And Now the News, #145

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Lord Valve

unread,
Jul 18, 2002, 3:41:11 AM7/18/02
to
In the Sudan, two million Christians have been
slaughtered by the National Islamic Front since
1983. Captured children, both male and female,
are routinely raped by their Muslim slavemasters.
These Muslims are Arabs. These are the people
we are fighting. Read this if you dare:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28304
_____________________________________________________________

Abdurahman Alamoudi, founder and leader of the American
Muslim Council, aided by terrorist-supporting New York
asshole lawyer Stanley Cohen, is mounting a lawsuit
against George Bush and Colin Powell. 'The suit "sends
a message to the American Muslim community" that they
need not be afraid of the U.S. government any more,
and that they can now "challenge the system" through
the courts. "We've been doing it politically and now
we're going to do it legally," he said.' We need these
creeps OUT of our country. Now. More:
http://insightmag.com/news/258607.html
_____________________________________________________________

Disgusting creep rapes, kills 5 year old girl. This
kind of crime demands public execution - preferably
on prime time television. More:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020717-012856-8974r
_____________________________________________________________

See what Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.,
Bob Graham, D-Fla., Harry Reid, D-Nev., Shrillary Klintoon,
D-NY, Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Jumpin' Jim Jeffords, I-VT
pulled off on July 9th. If you have a relative in the
armed forces, the actions of these traitorous assholes
may well get him or her killed. More:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28324
_____________________________________________________________

We report, you hate it.
_____________________________________________________________

The United Nations: a waste of valuable office space in
a city that's short on it right now. Look up "useless"
in the dictionary; you'll find a picture of the UN building.
Kofi break's over, time to give 'em the old heave-ho.

http://www.getusout.org
_____________________________________________________________

WARNING: Persons easily offended by profanity are
discouraged from reading anything below the line.
Persons who do so are reminded that I didn't write
any of it. -LV-
_____________________________________________________________

TROPHY SIGS (Baboon Squad Hall of Fame):

God puke on the US fuckin A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Elvis Paisley, 06/15/02 -

Deluded paranoids see dark clouds of menace *everywhere*.
- inte...@aol.com (R. Lee/boZo sock <?>) 06/25/02 -

"You'd have supported Hilter if you'd been around in '36."
- TimePixDC, 04/23/02 -

"...you brought up a lot of good points, but it's time for
me to go and I've had a few beerskis that now have affected
my interest in trying to think of replies to your different
points." - Elvis Paisley, 04/27/02 -

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The communists are out to get you! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I bet their homesexuals too! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
- Mark Scialabba, 04/22/02 -


TimePixDC

unread,
Jul 18, 2002, 10:14:34 AM7/18/02
to
>Subject: And Now the News, #145
>From: Lord Valve detr...@ix.netcom.com
>Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2002 3:41 AM

>Abdurahman Alamoudi, founder and leader of the American
>Muslim Council, aided by terrorist-supporting New York
>asshole lawyer Stanley Cohen, is mounting a lawsuit
>against George Bush and Colin Powell.

'The suit, aimed at Israeli leaders whom it alleges committed "war crimes,"'

Sounds resonable.

>This kind of crime demands public execution - preferably
>on prime time television.

That'd really help you get your rocks off, wouldn't it?

Chris Mohrbacher

unread,
Jul 18, 2002, 11:32:52 PM7/18/02
to

"TimePixDC" <time...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020718101434...@mb-mq.aol.com...

> >Subject: And Now the News, #145
> >From: Lord Valve detr...@ix.netcom.com
> >Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2002 3:41 AM
>
> >Abdurahman Alamoudi, founder and leader of the American
> >Muslim Council, aided by terrorist-supporting New York
> >asshole lawyer Stanley Cohen, is mounting a lawsuit
> >against George Bush and Colin Powell.
>
> 'The suit, aimed at Israeli leaders whom it alleges committed "war crimes,"'
>
> Sounds resonable.

... to dedicated lefturds.

"Slander" at #1 for the second week and HEY, Janet Maslin of the NT Times actually *reviewed* it. Trying to discount the book by
quoting many examples of the author's pointed invective, she shows her own liberal blindspot by declaring these expressions as
evidence of "gleeful malice", an utter projection on the reviewer's part (how about "righteous outrage", Ms. Maslin). No matter...
liberals generally don't buy and read books anyway.

