David Brock on PI tonight (4/3)
Terwilliger
along with: Victoria Toensing, CCH Pounder, and funny man Fred Willard
--
"We are ALL starstuff" -- Carl Sagan
Irina Paley
> along with: Victoria Toensing, CCH Pounder, and funny man Fred Willard
cool... maybe i'll find out what all the buzz is about... (of course I could
just read the book... nah)
Patrick Bateman
says...
>
> > along with: Victoria Toensing, CCH Pounder, and funny man Fred Willard
>
> cool... maybe i'll find out what all the buzz is about... (of course I could
> just read the book... nah)
>
>
>
the Top 10 books in Amazon, but that's all I that is buzz worthy. The
Right isn't commenting on it, and from what I DO KNOW (which I admit
isn't much)... the left isn't exactly welcoming him with open arms.
TVsHenry
>Right isn't commenting on it
That's not entirely true unless you categorize National Review as moderate or
left.
.> the left isn't exactly welcoming him with open arms.
Also not entirely true.
lazarus
Yes we are.
--
lazarus
"Atheists do look for answers to existence itself.
They just don't make them up." -- Teller
"The less you bet, the more you lose when you win." -- Wyatt Earp
"Never play pool with a man who brings his own table." -- Erik Baker
Irina Paley
Patrick Bateman
lazaru...@msn.com says...
> On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 03:55:53 GMT, Patrick Bateman
> <Zap...@removemeHotmail.Com> wrote:
>
> >In article <a8gg09$qje$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>, ip...@columbia.edu
> >says...
> >>
> >> > along with: Victoria Toensing, CCH Pounder, and funny man Fred Willard
> >>
> >> cool... maybe i'll find out what all the buzz is about... (of course I could
> >> just read the book... nah)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >The buzz? I haven't heard much buzz at all, in all honesty. He is on
> >the Top 10 books in Amazon, but that's all I that is buzz worthy. The
> >Right isn't commenting on it, and from what I DO KNOW (which I admit
> >isn't much)... the left isn't exactly welcoming him with open arms.
>
> Yes we are.
have heard commentary from leftists that they will accept him, but not
with open arms, just in case he does the same thing to them.
Patrick Bateman
tvsh...@aol.comcroooow says...
basically calls Coulter a racist. no response from her. He talks about
Hitchens, no response from him (even though he is "left"). Basically
anyone from the american Spectator (except for that 1 columnist that
reviewed his book from the Post). For a book that pretty much exposes
the right wing conspiracy, there is a lot of nothing really going on.
There was a bigger muck over the Liberal bias in the media than finding
out that 'there was a right wing conspiracy to defame bill clinton at
any cost. whether it be through non factual information or hearsay'.
Please, let's not be insulting. There is a reason why the people spoken
about aren't talking about it. They either think it is pointless and
wrong and if they don't talk about it, it will go away. Or it is
downright true (and from what I heard, I hope it isn't), and they are
too embarressed to talk about it. Either way, their response was
minimal.
Entirely true? No, it isn't. But for the most part, it is as true as
it gets.
Patrick Bateman
says...
> I liked David Brock. If anything, he comes across is extremely clever.
>
>
>
lazarus
<Zap...@removemeHotmail.Com> wrote:
>In article <jvlnaucaqqji8c3c6...@4ax.com>,
>lazaru...@msn.com says...
>> On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 03:55:53 GMT, Patrick Bateman
>> <Zap...@removemeHotmail.Com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <a8gg09$qje$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>, ip...@columbia.edu
>> >says...
>> >>
>> >> > along with: Victoria Toensing, CCH Pounder, and funny man Fred Willard
>> >>
>> >> cool... maybe i'll find out what all the buzz is about... (of course I could
>> >> just read the book... nah)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >The buzz? I haven't heard much buzz at all, in all honesty. He is on
>> >the Top 10 books in Amazon, but that's all I that is buzz worthy. The
>> >Right isn't commenting on it, and from what I DO KNOW (which I admit
>> >isn't much)... the left isn't exactly welcoming him with open arms.
>>
>> Yes we are.
>oh? and you speak on behalf of the whole ideology? I don't think so. I
>have heard commentary from leftists that they will accept him, but not
>with open arms, just in case he does the same thing to them.
Well, these guys have considered me and a couple of other posters as
representative of "liberals" as a group, so I thought I'd try it on
for size.
Patrick Bateman
> >oh? and you speak on behalf of the whole ideology? I don't think so. I
> >have heard commentary from leftists that they will accept him, but not
> >with open arms, just in case he does the same thing to them.
>
> Well, these guys have considered me and a couple of other posters as
> representative of "liberals" as a group, so I thought I'd try it on
> for size.
Terwilliger
$0.00023 cents while saying:
>
>along with: Victoria Toensing, CCH Pounder, and funny man Fred Willard
That kinda sucked.
Firstly, I said "funny man" Fred Willard. He was far from funny.
David Brock comported himself well, and asserted himself once or
twice, but, on the whole, he was far too mousy. Toensing started
manipulating the discussion and he should have stopped. They spent the
first 5 minutes of the segment talking about her Republicanism, and
how the evil Bill Clinton "sent investigators." Well, Bill had to ask
her exactly who Bill Clinton sent 3 times before she answered. And,
like so many people on the right, she couldn't get past Bill Clinton's
so-called depravities long enough for Brock to talk. Then she talked
about Olson and how she knew her so well. Well, Brock practically
spent 5 years with the woman in the early 90's, so he knew her too.
The one time Brock asserted himself, he nailed Toensing. She talked
about how Paula Jones was sexually harrassed, and she knew Paula too,
so she was an expert. Then David says that her lawyer admitted that
Jones was lying. Toensing: "she was not lying. I knew her and she was
not lying." Brock: "Her lawyer told me..." Toensing: "And who was
that?" Brock: (right there with it) "George Conway." Well, didn't that
shut Vicki up. She visibly paused while she tried to figure out what
to do when confronted with facts. Her lame response? "Well, now we
have that on the record." It was in the book, Vicki. Look it up.
