Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media


BY BRIAN C. ANDERSON
Monday, November 3, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
The left's near monopoly over the institutions of opinion and
information--which long allowed liberal opinion makers to sweep aside ideas
and beliefs they disagreed with, as if they were beneath argument--is
skidding to a startlingly swift halt. The transformation has gone far beyond
the rise of conservative talk radio, which, ever since Rush Limbaugh's debut
15 years ago, has chipped away at the power of the New York Times, the
networks and the rest of the elite media to set the terms of the nation's
political and cultural debate.

Almost overnight, three huge changes in communications have injected
conservative ideas right into the heart of that debate. Though commentators
have noted each of these changes separately, they haven't sufficiently
grasped how, taken together, they add up to a revolution. No longer can the
left keep conservative views out of the mainstream or dismiss them with
bromide instead of argument. Everything has changed.

The first and most visible of these three seismic events: the advent of
cable TV, especially Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel. Since its 1996
launch, Fox News has provided what its visionary CEO, Roger Ailes, calls a
"haven" for viewers fed up with the liberal bias of the news
media--potentially a massive audience, since the mainstream media stand well
to the American people's left.

Watch Fox for just a few hours and you encounter a conservative presence
unlike anything on TV. Where CBS and CNN would lead a news item about an
impending execution with a candlelight vigil of death-penalty protesters,
for instance, at Fox "it is de rigueur that we put in the lead why that
person is being executed," senior vice president for news John Moody noted a
while back. Fox viewers will see Republican politicians and conservative
pundits sought out for meaningful quotations, skepticism voiced about
environmentalist doomsaying, religion treated with respect, pro-life views
given airtime--and much else they'd never find on other networks.

Fox's conservatism helps it scoop competitors on stories they get wrong or
miss entirely because of liberal bias. In April 2002, for instance, the
mainstream media rushed to report an Israeli "massacre" of Palestinian
civilians in a refugee camp in the West Bank city of Jenin; Fox
uniquely--and correctly, it turned out--treated the massacre charge with
complete skepticism. "We try to avoid falling for the conventional liberal
wisdom in journalistic circles--in this case the conventional wisdom
'Israeli bad, Palestinian good,' " says daytime anchorman David Asman. "Too
often ideology shapes the tendency to jump to a conclusion--something we try
to be aware of in our own case, too."

Nowhere does Fox differ more radically from the mainstream television and
press than in its robustly pro-U.S. coverage of the war on terror. After
September 11, the American flag appeared everywhere, from the lapels of the
anchormen to the corner of the screen. Mr. Ailes himself wrote to President
Bush, urging him to strike back hard against al Qaeda. On-air personalities
and reporters freely referred to "our" troops instead of "U.S. forces," and
Islamist "terrorists" and "evildoers" instead of "militants." Such open
displays of patriotism are anathema to today's liberal journalists, who see
"taking sides" as a betrayal of journalistic objectivity.

Mr. Asman demurs. For the free media to take sides against an enemy bent on
eradicating the free society itself, he argues, isn't unfair or culturally
biased; it is the only possible logical and moral stance. And to call Osama
bin Laden a "militant," as Reuters does, is to subvert the truth, not uphold
it. "Terrorism is terrorism," Mr. Asman says crisply. "We know what it is,
and we know how to define it, just as our viewers know what it is. So we're
not going to play with them. When we see an act of terror, we're going to
call it terror." On television news, anyway, Fox alone seemed to grasp this
essential point from September 11 on. Says Mr. Asman: "CNN, MSNBC, the media
generally were not declarative enough in calling a spade a spade."





Fox's very tone conveys its difference from the networks' worldview. "Fox
News lacks the sense of out-of-touch elitism that makes many Americans,
whatever their politics, annoyed with the news media," maintains media
critic Gene Veith. "Fox reporters almost never condescend to viewers," he
observes. "The other networks do so all the time, peering down on the vulgar
masses from social height (think Peter Jennings) or deigning to enlighten
the public about things that only they understand (think Peter Arnett)."
This tone doesn't mark only Fox's populist shows, like pugnacious superstar
Bill O'Reilly's. Even when Fox goes upscale, in Brit Hume's urbane nightly
"Special Report," for example, the civility elevates rather than belittles
the viewer. For Mr. Ailes, Fox's antielitism is key. "There's a whole
country that elitists will never acknowledge," he told the New York Times
Magazine. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue'
states thinking they're smarter."

The "fair and balanced" approach that Fox trumpets in its slogan is part of
this iconoclastic tone, too. Sure, the anchor is almost always a
conservative, but it's clear he is striving to tell the truth, and there's
always a liberal on hand, too. By contrast, political consultant and Fox
contributor Dick Morris notes, "the other networks offer just one point of
view, which they claim is objective." Not only does the Fox approach make
clear that there is always more than one point of view, but it also puts the
network's liberal guests in the position of having to defend their
views--something that almost never happens on other networks.

Viewers clearly like what they see. Fox's ratings, already climbing since
the station debuted in 1996, really began to rocket upward after the
terrorist attack and blasted into orbit with Operation Iraqi Freedom. "In
the Iraqi war," Mr. Morris explains, "the viewing audience truly saw how
incredibly biased the other networks we 'Turkey did not let us through,
the plan was flawed, we attacked with too few troops, our supply lines
weren't secure, the army would run out of rations and ammo, the Iraqis would
use poison gas, the oil wells would go up in flames, there would be
street-to-street fighting in Baghdad, the museum lost its priceless
artifacts to looters,' and now we're onto this new theme that 'Iraq is a
quagmire' and that there 'aren't any weapons of mass destruction' and that
'Bush lied'--and all the while, thanks in part to Fox News, Americans are
seeing with their own eyes how much this is crazy spin." The yawning gulf
separating reality and the mainstream media during the war and its
aftermath, Mr. Morris believes, "will kill the other networks in the
immediate future--to Fox's benefit."

The numbers make clear just how stunning Fox's rise has been. Starting with
access to only 17 million homes (compared with CNN's 70 million) in 1996, by
2001 Fox could reach 65 million homes and had already started to turn a
profit. A year later, profits hit $70 million and are expected to double in
2003. Though CNN founder Ted Turner once boasted he'd "squish Murdoch like a
bug," Fox News has outpaced its chief cable news rival in the ratings since
September 11 and now runs laps around it. This past June, Fox won a whopping
51% of the prime-time cable news audience--more than CNN, CNN Headline News,
and MSNBC combined.

The station's powerhouse, "The O'Reilly Factor," averages around three
million viewers every night, and during Operation Iraqi Freedom the "No Spin
Zone" drew as many as seven million on a given night; CNN's Larry King, once
the king of cable, has slipped to 1.3 million nightly viewers. Cheery "Fox
and Friends" has even edged out CBS's "Early Show" in the ratings a few
times, even though CBS is free, while Fox is available only on cable and
satellite (and not every operator carries it). While the total viewership
for nightly newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC--more than 25 million--still
dwarfs Fox's viewers, the networks are hemorrhaging. CBS News just suffered
its lousiest ratings period ever, down 600,000 viewers; 1.1 million fewer
people watch the three network news programs today than 12 months ago.

Fox enjoys especially high numbers among advertiser-coveted 25- to
54-year-old viewers, and it is attracting even younger news junkies. As one
CNN producer admits, Fox is "more in touch with the younger age group, not
just the 25-54 demo, but probably the 18-year-olds." Even more attractive to
advertisers, Fox viewers watch for 20 to 25 minutes before clicking away;
CNN watchers stay only 10 minutes. Fox's typical viewer also makes more
money on average--nearly $60,000 a year--than those of its main cable
rivals.

