EBAY BULLSHIT!!!
W Adams
the heck away from EBay. Although there is a comment section for all
sellers; it is also wrought with sellers deleting bad comments on them.
and if you don't like for me to post my comments to this newgroup the GO
MAKE A FUCKING LAW THAT SAYS I CAN'T OTHERWISE; SHUT UP...
Cisc...@ix.netcom.com
Henry
Your charm and character came through.
David C. Hoffmann
you going to tell the world to stay away from there too?
W Adams wrote in message <368027...@mail.jax.bellsouth.net>...
Pablo
dor...@ibm.net
mouth.
John Francis
W Adams <tm...@mail.jax.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>This is a warning to all of those who buy/sell photographic items stay
>the heck away from EBay. Although there is a comment section for all
>sellers; it is also wrought with sellers deleting bad comments on them.
>
>and if you don't like for me to post my comments to this newgroup the GO
>MAKE A FUCKING LAW THAT SAYS I CAN'T OTHERWISE; SHUT UP...
Why, certainly.
Plonk.
Rebank
>the heck away from EBay. Although there is a comment section for all
>sellers; it is also wrought with sellers deleting bad comments on them.
Would you mind explaining how it can be done?
Edward
Choiliefan
>and if you don't like for me to post my comments to this newgroup the GO
>MAKE A FUCKING LAW THAT SAYS I CAN'T OTHERWISE; SHUT UP...
>
Friend, try to relax a little. Put your feet up, have a cup of hot chocolate
and empty your mind of negative energy. Repeat this simple mantra to yourself:
It's just an auction It's just an auction It's just an auction...
Don't you feel a whole lot better now?
Peace,
Mahesh Maharishi Yashica
Kingobo
You're killin me.
AllisonAndDerek
W Adams wrote in message <368027...@mail.jax.bellsouth.net>...
>This is a warning to all of those who buy/sell photographic items stay
>the heck away from EBay. Although there is a comment section for all
>sellers; it is also wrought with sellers deleting bad comments on them.
Carlos R. Herrera
I thought that was impossible....
Comments may just fall off after a certain LONG period of time.
CH
The Ansel Adams Gallery-Yosemite
http://www.adamsgallery.com
AllisonAndDerek
=)
Carlos R. Herrera wrote in message <36815141...@inreach.com>...
BASMPU
>>I thought that was impossible....
>>
>>Comments may just fall off after a certain LONG period of time.
>>
>
A few months ago eBay instated a new contract with all members. There were
quite a few members who declined the new contract. All feedback that "retired"
members had made, whether positive or negative, was automatically converted to
"neutral" feedback. This might help explain any mysterious disappearances of
"negative" feedback.
Miles Upton
DScheffold
I think you should get your facts straight. Ebay allowed users to change their
registered name from their e-mail address to a code name for better security.
You now need to be a registered user to request the individuals e-mail address.
Some elected to keep using their e-mail address instead of changing. Your
feedback automatically transferred to your new name with no changes. Note, ebay
also encourages submitting feedback for buyers.
This is just another IDIOT who didn't get the last item he bid on so now he
thinks there is a conspiracy by ebay to keep him down. Get over it! As so many
people have said before me," The going price is what people are willing to
pay". Regarding people who bid on their own items, the main object of an
auction is to sell your item. If you keep bidding up the price you are going to
scare off the real customer and wind up "owning" your own item. This sounds
like a pretty good system of checks and balances.
Boydieqld
RichKimm
Richard
Austin Franklin
then they have to....but that appears the only way.
RichKimm <rich...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981229125500...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
Ace
their Bread and Butter, and they are not going to bite the hand that feeds
them.
Steve
RichKimm wrote in message <19981229125500...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
Steve
> commercial scum...
And your point is?......
Dave Temkin
Chuck Hoffman
>
> I agree if we don't use it the (obscenity snipped) die, die die die die
> you commercial scum...
There's nothing wrong with commercialism...or eBay.
Smart eBay users are like intelligent blakjack players.
Those who know what they're doing don't play against the dealer or
his/her "up" card...they play against the "richness" of the deck.
Similarly, eBay bidders who know what they're doing are not influenced
by other bidders or sellers...they bid based on the real value of the
item.
--
Chuck Hoffman
fgg...@ibm.net
> Those who know what they're doing don't play against the dealer or
> his/her "up" card...they play against the "richness" of the deck.
