~> ~>>  If you read the interview then you know Buchanan was not hunting
~> ~>>  Shearer's tires, he was out in the yard threatening Shearer's
~> ~>>  students and neighbors, and saying that he was going to *KILL*
~> ~>>  Shearer.
 
~>  EC> That was Shearer's version, but he did not witness it
~>  EC> himself and the actual statements made to the police by the
~>  EC> actual witnesses and reported in the Washington Post are
~>  EC> somewhat different: "According to authorities, Buchanan
~>  EC> pulled a silver-colored revolver from his pocket, pointed
~>  EC> the gun at the man and demanded that he walk off. The man
~>  EC> complied.  When the woman returned with her boyfriend,
~>  EC> Buchanan pointed the gun at them and ordered them to walk
~>  EC> away, the affidavit said.  Authorities said Buchanan then
~>  EC> ran to a parked 1996 Honda and drove off."

~>  It was your source. Are you now denouncing your own source?

To recap, Klahn says the guy did NOT go after the tires, which is so
profoundly false as to be delusional.  He broke into the garage, vandalized
the tires just as Kathleen Willey's tires had been vandalized, and then
instead of continuing on into the house he went back outside.  Klahn also
says he said he was going to kill Shearer, and Shearer says the same thing.
 But as I pointed out Shearer did not witness the event nor hear any such
threat, and the people who DID witness and who then made official
statements said that the guy told people who saw him to GET AWAY from him
and then he drove away.  Klahn's babbling about "denouncing" sources is
just gibberish to cover up the fact that he has no defense for the validity
of either of his claims.

~>  Enter the first part of that into google, "According to
~>  authorities, Buchanan pulled a silver-colored revolver from his
~>  pocket", no results. Shorten it to, "Buchanan pulled a
~>  silver-colored revolver from his pocket", no results. Shorten it
~>  to, "Buchanan pulled a silver-colored revolver", no results.

You might be wondering why, after I tell him that it was a news story in
the Washington Post, he would look in google.  Then again, you might not
wonder.  Especially if you already know his SOP.  He doesn't really care
whether google has the May 22, 1999 Washington Post indexed or not.  He
just wants to give the appearance of a response without the substance of one.

~>  EC> Either version, though, disproves Klahn's bogus story about
~>  EC> how he went after Shearer with a knife (he was never even
~>  EC> in the presence of Shearer) and would have killed him if
~>  EC> the police hadn't caught him first
 
~>  Your claim Buchanan stalked Shearer's tires are the absurd one.

Notice that he completely ignores the two points that I brought up, he
completely ignores the fact that EVERYONE acknowledges that Buchanan DID
INDEED damage Shearer's tires in the same fashion that Willey's were, and
he goes that extra Klahn-fictionalizing mile by abusing the English
language to add the notion of tires being "stalked" and then falsely
attributes it to me.

~>  EC> (he drove off, checked
~>  EC> into a mental facility the next day, and surrendered
~>  EC> himself to the police when there was a warrant out for him).
 
~>  ~>>  IOW, that interview far more supports my position than your.

Since it doesn't prove that Chris Matthews didn't broadcast the name, it
doesn't prove that Buchanan attacked Shearer with a knife, it doesn't prove
that Shearer's life was saved only because the police caught Buchanan
before he could kill Shearer, and it doesn't prove that Buchanan had a
knife in his possession at the time the police caught him, it supports
NOTHING of Klahn's "position."
 
~>  EC> What Klahn really mean is that there were not as many
~>  EC> threats in the FIRST fifteen hours after the initial
~>  EC> Hardball broadcast than there were in the DAYS after the
~>  EC> broadcast as the story got disseminated.  That was never at
~>  EC> issue.  Limbaugh repeated the name ONE day later, and he
~>  EC> was trying to imply that there were no threats for SIX days
~>  EC> later. Chris Matthews repeated the story the next night,
~>  EC> Geraldo repeated it on HIS show the day after that, and it
~>  EC> was spread through various websites, radio shows, and even
~>  EC> at least one newspaper prior to the garage break-in.
 
~>  What I really meant was what *YOUR SOURCE* said, a few calls
~>  turned into hundreds after Limbaugh broadcast it.

What Kovach actually said was that more calls came in "that day" than in
the previous day, which compares about a four or five hour period to a
twenty-four hour period (more half of which came BEFORE the radio show). 
Kovach attributes the increase to Limbaugh, while ignoring all the other
publicity that the Matthews accusation had, but he has no basis for that
attribution.  Heck, the story of the incident in the St. Pete Times
indicates that some political web sites were posting Cody Shearer's ADDRESS
on line so that people could seek him out.  Either way, Klahn's bogus claim
that the threats didn't come until six days LATER is now so discredited
that even HE is walking away from it!  He just doesn't want anyone to notice.

~> ~>>  And you specifically speculated that Buchanan hunted down
~> ~>>  Shearer to slash his tires emulating something that allegedly
~> ~>>  happened to Willey.
 
~>  EC> That is not speculation.  That is established fact.  Bobzo
 
~>  That Buchanan hunted down Shearer to slash his tires? Where is
~>  your evidence that was his only intention?

Same old Bobzo.  He ignores the fact that it is NOT speculation.  The tire
damage is fact.  The SPECULATION is Klahn's story that the guy broke into
the garage, vandalized the tires, thus tipping off house guests who heard
the hissing of air, then went back OUTSIDE, in order to later go back in
and kill someone.  And then Bobzo adds in the word "only" when I never said
it was the "only" intention, and demands that I prove HIS
speculation wrong.

Picture for a minute what such a threat might sound like on the phone. 
Imagine someone calling in to threaten to kill someone, and then thinking
that maybe the death threat isn't enough, so they add in that FIRST they
are going to slash the victim's TIRES so they will REALLY suffer!

The accepted facts and the sworn statements of the witnesses are that
Buchanan broke in, vandalized the tires, and went back outside.  When
several people CONFRONTED HIM outside he took out a gun, told them to walk
away, and then got into his car and drove off.  Shearer speculated that
Buchanan was threatening to kill him, but he did not witness any such
threats and the statements of witnesses say that Buchanan told them to walk
away.  Klahn speculated, and speculated, and speculated, and presented his
speculation as fact, and demanded that his speculation be disproven. 
Nothing new.  It a pattern that has been repeated by him for years.  That
is why so many people laugh at him or ignore him.

~> ~>> ~>>  At that time I did not know Buchanan also had a gun.

~> ~>>  EC> And THAT is his only excuse for making up a series of
~> ~>>  EC> facts!!!  This is classic!

And in Bobzo-world, that is probably a good excuse for making stuff up. 
Sad.  But funny.


 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a