Not only conservatives like what they see. A new Pew Research Center survey
shows that of the 22% of Americans who now get most of their news from Fox
(compared with a combined 32% for the networks), 46% call themselves
"conservative," only slightly higher than the 40% of CNN fans who do so. Fox
is thus exposing many centrists (32% of Fox's regular viewers) and liberals
(18%) to conservative ideas and opinions they would not regularly find
elsewhere in the television news--and some of those folks could be liking
the conservative worldview as well as the professionalism of the staff and
veracity of the programming.





That antiliberal worldview dominates cable comedy too. On Comedy Central is
"Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn," a new late-night chatfest where the
conversation--on race, terrorism, war and other topics--is anything but
politically correct. The Brooklyn-born Mr. Quinn, a former "Weekend Update"
anchor on "Saturday Night Live"' and a Fox News fan, can be Rumsfeldesque in
his comic riffs, like this one deriding excessive worries about avoiding
civilian casualties in Iraq: "This war is so polite," he grumbles. "We used
to be 'Semper fi.' Next, we'll be dropping comment cards over Iraq saying
'How did you hear about us?' and 'Would you say that we're a country that
goes to war sometimes, often or never?' "
Then there's Dennis Miller, another "Saturday Night Live" alum, whose 2003
HBO stand-up comedy special "The Raw Feed" relentlessly derides liberal
shibboleths. In his stream-of-consciousness rants, whose cumulative effect
gets audiences roaring with laughter, Mr. Miller blasts the teachers unions
for opposing vouchers, complains about the sluggish work habits of
government workers ("ironically, in our highly driven culture, it would
appear the only people not interested in pushing the envelope are postal
employees"), and attacks opponents of Alaskan oil drilling for "playing the
species card."

Mr. Miller, like Mr. Quinn, is unapologetically hawkish in the war on
terror. Dismissing the effectiveness of U.N. weapons inspectors in the
run-up to the Iraq war, he says: "Watching the U.N. in action makes you want
to give Ritalin to a glacier." On war opponents France and Germany, he's
acid: "The French are always reticent to surrender to the wishes of their
friends and always more than willing to surrender to the wishes of their
enemies," and, "Maybe Germany didn't want to get involved in this war
because it wasn't on a grand enough scale." Lately, he's been campaigning
with President Bush, crediting W. for making him "proud to be an American
again" after the "wocka-wocka porn guitar of the Clinton administration."
Fox hired him to do weekly news commentary, and last week CNBC gave him his
own prime-time political talk show.

Why is cable and satellite TV less uniformly "Whoopi" or "West Wing" than
ABC, CBS and NBC? With long-pent-up market demand for entertainment that
isn't knee-jerk liberal in its sensibilities, cable's multiplicity of
channels has given writers and producers who don't fit the elite media mold
the chance to meet that demand profitably.

Andrew Sullivan dubs the fans of all this cable-nurtured satire "South Park
Republicans"--people who "believe we need a hard-ass foreign policy and are
extremely skeptical of political correctness" but also are socially liberal
on many issues, Sullivan explains. Such South Park Republicanism is a real
trend among younger Americans, he observes. The typical "South Park" viewer,
for instance, is an advertiser-ideal 28.

Talk to right-leaning college students, and it's clear that Mr. Sullivan is
onto something. Arizona State undergrad Eric Spratling says the definition
fits him and his Republican pals perfectly. "The label is really about
rejecting the image of conservatives as uptight squares--crusty old men or
nerdy kids in blue blazers. We might have long hair, smoke cigarettes, get
drunk on weekends, have sex before marriage, watch R-rated movies, cuss like
sailors--and also happen to be conservative, or at least libertarian."
Recent Stanford grad Craig Albrecht says most of his young Bush-supporter
friends "absolutely cherish" "South Park"-style comedy "for its illumination
of hypocrisy and stupidity in all spheres of life." It just so happens, he
adds, "that most hypocrisy and stupidity take place within the liberal
camp."

Further supporting Mr. Sullivan's contention, Gavin McInnes, co-founder of
Vice--a "punk-rock-capitalist" entertainment corporation that publishes the
hipster bible Vice magazine, produces CDs and films, runs clothing stores,
and claims (plausibly) to have been "deep inside the heads of 18-30s for the
past 10 years"--spots "a new trend of young people tired of being lied to
for the sake of the 'greater good.' " Especially on military matters, Mr.
McInnes believes, many 20-somethings are disgusted with the left. The
knee-jerk left's days "are numbered," McInnes tells The American
Conservative. "They are slowly but surely being replaced with a new breed of
kid that isn't afraid to embrace conservatism."

Polling data indicate that younger voters are indeed trending
rightward--supporting the Iraq war by a wider majority than their elders,
viewing school vouchers favorably, and accepting greater restrictions on
abortion, such as parental-notification laws (though more accepting of
homosexuality than older voters). Together with the Foxification of cable
news, this new attitude among the young, reflected in the hippest cable
comedy (and in cutting-edge cable dramas such as FX's "The Shield" and HBO's
"The Sopranos" and "Six Feet Under," which are unflinchingly honest about
crime, race, sex, and faith, and avoid the saccharine liberal moralizing of
much network entertainment), can only make Karl Rove happy.





What should make him positively giddy is the rise of the Internet, the
second explosive change shaking liberal media dominance. It's hard to
overstate the impact that news and opinion Web sites like the Drudge Report,
NewsMax and OpinionJournal.com are having on politics and culture, as are
current-event "blogs"--individual or group Web diaries--like
AndrewSullivan.com, InstaPundit and "The Corner" department of National
Review Online, where the editors and writers argue, joke around and call
attention to articles elsewhere on the Web. This whole universe of Web-based
discussion has been dubbed the "blogosphere."
While there are several fine left-of-center sites, the blogosphere currently
tilts right, albeit idiosyncratically, reflecting the hard-to-pigeonhole
politics of some leading bloggers. Like talk radio and Fox News, the
right-leaning sites fill a market void. "Many bloggers felt shut out by
institutions that have adopted--explicitly or implicitly--a left-wing
orthodoxy," says Erin O'Connor, whose blog, Critical Mass, exposes campus PC
gobbledygook. The orthodox left's blame-America-first response to September
11 has also helped tilt the blogosphere rightward. "There were damned few
noble responses to that cursed day from the 'progressive' part of the
political spectrum," avers Los Angeles-based blogger and journalist Matt
Welch, "so untold thousands of people just started blogs, in anger," Mr.
Welch among them. "I was pushed into blogging on September 16, 2001, in
direct response to reading five days' worth of outrageous bull**** in the
media from people like Noam Chomsky and Robert Jensen."

For a frustrated citizen like Mr. Welch, it's easy to get your ideas
circulating on the Internet. Start-up costs for a blog are small, printing
and mailing costs nonexistent. Few blogs make money, though, since
advertisers are leery of the Web and no one seems willing to pay to read
anything on it.

The Internet's most powerful effect has been to expand vastly the range of
opinion--especially conservative opinion--at everyone's fingertips. "The
Internet helps break up the traditional cultural gatekeepers' power to
determine a) what's important and b) the range of acceptable opinion," says
former Reason editor and libertarian blogger Virginia Postrel. InstaPundit's
Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, agrees: "The
main role of the Internet and blogosphere is to call the judgment of elites
about what is news into question."