>
> Similarly, eBay bidders who know what they're doing are not influenced
> by other bidders or sellers...they bid based on the real value of the
> item.
> --
> Chuck Hoffman
Totally without interest in this battle of words, I must congratulate
Chuck Hoffman for putting the whole issue in perspective. We too often
wade into hostile waters with nothing but innocence. Let us remember
that it is our fault if we step on alligators.
<felix>
Frank Neef
Steve wrote:
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > > >Although there is a comment section for all
> > > >sellers; it is also wrought with sellers deleting bad comments on them.
> >
> > I do not believe ANYONE (seller or the person who posted the feedback) can
> > delete the feedback...
> >
> > Why do you believe this?
>
> Just because you believe a thing does not make it true. I posted
> negative feedback on someone who is a "high roller", selling much on
> eBay. because eBay makes so much money off of him, he was able to
> persuade eBay to remove my negative comments.
>
> Whether you believe it or not, matters not. The fact remains.
--
Thanks,
Frank.
111-1-1&2
http://www.accessone.com/~fofx
Sometimes I can be found as "Frankus" on the undernet IRC .
Don't look at the top, go to the top.
Steve
>
> Totally without interest in this battle of words, I must congratulate
> Chuck Hoffman for putting the whole issue in perspective. We too often
> wade into hostile waters with nothing but innocence. Let us remember
> that it is our fault if we step on alligators.
>
> <felix>
Reminds me of the vegetarian who thought it would be safe to cross the
pasture full of mean bulls....
(OH, OK , you farmer-types out there know that you never put more than
one bull in a pasture... but, one is enough to kick your butt,
vegetarian or not)
MikeDi1123
>
>This is a warning to all of those who buy/sell photographic items stay
>sellers; it is also wrought with sellers deleting bad comments on them.
>
>MAKE A FUCKING LAW THAT SAYS I CAN'T OTHERWISE; SHUT UP...
>
>
your comments are welcome possitive
or negitive as a V N Vet I as other Vets do
feel that we have done our time so those of
you who wish to comment can, maybe its our
way of justifing.
unfortunitly you get those who will
show us that there level of ignorance
and class is very low, to make a comment
to be helpfull is welcome,but then to attack
those who read it[without provocation] is
IGNORANT, that type of free speech
is uncalled for and I take it personel so
lighten up, try smiling once in a while
Thanks for the time
mike
please comments welcome
pro-con
MikeDi1123
BUYER BEWHERE
you can contact the seller to ask all
your questions on its actual condition
mike
Austin Franklin
> >sellers; it is also wrought with sellers deleting bad comments on them.
I do not believe ANYONE (seller or the person who posted the feedback) can
Brent
Grow Up.
MikeDi1123 wrote in message
<19990101094733...@ng-fc2.aol.com>...
>
> >
>>This is a warning to all of those who buy/sell photographic items stay
>>the heck away from EBay. Although there is a comment section for all
>>sellers; it is also wrought with sellers deleting bad comments on them.
>>
Steve
>
> > >Although there is a comment section for all
> > >sellers; it is also wrought with sellers deleting bad comments on them.
>
> delete the feedback...
>
> Why do you believe this?
Just because you believe a thing does not make it true. I posted
Steve
> is the first time in eBay history I have heard of anyone claiming someone
> has had feedback removed.
Austin -
You are a damned democrat, aren't you?
Republicanly yours,
Steve
Austin Franklin
> > > >sellers; it is also wrought with sellers deleting bad comments on
them.
> >
> > I do not believe ANYONE (seller or the person who posted the feedback)
can
> > delete the feedback...
> >
> > Why do you believe this?
>
> Just because you believe a thing does not make it true. I posted
> negative feedback on someone who is a "high roller", selling much on
> eBay. because eBay makes so much money off of him, he was able to
> persuade eBay to remove my negative comments.
>
> Whether you believe it or not, matters not. The fact remains.
I ASKED was why someone believe it. Don't get your feathers ruffled. This
is the first time in eBay history I have heard of anyone claiming someone
has had feedback removed. It is in eBay rules that they do not remove
feedback, which, of course, doesn't mean they don't break their own rules.
