From: "Mark" 

LOL. If I had to emulate Matthews for the big bucks, I'd rather be homeless
and destitute 

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:435d9def$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Well at least Chris Matthews and other talking heads make a decent living
> out of conjecture. We just use up bits on Geo's hard drive.  Are you
> asking if I'd exchange bits for bucks? 
>
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:435d9bae{at}w3.nls.net...
>> You're assuming things that are not in evidence.
>>
>> Why are so many, so willing to conclude things on pure conjecture, what's
>> wrong with waiting for Fitzgerald to either act or not?  You don't really
>> want to emulate Chris Matthews, do you Rich? > could only stand about 90 seconds on my evening "surf by for
laughs"
>> remote control button pushsing>
>>
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:435d98a4$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> That's what makes this akin to the inane  actions of the Watergate crew.
>>> Neither action was necessary. There were better ways to refute portions
>>> of Wilson's charges but it appears those involved just settled for a
>>> mindless counter-attack.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:435d9659{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Robert G Lewis" 
wrote: ... So far Wilson's
>>>> information has been shown to be far more correct than
>>>>> the Administration.
>>>>
>>>> Wilson's information was completely refuted by the Senate Select
>>>> Committee way back when. He's been entirely discredited by
that and the
>>>> Butler report in the UK. This is an old argument, very old.
>>>>
>>>> I'd go dig for old links (in fact I just dumped a link to the Senate
>>>> report a little while back because I, stupidly, never
thought it would
>>>> be relevant again), but why bother? It'd just be another 6
months, or a
>>>> year and the same old claims would resurface as if they'd never been
>>>> discredited.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5