The Drudge Report is a perfect case in point. Five years since Matt Drudge
broke the Monica Lewinsky story, his news-and-gossip site has become an
essential daily visit for political junkies, journalists, media types
and--with 1.4 billion hits in 2002--seemingly anyone with an Internet
connection. The site features occasional newsworthy items investigated and
written by Mr. Drudge, but mostly it's an editorial filter, linking to
stories on other small and large news and opinion sites--a filter that
crucially exhibits no bias against the right. (Mr. Drudge, a registered
Republican, calls himself "a pro-life conservative who doesn't want the
government to tax me.") The constantly updated cornucopia of information,
culled from a vast number of global sources and e-mailed tips from across
the political spectrum, says critic Camille Paglia, a Drudge enthusiast,
points up by contrast "the process of censorship that's going on, the
filtering of the news by established news organizations." Other popular
news-filter sites, including FreeRepublic, Lucianne.com and
RealClearPolitics, perform a similar function.

In a different register, Arts & Letters Daily, a site devoted to
intellectual journalism, is similarly ecumenical in what it links to,
posting articles from publications as diverse as City Journal on the right
to the New Left Review. When Arts & Letters ran into financial trouble last
year, both neoconservative elder Norman Podhoretz and Nation columnist Eric
Alterman rushed to its defense. Going from 300 page views a day in 1998 to
more than 70,000 in 2003, and with many left-leaning readers (including a
large number of academics), it has introduced a whole new audience to
serious conservative thought.

Though not quite in Drudge's league in readership, the top explicitly
right-leaning sites, updated daily, have generated huge followings. Andrew
Sullivan's blog, launched in the late 1990s, attracted 400,000 visitors this
July. FrontPage Magazine, vigorously lambasting political correctness, the
antiwar campaign and other "progressive"follies, draws as many as 1.7
million visitors in a month. More than 1.4 million visitors landed on
OpinionJournal this past March, when the liberation of Iraq began, most to
read editor James Taranto's "Best of the Web Today," an incisive guide to
and commentary on the day's top Internet stories. National Review Online,
featuring scores of new articles daily, averages slightly over one million a
month--and over two million during the war. "More people read NRO than all
the conservative magazines combined," the site's editor-at-large, Jonah
Goldberg, marvels. The Web's interconnectivity--the fact that bloggers and
news and opinion sites readily link to one another and comment on one
another's postings, forming a kind of 21st-century agora--amplifies and
extends the influence of any site that catches the heavy hitters' attention.

It's not just the large numbers of readers that these sites attract that is
so significant for the conservative cause; it's also who those readers are.
Just as Fox News is pulling in a younger viewership, who will reshape the
politics of the future, so these conservative sites are proving particularly
popular with younger readers. "They think: 'If it's not on the Web, it
doesn't exist,' " says Mr. Goldberg. FrontPage's Web traffic shoots up
dramatically during the school year, as lots of college students log on.

Equally important, these sites draw the attention of journalists. "Everyone
who deals in media--and they're not all ideologues on the left--is reading
the Internet all the time," says FrontPage editor David Horowitz. "Michael,"
who co-authors the 2blowhards culture-and-politics blog as an avocation
while working full time for a major left-leaning national news organization
(he uses a pseudonym because his bosses wouldn't like the blog's
not-so-liberal opinions), reports: "I notice the younger people on staff in
particular are aware of blogs--and that a lot of local newspapers seem to
have people who stay on top of blogs, too." The Internet's power, observes
Mickey Kaus, the former New Republic writer whose Kausfiles blog has become
indispensable reading for anyone interested in politics, "is due primarily
to its influence over professional journalists, who then influence the
public." Judges Andrew Sullivan: "I think I have just as much ability to
inject an idea or an argument into the national debate through my blog as I
did through The New Republic."

Almost daily, stories that originate on the Web make their way into print or
onto TV or radio. Fox and Rush Limbaugh, for instance, often pick up stories
from FrontPage and OpinionJournal--especially those about the antiwar left.
Fox News's Sean Hannity surfs the net up to eight hours a day, searching
sites like Drudge and the hard-right news site WorldNetDaily for stories to
cover. Phrases introduced in the blogosphere now "percolate out into the
real world with amazing rapidity," InstaPundit's Glenn Reynolds recently
noted. For example, the day after the humor blog ScrappleFace coined the
term "Axis of Weasel" to satirize the antiwar alliance of Jacques Chirac and
Gerhard Schroeder, the New York Post used it as a headline, talk radio and
CNN and Fox News repeated it, and it soon made its way into French and
German media.





The speed with which Internet sites can post new material is one source of
their influence. No sooner has the latest Paul Krugman New York Times column
attacking the Bush administration appeared, for example, than the "Krugman
Truth Squad" will post an article on NRO exposing the economist's myriad
mistakes, distortions, and evasions. Earlier this year, the Truth Squad
caught Krugman comparing the cost of President Bush's tax cuts over 10 years
with the one-year wage boost associated with the new employment it would
create, so as to make the tax reductions seem insanely large for the small
benefit they'd bring--a laughably ignorant mistake or, more likely, a
deliberate attempt to mislead in order to discredit Mr. Bush. The
discomfiture Web critics have caused Mr. Krugman has forced him to respond
on his own Web site, offering various lame rationales for his errors, and
denouncing the Truth Squad's Donald Luskin as his "stalker-in-chief."
The timeliness of Web publication also means that right from the start a
wealth of conservative opinion is circulating about any new
development--often before the New York Times and the Washington Post get a
chance to weigh in. A blog or opinion site "can have an influence on elite
opinion before the conventional wisdom among elites congeals," notes Nick
Schulz, editor of TechCentralStation.com, a site that covers technology and
public policy. A case in point is the blogosphere "storm" (a ferocious burst
of online argument, with site linking to site linking to site) that made a
big issue out of the Democrats' unseemly transformation of Senator Paul
Wellstone's funeral into a naked political rally, forcing the mainstream
media to cover the story, which in turn created outrage that ultimately may
have cost the Dems Wellstone's seat in the 2002 election. Blogosphere
outrage over Sen. Trent Lott's comments that seemed to praise segregation at
onetime Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, led by NRO and
other conservative sites keen to liberate modern conservatism from any
vestige of racism and to make the GOP a champion of black advancement,
shaped the mainstream media's coverage of that controversy, too--helping to
push Mr. Lott from his perch as majority leader.

Debunking liberal humbug is one of the Web's most powerful political
effects: bloggers call it the Internet's "bull**** detector" role. The New
York Times has been the No. 1 target of the BS detectors--especially during
the reign of deposed executive editor and liberal ideologue Howell Raines.
"Only, say, five years ago, the editors of the New York Times had much more
power than they have today," Andrew Sullivan points out. "They could spin
stories with gentle liberal bias, and only a few eyes would roll." If they
made an egregious error, they could bury the correction later. The Internet
makes such bias and evasion harder--maybe impossible--to pull off. It was
the blogosphere that revealed Enron-bashing Mr. Krugman's former ties to
Enron, showed how the paper twisted its polls to further a liberal agenda,
exposed how it used its front page to place Henry Kissinger falsely in the
anti-Iraq war camp, and then, as the war got under way, portrayed it as
harshly as possible.

It's safe to say that the blogosphere cost Mr. Raines his job. When the
story broke about Times reporter and Raines favorite Jayson Blair's
outrageous fabrications in the paper's pages, Messrs. Sullivan, Kaus and
Drudge, blogger-reporter Seth Mnookin and other Web writers kept it alive,
creating pressure for other media, including television, to cover it. When
disgruntled Times staffers began to leak damning information about Mr.
Raines's high-handed management style to Jim Romenesko's influential
media-news site sponsored by the Poynter Institute, the end was near.
Kausfiles' "Howell Raines-O-Meter," gauging the probability of the editor's
downfall, was up barely a day or two when Mr. Raines stepped down. "The
outcome would have been different without the Internet," Mr. Kaus says. The
Times' new ombudsman acknowledged the point: "We're not happy that blogs
became the forum for our dirty linen, but somebody had to wash it and it got
washed."

