it up with
credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
Why does one bother to question
the Bush babies when all they can say is "moo?"
It's a waste of time.....
Just to make the point. I usually ignore the general thrust of Doug's
tirades and just find where he makes idiotic, unprovable blanket assertions
and challenge those assertions. Then you get to watch him and his supporters
wriggle like cockroaches impaled on a knitting needle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
13 May 2004 10:46:50 AM |
|
|
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zwJoc.4338$zO3.1969@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote in
message
news:e9GdnV5f0JeRVT_dRVn-sw@wideopenwest.com...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:Wszoc.47752$zM2.16491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Duane Call" <ddcjr@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:Hoyoc.35396$536.6531481@attbi_s03...
Well, I guess Doug needs some help. It is a matter of
record that
Mike
Wallace has, on numerous occasions had to "correct" or
"recant"
stories
that
he has presented on the program in question.
Which occasions where they and what was "corrected" or
"recanted"?
Credible
cite please.....
I don't know if it is ten
times, yet I have to report that I do not trust CBS News
at all. Then
there
was the "truck with the gas tank problem" on another
network. They
actually
blew up a truck and represented it as having been caused
by a supposed
manufacturing glitch.
So, before challenging, look up the facts. I suppose you
have access
to
the
Internet. Use it!
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it
up with
credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
Why does one bother to question
the Bush babies when all they can say is "moo?"
It's a waste of time.....
Just to make the point. I usually ignore the general thrust of
Doug's
tirades and just find where he makes idiotic, unprovable
blanket assertions
and challenge those assertions. Then you get to watch him and
his supporters
wriggle like cockroaches impaled on a knitting needle.
Doug Says: You have never asked for any references or sources I
did not provide. You lie in every post, never post anything
original, and generally are caught in lies on an average of about
one out of one. If you disagree, then with specificity, please
back up any claim you have made about me. I have asked you to do
this dozens of times, and all we get back is more lies and
distortions. Try, just once, to back up what you say.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
13 May 2004 04:42:33 PM |
|
|
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:KLMoc.521$hH.7227@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zwJoc.4338$zO3.1969@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"John Agosta" <j_agosta@remove_wideopenwest.kom> wrote in
message
news:e9GdnV5f0JeRVT_dRVn-sw@wideopenwest.com...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:Wszoc.47752$zM2.16491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Duane Call" <ddcjr@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:Hoyoc.35396$536.6531481@attbi_s03...
Well, I guess Doug needs some help. It is a matter of
record that
Mike
Wallace has, on numerous occasions had to "correct" or
"recant"
stories
that
he has presented on the program in question.
Which occasions where they and what was "corrected" or
"recanted"?
Credible
cite please.....
I don't know if it is ten
times, yet I have to report that I do not trust CBS News
at all. Then
there
was the "truck with the gas tank problem" on another
network. They
actually
blew up a truck and represented it as having been caused
by a supposed
manufacturing glitch.
So, before challenging, look up the facts. I suppose you
have access
to
the
Internet. Use it!
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it
up with
credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
Why does one bother to question
the Bush babies when all they can say is "moo?"
It's a waste of time.....
Just to make the point. I usually ignore the general thrust of
Doug's
tirades and just find where he makes idiotic, unprovable
blanket assertions
and challenge those assertions. Then you get to watch him and
his supporters
wriggle like cockroaches impaled on a knitting needle.
Doug Says: You have never asked for any references or sources I
did not provide.
LOL
Well, that's a lie, but as long as you're into backing up your claims,
provide proof that 60 Minutes lies on a regular basis. 10 proven 60 Minutes
lies will do!
Thanks so much!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
13 May 2004 09:03:15 AM |
|
|
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:Wszoc.47752$zM2.16491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it up with credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
Why does he have any obligation to supply
others with backup information? This is usenet.
If you want to refute it, simply do so ... or
just ignore it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
13 May 2004 04:43:14 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:naLoc.27880$su1.25339@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:Wszoc.47752$zM2.16491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it up with
credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
Why does he have any obligation to supply
others with backup information?
He claims that 60 Minutes lies all the time.
I don't have to "back up his claim", he does.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "qwerty" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
13 May 2004 10:42:22 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:naLoc.27880$su1.25339@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:Wszoc.47752$zM2.16491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it up with
credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
Why does he have any obligation to supply
others with backup information?
Well if he wants to have ANY credibility on these NG's then he needs to back
up his silly assertions. Otherwise, they're simply outrageous lies on his
part!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
13 May 2004 10:50:36 AM |
|
|
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:yHMoc.48007$1m.44642@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:naLoc.27880$su1.25339@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:Wszoc.47752$zM2.16491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it up with
credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
Why does he have any obligation to supply
others with backup information?
Well if he wants to have ANY credibility on these NG's then he needs to back
up his silly assertions. Otherwise, they're simply outrageous lies on his
part!