--- Chris

Matt Seniff

unread,
Jul 19, 2002, 9:54:49 AM7/19/02
to

For a really great and well researched review of Ms Coulter's book
"Slander" you should check out Bob Somersby's web site :

http://www.dailyhowler.com/


Bob does a great job of actually researching data behind many
newspaper articles as well as "pieces of literature" like "Slander".
He does the actual Lexis-Nexus searches MS Coulter purports to rely so
heavily on in the book, however they don't seem to support Ms
Coulter's arguments like she seems to imply they do. His main ax to
grind is with the dissembling, inaccurate reporting and basic laziness
of the press corp and the pundit elite. It seems to me that he has a
good point about the press being too lazy to get the story right. matt

TimePixDC

unread,
Jul 19, 2002, 9:58:35 AM7/19/02
to
>Subject: Re: Right Wing News, #145
>From: "Chris Mohrbacher" chr...@lisco.com
>Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2002 11:32 PM

>> Sounds resonable.
>
>... to dedicated lefturds.

To people that actually think about the problem.

CPAviator

unread,
Jul 19, 2002, 11:34:08 AM7/19/02
to
"TimePixDC" <time...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020719095835...@mb-dh.aol.com...

That would automatically screen you out.


TimePixDC

unread,
Jul 19, 2002, 12:49:51 PM7/19/02
to
>Subject: Re: Right Wing News, #145
>From: "CPAviator" lowe...@attbi.com
>Date: Fri, Jul 19, 2002 11:34 AM

>That would automatically screen you out.

You're wrong again. But I suppose that you're used to that.

Chris Mohrbacher

unread,
Jul 19, 2002, 11:56:04 PM7/19/02
to

"Matt Seniff" <mwse...@mail.com> wrote in message news:646gju0sgmn1qbimh...@4ax.com...

They're too lazy to get it right because the facts would go against their shared and cherished beliefs.

--- Chris

Chris Mohrbacher

unread,
Jul 19, 2002, 11:59:27 PM7/19/02
to
"TimePixDC" <time...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020719095835...@mb-dh.aol.com...

What problem?


mark scialabba

unread,
Jul 20, 2002, 2:57:09 PM7/20/02
to

Chris Mohrbacher <chr...@lisco.com> wrote in message
news:ob5_8.47561$_51....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...

Are you saying that about coulter?


TimePixDC

unread,
Jul 20, 2002, 4:24:57 PM7/20/02
to
>Subject: Re: Right Wing News, #145
>From: "Chris Mohrbacher" chr...@lisco.com
>Date: Fri, Jul 19, 2002 11:59 PM

>> To people that actually think about the problem.
>
>What problem?

See?

CNJJJJJ

unread,
Jul 20, 2002, 5:17:37 PM7/20/02
to

"TimePixDC" <time...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020720162457...@mb-ch.aol.com...

Nya- Nya- Nya- Nya!!!


Chris Mohrbacher

unread,
Jul 20, 2002, 6:08:13 PM7/20/02
to
"mark scialabba" <scia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:9oi_8.199$753.9...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...

Her beliefs arise from facts, unlike the liberal mainstream media who mold facts to fit their beliefs.

--- Chris


Chris Mohrbacher

unread,
Jul 20, 2002, 6:23:09 PM7/20/02
to
"TimePixDC" <time...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020720162457...@mb-ch.aol.com...

See what?

mark scialabba

unread,
Jul 20, 2002, 10:00:54 PM7/20/02
to

Chris Mohrbacher <chr...@lisco.com> wrote in message
news:hbl_8.56665$_51....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...

HAHAHA!!! Did you read what you were responding too? That webpage went
through every book and proved she was misleading and out right lying in it?

Read it again...

TimePixDC

unread,
Jul 21, 2002, 5:22:05 PM7/21/02
to
>Subject: Re: Right Wing News, #145
>From: "Chris Mohrbacher" chr...@lisco.com
>Date: Sat, Jul 20, 2002 6:23 PM

>> >> To people that actually think about the problem.
>> >
>> >What problem?
>>
>> See?
>
>See what?

There ya go again!

Chris Mohrbacher

unread,
Jul 21, 2002, 6:44:53 PM7/21/02
to
"mark scialabba" <scia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:qBo_8.10391$262.53...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...

It appears that Bob Somerby did a better job than you (and that's not saying much).