Still, I would have liked to see Brock speak up a little more.
The rest of the show was a favorite topic of mine. Willard haphazardly
tried to make the point that the rebellion of teenagers is currently
their smoking a little pot, and that if we legalize that, then kids
will have to look for a new, harder drug to be rebellious with. Uh,
Fred...have you read a newspaper lately? GHB, DMT, ketamine, ecstasy,
LSD...they've already moved on. Smoking pot is little more rebellious
than smoking a cigarrette. Toensing showed her wonderful rightist
logic once again. The commission said this 30 years ago? "Well, I
think I'd like more current science." The only problem is, if the same
discussion was being had when the Shafer Commission report was
originally released, she'd find another reason why it wasn't right.
CCH Pounder nailed her when she pointed out that there is absolutely
ZERO evidence that non-smoked consumption of cannabis is linked to ANY
negative health effect. Once again, confront an ignorant rightie with
the facts, and they simply don't have anything left but polemics and
hyperbole.
For Fred Willard's edification, it was the 1998 study by the Institute
of Medicine (commissioned by Barry McCaffrey so that he could debunk
the "Cheech and Chong" medicine represented by California's Prop. 215,
the California Compassionate Use Act of 1996) that showed, not only
that cannabis did have therapeutic benefits, but, that it was NOT a
gateway drug. Everybody knows the gateway drug is...not beer...it's
milk. Milk leads to everything else.
Still and all, I was hoping for a better show.
Patrick Bateman
me (as others have said), but then again I have seen him on television
and read him before. I think ever since he swung to the left he has
decided to lay low. Ya know, not look for the attention (which is
ironic) that he so longed for when he was a conservative.
Terwilliger
$0.00023 cents while saying:
>I agree with your analysis totally. Brock didn't seem very "clever" to
So, a book isn't attention? He may no longer be on the Washington
party circuit, but I wouldn't say he's laying low.
I didn't realize that anyone labelled Brock as particularly clever. He
did, however, come across as honest and sincere.
Irina Paley
> first 5 minutes of the segment talking about her Republicanism, and
> how the evil Bill Clinton "sent investigators." Well, Bill had to ask
> her exactly who Bill Clinton sent 3 times before she answered.
That was ridiculous. it seemed that she figured that if she talked louder,
she'd think faster.
TVsHenry
>oh? and you speak on behalf of the whole ideology?
He is Laz the All-Powerful. Bow before Zod... I mean Laz.
TVsHenry
>From: Patrick Bateman Zap...@removemeHotmail.Com
>Date: 4/4/02 2:52 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <MPG.1715d08c6...@news.optonline.net>
Spot on.
TVsHenry
>From: Patrick Bateman Zap...@removemeHotmail.Com
>Message-id: <MPG.1715e1d6c...@news.optonline.net>
I have only seen him challenged in any serious way once. Guess which channel.
TVsHenry
>did, however, come across as honest and sincere.
He did to conservatives too, but his lies even today have been well documented.
TVsHenry
>From: Patrick Bateman Zap...@removemeHotmail.Com
>Message-id: <MPG.1715d0653...@news.optonline.net>
>
>In article <20020404000406...@mb-co.aol.com>,
>tvsh...@aol.comcroooow says...
>> >The
>> >Right isn't commenting on it
>>
>> That's not entirely true unless you categorize National Review as moderate
>or
>> left.
>>
>> .> the left isn't exactly welcoming him with open arms.
>>
>> Also not entirely true.
>>
>tv, actually lets talk about the people that are really involved. She
>basically calls Coulter a racist. no response from her. He talks about
>Hitchens, no response from him (even though he is "left").
Hitchens obviously has bigger fish to fry. If he can make a fool of Chomsky,
Brock is small potatoes.
Basically
>anyone from the american Spectator (except for that 1 columnist that
>reviewed his book from the Post). For a book that pretty much exposes
>the right wing conspiracy, there is a lot of nothing really going on.
>There was a bigger muck over the Liberal bias in the media than finding
>out that 'there was a right wing conspiracy to defame bill clinton at
>any cost. whether it be through non factual information or hearsay'.
>Please, let's not be insulting. There is a reason why the people spoken
>about aren't talking about it. They either think it is pointless and
>wrong and if they don't talk about it, it will go away. Or it is
>downright true (and from what I heard, I hope it isn't), and they are
>too embarressed to talk about it. Either way, their response was
>minimal.
>
>Entirely true? No, it isn't. But for the most part, it is as true as
>it gets.
>
Or perhaps they don't consider his personal attacks worthy of a response.
Patrick Bateman
Terwi...@seereplyto.net says...
remember years back, is what I was saying. I also said that it was
ironic. He used to be a whole lot more head strong and aggressive. Now
he seems rather passive, in the situations I have seen him
Patrick Bateman
tvsh...@aol.comcroooow says...
(not meant to be questioning, I am just interested)
TVsHenry
>From: Patrick Bateman Zap...@removemeHotmail.Com
>Message-id: <MPG.17165652c...@news.optonline.net>
>
>In article <20020404105530...@mb-me.aol.com>,
>tvsh...@aol.comcroooow says...
>> >Subject: Re: David Brock on PI tonight (4/3)
>> >From: Patrick Bateman Zap...@removemeHotmail.Com
>> >Date: 4/4/02 4:05 AM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <MPG.1715e1d6c...@news.optonline.net>
>> >
>> >I agree with your analysis totally. Brock didn't seem very "clever" to
>> >me (as others have said), but then again I have seen him on television
>> >and read him before. I think ever since he swung to the left he has
>> >decided to lay low. Ya know, not look for the attention (which is
>> >ironic) that he so longed for when he was a conservative.
>> >
>>
>> I have only seen him challenged in any serious way once. Guess which
>channel.
>>
>>
>I would have to say... FOX news?
Indeed... the comparison with his treatment by Aaron Brown and Matt Lauer is
like night and day.
If so, which show was he on recently?
He was one of the guests they have on during the day.
TVsHenry
Patrick Bateman
tvsh...@aol.comcroooow says...