But the Blair affair was more final straw than primary cause of Mr. Raines's
fall. Unremitting Internet-led criticism and mockery of the editor's
front-page partisanship had already severely tarnished the Times'
reputation. It may take the Times a while to restore readers' trust: a new
Rasmussen poll shows that less than half of Americans believe that the paper
reliably conveys the truth (while 72% find Fox News reliable); circulation
is down 5% since March 2002.

Other liberal media giants have taken notice. In May, the Los Angeles Times'
top editor, John Carroll, fired an e-mail to his troops warning that the
paper was suffering from "the perception and the occasional reality that the
Times is a liberal, 'politically correct' newspaper." In the new era of
heightened Web scrutiny, Mr. Carroll was arguing, you can't just dismiss
conservative views but must take them seriously. By the recent recall vote,
though, the lesson had evaporated.





The third big change breaking the liberal media stranglehold is taking place
in book publishing. Conservative authors long had trouble getting their
books released, with only Regnery Books, the Free Press and Basic Books
regularly releasing conservative titles. But following editorial changes
during the 1990s, Basic and Free Press published far fewer
conservative-leaning titles, leaving Regnery pretty much alone.
No more. Nowadays, publishers are falling over themselves to bring
conservative books to a mainstream audience. "Between now and December,"
Publishers Weekly wrote in July, "scores of books on conservative topics
will be published by houses large and small--the most ever produced in a
single season. Already, 2003 has been a banner year for such books, with at
least one and often two conservative titles hitting PW's bestseller list
each week." Joining Regnery in releasing mass-market right-leaning books are
two new imprints from superpower publishers, Random House's Crown Forum and
an as-yet-untitled Penguin series.

These imprints will publish mostly Ann Coulter-style polemics--one of Crown
Forum's current releases, for example, is James Hirsen's "The Left Coast," a
take-no-prisoners attack on Hollywood liberals. But higher-brow conservative
books will pour forth over the next six months from Peter Collier's
Encounter Books, Ivan R. Dee (publisher of City Journal books), the
Intercollegiate Studies Institute (it's releasing Alexander Solzhenitsyn's
"Russia in Collapse," the Nobel Prize-winner's first book in English in
nearly a decade), Yale University Press, Lexington Books and Spence Books.
Other top imprints--from HarperCollins to the University of Chicago
Press--are also publishing books that flout liberal orthodoxy. And Bookspan,
which runs the Book-of-the-Month Club, has announced a new conservative book
club, headed by a former National Review literary editor.

It's no exaggeration to describe this surge of conservative publishing as a
paradigm shift. "It would have been unthinkable 10 years ago that mainstream
publishers would embrace this trend," acknowledges Doubleday editor and
author Adam Bellow, who got his start in editing in 1988 at the Free Press,
where he and his boss, the late Erwin Glikes, encountered "a tremendous
amount of marketplace and institutional resistance" in pushing conservative
titles. "There was no conspiracy," avers Crown Forum publisher Steve Ross.
"We were culturally isolated on this island of Manhattan, and people tend to
publish to people of like mind."

Ross believes that September 11 shook up the publishing world and made it
less reflexively liberal. And in fact, many new conservative titles concern
the war on terror. But what really overcame the big New York publishers'
liberal prejudices is the oodles of money Washington-based Regnery was
making. "We've had a string of bestsellers that is probably unmatched in
publishing," Regnery president Marji Ross points out. "We publish 20 to 25
titles a year, and we've had 16 books on the New York Times bestseller list
over the last four years--including Bernard Goldberg's "Bias," which spent
seven weeks at No 1." Adds Bernadette Malone, a former Regnery editor
heading up Penguin's new conservative imprint: "The success of Regnery's
books woke up the industry: 'Hello? There's 50% of the population that we're
underserving, even ignoring. We have an opportunity to talk to these people,
figure out what interests them, and put out professional-quality books on
topics that haven't been sufficiently explored.' " Mr. Bellow puts it more
bluntly: "Business rationality has trumped ideological aversion. And that's
capitalism."

There's another reason that conservative books are selling: the emergence of
conservative talk radio, cable TV and the Internet. This "right-wing media
circuit," as Publishers Weekly describes it, reaches millions of potential
readers and thus makes the traditional gatekeepers of ideas--above all, the
New York Times Book Review and the New York Review of Books, publications
that rarely deign to review conservative titles--increasingly irrelevant in
winning an audience for a book.

Ask publisher Peter Collier. After only three years in business, his
Encounter Books will sell $3 million worth of books this year, he says--not
bad for an imprint specializing in serious works of history, culture and
political analysis aimed at both conservatives and open-minded liberals.
Several Encounter titles have sold in the 35,000 range, and a Bill
Kristol-edited volume laying out reasons for war in Iraq has sold more than
60,000 copies. Instead of worrying about high-profile reviews in the media
mainstream--"I've had God-knows-how-many books published by now, and maybe
three reviews in the New York Times Book Review," laughs Mr. Collier--Encoun
ter sells books by getting its authors discussed on the Internet and
interviewed on talk radio, Fox News and C-Span's ideologically neutral "Book
TV." "A Q&A on NRO sells books very, very well," Mr. Collier explains. "It's
comparable to a major newspaper review." A bold Drudge Report headline will
move far more copies than even good newspaper reviews, claims Regnery's
Marji Ross. A book discussed on AndrewSullivan.com will briefly blast up the
Amazon.com bestseller list--even hitting the top five.

Amazon itself is another boon to conservatives, since the Internet giant
betrays no ideological bias in selling books. Nor do big chain booksellers
like Wal-Mart and Barnes & Noble, where Bill O'Reilly books pile up right
next to Michael Moore's latest loony-left rant. "The rise of Amazon and the
chain stores has been tremendously liberating for conservatives, because
these stores are very much product-oriented businesses," observes David
Horowitz. "The independent bookstores are all controlled by leftists, and
they're totalitarians--they will not display conservative books, or if they
do, they'll hide them in the back." Says Marji Ross: "We have experienced
our books being buried or kept in the back room when a store manager or
owner opposed their message." She's a big fan of Amazon and the chains.

Amazon's Reader Reviews feature--where readers can post their opinions on
books they've read and rate them--has helped diminish the authority of elite
cultural guardians, too, by creating a truly democratic marketplace of
ideas. "I don't think there's ever been a similar review medium--a really
broad-based consumers' guide for culture," says 2blowhards blogger Michael.
"I've read some stuff on Amazon that's been as good as anything I've read in
the real press."