I have only your uncorroborated word that this occurred. That doesn't mean
it didn't occur, it may very well have. It would sure be more than
circumstantial if you would post the actual user etc. this happened to, or
if you knew others that this happened to, and they 'chimed' in here.
Be clear, I am not saying that it didn't happen to you. It certainly
raises a red flag for me, so your experience is well taken, and thanks for
posting it.
George Robbins
>> > >sellers; it is also wrought with sellers deleting bad comments on them.
>>
>> I do not believe ANYONE (seller or the person who posted the feedback) can
>> delete the feedback...
>>
>> Why do you believe this?
>
>Just because you believe a thing does not make it true. I posted
>negative feedback on someone who is a "high roller", selling much on
>eBay. because eBay makes so much money off of him, he was able to
>persuade eBay to remove my negative comments.
>
>Whether you believe it or not, matters not. The fact remains.
The *assertion* remains; along with some other unsupported assertions
that (1) the practice is widespread, (2) that sellers can do it at
will (vs. petitioning e-bay support) and (3) that the the seller
being a "high roller" was the basis for e-bay acting to remove the
negative feedback (as opposed to the nature of the feedback).
The feedback entry screen is fairly explict about saying that neither
your nor e-bay can retract comments that you've entered and warning
you about libelous or slanderous content, the overall community rules
are silent about whether e-bay has the discretion to do so when e-bay
finds that it's rules/guideline have been violated.
--
George Robbins - now working for work: g...@netaxs.com
Net Access - seemed like the best uucp: ...!uunet!netaxs.com!grr
way to help improve service... play: g...@tharsis.com
Photoguy
>Austin -
>You are a damned democrat, aren't you?
>Republicanly yours,
Hey Steve, judging by his spelling of "pho-toes", he has to
be Dan Quayles illegitimate son. :-)
NHDoc
not deleted that ebay would remove it if it was brought to their attention -
perhaps that was what had happened?
-Marty
Austin Franklin
>
> Republicanly yours,
Steve,
No, I'm not a democrat. I'm about as conservative as you can get on most
issues.
Austin
MikeDi1123
>
>Grow Up.
>
>
>
>MikeDi1123 wrote in message
><19990101094733...@ng-fc2.aol.com>...
>>
>> >
>>>This is a warning to all of those who buy/sell photographic items stay
>>>sellers; it is also wrought with sellers deleting bad comments on them.
>>>
>>>MAKE A FUCKING LAW THAT SAYS I CAN'T OTHERWISE; SHUT UP...
>>>
hi brent the above comment was not mine
thanks mike
MikeDi1123
>> or negitive as a V N Vet I as other Vets do
>> feel that we have done our time so those of
>> you who wish to comment can, maybe its our
>> way of justifing.
>> unfortunitly you get those who will
>> show us that there level of ignorance
>> and class is very low, to make a comment
>> to be helpfull is welcome,but then to attack
>> those who read it[without provocation] is
>> IGNORANT, that type of free speech
>> is uncalled for and I take it personel so
>> lighten up, try smiling once in a while
>> Thanks for the time
>> mike
>> please comments welcome
>> pro-con
>>
the first section of this comment is not mine
mike
gary gaugler
<dark...@altavista.net> wrote:
you didn't answer Frank Neef's question:
>What stops you from reposting it?
>
Gary Gaugler, Ph.D.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Modern surfers use PC boards....you can too at
E-mail: gaugler@calweb dot com
Terry Danks
<dark...@altavista.net> wrote:
>
>I have only your uncorroborated word that this occurred. [snip]
>Be clear, I am not saying that it didn't happen to you. It certainly
>raises a red flag for me, so your experience is well taken, and thanks for
>posting it.
>
Well, no thanks from me. Your first sentence in this snipped version
says it for me. . . just an unsupported assertion hurled into the
wind. Without more detail, it means nothing. The fact that no details
are forthcoming makes me suspicious too.
I feel that:
1/ It didn't happen or . . .
2/ If it did, there is more to the story than we have been told.
Terry Danks
Nova Scotia
CANADA
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home.htm
PHOTO TWO
>>>sellers; it is also wrought with sellers deleting bad comments on them.>>
"deleting", I wonder if this guy is serious or he just doesn't know the english
language.