> Make that two critical interviews of Brock, throwing in Jon Stewart.
>
TVsHenry
lazarus
And you'll be providing those real soon now, right?
BTW, Documentation means more than a bunch of people saying he lied.
FYI.
lazarus
On 04 Apr 2002 15:57:54 GMT, tvsh...@aol.comcroooow (TVsHenry) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: David Brock on PI tonight (4/3)
>>From: Patrick Bateman Zap...@removemeHotmail.Com
>>Date: 4/4/02 2:51 AM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <MPG.1715d0653...@news.optonline.net>
>>
>>In article <20020404000406...@mb-co.aol.com>,
>>tvsh...@aol.comcroooow says...
>>> >The
>>> >Right isn't commenting on it
>>>
>>> That's not entirely true unless you categorize National Review as moderate
>>or
>>> left.
>>>
>>> .> the left isn't exactly welcoming him with open arms.
>>>
>>> Also not entirely true.
>>>
>>tv, actually lets talk about the people that are really involved. She
>>basically calls Coulter a racist. no response from her. He talks about
>>Hitchens, no response from him (even though he is "left").
>
>Hitchens obviously has bigger fish to fry. If he can make a fool of Chomsky,
>Brock is small potatoes.
HALFWAY TO SUBJECT CHANGE, ALERT, ALERT!
>
> Basically
>>anyone from the american Spectator (except for that 1 columnist that
>>reviewed his book from the Post). For a book that pretty much exposes
>>the right wing conspiracy, there is a lot of nothing really going on.
>>There was a bigger muck over the Liberal bias in the media than finding
>>out that 'there was a right wing conspiracy to defame bill clinton at
>>any cost. whether it be through non factual information or hearsay'.
>>Please, let's not be insulting. There is a reason why the people spoken
>>about aren't talking about it. They either think it is pointless and
>>wrong and if they don't talk about it, it will go away. Or it is
>>downright true (and from what I heard, I hope it isn't), and they are
>>too embarressed to talk about it. Either way, their response was
>>minimal.
>>
>>Entirely true? No, it isn't. But for the most part, it is as true as
>>it gets.
>>
>
>Or perhaps they don't consider his personal attacks worthy of a response.
HERE'S THE SUBJECT CHANGE:
Sort of the way I can't get a response from Michael Moore about that
supposed email? Maybe he considers that a personal attack not worthy
of a response.
lazarus
And yet, all over the group are conservatives claiming he switched
sides for attention.
ralph
lolololol
--
Hung like Einstein,
Smart as a horse.
DevilGrrl
>>>
>> He did to conservatives too, but his lies even today have been well
>> documented.
>>
> And you'll be providing those real soon now, right?
>
> BTW, Documentation means more than a bunch of people saying he lied. FYI.
Other than proclaiming that Brock is a liar and a opportunist, I've yet to
read any reviews that contradict anything that he wrote. Ms. Toensing
certainly didn't do a very good job convincing us that he's full of shit
either.
--
"I understand that the unrest in the Middle East creates unrest throughout
the region." pResident Bush, Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002
Erasmus Brown
"Terwilliger" <Terwi...@seereplyto.net> wrote in message
news:h54oauk4713cbnugt...@4ax.com...
> Terwilliger <Terwi...@seereplyto.net> forked over the usual
> $0.00023 cents while saying:
>
> >
> >along with: Victoria Toensing, CCH Pounder, and funny man Fred Willard
>
> That kinda sucked.
>
> Firstly, I said "funny man" Fred Willard. He was far from funny.
>
> David Brock comported himself well, and asserted himself once or
> twice, but, on the whole, he was far too mousy. Toensing started
> manipulating the discussion and he should have stopped. They spent the
> first 5 minutes of the segment talking about her Republicanism, and
> how the evil Bill Clinton "sent investigators." Well, Bill had to ask
> her exactly who Bill Clinton sent 3 times before she answered.
I heard the investigators all looked like Ed Harris in a trenchcoat and a
fedora.
Terrence Briggs
> I liked David Brock. If anything, he comes across is extremely clever.
I was disappointed. He struck me as nervous as a beaten puppy during
the whole evening. Maybe I shouldn't be comparing him to his fellow
Second Thoughter from across the spectrum, David Horowitz (the Radical
Son author who appeared on PI during the show's post-Sept. 11 period,
alongside Alfre Woodard).
While Horowitz comes across as too vehement to be a threat to
left-wing thought, Brock was too reserved to come across as a threat
to the right.
Terrence Briggs
Peace to you...
lazarus
wrote:
Preemptive strike, doncha know.
--
lazarus
"The most important this is for us to find Osama bin Laden.
It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
George W Bush, Sept 13, 2001
"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
George W Bush, March 13, 2002
DevilGrrl
>>
>> That kinda sucked.
>>
>> Firstly, I said "funny man" Fred Willard. He was far from funny.
>>
>> David Brock comported himself well, and asserted himself once or
>> twice, but, on the whole, he was far too mousy. Toensing started
>> manipulating the discussion and he should have stopped. They spent the
>> first 5 minutes of the segment talking about her Republicanism, and
>> how the evil Bill Clinton "sent investigators." Well, Bill had to ask
>> her exactly who Bill Clinton sent 3 times before she answered.
You mean "THEY"???? She kept saying "THEY sent investigators"... uh, names
Ms. Toensing??? She never answered the question.
DevilGrrl
More specifically:
Victoria: They sent investigators out.
Bill: From where? What sort of investigators? Who was your husband?
Victoria: His name is Joe. We practice law together.
Bill: You practice law.
Victoria: We practice law. We're both Republicans, and we were speaking out.
We were also investigating --
Bill: Who did he send to investigate you?
Victoria: They hired investigative people. Mu husband went --
Bill: Private Dicks?
Victoria: You got it. Private Dicks.
Bill: And that's what started the whole thing. I kid, of course.
[ Laughter ]
[ Applause ] I'm sorry. But how do you know that? I'm sorry.