All these remarkable, brand-new transformations have sent the left reeling.
Fox News especially is driving liberals wild. Al Gore calls Fox a right-wing
"fifth column," and he yearns to set up a left-wing competitor, as if
left-wing media didn't already exist. Comedian and activist Al Franken's new
book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," is one long jeremiad against
Fox. Washington Post media critic Tom Shales calls Fox a "propaganda mill."
The Columbia Journalism School's Todd Gitlin worries that Fox "emboldens the
right wing to feel justified and confident they can promote their policies."
"There's room for conservative talk radio on television," sniffs CNN anchor
Aaron Brown, the very embodiment of the elite journalist. "But I don't think
anyone ought to pretend it's the New York Times or CNN."
But it's not just Fox. Liberals have been pooh-poohing all of these
developments. Dennis Miller used to be the hippest joker around. Now,
complains a critic in the liberal Webzine Salon, he's "uncomfortably
juvenile," exhibiting "the sort of simplistic, reactionary American stance
that gives us a bad reputation around the world." The Boston Globe's Alex
Beam dismisses the blogosphere with typical liberal hauteur: "Welcome to
Blogistan, the Internet-based journalistic medium where no thought goes
unpublished, no long-out-of-print book goes unhawked, and no fellow
'blogger,' no matter how outré, goes unpraised." And those right-wing books
are a danger to society, grouse liberals; their "bile-spewing" authors "have
limited background expertise and a great flair for adding fuel to hot
issues," claims Norman Provizer, a Rocky Mountain News columnist. "The harm
is if people start thinking these lightweights are providing heavyweight
answers."

Well. The fair and balanced observer will hear in such hysterical complaint
and angry foot-stamping baffled frustration over the loss of a liberal
monoculture, which has long protected the left from debate--and from the
realization that its unexamined ideas are sadly threadbare. "The left has
never before had its point of view challenged and its arguments made fun of
and shot full of holes on the public stage," concludes social thinker
Michael Novak, who has been around long enough to recognize how dramatically
things are changing. Hoover Institute fellow Tod Lindberg agrees: "Liberals
aren't prepared for real argument," he says. "Elite opinion is no longer
univocal. It engages in real argument in real time." New York Times
columnist David Brooks even sees the left falling into despair over the new
conservative media that have "cohered to form a dazzlingly efficient
delivery system that swamps liberal efforts to get their ideas out."

Here's what's likely to happen in the years ahead. Think of the mainstream
liberal media as one sphere and the conservative media as another. The
liberal sphere, which less than a decade ago was still the media, is still
much bigger than the nonliberal one. But the nonliberal sphere is expanding,
encroaching into the liberal sphere, which is both shrinking and breaking up
into much smaller sectarian spheres--one for blacks, one for Hispanics, one
for feminists and so on.

It's hard to imagine that this development won't result in a broader
national debate--and a more conservative America.

Mr. Anderson is senior editor of City Journal, in whose Autumn issue this
article appears.


"The Democratic Party is the party of this popular corruption.
The heart of the Democratic Party and its activist core is
made up of government unions, government dependent professions
(teachers, social workers, civil servants); special interest and
special benefits groups (abortion rights, is a good example) that
feed off the government trough; and ethnic constituencies, African Americans
being the most prominent, who are disproportionately invested in government jobs
and in programs that government provides.

" The Democratic Party credo is 'Take as much of the people's money as politically feasible,
and use that money to buy as many of the people's votes as possible'.
Tax cuts are a threat to this Democratic agenda.
Consequently, Democrats loathe and despise them." -Semi-reformed Leftist David Horowitz
  #2   Report Post  
Brian and Maryann
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

Sorry to repeat myself so soon , but oh well....


STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD OFF TOPIC REPLY FORM
(Check all boxes that apply)



Dear:

[ ] Clueless Newbie [X ] Lamer [ ] Flamer
[X ] Loser [ ] Spammer [ ] Troller
[ ] "Me too" er [ ] Pervert [ ] Geek
[ ] Freak [ ] Nerd [ ] Elvis
[ ] Racist [ ] Fed [X ] Satanist [ ] Homeopath
[X ] Unbearably self-righteous person


I took exception to your recent:

[ ] Email [X ] Post to rec.crafts.metalworking (Newsgroup)

It was (check all that apply):

[X ] Lame [X ] Stupid [ ] Abusive
[X ] Clueless [X ] Idiotic [ X] Brain-damaged
[X ] Imbecilic [ ] Arrogant [ ] Malevolent
[ ] Contemptible [ ] Libelous [ X] Ignorant
[X ] Stupid [ ] Fundamentalist
[X ] Boring [X ] Dumb [ ] Cowardly
[ ] Deceitful [ ] Demented [ ] Self-righteous
[ ] Crazy [ ] Weird [ ] Hypocritical
[X ] Loathsome [ X] Satanic [ ] Despicable
[ ] Belligerent [ ] Mind-numbing [ ] Maladroit
[X ] Much longer than any worthwhile thought
of which you may be capable.


Your attention is drawn to the fact that:

[ ] You posted what should have been emailed
[ ] You obviously don't know how to read your newsgroups line
[ ] You are trying to make money on a non-commercial newsgroup
[ X] You self-righteously impose your religious beliefs on others
[ ] You self-righteously impose your racial beliefs on others
[ X] You self-righteously impose your perverted beliefs on others
[ ] You posted a binary in a non-binaries group
[ X] You don't know which group to post in
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] You crossposted to way too many newsgroups
[ ] I don't like your tone of voice
[ X] What you posted has been done before.
[ X] Not only that, it was also done better the last time.
[ ] You quoted an entire post in your reply
[ ] You started a long, stupid thread
[ ] You continued spreading a long stupid thread
[ ] Your post is absurdly off topic for where you posted it
[ ] You posted a follow-up to crossposted robot-generated SPAM
[ ] You posted a "test" in a discussion group rather than in alt.test
[ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message
[ X] You posted low-IQ flamebait
[ X] You posted a blatantly obvious troll
[ ] You followed up to a blatantly obvious troll
[ ] You said "me too" to something
[ ] You make no sense
[ ] Your sig./alias is dreadful
[ X] You must have spent your life in a
skinner box to be this clueless.
[ ] You posted a phone-sex ad
[ ] You posted a stupid pyramid money making scheme
[ ] You claimed a pyramid-scheme/chain letter for money was legal
[ ] Your margin settings (or lack of) make your post unreadable. Each
line just goes on and on, not stopping at 75 characters,
[ ] You posted in ELitE CaPitALs to look k0OwL
[ ] You posted a message in ALL CAPS, and you don't even own a TRS-80
[ ] Your post was FULL of RANDOM CAPS for NO APPARENT REASON
[ ] You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of this newsgroup.
[ ] You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of the Internet.
[ X] You are a loser.
[ ] This has been pointed out to you before.
[ ] You didn't do anything specific, but appear to be so generally
worthless that you are being flamed on general principles.


It is recommended that you:

[ X] Get a clue
[ X] Get a life
[ X] Go away
[ ] Grow up
[ X] Never post again
[ ] Read every newsgroup you posted to for a week
[ X] stop reading Usenet news and get a life
[ ] stop sending Email and get a life
[ X] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it
[ X] Have your medication adjusted
[ X] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor
[ X] find a volcano and throw yourself in
[ X] Actually post something relevant
[ ] Read the FAQ
[ ] stick to FidoNet and come back when you've grown up
[ X] Apologize to everybody in this newsgroup
[ X] consume excrement
[ ] Post your tests to alt.test/misc.test
[ X] Put your home phone number in your ads from now on
[ ] Refrain from posting until you have a
vague idea what you're doing


In Closing, I'd Like to Say:

[ X] You need to seek psychiatric help
[ X] Take your gibberish somewhere else
[ ] PLONK
[ ] Learn how to post or get off the usenet
[ X] Most of the above
[ ] All of the above
[ ] Some of the above, not including All of the above
[ ] You're so clueless I didn't even fill-in this form.


  #3   Report Post  
BottleBob
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media



Brian and Maryann wrote:

Sorry to repeat myself so soon , but oh well....

STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD OFF TOPIC REPLY FORM


Brian and/or Maryann:

Once was funny, three times is just boring.