Wrong. They may be absolutely true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "qwerty" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
13 May 2004 10:54:46 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:0LMoc.28971$su1.2545@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:yHMoc.48007$1m.44642@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:naLoc.27880$su1.25339@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:Wszoc.47752$zM2.16491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it up with
credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
Why does he have any obligation to supply
others with backup information?
Well if he wants to have ANY credibility on these NG's then he needs to
back
up his silly assertions. Otherwise, they're simply outrageous lies on
his
part!
Wrong. They may be absolutely true.
Then please provide CREDIBLE evidence, complete with links!
.
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
13 May 2004 05:13:27 PM |
|
|
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:aTMoc.48011$vq.11453@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:0LMoc.28971$su1.2545@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:yHMoc.48007$1m.44642@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:naLoc.27880$su1.25339@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:Wszoc.47752$zM2.16491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back
it up with
credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
Why does he have any obligation to supply
others with backup information?
Well if he wants to have ANY credibility on these NG's then
he needs to
back
up his silly assertions. Otherwise, they're simply
outrageous lies on
his
part!
Wrong. They may be absolutely true.
Then please provide CREDIBLE evidence, complete with links!
Doug Says: Moron, live interviews are not "linked" until they
sometimes are weeks or months old. Further, many media charges
for past articles, so you cannot reference them, and if that is
not enough, the wire services charge subscription fees if you
wish to access them like I do. I should also mention that
research costs money, and if you are incapable to do a simple
Google search and verify information you are way too dense to be
posting on this newsgroup.
Now if you do a search, tell me what you found that contradicts
anything I have ever said on this newsgroup or others, I will
more than happy to prove you are the idiot you sound like. But
if you expect a "link" to all news, you are too dumb to be
posting on the internet.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
| User: "qwerty" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
13 May 2004 06:38:56 PM |
|
|
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:bqSoc.52890$Ut1.1448207@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:aTMoc.48011$vq.11453@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:0LMoc.28971$su1.2545@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:yHMoc.48007$1m.44642@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:naLoc.27880$su1.25339@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:Wszoc.47752$zM2.16491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back
it up with
credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
Why does he have any obligation to supply
others with backup information?
Well if he wants to have ANY credibility on these NG's then
he needs to
back
up his silly assertions. Otherwise, they're simply
outrageous lies on
his
part!
Wrong. They may be absolutely true.
Then please provide CREDIBLE evidence, complete with links!
Doug Says: Moron, live interviews are not "linked" until they
sometimes are weeks or months old.
Really? Since when?
Further, many media charges
for past articles, so you cannot reference them, and if that is
not enough, the wire services charge subscription fees if you
wish to access them like I do.
So? Provide the links and we can decide whether to pay any fees. Besides,
nearly all these links are FREE!
I should also mention that
research costs money, and if you are incapable to do a simple
Google search and verify information you are way too dense to be
posting on this newsgroup.
LOL, time to blame others for YOUR shortcomings! It's not my responsibility
to do YOUR homework!
Now if you do a search, tell me what you found that contradicts
anything I have ever said on this newsgroup or others, I will
more than happy to prove you are the idiot you sound like. But
if you expect a "link" to all news, you are too dumb to be
posting on the internet.
OK, can you Bush supporters provide any credible proof that Bush isn't an
alcoholic & dyslexic? Or that Bush didn't molest his daughters? See how
that works? You make outrageous accusations then require proof that they're
not true! LOL, just do a google and I'm sure you'll find convincing
evidence! Sorry, but YOU'VE made the accusation, it's YOU who has to
provide proof of such!
.
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
17 May 2004 11:06:12 AM |
|
|
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:kGToc.8070$4g2.245@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:bqSoc.52890$Ut1.1448207@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:aTMoc.48011$vq.11453@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:0LMoc.28971$su1.2545@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:yHMoc.48007$1m.44642@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:naLoc.27880$su1.25339@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:Wszoc.47752$zM2.16491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to
back
it up with
credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
Why does he have any obligation to supply
others with backup information?
Well if he wants to have ANY credibility on these NG's
then
he needs to
back
up his silly assertions. Otherwise, they're simply
outrageous lies on
his
part!
Wrong. They may be absolutely true.
Then please provide CREDIBLE evidence, complete with links!
Doug Says: Moron, live interviews are not "linked" until
they
sometimes are weeks or months old.
Really? Since when?
Further, many media charges
for past articles, so you cannot reference them, and if that
is
not enough, the wire services charge subscription fees if you
wish to access them like I do.
So? Provide the links and we can decide whether to pay any
fees. Besides,
nearly all these links are FREE!
I should also mention that
research costs money, and if you are incapable to do a simple
Google search and verify information you are way too dense to
be
posting on this newsgroup.
LOL, time to blame others for YOUR shortcomings! It's not my
responsibility
to do YOUR homework!
Now if you do a search, tell me what you found that
contradicts
anything I have ever said on this newsgroup or others, I will
more than happy to prove you are the idiot you sound like.