Victoria: Because they admitted it. That's why. They admitted it. But what
they said was, "We only put you under investigation for your professional
life, not your personal life." I don't know what that meant.
Patrick Bateman
are on different ideological plains. Thanks, though.
TVsHenry
>Date: 4/4/02 10:15 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <5m5qaucsfrhqudoju...@4ax.com>
>
>On 04 Apr 2002 15:56:08 GMT, tvsh...@aol.comcroooow (TVsHenry) wrote:
>
>>>He
>>>did, however, come across as honest and sincere.
>>
>>He did to conservatives too, but his lies even today have been well
>documented.
>
>And you'll be providing those real soon now, right?
>
>BTW, Documentation means more than a bunch of people saying he lied.
>FYI.
>
Laz of course imagines posted articles that were posted were never posted. Laz
has already set up a No True Scotsman argument to deal with any future examples
of Brock's word vs. the rest of the world. Need I remind you again that Brock
is an admitted liar.
TVsHenry
>From: lazarus lazaru...@msn.com
>Date: 4/4/02 10:13 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <df5qauoltleb9s4r8...@4ax.com>
It was Michael Moore who made the personal attack in the e-mail in the first
place in response to an article, you loon. Proof has already been provided on
this NG of Moore's trademark reaction to criticism, yet you continue to whistle
past the graveyard.
lazarus
So, you accept his word that he was a liar, but claim he was actually
telling the truth back then, and is lying know, except when he said he
lied back then, except it wasn't then, it's now, except for the
statement about lying. Crystal clear.
And you seriously need to study up on logical fallacies, hank. Those
of us who actually know what they mean just laugh at you when you just
sprinkle these things throughout your posts with no bearing on
reality.
lazarus
I view it otherwise. The email, until actually proven to be valid, is
a fake designed to be a personal attack on Michael Moore. Since you
have provided no proof at all.
Patrick Bateman
I dunno, i remember hearing FBI agents. :cP
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <muiqau4u0ntsmuu54...@4ax.com>
>
>On 05 Apr 2002 06:35:00 GMT, tvsh...@aol.comcroooow (TVsHenry) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: David Brock on PI tonight (4/3)
>>>From: lazarus lazaru...@msn.com
>>>Date: 4/4/02 10:15 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <5m5qaucsfrhqudoju...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>>On 04 Apr 2002 15:56:08 GMT, tvsh...@aol.comcroooow (TVsHenry) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>He
>>>>>did, however, come across as honest and sincere.
>>>>
>>>>He did to conservatives too, but his lies even today have been well
>>>documented.
>>>
>>>And you'll be providing those real soon now, right?
>>>
>>>BTW, Documentation means more than a bunch of people saying he lied.
>>>FYI.
>>>
>>
>>Laz of course imagines posted articles that were posted were never posted.
>Laz
>>has already set up a No True Scotsman argument to deal with any future
>examples
>>of Brock's word vs. the rest of the world. Need I remind you again that
>Brock
>>is an admitted liar.
>
>So, you accept his word that he was a liar, but claim he was actually
>telling the truth back then, and is lying know, except when he said he
>lied back then, except it wasn't then, it's now, except for the
>statement about lying. Crystal clear.
>
He has clearly lied in the past, is telling some lies now, and is quite
possibly lying about the past as well, depending on the statement. The fact
that Laz cannot follow such subtleties speaks volumes.
>And you seriously need to study up on logical fallacies, hank. Those
>of us who actually know what they mean just laugh at you when you just
>sprinkle these things throughout your posts with no bearing on
>reality.
The last refuge of a lover of logical fallacies.
TVsHenry
>From: lazarus lazaru...@msn.com
>Date: 4/5/02 2:01 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <7tiqaugbi1vpkeo77...@4ax.com>
Of course you do.
The email, until actually proven to be valid,
As it has, since the recipient has posted here multiple times and is able to
forward it to you or anyone with the original dates, etc.
is
>a fake designed to be a personal attack on Michael Moore.
Despite Michael Moore himself providing proof just the other night and making
absolutely no statement denying that he sent it.
Since you
>have provided no proof at all.
A total lie.
TVsHenry
ralph
They know who they is.
ralph
That makes him more honest than evasive liars, who weasel their way out
of obvious fabrications regarding their previous posts. Can we trade up?
ralph
TVsHenry
>> is an admitted liar.
>
>That makes him more honest than evasive liars, who weasel their way out
>of obvious fabrications regarding their previous posts.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&frame=right&th=8e3a7c6d282c
7233&seekm=20020327221041.26878.00000543%40mb-cj.aol.com#link1
What's astonishing is Laz *responded to the thread* he now denies ever existed.
Mike from Canmore
goes on at length about her.
ralph
>
> What exactly did Brock say about Barbara Olson in his book? I hear he
> goes on at length about her.
Mike from Canmore? I love Mike from Canmore! I've posted about Mike from
Canmore! I've been to Canmore!
Patrick Bateman
jl...@yahoo.com says...
> What exactly did Brock say about Barbara Olson in his book? I hear he
> goes on at length about her.
>
self conscious and had low self-esteem. I will most likely not buy the
book, it is the same trash talking he did when he was on the Right.
TVsHenry
>Date: 4/6/02 2:27 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <MPG.17191671a...@news.optonline.net>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29946-2002Mar14.html
Patrick Bateman
tvsh...@aol.comcroooow says...
with Brock on the American Spectator. It was either that or SOMETHING
like that. I remember reading a blurb somewhere.