I first used this same, or very similar, Bonehead Reply form in a.m.cnc
in 1998.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
  #4   Report Post  
\PrecisionMachinisT\
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media


"Gunner" wrote in message
...

BY BRIAN C. ANDERSON
Monday, November 3, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST



Snipped 619 lines of copyright material


http://opinionjournal.com/about/terms.html

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004245


Gunner,

Im curious as to why you wouldnt simply provide a link to the original
article and then perhaps state your opinion, and / or ask others what their
own opinion might be ???

Regards,

--

SVL


  #5   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

""PrecisionMachinisT"" wrote in message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

BY BRIAN C. ANDERSON
Monday, November 3, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST



Snipped 619 lines of copyright material


http://opinionjournal.com/about/terms.html

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004245


Gunner,

Im curious as to why you wouldnt simply provide a link to the original
article and then perhaps state your opinion, and / or ask others what

their
own opinion might be ???

Regards,

--

SVL



HAHAHAHA!!Hahahaha..hohoho...ho...

Shirley you jest. Welcome to the New American Century Lite, the
all-editorial right-wing news service from Gunner. g

Ed Huntress




  #6   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:55:59 -0800, "\"PrecisionMachinisT\""
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

BY BRIAN C. ANDERSON
Monday, November 3, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST



Snipped 619 lines of copyright material


http://opinionjournal.com/about/terms.html

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004245


Gunner,

Im curious as to why you wouldnt simply provide a link to the original
article and then perhaps state your opinion, and / or ask others what their
own opinion might be ???

Regards,


Because it was simply a forward from another newsgroup, with OT placed
by me, in the Subject line.

If I wanted to speak my opinion, I would have voiced it. If I had
wanted anothers opinion, I would have asked for it.

It was simply for others to read, or not to read, their choice.

Simple, no?

Gunner

"The Democratic Party is the party of this popular corruption.
The heart of the Democratic Party and its activist core is
made up of government unions, government dependent professions
(teachers, social workers, civil servants); special interest and
special benefits groups (abortion rights, is a good example) that
feed off the government trough; and ethnic constituencies, African Americans
being the most prominent, who are disproportionately invested in government jobs
and in programs that government provides.

" The Democratic Party credo is 'Take as much of the people's money as politically feasible,
and use that money to buy as many of the people's votes as possible'.
Tax cuts are a threat to this Democratic agenda.
Consequently, Democrats loathe and despise them." -Semi-reformed Leftist David Horowitz
  #7   Report Post  
\PrecisionMachinisT\
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media


"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:55:59 -0800, "\"PrecisionMachinisT\""
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

BY BRIAN C. ANDERSON
Monday, November 3, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST


Snipped 619 lines of copyright material


http://opinionjournal.com/about/terms.html

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004245


Gunner,

Im curious as to why you wouldnt simply provide a link to the original
article and then perhaps state your opinion, and / or ask others what

their
own opinion might be ???

Regards,


Because it was simply a forward from another newsgroup, with OT placed
by me, in the Subject line.

If I wanted to speak my opinion, I would have voiced it. If I had
wanted anothers opinion, I would have asked for it.

It was simply for others to read, or not to read, their choice.

Simple, no?


Hey no biggee, just that I fell asleep three times before I figured out it
was a total waste of my time to continue reading.

Holy cow, its no wonder I almost never watch the tevee anymore.

What we need is a lot more shows like " The Simpsons", IMO........

--

SVL


  #8   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 05:33:07 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

""PrecisionMachinisT"" wrote in message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

BY BRIAN C. ANDERSON
Monday, November 3, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST


Snipped 619 lines of copyright material


http://opinionjournal.com/about/terms.html

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004245


Gunner,

Im curious as to why you wouldnt simply provide a link to the original
article and then perhaps state your opinion, and / or ask others what

their
own opinion might be ???

Regards,

--

SVL



HAHAHAHA!!Hahahaha..hohoho...ho...

Shirley you jest. Welcome to the New American Century Lite, the
all-editorial right-wing news service from Gunner. g

Ed Huntress

Its with the deepest gratitude that I accept the Eddy and Emmy Awards
for excellence in presenting the news, and casting pearls before swine
in a gentlemanly fashion. I wish to thank all my readers and
detractors for encouraging me to greater and greater heights......

G

Gunner

"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a
certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the
"lions".
Christopher Morton
  #9   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 22:10:59 -0800, "\"PrecisionMachinisT\""
wrote:


It was simply for others to read, or not to read, their choice.

Simple, no?


Hey no biggee, just that I fell asleep three times before I figured out it
was a total waste of my time to continue reading.

Holy cow, its no wonder I almost never watch the tevee anymore.

What we need is a lot more shows like " The Simpsons", IMO........

--

SVL


Thats ok, Ill just put you down in the Pearls catagory.

G

Gunner

"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a
certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the
"lions".
Christopher Morton
  #10   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 06:40:04 GMT, sittingduck
wrote:

"\"PrecisionMachinisT\"" wrote:

Im curious as to why you wouldnt simply provide a link to the original
article and then perhaps state your opinion, and / or ask others what their
own opinion might be ???


He's a one-trick pony.... the copy/paste Queen of usenet.


That's ok, Ill put you down in the Swine category.

Gunner

"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a
certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the
"lions".
Christopher Morton


  #11   Report Post  
Peter Reilley
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
""PrecisionMachinisT"" wrote in message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

BY BRIAN C. ANDERSON
Monday, November 3, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST


Snipped 619 lines of copyright material


http://opinionjournal.com/about/terms.html

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004245


Gunner,

Im curious as to why you wouldnt simply provide a link to the original
article and then perhaps state your opinion, and / or ask others what

their
own opinion might be ???

Regards,

--

SVL



HAHAHAHA!!Hahahaha..hohoho...ho...

Shirley you jest. Welcome to the New American Century Lite, the
all-editorial right-wing news service from Gunner. g

Ed Huntress


Gunner has not been paying attention. The conservative revolution happened
25 years ago, it was called the Reagan revolution. That happened after
the Liberal political philosophy sputtered to a stop, out of gas, and dead
in the
water. What we are seeing now is the same thing happening to the
conservative
revolution. Each political swing, when it goes too far, eventually crashes
and burns.
It is interesting to watch. ;-)

Pete.


  #12   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

"Peter Reilley" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
""PrecisionMachinisT"" wrote in message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

BY BRIAN C. ANDERSON
Monday, November 3, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST


Snipped 619 lines of copyright material


http://opinionjournal.com/about/terms.html

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004245


Gunner,

Im curious as to why you wouldnt simply provide a link to the original
article and then perhaps state your opinion, and / or ask others what

their
own opinion might be ???

Regards,

--

SVL



HAHAHAHA!!Hahahaha..hohoho...ho...

Shirley you jest. Welcome to the New American Century Lite, the
all-editorial right-wing news service from Gunner. g

Ed Huntress


Gunner has not been paying attention. The conservative revolution

happened
25 years ago, it was called the Reagan revolution. That happened after
the Liberal political philosophy sputtered to a stop, out of gas, and dead
in the
water. What we are seeing now is the same thing happening to the
conservative
revolution. Each political swing, when it goes too far, eventually

crashes
and burns.
It is interesting to watch. ;-)

Pete.



Well, if anyone has any idea about how to watch it, I'd be interested in
hearing about it.

As a former PR and advertising man, all of the supposed judgment about where
American political opinion is headed has a very familiar ring to it. It's
like a soufflé: all air, with an egg or two holding the concoction together
and making it look like something substantial, but which disappears in front
of your knife when you try to cut into it.

