Re: Scientists against Bush or Swift Boats against Kerry - whom would you believe? Tin cans don't have minds!

From: Jack Love (jackxxloveyy_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 11/08/04 

Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:06:14 -0800

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 00:58:02 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
<brooksvmi@notyahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"*** Morris" <ramorris@isomedia.com> wrote in message
>news:10ot5jaod12lv0f@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Kevin Brooks" <brooksvmi@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:NYadnbQNZIgdrxPcRVn-1w@adelphia.com...
>>>
>>> "*** Morris" <ramorris@isomedia.com> wrote in message
>>> news:10orm5vo1pldp4e@corp.supernews.com...
>>> >
>>> > "Kevin Brooks" <brooksvmi@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:4tSdnYCq99DjBxDcRVn-qg@adelphia.com...
>>> >>
>>> >> "*** Morris" <ramorris@isomedia.com> wrote in message
>>> >> news:10or13fdq4a7hb4@corp.supernews.com...
>>> >> >
>>> >> > "John Redman" <johnphilipredman@hotmailREMOVETHEBLEEDINOBVIOUS.com>
>>> > wrote
>>> >> > in
>>> >> > message news:cmjr8h$6uc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>> >> >> "*** Morris" <ramorris@isomedia.com> wrote
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > You can believe whoever you want to believe. The Navy has never
>>> >> >> > been
>>> >> >> > in
>>> >> >> > the
>>> >> >> > habit of awarding medals to whoever asks for them, so until I see
>>> > your
>>> >> >> > evidence, I will believe the Navy.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Unfortunately, that's the problem, ***. You see, *Kerry* doesn't
>>> > believe
>>> >> >> the Navy. Gets wounded, says it was by enemy fire, gets a PH, then
>> in
>>> > his
>>> >> >> autobiog he mentions that, as at 10 days later, he'd never been
>> under
>>> >> > enemy
>>> >> >> fire.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Let's see some quotes from the book. In context.
>>> >>
>>> >> OK. Brinkley (a charter member of the Kerry fanclub), in his book
>>> >> "Tour
>>> >> of
>>> >> Duty" (which was essentially commissioned by Kerry himself), quoted
>>> >> the
>>> >> following from Kerry's 11 December 1968 journal entry (nine days
>> *after*
>>> > he
>>> >> supposedly received his first "wound" in what he has *since*
>>> >> characterized
>>> >> as his "first intense combat" on 2 December): "A cocky feeling of
>>> >> invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because
>> we
>>> >> hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at
>>> >> are
>>> >> allowed to be cocky."
>>> >>
>>> >> Note the words, "...we hadn't been shot at yet..." Is that good
>>> >> enough
>>> > for
>>> >> you?
>>> >
>>> > Sounds like a memory lapse, or an editing problem to me. Stuff
>>> > happens.
>>>
>>> ROFLOL! That was a quote from his wartime journal, written *at the time*!
>> If
>>> you seriously think that he FORGOT having been shot at, at supposedly
>> being
>>> *wounded* during the same "engagement*, just NINE DAYS earlier, then you
>> are
>>> wearing your blinders incorrectly--they are supposed to prevent
>>> peripheral
>>> vision, and should not be worn so as to prevent any and all vision
>>> altogether.
>>>
>>> Don't worry, you are not the only person (or for that matter usenet
>> poster)
>>> who has had a problem explaining Kerry's words from 11 December and their
>>> contradiction of his later claims regarding what *supposedly* occured on
>>> 2
>>> December--most just stick their heads in the sand and ignore all
>> references
>>> to it, not having any kind of sensible answer. At least you took a stab
>>> at
>>> explaining it--your explanation is ridiculous to the extreme, but you
>>> gave
>>> it the ol' college try....
>>>
>> I haven't read the book, and I suspect you haven't either, so I will have
>> to
>> go out and buy a copy.
>
>I am not going to *pay* good money for that fluff piece--that is what
>libraries are for (and reading the excerpts quoted elsewhere on the web).
>
>I specifically asked you to put the quote in
>> context,
>
>What more context could you need? He said that as of 11 Dec they had yet to
>be fired at by the bad guys, Fact is, that is nine days *after* the 2 Dec
>"action" for which he got his first Purple Heart. If you doubt that date, go
>to his own website and look at the documentation.
>
>> but you quoted only one sentence, without even a page reference.
>> You did not provide any quote at all for Kerry's first contact with the
>> enemy, just a statement that it was a "later claim".
>
>Do your own google and you will find where he has commented on the 2 Dec
>mission elsewhere.
>
>That hardly
>> constitutes evidence. I remember each and every time I got shot at in
>> Vietnam, though the dates tended to fade rather quickly.
>
>Did you keep a journal at the time, as Kerry did? HE is the source that
>provided those journals to Brinkley--it came back to bite him on the ***
>when his infamous "seared into my memory" crap about supposedly having been
>inside cambodia on 24 Dec came up, and Brinkley had to sheepishly admit that
>Kerry's journal entry from that date did not support that claim, either.
>
>>
>> I've had it up to here with quotes being taken out of context and twisted
>> to
>> mean something other than what the person intended.
>
>And I have had it past there with folks who are so blindly committed to
>Kerry that they are willing to ignore the contradictions in his OWN
>differing accounts. Enjoy the next four years...
>
>Brooks

Mr Morris' reduces his believability by claiming prognosticatory
abilities. They are all frauds.

><snip further puffery>
>