TVsHenry
>From: Patrick Bateman Zap...@removemeHotmail.Com
>Message-id: <MPG.171ab09fe...@news.optonline.net>
The Slate article addressed this (and Brock never replied to it):
"Brock makes it sound as though Bawer were some sort of Spectator partisan who
took offense at Brock's criticisms of the magazine. But as Brock's book makes
clear, Bawer (whose time at the Spectator did not overlap with Brock's) left
the magazine to protest an editor's deletion of a passing reference to
homosexuality in his review of the play Prelude to a Kiss. (Bawer is gay,
Prelude's author, Craig Lucas, is gay, and the play has a much-discussed gay
subtext.) Contrary to Brock's claim, Brock's book does not question the
credibility of Bawer's published account of that departure. Rather, Brock
writes that when he read Bawer's account (in Bawer's 1993 memoir, A Place at
the Table), he asked the editor in question whether it was true, and the editor
'awkwardly denied' it. Brock elaborates: 'I shrugged it off and probed no
further, since I didn't really want to know the truth. … I wasn't going to
let possible prejudice against another writer, whom I did not know, upset my
world. Some gays can be awfully hypersensitive, I told myself.' The clear
thrust of this passage is that Bawer's published version was right, and that
Brock, in refusing to believe Bawer's version at the time, had been wrong. As
this
(http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/02/authors_downiekaiser031902.htm)
online chat shows, Brock managed to con Post Editor Leonard Downie and former
Post Managing Editor Robert Kaiser, *neither of whom must have actually read
Brock's book*, into thinking he'd somehow been wronged by 'Book World.' As a
result, 'Book World' editor Marie Arana ended up publishing a completely
unnecessary apology
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A278-2002Mar21.html)."
Emphasis mine.
lazarus
Ah, yes, the subtlety of being able to pick the statements you want to
be true out, and calling the rest lies. Convenient, that.
>>And you seriously need to study up on logical fallacies, hank. Those
>>of us who actually know what they mean just laugh at you when you just
>>sprinkle these things throughout your posts with no bearing on
>>reality.
>
>The last refuge of a lover of logical fallacies.
No True Strawman! Ad Hom! Already Posted!
lazarus
>>Subject: Re: David Brock on PI tonight (4/3)
>>From: Patrick Bateman Zap...@removemeHotmail.Com
>>Date: 4/7/02 8:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <MPG.171ab09fe...@news.optonline.net>
>>
>>In article <20020406171923...@mb-fj.aol.com>,
>>tvsh...@aol.comcroooow says...
>>> >Subject: Re: David Brock on PI tonight (4/3)
>>> >From: Patrick Bateman Zap...@removemeHotmail.Com
>>> >Date: 4/6/02 2:27 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>> >Message-id: <MPG.17191671a...@news.optonline.net>
>>> >
>>> >In article <162b46d8.02040...@posting.google.com>,
>>> >jl...@yahoo.com says...
>>> >> What exactly did Brock say about Barbara Olson in his book? I hear he
>>> >> goes on at length about her.
>>> >>
>>> >APPARENTLY, according to Brock, *under the surface*, she was terribly
>>> >self conscious and had low self-esteem. I will most likely not buy the
>>> >book, it is the same trash talking he did when he was on the Right.
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29946-2002Mar14.html
>>>
>>I think the Post later apologised for this article because Bawer worked
>>with Brock on the American Spectator. It was either that or SOMETHING
>>like that. I remember reading a blurb somewhere.
>>
>
>The Slate article addressed this (and Brock never replied to it):
>
What! He never replied to it! It must be true, it must!
--
lazarus
I hate to break your heart here or anything, but I don't tend to
remember much of our interaction. It's generally meaningless drivel
from your side, so it's not that important.
lazarus
Hank, it doesn't matter. It could easily be faked, as he admitted.
It's not proof. Doing it multiple times isn't proof. Attaching a
date to it isn't proof.
>is
>>a fake designed to be a personal attack on Michael Moore.
>
>Despite Michael Moore himself providing proof just the other night and making
>absolutely no statement denying that he sent it.
>
Well, Bush has never denied being a drug user, so I guess he did get
ripped on cocaine while flying planes. And you still haven't denied a
lot of allegations made about you, so I guess those are true, cause
I've heard them a lot, and they have dates.
> Since you
>>have provided no proof at all.
>
>A total lie.
Where was that proof again?
DevilGrrl
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> He did to conservatives too, but his lies even today have been well
>>>>>> documented.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And you'll be providing those real soon now, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, Documentation means more than a bunch of people saying he lied. FYI.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Laz of course imagines posted articles that were posted were never posted.
>>>> Laz has already set up a No True Scotsman argument to deal with any future
>>>> examples of Brock's word vs. the rest of the world. Need I remind you again
>>>> that Brock is an admitted liar.
>>>>
>>> So, you accept his word that he was a liar, but claim he was actually
>>> telling the truth back then, and is lying know, except when he said he lied
>>> back then, except it wasn't then, it's now, except for the statement about
>>> lying. Crystal clear.
>>>
>>
>> He has clearly lied in the past, is telling some lies now, and is quite
>> possibly lying about the past as well, depending on the statement. The fact
>> that Laz cannot follow such subtleties speaks volumes.
>>
>
> Ah, yes, the subtlety of being able to pick the statements you want to be true
> out, and calling the rest lies. Convenient, that.
I've yet to read a review that convincingly proves him a liar, the reviews
certainly claim that he's a liar, where's an instance within his new book
that are lies?
TVsHenry
>Date: 4/8/02 10:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <B8D79E54.2AC96%nos...@hades.net>
Ignoring the articles posted helps one have this position.
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <2qo3bu0h6i9drvipe...@4ax.com>
Michael Moore's own words.
TVsHenry
>Date: 4/8/2002 2:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <14p3bu824q6eldde8...@4ax.com>
>
>On 08 Apr 2002 03:46:48 GMT, tvsh...@aol.comcroooow (TVsHenry) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: David Brock on PI tonight (4/3)
>>>From: Patrick Bateman Zap...@removemeHotmail.Com
>>>Date: 4/7/02 8:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <MPG.171ab09fe...@news.optonline.net>
>>>
>>>In article <20020406171923...@mb-fj.aol.com>,
>>>tvsh...@aol.comcroooow says...
>>>> >Subject: Re: David Brock on PI tonight (4/3)
>>>> >From: Patrick Bateman Zap...@removemeHotmail.Com
>>>> >Date: 4/6/02 2:27 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>>> >Message-id: <MPG.17191671a...@news.optonline.net>
>>>> >
>>>> >In article <162b46d8.02040...@posting.google.com>,
>>>> >jl...@yahoo.com says...