Both the right and the left seem bereft of substance and focus their efforts
in convincing someone (themselves, mostly) that they represent the *real*
trend in American opinion. After that comes relentless attacks on the other
side, couched in the degenerative style of the day, which, above all, in
sneering dismissiveness.

So neither the right nor the left really has anything to tell us that's
worth listening to. Or, if they do, it's so buried in their polemical crap
that an ordinary reader can't tell where the meat is in the stew. When you
try to "balance" your information by reading the polemicists on both sides,
as Gunner says he does, it's like sitting in your living room on a balmy day
in May with your heat on full blast and your air conditioner turned all the
way up to balance it.

I'd rather just open the windows.

Ed Huntress


  #13   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

In article , Ed Huntress says...

HAHAHAHA!!Hahahaha..hohoho...ho...

Shirley you jest. Welcome to the New American Century Lite, the
all-editorial right-wing news service from Gunner. g


What was that phrase Ed, 'small words?'

Fox = small words?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

  #14   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress

says...

HAHAHAHA!!Hahahaha..hohoho...ho...

Shirley you jest. Welcome to the New American Century Lite, the
all-editorial right-wing news service from Gunner. g


What was that phrase Ed, 'small words?'

Fox = small words?


'Don't know about Fox. It's easy to check. You start by capturing a few
stories to your word processor, and then comparing the ratio of characters
to words to get a ratio. Compare newspapers, broadcast stories, etc. Once
upon a time, New York Post scored near the bottom. g I haven't checked
them in years.

However, watch out. There are some writers who like short words as a matter
of style, not to intentionally dumb down the reading level. William Zinnser
is one such. Sometimes I do the same, particularly for short pieces.

But you can tell the difference. Add a little judgment to your statistics.

Gunner's favorite writers, like P.J. O'Rourke, tend to be quippy stylists,
so there's no telling. You'd have to take a close look.

Hey, speaking of O'Rourke, here's another fun and enlightening thing: See if
you can get some of his old stories, from his Ramparts days. Then replace
the ugly metaphors he used for "conservative" with ugly metaphors for
"liberal." It appears he more-or-less just recycles his old material, using
the same basic idea to attack liberals or conservatives, depending on which
stage of his life you're reading from and who has insulted him lately.

Ed Huntress


  #15   Report Post  
Loren Coe
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

In article , BottleBob wrote:


Brian and Maryann wrote:

Sorry to repeat myself so soon , but oh well....

STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD OFF TOPIC REPLY FORM


Brian and/or Maryann:

Once was funny, three times is just boring.


at least he could change some of the "X's". --Loren


I first used this same, or very similar, Bonehead Reply form in a.m.cnc
in 1998.



  #16   Report Post  
Loren Coe
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

In article , Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:55:59 -0800, "\"PrecisionMachinisT\""
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..
BY BRIAN C. ANDERSON
Monday, November 3, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

Snipped 619 lines of copyright material


http://opinionjournal.com/about/terms.html

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004245

Gunner,

Im curious as to why you wouldnt simply provide a link to the original
article and then perhaps state your opinion, and / or ask others what their
own opinion might be ??? Regards,


Because it was simply a forward from another newsgroup, with OT placed
by me, in the Subject line.


that is part of the problem, 640 lines is a bit long for non-binary
groups. --Loren



If I wanted to speak my opinion, I would have voiced it. If I had
wanted anothers opinion, I would have asked for it.

It was simply for others to read, or not to read, their choice.

Simple, no?

Gunner

"The Democratic Party is the party of this popular corruption.
The heart of the Democratic Party and its activist core is
made up of government unions, government dependent professions
(teachers, social workers, civil servants); special interest and
special benefits groups (abortion rights, is a good example) that
feed off the government trough; and ethnic constituencies, African Americans
being the most prominent, who are disproportionately invested in government jobs
and in programs that government provides.

" The Democratic Party credo is 'Take as much of the people's money as politically feasible,
and use that money to buy as many of the people's votes as possible'.
Tax cuts are a threat to this Democratic agenda.
Consequently, Democrats loathe and despise them." -Semi-reformed Leftist David Horowitz

  #17   Report Post  
Bray Haven
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

Shirley you jest. Welcome to the New American Century Lite, the
all-editorial right-wing news service


Gotta admit I agreed with much of that piece. As a writer, media watcher and
having a BS in Mass communications (FL State.. Go Noles). I can recall the
"old days", good riddance ).
Greg Sefton
  #18   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
Shirley you jest. Welcome to the New American Century Lite, the
all-editorial right-wing news service


Gotta admit I agreed with much of that piece. As a writer, media watcher

and
having a BS in Mass communications (FL State.. Go Noles). I can recall

the
"old days", good riddance ).
Greg Sefton


Hang on, Gunner may make good on his claim to read "both sides," and there
could be a post from the other side coming soon, which will give us a case
of whiplash. g

However, I don't really think he will.

Ed Huntress


  #19   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:51:59 GMT, Loren Coe
wrote:


Because it was simply a forward from another newsgroup, with OT placed
by me, in the Subject line.


that is part of the problem, 640 lines is a bit long for non-binary
groups. --Loren


We each have our own opinions.

Gunner

"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a
certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the
"lions".
Christopher Morton
  #20   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:35:15 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
Shirley you jest. Welcome to the New American Century Lite, the
all-editorial right-wing news service


Gotta admit I agreed with much of that piece. As a writer, media watcher

and
having a BS in Mass communications (FL State.. Go Noles). I can recall

the
"old days", good riddance ).
Greg Sefton


Hang on, Gunner may make good on his claim to read "both sides," and there
could be a post from the other side coming soon, which will give us a case
of whiplash. g

However, I don't really think he will.


Will bring it to your attention, or be able to find one that
counterbalances the truth in that piece?

If I post that the sun comes up in the East...would it be to anyones
benifit to counter with one that says the opposite? Unless of course I
was going for humor......

I love the moderates...they seem to think there are only varying
shades of correct and sorta correct. Must be confusing as hell when
they encounter absolutes.

Ed Huntress

Gunner

"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a
certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the
"lions".
Christopher Morton


  #22   Report Post  
Peter Reilley
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
et...
"Peter Reilley" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
""PrecisionMachinisT"" wrote in

message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

BY BRIAN C. ANDERSON
Monday, November 3, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST


Snipped 619 lines of copyright material


http://opinionjournal.com/about/terms.html

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004245


Gunner,

Im curious as to why you wouldnt simply provide a link to the

original
article and then perhaps state your opinion, and / or ask others

what
their
own opinion might be ???

Regards,

--

SVL



HAHAHAHA!!Hahahaha..hohoho...ho...

Shirley you jest. Welcome to the New American Century Lite, the
all-editorial right-wing news service from Gunner. g

Ed Huntress


Gunner has not been paying attention. The conservative revolution

happened
25 years ago, it was called the Reagan revolution. That happened

after
the Liberal political philosophy sputtered to a stop, out of gas, and

dead
in the
water. What we are seeing now is the same thing happening to the
conservative
revolution. Each political swing, when it goes too far, eventually

crashes
and burns.
It is interesting to watch. ;-)

Pete.



Well, if anyone has any idea about how to watch it, I'd be interested in
hearing about it.


Well it is quite easy. We all have a ring side seat. 25 years ago you
could
see all sorts of Liberal commentators defending government programs that
were hugely costly and did not work. The fact that they did not work was
obvious to all. The justification was that it would be to disruptive to
end them.
The left would mumble something about compassion and giving.

