The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most ISP NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Fred J. McCall
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Organization: is for people who don't have real work to do
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 22:17:42 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:17:42 PDT
Vince Brannigan wrote:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:> Vince Brannigan wrote:
:> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:> :> Vince Brannigan wrote:
:> :> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:> :> :
:> :> :> Vince Brannigan wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :> lparker@NOSPAM.emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> :In article <%7Ni9.email@example.com>,
:> :> :> :> : "Chris" wrote:
:> :> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> :>The same liberal media that will take the Bush twins or Noelle Bush and ha
:> :> :> :> :>them in the center of town because they have had a couple of beers (in the
:> :> :> :> :>case of the twins) and do drugs (Noelle) That is front page news and top
:> :> :> :> :>story fodder for the major outlets. But when its Chelsea Clinton drinking
:> :> :> :> :>underage to the point she cant walk that isnt even reported.
:> :> :> :> :
:> :> :> :> :Perhaps because it never happened. If it wasn't reported, what makes
:> :> :> :> :you think it happened?
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> In May there were pictures in the London Daily Mirror and the London
:> :> :> :> Sun of Chelsea essentially passed out in a bar.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> :Im sorry you said "underage" when were these pictures taken? Chelsea Clifton
:> :> :> :born in Feb. 1980 which would make her 22 years old.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> I'm sorry. You need to pay attention to who said what. *I* never
:> :> :> said she was underage. But one hardly becomes a booze hound
:> :> :> overnight.
:> :> :
:> :> :Yes Chris made the original claim but you claimed to provide the documentary proo
:> :> :the original claim
:> :> Where did I claim that?
:> :> :": In May there were pictures in the London Daily Mirror and the
:> :> :London Sun of Chelsea essentially passed out in a bar" .
:> :> And THAT was a statement of fact.
:> :that is correct. it is a factual statement you provided to back up the claim of und
:> :drining. unfortunalty they did not.
:> I provided it as support that Chelsea is indeed, apparently, a
:> 'drinker' and that it got scant coverage in the United States by the
:> very paper that has made a business out of pursuing the Bush
:> daughters, which was the real issue.
:The bush daughters were in violation of the law. The claim was made that Chelsea Clint
:also in violation of the law i.e. underage drinking.
But not a claim I made. The root claim was that the media is focusing
on the Bush daughters while ignoring Clinton.
:you provided a supposed cite to support the claim made by another.
No, I did not.
:it does not support the claim.
It supports the claim I intended it to support.
:I pointed that out. you have been abusive in response.
You lied about why I posted it and I have been abusive in return to
:> :> :That makes it "your" claim.
:> :> What I 'claimed' was a documented fact.
:> :which you provided to support the claim
:> Which I provided to show the bias of American media.
:except that by supporting a claim of unlawful behavior with a cite that does nto show u
:behavior, you not only did nto show the bias of the american media, but the length you
:to to manufacture bias.
To your mind. However, I suspect that someone could come up with
pictures of the Clinton family engaged in a dog and pony show and you
would still claim it was inadequately documented, somehow.
More lies about me do not validate your prior lies about me.
:eitehr that or the negligence with with you read the source you cited
Fallacy of the excluded middle. You seem to have a real love for this
one, Vince. As an attorney, I have to assume that you are taught
about all the logical fallacies. That means that this is merely
another deliberate lie on your part.
:> :> :On an instrument you can sue both the maker and the endorser.
:> :> And as a lawyer, lies and distortions are apparently your stock in
:> :> trade.
:> :personal abuse noted
:> It's not personal abuse when it's the truth, Vince. You're claiming
:> facts not in evidence. What would YOU call that?
:I'm not claiming any facts not in evidence.
Of course you are.
:The trhead is there for the world to read
Yes, it is. And those with your biases will undoubtedly read it your
way. That's irrelevant to the truth of the matter, which is not as
you insist it is.
:I caugut you in a deception and now your are replyin with abuse
No, you lied about my intent in posting the cite and I abused you in
:> :no you offered documentary support for a false assertion.