>>>> >> What exactly did Brock say about Barbara Olson in his book? I hear he
>>>> >> goes on at length about her.
>>>> >>
>>>> >APPARENTLY, according to Brock, *under the surface*, she was terribly
>>>> >self conscious and had low self-esteem. I will most likely not buy the
>>>> >book, it is the same trash talking he did when he was on the Right.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29946-2002Mar14.html
>>>>
>>>I think the Post later apologised for this article because Bawer worked
>>>with Brock on the American Spectator. It was either that or SOMETHING
>>>like that. I remember reading a blurb somewhere.
>>>
>>
>>The Slate article addressed this (and Brock never replied to it):
>>
>
>What! He never replied to it! It must be true, it must!
Er... if he had any reply whatsoever to show that it wasn't... don't you think
he would have replied?
Logic. Try it sometime.
Randy
lazarus
I see no response to this is forthcoming.
>>>is
>>>>a fake designed to be a personal attack on Michael Moore.
>>>
>>>Despite Michael Moore himself providing proof just the other night and
>>making
>>>absolutely no statement denying that he sent it.
>>>
>>
>>Well, Bush has never denied being a drug user, so I guess he did get
>>ripped on cocaine while flying planes. And you still haven't denied a
>>lot of allegations made about you, so I guess those are true, cause
>>I've heard them a lot, and they have dates.
>>
And?
>>> Since you
>>>>have provided no proof at all.
>>>
>>>A total lie.
>>
>>Where was that proof again?
>
>Michael Moore's own words.
Sigh. Circular argument. What about that email of yours I posted,
showing that you do indeed have relations with goats? It had headers
and traces and everything, and I posted it. Maybe I just didn't post
it enough times, that must be it.
lazarus
The fact that I showed the only article you posted to be in error
helps as well.
lazarus
So, he's supposed to spend his life responding to every random attack
made on Usenet? I'd prefer he go on writing books.
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <7k17bu0m22aef9cdm...@4ax.com>
It was on Slate, and he was responding to three accusations at the time, but
somehow missed that fourth one.
I'd prefer he go on writing books.
Gotta get more lies out there...
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <b7t6bu8pquu0mvs80...@4ax.com>
More proof that Laz doesn't read the posts.
so I guess those are true, cause
>>>I've heard them a lot, and they have dates.
>>>
>
>And?
>
>>>> Since you
>>>>>have provided no proof at all.
>>>>
>>>>A total lie.
>>>
>>>Where was that proof again?
>>
>>Michael Moore's own words.
>
>Sigh. Circular argument. What about that email of yours I posted,
>showing that you do indeed have relations with goats?
I denied it, Mikey has not.
It had headers
>and traces and everything, and I posted it. Maybe I just didn't post
>it enough times, that must be it.
No, that's not it.
TVsHenry
>Date: 4/9/02 7:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <iat6bu8luehj0uqi5...@4ax.com>
According to Brock, admitted liar (who has yet to respond to the most serious
allegation). His word versus Noah, you choose the liar. Interesting.
>helps as well.
lazarus
and still.
>>>>>is
>>>>>>a fake designed to be a personal attack on Michael Moore.
>>>>>
>>>>>Despite Michael Moore himself providing proof just the other night and
>>>>making
>>>>>absolutely no statement denying that he sent it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, Bush has never denied being a drug user, so I guess he did get
>>>>ripped on cocaine while flying planes. And you still haven't denied a
>>>>lot of allegations made about you,
>
>More proof that Laz doesn't read the posts.
>
You've seen every single allegation made against you? Amazing.
>so I guess those are true, cause
>>>>I've heard them a lot, and they have dates.
>>>>
>>
>>And?
>>
>>>>> Since you
>>>>>>have provided no proof at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>A total lie.
>>>>
>>>>Where was that proof again?
>>>
>>>Michael Moore's own words.
>>
>>Sigh. Circular argument. What about that email of yours I posted,
>>showing that you do indeed have relations with goats?
>
>I denied it, Mikey has not.
>
But, you saw it. Mike may well not have, since, once again, and I
repeat loudly so you'll hopefully understand, THE EMAIL ADDRESS WAS
INVALID. I've tried to find an alternate. It may or may not have
worked. But the email address in the email supposedly sent to him WAS
INVALID.
> It had headers
>>and traces and everything, and I posted it. Maybe I just didn't post
>>it enough times, that must be it.
>
>No, that's not it.
Oh, so what is it? If a simple denial disproves things, then I deny
everything you've ever posted. I win! Hoorah!
lazarus
Well, nobody else has seen that mystical fourth lie you keep talking
about, how about posting it for us?
lazarus
Okay, hank, one more time. If you can't believe anything he says, why
do you believe him when he says he was a liar? If he's telling the
truth on that, why can't he be telling the truth on other things? Is
it just that you really don't want him to be telling the truth? Do
you know accept that everything he wrote back then was a lie? Or do
you think he was telling the truth then, and his lying now?
Terwilliger
while saying:
I can't believe you labor over this twit, laz. Even MT is more worthy
of debate. Leave Hank to wallow in his own feces.
--
"We are ALL starstuff" -- Carl Sagan
lazarus
Eh, I get bored. I'll tire of him very very soon, though, I can tell.
D.G. Porter
people plotting to get Clinton impeached even before he was
inaugurated. With this fact in mind, consider:
Two weeks after the 1992 election, on The McLaughlin Group, McLaughlin
pushed the idea that Clinton would be a failed President hard. They guy
hadn't even been inaugurated yet and he was being called a failure!
In March 1993 Dick "Barney Fag!" Armey was invited to The White House.
Refusing to shake Clinton's hand, he announced, "You are going to be a
one-term President and we are going to ruin you." (Clinton was somewhat
startled by this revelation.)
In October 1994, Armey stook in the well of the House floor and, waving
his arm dismissively at the Democrats, announced that regarding Clinton,
"He's not our President, he's YOUR President! We don't care about
him!" This is the same Armey who insisted that Reagan was "everyone's
President" because he was, well, the President...