Read one of Bob's paragraph's again:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/n070802.shtml
Tuesday, July 9, 2002
...
Why do newspapers write about “Christian conservatives?”
Because they exist, and because they’re important. And why
don’t we read about the “atheist left?” Because the group
doesn’t exist. That’s why the New York Times doesn’t
mention the group; that’s why the Washington Times doesn’t
mention it, either. Everyone in America knows this is true—
until they read Coulter’s cracked book.

It's proof of Bob's deeply held religious beliefs (the religion being "liberalism") in that he looks at the same quotes and draws
almost polar opposite conclusions.

Here's an example of his liberal paranoia...

http://www.dailyhowler.com/n070802.shtml
Tuesday, July 9, 2002
...
Simply put, Coulter’s accounts of all matters, large and small,
are almost pathologically bogus. Unfortunately, cable producers—
always pleased to make a joke of our discourse—have no present
plans to take notice.

That's right, the evil cable producers... who want to produce something that Americans will actually watch. Darn them for doing
that.

In another telling example of Bob's detective abilities, he "proves" that Ann Coulter's sites of references to Bill Bradley as
"cerebral" are patently false. However, his "proof" is exactly the same as Ann's: he does a "search", then posts his "results".
Because his stated results don't match Ann Coulter's, he basically declares her a liar. So at that point (to any rational person's
mind) it is his word's against hers...

http://www.dailyhowler.com/n070802.shtml
Wednesday, July 10, 2002
...
So we sent the phrase “cerebral Bill Bradley” through the NEXIS file for the period
from 1/1/99 through 4/1/00—the fifteen months when Bradley was running for president.

Why did he start only from 1/1/99? Automatically that would exclude 3 of Ann's results. His reason ("when Bradley was running for
president") is arbitrary and not germaine. In any case here are Bob's stated results:

1. Sandy Grady, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 3/18/99
2. Sandy Grady, Bergen County Record, 3/23/99
3. Robert Jordan, Boston Globe, 4/23/99
4. Sandy Grady, Raleigh News and Observer, 11/10/99
5. Sandy Grady, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 11/6/99
6. Editorial, Albany Times-Union, 3/10/00

As a database programmer, I can tell our readers that absence of proof is not proof of absence... querying large databases for
information can easily lead to "missed" results, and it's a common problem that crops up in DB development and usage. It's just
the nature of large stores of information, from Rolodex's and your attic to multi-gigabyte datafiles.

Note that Bob doesn't bother to track down (and therefore positively refute) Ann Coulter's cites on the subject. That would be the
real proof, but he's not going to do that because he's afraid (perhaps unconsciously) that her sources are real. I have no way to
do it but here they are in case anyone has the resources:
From page 233 of "Slander":
10. See, e.g. Robert A. Jordan, "They're Boring Toward 2000 but Steering Clear of Trouble", Boston Globe, April 18, 1999
11. Editorial, "Gore Gets a Little Competition," San Francisco Chronicle, December 8, 1998
12. Jo Mannies, "Bradley Touts New Book, Ideologies; Public Trust Tops Priorities in New Appeal," St. Lousis Post-Dispatch,
February 9, 1996, p. 1C
13. Brian C. Mooney, "Gore 'Policy Speech' Says Volumes About His Ailing Campaign," Boston Globe, July 14, 1999
14. "Al Gore Gets Labor Day Endorsement in Iowa; Bush Enjoys Star Status in South Carolina; Lesser-Known Republicans Continue
Fight for Attention," CNN's Inside Politics, September 6, 1999
15. Michael Winerip, "A Moderates's Moment," New York Times, July 20, 1997, p.18
16. "McCain, Bush Vie for Spotlight in South Carolina; Bill Bradley Discusses His Uphill Battle; Al Gore Makes Play for Latino
Support," CNN's Inside Politics, June 21, 1999
17. Marc Lacey and Mark Z. Barabak, "National Perspective; Politics; In Upstart Campaign, Bradley Flexes His Fund-Raising
Muscles," Los Angeles Times, July 20, 1999

Note that there are no common results between the two searches. That right away is a strong hint ("hint" as in "blood spatter on a
bedroom wall") that there is probably something inconsistent between the two search queries. At a minimum, it is like having two
clocks that disagree; on that basis *alone* you cannot declare either one "correct".