Could he have meant, "posting" bad comments???? If so, thats what the feedback
section is all about. Although it can be manipulated, it makes it an
adminitrative nightmare for the real hustlers and oppertunists, and they
eventually come over to this newsgroup and play there little games under as
many new screen names as they choose.
I'm not sure why I'm taking the time to reply to such an ignorant bastard as
yourself, but you peeked my interest with your comment about vendors having
the ability to delete negative comments from the Ebay feedback section (I
presume this is what you were referring to, if not, please clarity). I know my
way around Ebay pretty well and don't know of any way a common vendor/seller
participant can change the feedback postings once placed. It's possible to
close and account under one screen name and come back as another, to create a
new history. And it's possible to operate as an annonomous participant. But
there is no way you can change or improve your feedback history without wiping
yourself off the board completely.
Thanks for reading.
Mike Morgan
The Family Photographer of Sacramento
SIDENOTES
I not only upgraded 50% my 100K
equipment inventory thru Ebay, but also funded my entire school picture
seasonal
film stock for 30 cents on the retail dollar
with fresh stock. I profited enormously this year thanks to Ebay. I also got
rid of a lot of stuff it would have taken me forever to move on this newsgroup.
EBAY AND THIS NEWSGROUP Share important places in the area of internet
merchandising. A wise vendor and a wise buyer will use them both
advantageously. I've been carefull and I've been lucky.....I also have been
dicked a couple times, and quite frankly I didn't say much about it (my own
damned ignorance got me into the situation).
The one weak spot for me at Ebay is the lack of a viable conversation section.
The one they have is filled with silly little computer chat-session addicts
with absolutely nothing to say or contribute to this world.
There needs to be a viable method of discussing operating protacol among the
vendors and sellers. For now, this newsgroup is serving as a good vehicle for
that purpose.
Here's one point that has always irritated me. The serious ebay vendors seem to
overlook the fact that feedback, to be effective, needs to be posted
immediately upon receipt of payment. They have a BAD
habit (accross the board) of waiting until the transaction is fully completed
before posting feedback. They overlook or ignore the fact that vendor feedback
and seller feedback have nothing to do with the other.
If I send fast payment for goods purchased, I deserve immediate positive
feedback to add to my good historical record. I don't want the vendor to wait
til I've received his goods and then posted positive feedback to his record. I
can't speak for others, but from now on, I'm going to include a vendors
willingness to post positive feedback in a timely fashion as part of their
criteria for receiving positive feedback. (Hope all that makes sence)
Austin Franklin
> >>
> >> Republicanly yours,
> >
> >Steve,
> >
> >No, I'm not a democrat. I'm about as conservative as you can get on
most
> >issues.
> >
> >Austin
> >
> >
>
>
> you didn't answer Frank Neef's question:
> >What stops you from reposting it?
Gary,
Question wasn't directed at me, it was directed at Steve (you may be
missing a post).
BUT, I would guess nothing would stop anyone from reposting it.
Austin
gary gaugler
<dark...@altavista.net> wrote:
>>
>> you didn't answer Frank Neef's question:
>> >What stops you from reposting it?
>
>Gary,
>
>Question wasn't directed at me, it was directed at Steve (you may be
>missing a post).
>
>BUT, I would guess nothing would stop anyone from reposting it.
>
>Austin
Sorry about that.....tough to sort this maze-like thread out.
would be interesting to see what would happen with a negative repost.
Supposedly only one negative post from one user ID about another user
ID will take. Duplicates are ignored. Reposting might be
enlightening.
I posted a negative about a buyer saying he failed to make payment.
Then he quid pro quos with a negative feedback about me but no
explanation that qualifies the feedback. Oh well. The F5 is back on
the block.
Austin Franklin
No problem.
> I posted a negative about a buyer saying he failed to make payment.
> Then he quid pro quos with a negative feedback about me but no
> explanation that qualifies the feedback. Oh well.
Same for me...I posted a negative about a seller after 5 months of trying
to get him to come clean ...it was only a statement of fact ("sold me
gouged up camera he claimed was excellent...as good as they come"....which
is exactly true ;-) and he retaliated with slander... Anyway, there was a
bit of ironic glee, the seller posted negative feedback to himself ;-)
What a dope.
Austin
dor...@ibm.net
>
> PART SNIPPED>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> I posted a negative about a buyer saying he failed to make payment.
> Then he quid pro quos with a negative feedback about me but no
> the block.
