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

From: *** Morris (ramorris_at_isomedia.com)
Date: 11/09/04 

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 18:33:02 -0800

"Jack Love" <jackxxloveyy@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a6auo0lidu3jkcugll2354n0ma4pedn76h@4ax.com...
> 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.

Everything I said was the absolute truth, whether you believe it or not.
>
> ><snip further puffery>
> >
>