--- Chris

Matt Seniff

unread,
Jul 22, 2002, 9:30:57 AM7/22/02
to
On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 22:08:13 GMT, "Chris Mohrbacher"
<chr...@lisco.com> wrote:

Then perhaps you might want to check out the above web site because
she apparently has little regards for facts if they get in the way of
a good rant. Bob Sommersby does a great job of finding the actual germ
of information of several of her charges and shows them as cunning
dissembling on her part. But I doubt you will go look anyway so what
the hey. matt

Matt Seniff

unread,
Jul 22, 2002, 9:27:30 AM7/22/02
to
On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 03:56:04 GMT, "Chris Mohrbacher"
<chr...@lisco.com> wrote:

I guess I could agree with you if they only did it to the Dems or
Repubs but it seems to be an equal laziness opportunity for all. matt

Chris Mohrbacher

unread,
Jul 23, 2002, 12:58:44 AM7/23/02
to

"Matt Seniff" <mwse...@mail.com> wrote in message news:e22oju0ji8v3hqc7m...@4ax.com...

Been there, done that... posted at 5:44pm the day before.

--- Chris

Chris Mohrbacher

unread,
Jul 23, 2002, 1:42:52 AM7/23/02
to
"Matt Seniff" <mwse...@mail.com> wrote in message news:ut1ojug4cn5krv0o4...@4ax.com...

Having monopoly control of the major means of news dissemination for decades, the mainstream press effectively constitutes its own
political party, but one that's too far left to ever get anywhere in politics. So instead they favor the party that's closest to
their values (the Democrats) and slander the other major party (the Republicans). And over time, the Democrats have learned to
"speak the press's language", including their win-at-any-cost "debating" tactics.

Only a more free market of ideas and dissemination can break up this collusive arrangement. Not surprisingly, many Americans are
weary of the bland liberalized diet of mainstream "news", and large segments of the population now tune in to "conservative"
talk-radio shows and browse "conservative" internet news sites, and they buy "conservative" books in huge numbers. There must be
*something* to it.

Hey, here's a radical idea; maybe what the Pravda press calls "conservative", actually ain't so conservative! Boy, wouldn't THAT
explain why so many Americans "dig it"!

--- Chris

Matt Seniff

unread,
Jul 23, 2002, 10:03:11 AM7/23/02
to
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 05:42:52 GMT, "Chris Mohrbacher"
<chr...@lisco.com> wrote:


>> I guess I could agree with you if they only did it to the Dems or
>> Repubs but it seems to be an equal laziness opportunity for all. matt
>
>Having monopoly control of the major means of news dissemination for decades, the mainstream press effectively constitutes its own
>political party, but one that's too far left to ever get anywhere in politics. So instead they favor the party that's closest to
>their values (the Democrats) and slander the other major party (the Republicans).
>

Like the Fox network or perhaps the Washington Times run and owned by
the Moonies and the Reverend Moon himself (he regards himself as the
next Christ apparently) and I think you would find that the majority
of those at the editorial level and management are conservative as
well in all the media . Besides the recent coverage of Bush thru the
election and since was very kind to say the least. They ignored the
Harken, Arbusto, and arena debacles all thru the election so how
liberal was that? At the same time Gore took a bashing because he
dressed in "earth tones" give me a break.

> And over time, the Democrats have learned to
>"speak the press's language", including their win-at-any-cost "debating" tactics.

It seems to me that Bush was good at this as well. He was not
embarrassed to steal anyone elses ideas or slogans if it helped him
"win at any cost". When Mc Cain got traction Bush became a "reformer
with results" despite the fact he had never been a reformer or had any
results to show whatsoever. He talked about limiting CO2 emission in a
bald faced attempt to look like he cared about the environment only to
turn around and do the exact opposite (here in the corn belt we call
that lying). So tactics suck on both sides politically and they need
to since neither party has anything real to offer just fear, greed and
corruption.

>Only a more free market of ideas and dissemination can break up this collusive arrangement. Not surprisingly, many Americans are
>weary of the bland liberalized diet of mainstream "news", and large segments of the population now tune in to "conservative"
>talk-radio shows and browse "conservative" internet news sites, and they buy "conservative" books in huge numbers. There must be
>*something* to it.

Actually most folk left because the news services failed to do
anything but follow the easiest stories. Floggin to death the latest
scandals while ignoring most international news and any US stories not
deemed sexy enough to hold what they perceive as an audience with zero
attention span. I also believe folk left because the news services
underestimated their audiences (Fox does well because it is impossible
to underestimate its' audience). NPR on the other hand has actually
gained listeners due to having news stories that last several minutes
rather than seconds which allows a deeper inquiry and more information
than the "big boys" would ever allow us to hear. As for "conservative"
books this seems to be very much a controlled game like the record
industry. The book sales are based on shipments not actual sales along
with large quantities of books bought to support the author or the
premise by a single buyer (David Brooks was always promised this by
the folks fronting for Richard Mellon-Scaife and apparently they
bought a lot of them and burned them). This is a small variation on
the record companies way of doing business even today.