>
> Gary Gaugler, Ph.D.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What you can do is also post negative feedback on the
neighbor-to-neighbor board on photo.net. Or, if you expect retaliation
on ebay, the negative feedback can diredt readers to photo.net since
there you can post an entire story. Here's what I left for a guy who
sold me a "mint-" SMC Takumar 135/3.r screwmount lens:
http://db.photo.net/neighbor/view-one.tcl?neighbor_to_neighbor_id=14407
They are his words, not my interpretation.
Dennis
Steve
>
> > >> You are a damned democrat, aren't you?
> > >>
> > >> Republicanly yours,
> > >
> > >Steve,
> > >
> > >No, I'm not a democrat. I'm about as conservative as you can get on
> most
> > >issues.
> > >
> > >Austin
Sorry Austin. Calling you a Democrat was too mean. I apologize.
Steve
Austin Franklin
> > > >No, I'm not a democrat. I'm about as conservative as you can get on
most issues.
>
> Sorry Austin. Calling you a Democrat was too mean. I apologize.
Well, at least you didn't call me a 'liberal', that would have started a
real fight ;-)
Apology accepted.
Neuman - Ruether
<cam...@alloymail.com> wrote:
>Austin Franklin wrote:
>> > >> You are a damned democrat, aren't you?
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >Steve,
>> > >No, I'm not a democrat. I'm about as conservative as you can get on
>> most
>> > >issues.
>> > >
>> > >Austin
>Sorry Austin. Calling you a Democrat was too mean. I apologize.
>
>Steve
I would think the recent experiences with the mean,
narrow-minded, partisan 'Bublican attempt to railroad
a president through impeachment would help to sort out
who is who, and their political leanings...;-)
David Ruether
rue...@fcinet.com
rp...@cornell.edu
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
dot nyet
says...
>I would think the recent experiences with the mean,
>narrow-minded, partisan 'Bublican attempt to railroad
>a president through impeachment would help to sort out
>who is who, and their political leanings...;-)
Amen to that! As they say, what goes around comes
around. It will return to bite Darth Vader and
his evil minions in the ass.
Chuck Hoffman
>
> In article <3691a622...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, rp...@cornell.edu
> says...
>
> >I would think the recent experiences with the mean,
> >narrow-minded, partisan 'Bublican attempt to railroad
> >a president through impeachment would help to sort out
> >who is who, and their political leanings...;-)
>
Amen to what???
We should teach our children that illicit sex is OK? We should teach
our children that lying under oath is OK if it's about illicit sex? We
should teach our children that subornation of perjury, abuse of power,
obstruction of justice and witness tampering are OK if they are about
illicit sex? And that's only if you maintain a connection between these
two very different issues. (The liberals will fight tooth and nail to
maintain that link so they can trivialize the criminal acts.)
But let's dissolve the link:
Illicit sex is tawdry and unbecoming of anyone -- especially the chief
law enformenent officer of the land. He disgraced his wife, his
daughter, his office, his country and himself. An impeachable offense?
Probably not. A criminal act? Only to the radical right wing
fundamentalists -- and some states with blue laws still on the books.
On the other hand, perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of
justice, tampering with a witness and abuse of power are serious
offenses. Impeachable offenses? Yes, absolutely. Criminal acts? Yes,
absolutely. Will the Senate convict? Unlikely. But that does not
diminish the seriousness of the offenses or the long-term stain on the
office of the presidency.
I don't care if this guy is the most popular president in modern
memory. He is a dishonest, arrogant and manipulative flake and should
be forever tarred with the brush of scandal.
He's not being railroaded thru impeachment...he SHOULD have a police
escort.
--
Chuck Hoffman
dot nyet
>We should teach our children that illicit sex is OK? We should teach
>our children that lying under oath is OK if it's about illicit sex? We
>should teach our children that subornation of perjury, abuse of power,
Hi Chuck. I think we should teach our children that witch hunts
for political purposes aren't acceptable. But if you would like to
discuss politics, pleas e-mail me.
rick etter
rec.photo.marketplace.politics
2uuu kewl!!!
Camera57
>
> On Sat, 02 Jan 1999 20:31:01 -0600, Steve
> <cam...@alloymail.com> wrote:
> >Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> >> > >> You are a damned democrat, aren't you?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Republicanly yours,
> >> > >
> >> > >Steve,
>
> >> > >No, I'm not a democrat. I'm about as conservative as you can get on
> >> most
> >> > >issues.