:> No, I offered documentary support for the bias of the US media, which
:> was the issue.
:no becsue the claim was that the media ignored unlawful behavior
No, the claim was that the media was biased when it comes to reportage
of Presidential daughters, in accord with their political views.
:you provided a cite that purported to support the cliam. it does nto.
It supported the claim I posted it to support. Lie as you like; it
doesn't change that.
:> At this point you are verging on lying, Vince. I'd suggest you might
:> want to use some slightly more conditional language when stating
:> someone else's motivations.
:the threadis there for anyone to see. I have said that I do not know if you were inten
Yes, which for someone trained in logical fallacies is just another
way of lying, since I was neither.
So, have you stopped beating your wife yet, Vince?
:> :> :is irelevant to the claim and your failure to include the fact
:> :> :that she was overage at the time of the incident undercuts your credibility
:> :> I gave date and time. I also didn't specify what colour her panties
:> :> were that day. Presumably that also "undercuts my credibility"?
:> :you gave the date and time of a story in support of the claim . they story does nto
:> :support the claim
:> I gave the date and time of a story that supported the bias of the US
:> media, which was the point of the whole discussion.
:no the claim was unlawful behavior was not reported
No, the claim was that misbehaviour by Presidential children is
reported in a biased manner, according to the political leanings of
:But when its Chelsea Clinton drinking
::> :> :> :>underage to the point she cant walk that isnt even reported.
Note that I did not say the preceding. Artful editing. Just another
form of lying, Vince.
:> :either you knew it in which case you were lying
:> :or you didint read the sotry, in whcih case you were negligent.
:> You're a liar, Vince. Not only that, you're a POOR liar.
:personal abse noted. Teh thread is therefore all to see
Yes, it is. As are your attempts to distort events.
:> :> :Case dismissed
:> :> I don't recall you being the judge, although I'm sure that's your
:> :> preference. I also don't recall bringing a 'case'. I related a FACT.
:> :> Sorry that such simple concepts are apparently too much for you.
:> :your related the fact as if it suported the claim. it doesnt
:> I related the fact as it supported the claim of US media bias, as
:> evidenced by the scant coverage Chelsea falling down drunk got in this
:> country (to the extent that you weren't even aware of it, apparently).
:> :appeal dismissed
:> I've never found your variety of liar particularly appealing, Vince.
:perosnal abuse noted. attempt to change the basis for the claim noted,
Color of the sky on your planet noted.
:permission to amedn the claim deined for lack of foundation . the word underage was
:highlighted in the first respone. Since clarificaiton could have been made at that tim
:attemtop to change the basis is untiel and dismissed.
Still lying. Let me clear it up for you, Vince. Just a couple of
facts OBVIOUS to anyone but you, apparently.
1) The date of this particular story was recent and says nothing about
being underage; just about being falling down drunk in public. I
consider that to be rather 'misconduct' of an order somewhat beyond
having a beer underage.
2) The location of the story was Britain. I have no idea if Britain
even HAS a legal drinking age, much less what it is. Therefore, it is
an immense stretch, to the point of being an outright lie, for you to
be making EITHER of the claims you keep trying to press. The story
was about being falling down drunk in public. I consider that to be
rather 'misconduct' of an order somewhat beyond having a beer
3) Practically all college students drink, Vince, underage or not.
This wasn't news when the Post made a crusade out of chasing the Bush
girls and it's hardly news if Chelsea drinks, either. It would be
much more of a story if one of them was falling down drunk and having
to be carried by her four male companions - and going out and getting
totally wasted with four men is not exactly bright behaviour in any
case, even if it wasn't 'news'. That was actually the case with one
of the three girls. That was also the case that was not reported by
the same paper making a crusade of chasing the Bush daughters.
I'd say that you ought to be able to figure it out from here, except I
must remember that I'm talking to a man who thinks the warning to
remove the sun screen from your window before driving is important and
saving lives even as we speak.
Bottom line is that you're a liar, Vince. It's deliberate and
repeated. If this is any indication of your ethics, it is probably
better that you teach than that you actually practice law.
What you do
When it counts.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of