When these loonies convinced themselves that they were the majority,
Clinton's re-election drove them nuts. That was the real reason for the
impeachment farce.
D.G. Porter
>
> In article <a8gplq$2bh$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>, ip...@columbia.edu
> says...
> > I liked David Brock. If anything, he comes across is extremely clever.
> >
> >
>
> or extremely shallow who needs attention.
Don't like the message at all, so kill the messenger.
D.G. Porter
>
> In article <20020404125822...@mb-cl.aol.com>,
> tvsh...@aol.comcroooow says...
> > Make that two critical interviews of Brock, throwing in Jon Stewart.
>
> damnit, i missed both.
On TDS he talked about the people in The Arkansas Project who, right
afte the 1992 election, decided they would do whatever it took to get
Clinton impeached.
No serious person takes the impeachment of Andrew Johnson seriously
today, because it was purely partisan. In even 20 years, no one (except
wingnuts) will take Clinton's impeachment seriously for the same reason.
TVsHenry
>Date: 4/11/2002 4:56 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3CB5F8...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught>
If you can't tell the guy is shallow by his writing, I can't help you.
TVsHenry
>From: "D.G. Porter" dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught
>Message-id: <3CB5F8...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught>
>
Nothing to do with obstruction of justice at all..
TVsHenry
>From: "D.G. Porter" dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught
>Message-id: <3CB5FE...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught>
Meanwhile Clinton has the highest disapproval of any ex-president but Nixon.
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <e569bukeqj3biejqf...@4ax.com>
Oy.
Bullshit.
>> It had headers
>>>and traces and everything, and I posted it. Maybe I just didn't post
>>>it enough times, that must be it.
>>
>>No, that's not it.
>
>Oh, so what is it? If a simple denial disproves things,
A lack of denial sure doesn't help.
then I deny
>everything you've ever posted. I win! Hoorah!
Er, you didn't post everything I've posted. Hence, the difference.
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <fa69bukn29q8t0jo4...@4ax.com>
I think Bateman already posted on this. It is proven he has lied in the past,
he admits to lying, and it has been proven he lies now. Also what he said he
lied about is in dispute by a good many people, as well as his claims that he
was the first person to write on many of the stories he wrote about. He lies.
Deal with it.
TVsHenry
>Message-id: <kd69bustk03h4tkl2...@4ax.com>
It was already quoted, you increasingly dense person. I guess "no one" includes
Mr. Bateman who it was posted to in response.
D.G. Porter
>
>
> I think Bateman already posted on this. It is proven he has lied in the past,
> he admits to lying, and it has been proven he lies now.
How has it been proven that he lies now?
Methinks you just don't like his newest message.
> Also what he said he
> lied about is in dispute by a good many people, as well as his claims that he
> was the first person to write on many of the stories he wrote about. He lies.
"Lied."
So, a liar can never repent, eh?
Great judge you'd be...
> Deal with it.
D.G. Porter
According to some polls.
After the lies about him stealing furniture and trashing the White House
(yes, LIES), some people are liable to swallow anything. After all,
they're swallowing Bush's dribble...
TVsHenry
>From: "D.G. Porter" dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught
>Message-id: <3CB707...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think Bateman already posted on this. It is proven he has lied in the
>past,
>> he admits to lying, and it has been proven he lies now.
>
>How has it been proven that he lies now?
Oy. Do you know how to use Google?
Here I'll make it easy:
"In scanning the letters column of the Washington Post's March 24 "Book World"
section, Chatterbox encountered an unambiguously deliberate Brock lie, this one
having to do with an unfavorable review of Brock's book that "Book World"
published the week before. Here is Brock's letter of complaint:
"Bruce Bawer, The Post's reviewer of my book Blinded by the Right, a memoir of
my years at the American Spectator (Book World, March 17), a magazine I
criticize as an example of conservative excess, is himself a former Spectator
writer. My book also contains a passage that puts the credibility of Bawer's
published account of his controversial departure from the magazine in question.
Neither of these facts are disclosed in Bawer's review."
"Brock makes it sound as though Bawer were some sort of Spectator partisan who
took offense at Brock's criticisms of the magazine. But as Brock's book makes
clear, Bawer (whose time at the Spectator did not overlap with Brock's) left
the magazine to protest an editor's deletion of a passing reference to
homosexuality in his review of the play Prelude to a Kiss. (Bawer is gay,
Prelude's author, Craig Lucas, is gay, and the play has a much-discussed gay
subtext.) Contrary to Brock's claim, Brock's book does not question the
credibility of Bawer's published account of that departure. Rather, Brock
writes that when he read Bawer's account (in Bawer's 1993 memoir, A Place at
the Table), he asked the editor in question whether it was true, and the editor
"awkwardly denied" it. Brock elaborates: "I shrugged it off and probed no
further, since I didn't really want to know the truth. … I wasn't going to
let possible prejudice against another writer, whom I did not know, upset my
world. Some gays can be awfully hypersensitive, I told myself." The clear
thrust of this passage is that Bawer's published version was right, and that
Brock, in refusing to believe Bawer's version at the time, had been wrong. As
this online chat shows, Brock managed to con Post Editor Leonard Downie and
former Post Managing Editor Robert Kaiser, neither of whom must have actually
read Brock's book, into thinking he'd somehow been wronged by "Book World." As
a result, "Book World" editor Marie Arana ended up publishing a completely
unnecessary apology."
>Methinks you just don't like his newest message.
>
His "newest message" has holes you can drive a Mack truck through. I've already
posted multiple links on this, go back and look. I've already spoonfed you
enough.
D.G. Porter
What obstruction of justice? Where's the indictment and conviction?
Yeah, that Ray guy shure had a lot of hard stuff and he did a great job
prosecuting and convicting... oh wait... uhhhh...
Then there's the Schippers delusional drivel...
See, I know how these Bozos think. They are deep into wink-wink-nod-nod
plotting, and so when they see some coincidences they assume that
everyone is as scummy as they are.