> >> > >
> >> > >Austin
>
> >Sorry Austin. Calling you a Democrat was too mean. I apologize.
> >
> >Steve
>
> narrow-minded, partisan 'Bublican attempt to railroad
> a president through impeachment would help to sort out
> who is who, and their political leanings...;-)
>
Damn it, David,
Guess you forgot what happened to Nixon? Why do you think the Repubs are
out to get the dems?
Let's stay out of Washington Politics. Nothing is as it seems.
Steve
Camera57
>
> > I would think the recent experiences with the mean,
> > narrow-minded, partisan 'Bublican attempt to railroad
> > a president through impeachment would help to sort out
> > who is who, and their political leanings...;-)
>
> of political alignment....hum.
>
> Does that mean that those who sell their camera equipment are liberals or
> conservatives? Let's see. I hold on to my old gear, thinking I might need
> it in the future, is a conservative trait....but selling it to conserve
> money on future purchases is a conservative trait too. Trading my
> equipment for other equipment is pretty conservative too...
>
> I guess it would be a liberal trait is if I gave it away, gave someone
> else's equipment away, was 'liberal' on grading its condition (even under
> oath), or got someone else to pay for it in the first place. Though in
> order for it to be truly liberal, I must claim it was 'for the children',
> or something like that.
>
> ....Or is those that use Canon equipment are liberals, and Nikon,
> conservatives? I generally would consider Hasselblad users conservatives,
> so I'm fine with that ;-)
>
> I will now duck and run for cover......
>
> Austin
>
> P.S. For those whom are humor impaired, the above political comments were
> meant as a joke.
Guess I shouda kept my darn mouth shut.
Steve
Austin Franklin
Colyn
<dark...@altavista.net> wrote:
>I'm stumped. I really never thought about the sale of camera gear in terms
>of political alignment....hum.
>
>
Well I think Clinton should be empeached because he doesn't use Leica
cameras............ nor does he participate on this news group.......
chuckh...@my-dejanews.com
remove the dot and y wrote:
>
> I think we should teach our children that witch hunts
> for political purposes aren't acceptable.
Witch hunt??? Hardly. Every investigative thread followed by Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr was either REQUESTED or APPROVED by the Justice
Department and Bill Clinton's own appointee, Attorney General Janet Reno.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
chuckh...@my-dejanews.com
remove the dot and y wrote:
>
> I think we should teach our children that witch hunts
> for political purposes aren't acceptable.
I don't know if you are old enough to remember Watergate but I certainly am:
The Democrat proceedings against Richard Nixon began for purely political
purposes. In the beginning, the break-in at the Democratic National
Headquarters in the Watergate Hotel was a third-rate political dirty trick --
nothing more or less than what both parties had been doing to each other for
years. The Plumbers simply had the misfortune of getting caught.
The cries of righteous indignation by the Democrats and their saber-rattling
exacerbated Nixon's (admittedly not-too-bright) coverup of the surrounding
events, the abuse of power, etc., and the attempts to use Federal agencies to
combat political "enemies." It was only after this that some embarrassed
Republicans joined in the call for impeachment.
Nixon resigned when it became clear he did not have the votes for acquittal
in the Democrat-controlled Senate which included, at that time, such notable
left- wing radicals as Alan Cranston, Howard Metzenbaum and Edward Kennedy.
Bill Clinton refuses to resign because it is clear there are not enough votes
to convict in the Senate with a thin Republican majority.
Let's keep the facts straight and put a little historical perspective behind
this issue.
Chuck Hoffman
George M. Anderson
>
> >
> Well I think Clinton should be empeached because he doesn't use Leica
> cameras............ nor does he participate on this news group.......
Duh... He's already been Impeached. Now if they'll just Convict the
SOB.
^
bpf...@worldnet.att.net
> > for political purposes aren't acceptable.
There are so many appropriate forums ... why do you need to junk up RPM?
Neuman - Ruether
chuckh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <xKQj2.2137$0t.13...@news4.mia>,
> remove the dot and y wrote:
>> I think we should teach our children that witch hunts
>> for political purposes aren't acceptable.
>I don't know if you are old enough to remember Watergate but I certainly am:
I am too...