>
>Hey, here's a radical idea; maybe what the Pravda press calls "conservative", actually ain't so conservative! Boy, wouldn't THAT
>explain why so many Americans "dig it"!

I only care what I call conservative. I look for data not opinion in
my news regardless of where it comes from. In fact I tend to read a
variety of news sources including many foreign ones to try and get the
real story. If one makes the effort the data is there but it always
needs to be strained to remove prejudice and slant that's why we have
brains capable of logic at our beck and call. matt

Chris Mohrbacher

unread,
Jul 26, 2002, 12:17:33 AM7/26/02
to
"Organfreak" <plo...@plonkyou.com> wrote in message news:4de0kuc0lch9d5nvf...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 03:32:52 GMT, "Chris Mohrbacher"
> <chr...@lisco.com> wrote:
>
> >no matter...

> >liberals generally don't buy and read books anyway.
> >
> >--- Chris
>
> Where'd you get THAT piece of bullshit???
>
> -Organfreak

Hmmm... let's see...
"The Way Things Ought To Be"... how long was that number *one* on the New York Times best-seller list?
You gonna tell me that *liberals* were snapping up copies of that one? Hah!

--- Chris

Matt Seniff

unread,
Jul 26, 2002, 9:16:04 AM7/26/02
to
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 04:17:33 GMT, "Chris Mohrbacher"
<chr...@lisco.com> wrote:

>"Organfreak" <plo...@plonkyou.com> wrote in message news:4de0kuc0lch9d5nvf...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 03:32:52 GMT, "Chris Mohrbacher"
>> <chr...@lisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> >no matter...
>> >liberals generally don't buy and read books anyway.
>> >
>> >--- Chris
>>
>> Where'd you get THAT piece of bullshit???
>>
>> -Organfreak
>
>Hmmm... let's see...
>"The Way Things Ought To Be"... how long was that number *one* on the New York Times best-seller list?
>You gonna tell me that *liberals* were snapping up copies of that one? Hah!

Probably like most of these books large batches are bought up by rich
conservative sugar daddies to boost sales and then warehoused or
burned. This is a regular action for Richard Mellon Scaife he did it
for David Brock's first few books that he also helped bankroll. Also
keep in mind that the NY Times best-seller list is based on shipments
of books not actual sales so they are like the recording industry's
similar deceptive practices. Besides when did you ever believe
anything the NY Times published?

As for liberals buying and reading books I am a liberal and I read
between 1000 to 1500 pages (sometimes more) a week varying from
technical books, biographies, and a lot of Sci-fi (mostly hard or
technical sci-fi). In fact i have recently been talking to friends
about reading habits and it seems that liberals read more from my
totally unscientific survey. matt

Lord Valve

unread,
Jul 26, 2002, 1:55:04 PM7/26/02
to

Matt Seniff wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 04:17:33 GMT, "Chris Mohrbacher"
> <chr...@lisco.com> wrote:
>
> >"Organfreak" <plo...@plonkyou.com> wrote in message news:4de0kuc0lch9d5nvf...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 03:32:52 GMT, "Chris Mohrbacher"
> >> <chr...@lisco.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >no matter...
> >> >liberals generally don't buy and read books anyway.
> >> >
> >> >--- Chris
> >>
> >> Where'd you get THAT piece of bullshit???
> >>
> >> -Organfreak
> >
> >Hmmm... let's see...
> >"The Way Things Ought To Be"... how long was that number *one* on the New York Times best-seller list?
> >You gonna tell me that *liberals* were snapping up copies of that one? Hah!
>
> Probably like most of these books large batches are bought up by rich
> conservative sugar daddies to boost sales and then warehoused or
> burned.

Nonsense.


> This is a regular action for Richard Mellon Scaife he did it
> for David Brock's first few books that he also helped bankroll. Also
> keep in mind that the NY Times best-seller list is based on shipments
> of books not actual sales so they are like the recording industry's
> similar deceptive practices. Besides when did you ever believe
> anything the NY Times published?
>
> As for liberals buying and reading books I am a liberal and I read
> between 1000 to 1500 pages (sometimes more) a week varying from
> technical books, biographies, and a lot of Sci-fi (mostly hard or
> technical sci-fi).