TVsHenry
>From: "D.G. Porter" dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught
>Message-id: <3CB707...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: David Brock on PI tonight (4/3)
>> >From: "D.G. Porter" dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught
>> >Date: 4/11/2002 5:21 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3CB5FE...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught>
>> >
>> >Patrick Bateman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <20020404125822...@mb-cl.aol.com>,
>> >> tvsh...@aol.comcroooow says...
>> >> > Make that two critical interviews of Brock, throwing in Jon Stewart.
>> >>
>> >> damnit, i missed both.
>> >
>> >On TDS he talked about the people in The Arkansas Project who, right
>> >afte the 1992 election, decided they would do whatever it took to get
>> >Clinton impeached.
>> >
>> >No serious person takes the impeachment of Andrew Johnson seriously
>> >today, because it was purely partisan. In even 20 years, no one (except
>> >wingnuts) will take Clinton's impeachment seriously for the same reason.
>>
>> Meanwhile Clinton has the highest disapproval of any ex-president but
>Nixon.
>
>According to some polls.
Er, yes, that's how one arrives at approval and disapproval ratings.
>After the lies about him stealing furniture and trashing the White House
>(yes, LIES), some people are liable to swallow anything.
Mighty picky about your allegations, aren't ya?
After all,
>they're swallowing Bush's dribble...
>
Clinton's recent lies about the pardons of course have nothing to do with this,
right?
D.G. Porter
I haven't read his writings. I've simply seen him on TV since 1991. I
knew he was a goddam liar in 1991. Now he seems to have truly decided
to repent and tell what he knows.
Besides, his current accounts jibe with my personal experience dealing
with scum, people like Bozell, Brown, etc.
TVsHenry
>From: "D.G. Porter" dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught
>Message-id: <3CB708...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught>
PLEA BARGAIN.
I see you just copy and paste the DNC talking points now. That Clinton lied
under oath is not in dispute (even by Clinton when he signed the plea bargain)
by anyone but Clinton's lawyer and Paul Begala. That there was a hung jury on
obstruction of justice is not in dispute. That Clinton tampered with witnesses
is only in dispute by people with no sense of logic.
>Yeah, that Ray guy shure had a lot of hard stuff and he did a great job
>prosecuting and convicting... oh wait... uhhhh...
>Then there's the Schippers delusional drivel...
>See, I know how these Bozos think. They are deep into wink-wink-nod-nod
>plotting, and so when they see some coincidences they assume that
>everyone is as scummy as they are.
>
Was there a point to that?
TVsHenry
>From: "D.G. Porter" dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught
>Message-id: <3CB708...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught>
>
>TVsHenry wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: David Brock on PI tonight (4/3)
>> >From: "D.G. Porter" dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught
>> >Date: 4/11/2002 4:56 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3CB5F8...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught>
>> >
>> >Patrick Bateman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <a8gplq$2bh$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>, ip...@columbia.edu
>> >> says...
>> >> > I liked David Brock. If anything, he comes across is extremely
>clever.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> or extremely shallow who needs attention.
>> >
>> >Don't like the message at all, so kill the messenger.
>> >
>>
>> If you can't tell the guy is shallow by his writing, I can't help you.
>
>I haven't read his writings. I've simply seen him on TV since 1991. I
>knew he was a goddam liar in 1991. Now he seems to have truly decided
>to repent and tell what he knows.
And throw in plenty of lies for good measure.
>Besides, his current accounts jibe with my personal experience dealing
>with scum, people like Bozell, Brown, etc.
>
And you're surely an unbiased judge of character... not that it matters.
lazarus
And the investigation that he supposedly obstructed, that was started
because.........
scruffy
tvsh...@aol.comcroooow (TVsHenry) wrote:
and when he had high poll numbers during the attempted coup weren't we
told those were meaningless? funny how when pretzel-boy has high
numbers and clinton's are low they all of a sudden are valid.
lazarus
But we don't go by those polls, now, do we, Henry?
>>After the lies about him stealing furniture and trashing the White House
>>(yes, LIES), some people are liable to swallow anything.
>
>Mighty picky about your allegations, aren't ya?
>
>After all,
>>they're swallowing Bush's dribble...
>>
>
>Clinton's recent lies about the pardons of course have nothing to do with this,
>right?
Which lies were those, Hank?
lazarus
I haven't seen it. I've seen an allegation that maybe he might have
lied, or something, but that's it.
lazarus
Hung jury? When exactly was that trial, hank?
He admitted evading a question which was later determined to be not
germane to the case, which case was tossed out.
Hank, once again, we have to come back to this: Why was he even under
oath? You keep dodging that one. Why was he being questioned?
>>Yeah, that Ray guy shure had a lot of hard stuff and he did a great job
>>prosecuting and convicting... oh wait... uhhhh...
>>Then there's the Schippers delusional drivel...
>>See, I know how these Bozos think. They are deep into wink-wink-nod-nod
>>plotting, and so when they see some coincidences they assume that
>>everyone is as scummy as they are.
>>
>
>Was there a point to that?
Yes, that you have no case, just more obsessive bleating about
Clinton.
lazarus
Oh, well, that answers that, then.
Whatever. Take the blogger's word for it, then.
>>> It had headers
>>>>and traces and everything, and I posted it. Maybe I just didn't post
>>>>it enough times, that must be it.
>>>
>>>No, that's not it.
>>
>>Oh, so what is it? If a simple denial disproves things,
>
>A lack of denial sure doesn't help.
>
> then I deny
>>everything you've ever posted. I win! Hoorah!
>
>Er, you didn't post everything I've posted. Hence, the difference.
No, I can still deny it. You idiot, you don't even realise what you
just posted.
lazarus
It has not been proven he lies now, you just want to believe it. So,
you accept the fact that he was lying, and all that he said about the
Clintons is false?
BTW, according to your own standards, he must be telling the truth,
since he hasn't been challenged by the people he talks about in his
book, but by others.
TVsHenry
>Date: 4/12/02 10:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <scruffy-009CF3...@news.fu-berlin.de>
Popularity has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.