>The Democrat proceedings against Richard Nixon began for purely political
>purposes. In the beginning, the break-in at the Democratic National
>Headquarters in the Watergate Hotel was a third-rate political dirty trick --
>nothing more or less than what both parties had been doing to each other for
>years. The Plumbers simply had the misfortune of getting caught.
>
>The cries of righteous indignation by the Democrats and their saber-rattling
>exacerbated Nixon's (admittedly not-too-bright) coverup of the surrounding
>events, the abuse of power, etc., and the attempts to use Federal agencies to
>combat political "enemies." It was only after this that some embarrassed
>Republicans joined in the call for impeachment.
>
>Nixon resigned when it became clear he did not have the votes for acquittal
>in the Democrat-controlled Senate which included, at that time, such notable
>left- wing radicals as Alan Cranston, Howard Metzenbaum and Edward Kennedy.
>
>Bill Clinton refuses to resign because it is clear there are not enough votes
>to convict in the Senate with a thin Republican majority.
Hmmmm, I think the two impeachment occurrences were QUITE
different in their origins, the seriousness and extent of
the offences, the potential effect on the stability of the
government, and on the extent of the partisanship with which
they were persued. The Nixon-Agnew corruption directly
affected the integrity of the government - the unproved
allegations against Clinton, even if proved, amount only
to an attempt to cover up a silly little affair... This is
the best $40,000,000 and five years of a special prosecutor
could dig up against Clinton. The same money/effort directed
against almost any of our previous presidents would most
probably have produced more of substance as a basis for
impeachment... Heck, representatives like Bar of Georgia
were looking to impeach Clinton before there was ANY basis,
no matter how weak, for impeachment... This has been a
partisan hatchet job from the very beginning. To find the
Nixon and Clinton impeachment attempts comparable is just
plain silly!
And, could it be that Clinton refuses to resign since no
allegation against him has been proven, and to resign
would be to give in to the long-term, purely political
efforts of "'Bublicans" to get him out of office?
>Let's keep the facts straight and put a little historical perspective behind
>this issue.
Please do....!
Chuck Hoffman
Just like any head-in-the-sand liberal. You refuse to acknowledge the
facts when they are presented.
> I think the two impeachment occurrences were QUITE
> different in their origins, the seriousness and extent of
> the offences, the potential effect on the stability of the
> government, and on the extent of the partisanship with which
> they were persued.
I say again...the Watergate affair started as a third-rate political
dirty trick that the donkeys pursued it with intense partisan fervor.
--
Chuck Hoffman
Chuck Hoffman
>
> Hey Chuck, (snip) I think David's post was quite eloquent, and pretty
> much mirrored my thougts.
So...you must be a head-in-the-sand liberal, too!
Whyizzit your ilk always wants the conservatives to take it off of
Usenet but you and your cronies think you can make snide political
comments with impugnity.
I agree, there are other -- perhaps more appropriate -- forums but it
started here.
--
Chuck Hoffman
Colyn
Sorry, I meant to say he should have been impeached not be impeached..
Thanks for setting me straight...
Amen to that last statement......
dot nyet
says...
>chuckh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>I don't know if you are old enough to remember Watergate but I certainly am:
>Let's keep the facts straight and put a little historical perspective behind
>this issue.
Hey Chuck, I said I would be happy to dicsuss it by e-mail, but
not here. I think David's post was quite eloquent, and pretty
much mirrored my thougts, so perhaps there isn't anything to discuss
anyway. Lets not derail the group anymore than it is over nonsense.
There are groups specifically for discusisng political issues.
dot nyet
>I agree, there are other -- perhaps more appropriate -- forums but it
>started here.
So end it here.
Roland and Angie Paulsen
Colyn
<paul...@tznet.com> wrote:
>He could get a job at Cambridge Camera......
Or B&H
Brian or Ann Wood
Nikon caps and tripod mount. Very crisp lens, but I find I don't have much use
for it in photojournalism. Asking $275 plus shipping & ins. Reply to Brian
<baw...@bresnanlink.net>
Brian or Ann Wood
Ben Lee
Do You Still have the Nikon Lens for sale??? if so I can offer $225
thanks
Ben
bl...@srv.net
Brian or Ann Wood wrote in message <3694E46B...@bresnanlink.net>...