But
if you expect a "link" to all news, you are too dumb to be
posting on the internet.
OK, can you Bush supporters provide any credible proof that
Bush isn't an
alcoholic & dyslexic? Or that Bush didn't molest his
daughters? See how
that works? You make outrageous accusations then require proof
that they're
not true! LOL, just do a google and I'm sure you'll find
convincing
evidence! Sorry, but YOU'VE made the accusation, it's YOU who
has to
provide proof of such!
Doug Says: I have not asked you to disprove a negative, and your
claim that I have is a lie, and your claim that I refuse to post
references if asked for my information is also a lie. Lying in
every post is something that you are doing, not me. I simply
mentioned (which you snipped) that all live interviews and many
articles and news reports do not show up as links (which you
demanded) for months after the event. So demanding "links" for
live interviews and news reports, and "links" for articles such
as comes from the NY Times in which they charge for access to
past articles, is stupid, idiotic, and does not represent an
honest demand for references or sources. I also post my sources,
and you ignore them, snip them then lie about not seeing them.
If you disagree, post some proof, or just admit you are lying and
go on to your next attempt to deceive.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Agosta" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
13 May 2004 06:09:05 PM |
|
|
"DGVREIMAN" <dggrant@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:bqSoc.52890$Ut1.1448207@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:aTMoc.48011$vq.11453@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:0LMoc.28971$su1.2545@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:yHMoc.48007$1m.44642@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:naLoc.27880$su1.25339@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:Wszoc.47752$zM2.16491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back
it up with
credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
Why does he have any obligation to supply
others with backup information?
Well if he wants to have ANY credibility on these NG's then
he needs to
back
up his silly assertions. Otherwise, they're simply
outrageous lies on
his
part!
Wrong. They may be absolutely true.
Then please provide CREDIBLE evidence, complete with links!
Doug Says: Moron, live interviews are not "linked" until they
sometimes are weeks or months old. Further, many media charges
for past articles, so you cannot reference them, and if that is
not enough, the wire services charge subscription fees if you
wish to access them like I do. I should also mention that
research costs money, and if you are incapable to do a simple
Google search and verify information you are way too dense to be
posting on this newsgroup.
Now if you do a search, tell me what you found that contradicts
anything I have ever said on this newsgroup or others, I will
more than happy to prove you are the idiot you sound like. But
if you expect a "link" to all news, you are too dumb to be
posting on the internet.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Doug Grant (Tm)
There goes the World According to Dougie again.
In that little universe, he can make any accusation and does not
have to back it up. You, on the other hand must back up your claims
to the contrary.
However, when you make an accusation, Doug says it is up to you to provide
the supporting facts to back up your argument.
Doug doesn't need proof to his accusations,
you, however do.
He is a nut case.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
13 May 2004 01:23:55 PM |
|
|
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:aTMoc.48011$vq.11453@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:0LMoc.28971$su1.2545@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:yHMoc.48007$1m.44642@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:naLoc.27880$su1.25339@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:Wszoc.47752$zM2.16491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it up with
credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
Why does he have any obligation to supply
others with backup information?
Well if he wants to have ANY credibility on these NG's then he needs to
back
up his silly assertions. Otherwise, they're simply outrageous lies on
his
part!
Wrong. They may be absolutely true.
Then please provide CREDIBLE evidence, complete with links!
No.
.
|
|
|
| User: "qwerty" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
13 May 2004 01:53:35 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:O0Poc.15922$GV5.1877@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:aTMoc.48011$vq.11453@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:0LMoc.28971$su1.2545@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:yHMoc.48007$1m.44642@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:naLoc.27880$su1.25339@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:Wszoc.47752$zM2.16491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it up
with
credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
Why does he have any obligation to supply
others with backup information?
Well if he wants to have ANY credibility on these NG's then he needs
to
back
up his silly assertions. Otherwise, they're simply outrageous lies
on
his
part!
Wrong. They may be absolutely true.
Then please provide CREDIBLE evidence, complete with links!
No.
Then it's BS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Doug, back up your claim please! Cite? |
13 May 2004 03:03:10 PM |
|
|
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:PuPoc.7984$Rv.7220@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:O0Poc.15922$GV5.1877@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:aTMoc.48011$vq.11453@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:0LMoc.28971$su1.2545@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:yHMoc.48007$1m.44642@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:naLoc.27880$su1.25339@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"qwerty" <nospam@all.noway.com> wrote in message
news:Wszoc.47752$zM2.16491@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
If YOU made the claim, it's YOUR responsibility to back it up
with
credible
site! Don't expect others to do YOUR homework!
Why does he have any obligation to supply
others with backup information?
Well if he wants to have ANY credibility on these NG's then he needs
to
back
up his silly assertions. Otherwise, they're simply outrageous lies
on
his
part!
Wrong. They may be absolutely true.
Then please provide CREDIBLE evidence, complete with links!
No.
Then it's BS!
Wrong again.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
