> This is a high-order scandal. It's not good, if it is true.
A high order scandal? You are kidding right? For goodness sake, some flunky wanted to make a btter looking picture for the web site. It is a non-issue.
>>>> This is a high-order scandal. It's not good, if it is true.
>>> LOL! Notice the "DONATE" button is promenent. Yup. I believe what those >>> guys say.
>>> Everybody's trying to cash in on this, but it's the corporation that's >>> greedy. I love it.
>> What if Fox carried the story? Would you be more likely to believe it?
> They don't have a "Donate" button.
Yes they do, but only the advertisers see it. They don't work for free, and if a small web site asks for donations to support costs, it does not necessarily mean their content is in doubt.
Next you'll be repeating what dbu once said: He doesn't trust books because authors get paid for writing.
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:32:03 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:1wK1o.12684$Zp1.4465@newsfe15.iad... >> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:42:03 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:wou1o.36276$3%3.1636@newsfe23.iad... >>>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:24:56 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>> This is a high-order scandal. It's not good, if it is true.
>>>> LOL! Notice the "DONATE" button is promenent. Yup. I believe what those >>>> guys say.
>>>> Everybody's trying to cash in on this, but it's the corporation that's >>>> greedy. I love it.
>>> What if Fox carried the story? Would you be more likely to believe it?
>> They don't have a "Donate" button.
> Yes they do, but only the advertisers see it. They don't work for free, and > if a small web site asks for donations to support costs, it does not > necessarily mean their content is in doubt.
>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>> news:wou1o.36276$3%3.1636@newsfe23.iad... >>>>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:24:56 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>>> This is a high-order scandal. It's not good, if it is true.
>>>>> LOL! Notice the "DONATE" button is promenent. Yup. I believe what >>>>> those >>>>> guys say.
>>>>> Everybody's trying to cash in on this, but it's the corporation that's >>>>> greedy. I love it.
>>>> What if Fox carried the story? Would you be more likely to believe it?
>>> They don't have a "Donate" button.
>> Yes they do, but only the advertisers see it. They don't work for free, >> and >> if a small web site asks for donations to support costs, it does not >> necessarily mean their content is in doubt.
> I'm not paying a blogger, or trusting one.
You've posted blogs as sources in the past, just a week or two after complaining about bloggers.
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:39:08 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:ygM1o.25488$cO.3702@newsfe09.iad... >> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:32:03 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:1wK1o.12684$Zp1.4465@newsfe15.iad... >>>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:42:03 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>> news:wou1o.36276$3%3.1636@newsfe23.iad... >>>>>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:24:56 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>>>> This is a high-order scandal. It's not good, if it is true.
>>>>>> LOL! Notice the "DONATE" button is promenent. Yup. I believe what >>>>>> those >>>>>> guys say.
>>>>>> Everybody's trying to cash in on this, but it's the corporation that's >>>>>> greedy. I love it.
>>>>> What if Fox carried the story? Would you be more likely to believe it?
>>>> They don't have a "Donate" button.
>>> Yes they do, but only the advertisers see it. They don't work for free, >>> and >>> if a small web site asks for donations to support costs, it does not >>> necessarily mean their content is in doubt.
>> I'm not paying a blogger, or trusting one.
> You've posted blogs as sources in the past, just a week or two after > complaining about bloggers.
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:39:08 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:ygM1o.25488$cO.3702@newsfe09.iad... >>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:32:03 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>> news:1wK1o.12684$Zp1.4465@newsfe15.iad... >>>>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:42:03 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>> news:wou1o.36276$3%3.1636@newsfe23.iad... >>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:24:56 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>>>>> "edspyhill01" <edspyhil...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:92bb4fe1-2c3f-4359-bd26-7e1ec7ecda16@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>> Are you realizing yet BP is a rogue corporation? They are >>>>>>>>> thumbing >>>>>>>>> their noses at every single citizen of America.
>>>>>>>> This is a high-order scandal. It's not good, if it is true.
>>>>>>> LOL! Notice the "DONATE" button is promenent. Yup. I believe what >>>>>>> those >>>>>>> guys say.
>>>>>>> Everybody's trying to cash in on this, but it's the corporation >>>>>>> that's >>>>>>> greedy. I love it.
>>>>>> What if Fox carried the story? Would you be more likely to believe >>>>>> it?
>>>>> They don't have a "Donate" button.
>>>> Yes they do, but only the advertisers see it. They don't work for free, >>>> and >>>> if a small web site asks for donations to support costs, it does not >>>> necessarily mean their content is in doubt.
>>> I'm not paying a blogger, or trusting one.
>> You've posted blogs as sources in the past, just a week or two after >> complaining about bloggers.
> Not too often.
You did it once, so that torpedoes any objections you have to bloggers. Forever. It's all or nothing.
>> This is a high-order scandal. It's not good, if it is true.
> A high order scandal? You are kidding right? For goodness sake, some > flunky wanted to make a btter looking picture for the web site. It is a > non-issue.
Then that would make it not true, and the scandal would not exist. But if if is true, and not the non-issue that you make it out to be, then there is a big problem. That's all. I happen to agree with you that it is the work of some flunky that is playing with his PhotoShop, but if we are wrong ...