So *that's* why I don't totally hate your leftwing guts. ;-)
I just finished Haldeman's "Forever Free." Eeeee-YUCK,
strong dose of nothin' to say with a triple helping of
Deus ex Machina in the last ten pages. Miss it.


> In fact i have recently been talking to friends
> about reading habits and it seems that liberals read more from my
> totally unscientific survey.

Dream on...

> matt

RonSonic

unread,
Jul 26, 2002, 6:46:47 PM7/26/02
to
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 08:16:04 -0500, Matt Seniff <mwse...@mail.com>
wrote:

Remember Hal Clement? Hardest of the hard SF. Shame he died before he
could write more.

> In fact i have recently been talking to friends
>about reading habits and it seems that liberals read more from my
>totally unscientific survey. matt

Nahh. That isn't scientific either.

Ron

Matt Seniff

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 8:59:56 AM7/29/02
to

Man I really hate that "deus ex machina" crap at the end of a book (I
really hated Pelican Brief, a best seller, I was talked into reading
for that reason). There is nothing more aggravating than a book that
does a great job of character development and plot setup only to end
in 20 pages of frantic activity.

>> In fact i have recently been talking to friends
>> about reading habits and it seems that liberals read more from my
>> totally unscientific survey.
>
>Dream on...

Dreams are food for the brain thanx. matt

Matt Seniff

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 9:03:46 AM7/29/02
to
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 22:46:47 GMT, RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:

Oh yeah. I remember liking Iceworld as well as lot of short stories of
his. He had a very distinctive style.

>> In fact i have recently been talking to friends
>>about reading habits and it seems that liberals read more from my
>>totally unscientific survey. matt
>
>Nahh. That isn't scientific either.

That's what I meant when I said it was unscientific :-). matt

noc10

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 12:24:09 PM7/29/02
to

"Matt Seniff" <mwse...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:2reaku8780tle0khd...@4ax.com...

This is totally unscientific as well, but everyone I know that works in
a bookstore (8) are VERY Liberal. And a couple of them are even
worse, .......New Agers.


>


RonSonic

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 12:47:05 PM7/29/02
to
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:24:09 GMT, "noc10" <steve...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

That's half the reason I never subscribe to conservative or
libertarian rags. I like to take them to the counter. (The other half
is, I don't need to read anywhere near all of them).

The reaction to the National Review cover that starred President
Clinton, Monica and Ken Starr in a spoof of the Titanic movie poster
was priceless. Had four cashiers gathered, staring and going "ewwwww."
"Hey, look at this;" "It's been ruined for me now, I can't watch that
movie again."

Ron

noc10

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 1:56:47 PM7/29/02
to

"RonSonic" <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ovsakucj4e9tggofk...@4ax.com...

Me? I like buying books about making money and books about firearms.
It seems to worry them.


Matthew

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 3:16:11 PM7/29/02
to
>This is totally unscientific as well, but everyone I know that works in
>a bookstore (8) are VERY Liberal. And a couple of them are even
>worse, .......New Agers.

Depending on how far right you are pretty much everyone can look like a liberal
but I wouldn't expect to find a lot of Dittoheads working at a book store or
library.

Matthew

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 3:19:40 PM7/29/02
to
>>This is totally unscientific as well, but everyone I know that works in
>>a bookstore (8) are VERY Liberal. And a couple of them are even
>>worse, .......New Agers.
>
>That's half the reason I never subscribe to conservative or
>libertarian rags. I like to take them to the counter. (The other half
>is, I don't need to read anywhere near all of them).

You go to a store to buy conservative magazines so that the clerk will get to
see the cover?

Matthew

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 3:21:57 PM7/29/02
to
>Me? I like buying books about making money and books about firearms.
>It seems to worry them.
>

I can't believe liberal book stores offer material about guns.

RoyB

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 4:21:30 PM7/29/02
to

"Matthew" <mat...@aol.comx> wrote in message
news:20020729151611...@mb-mj.aol.com...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That about says it, doesn't it? I just read a misspelled entry on another NG
where someone claimed "liberals don't read books". Isn't this like the serfs
in the pit pointing to the lords in the balconies and screaming, "Duh!
Dey're stoopid!!".

RonSonic

unread,
Jul 29, 2002, 8:30:12 PM7/29/02