Now we hear the same thing from the right. Iraq is the perfect stage for
them to perform on. The war is hugely expensive and is not working.
There is no prospect that it will work. We are told that we must continue
because it would be too disruptive to leave. The right mumbles something
about patriotism and democracy.

It is all very surreal. AMC is a microcosm of the larger world. Out
there, we have
Bush and Rumsfeld saying absurd things. They say; yesterday's lies don't
matter, believe
what I say today. In AMC, we have Gunner, et al. parroting the absurd
things that he hears out there.

It will all come crashing down.

We do have a ring side seat but we are not disinterested parties. Some
of the blood spilled will ours.

Pete.


  #23   Report Post  
Kirk Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

Very nicely said!

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.


Ed Huntress wrote:

As a former PR and advertising man, all of the supposed judgment about where
American political opinion is headed has a very familiar ring to it. It's
like a soufflé: all air, with an egg or two holding the concoction together
and making it look like something substantial, but which disappears in front
of your knife when you try to cut into it.

Both the right and the left seem bereft of substance and focus their efforts
in convincing someone (themselves, mostly) that they represent the *real*
trend in American opinion. After that comes relentless attacks on the other
side, couched in the degenerative style of the day, which, above all, in
sneering dismissiveness.

So neither the right nor the left really has anything to tell us that's
worth listening to. Or, if they do, it's so buried in their polemical crap
that an ordinary reader can't tell where the meat is in the stew. When you
try to "balance" your information by reading the polemicists on both sides,
as Gunner says he does, it's like sitting in your living room on a balmy day
in May with your heat on full blast and your air conditioner turned all the
way up to balance it.

I'd rather just open the windows.

Ed Huntress




  #24   Report Post  
jon banquer
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
et...
"Peter Reilley" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
""PrecisionMachinisT"" wrote in

message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

BY BRIAN C. ANDERSON
Monday, November 3, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST


Snipped 619 lines of copyright material


http://opinionjournal.com/about/terms.html

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004245


Gunner,

Im curious as to why you wouldnt simply provide a link to the

original
article and then perhaps state your opinion, and / or ask others

what
their
own opinion might be ???

Regards,

--

SVL



HAHAHAHA!!Hahahaha..hohoho...ho...

Shirley you jest. Welcome to the New American Century Lite, the
all-editorial right-wing news service from Gunner. g

Ed Huntress


Gunner has not been paying attention. The conservative revolution

happened
25 years ago, it was called the Reagan revolution. That happened

after
the Liberal political philosophy sputtered to a stop, out of gas, and

dead
in the
water. What we are seeing now is the same thing happening to the
conservative
revolution. Each political swing, when it goes too far, eventually

crashes
and burns.
It is interesting to watch. ;-)

Pete.



Well, if anyone has any idea about how to watch it, I'd be interested in
hearing about it.

As a former PR and advertising man, all of the supposed judgment about

where
American political opinion is headed has a very familiar ring to it. It's
like a soufflé: all air, with an egg or two holding the concoction

together
and making it look like something substantial, but which disappears in

front
of your knife when you try to cut into it.

Both the right and the left seem bereft of substance and focus their

efforts
in convincing someone (themselves, mostly) that they represent the *real*
trend in American opinion. After that comes relentless attacks on the

other
side, couched in the degenerative style of the day, which, above all, in
sneering dismissiveness.

So neither the right nor the left really has anything to tell us that's
worth listening to. Or, if they do, it's so buried in their polemical crap
that an ordinary reader can't tell where the meat is in the stew. When you
try to "balance" your information by reading the polemicists on both

sides,
as Gunner says he does, it's like sitting in your living room on a balmy

day
in May with your heat on full blast and your air conditioner turned all

the
way up to balance it.

I'd rather just open the windows.

Ed Huntress



Excellent post, Ed. Very, very well said. Now can you turn the rest of the
country on to this concept ?

jon





  #25   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Hang on, Gunner may make good on his claim to read "both sides," and

there
could be a post from the other side coming soon, which will give us a

case
of whiplash. g

However, I don't really think he will.


Will bring it to your attention, or be able to find one that
counterbalances the truth in that piece?


Of course. One showed up just today. From the December issue of Harper's:

===========================================

OBLITERATE THE BRUTES

(From "Obliterating Animal Carcasses with Explosives," a pamphlet issued by
the Technology and Development Program of the U.S. Forest Service.)

There are times when it is important to remove or obliterate an animal
carcass from locations such as recreation areas where a carcass might
attract bears, at a popular picnic area where the public might object, or
along the sides of roads or trails.

Explosives have successfully been used by qualified blasters to partially or
totally obliterate large animal carcasses (horses, mules, moose, etc.). It
is important to consider location, time of year, and size of the carcass
when selecting the quantity and type of explosive to accomplish the
obliteration task.

The following instructions pertain to partial obliteration (dispersion) for
a horse that weighs about 1,100 pounds. In this first example, urgency is
not a factor-perhaps the public is not expected to visit the area for a few
days, or perhaps bears will not be attracted to the carcass. In any case, in
this example, dispersion is acceptable.

Place three pounds of explosives under the carcass in four locations. The
carcass can then be rolled onto the explosives if necessary. Place one pound
of explosives in two locations on each leg. Use detonator cord to tie the
explosives' charges together. Horseshoes should be removed to minimize
dangerous flying debris.

In situations where total animal obliteration is necessary, it is advisable
to double the amount of explosives used in the first example. Total
obliteration might be preferred in situations where the public is expected
in the area the next day, or where bears are particularly prolific.

Carcasses that have been dispersed will generally be totally gone within a
few days. Carcasses that have been obliterated will generally not show any
trace of existence the next day.

===========================================

There. Let's see if Rush Limbaugh is still laughing after the U.S. Forest
Service is through with him!

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)




  #26   Report Post  
PrecisionMachinisT
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
et...


I'd rather just open the windows.


I just wish they would just go somewhere else to fart in the first place.

--

SVL


  #27   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

There. Let's see if Rush Limbaugh is still laughing after the U.S. Forest
Service is through with him!


Yep, just be sure to 'remove horseshoes to prevent damage
from flying debris!'

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

  #28   Report Post  
Bray Haven
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

and there
could be a post from the other side coming soon, which will give us a case
of whiplash. g


Like watching a figure 8 race, or a tennis match. Let's watch & see.
Greg Sefton
  #29   Report Post  
Bray Haven
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

I can recall the
"old days", good riddance ).
Greg Sefton


My job is done. G

Gunner


Probably should have mentioned the parts I didn't agree with like "fair &
balanced" Fox ). Of course it isn't, but they do allow a smattering of
alternative opinions. The important thing is that they lend a little balance
to an overwhelming and unabashed left wing media which has had free reign for
as along as I can recall.
Greg Sefton
  #30   Report Post  
Larry Jaques
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:27:48 GMT, Gunner
brought forth from the murky depths:

Its with the deepest gratitude that I accept the Eddy and Emmy Awards
for excellence in presenting the news, and casting pearls before swine
in a gentlemanly fashion. I wish to thank all my readers and
detractors for encouraging me to greater and greater heights......

^^^^^^^
Ya mizpeld "depths" there, Gunner.


---
- Friends don't let friends use FrontPage -
http://diversify.com Dynamic Website Programming


  #31   Report Post  
Glen
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

Who is this guy and why can't he have an original thought?

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 03:28:58 GMT, "Brian and Maryann"
wrote:

Sorry to repeat myself so soon , but oh well....


STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD OFF TOPIC REPLY FORM
(Check all boxes that apply)



Dear:

[ ] Clueless Newbie [X ] Lamer [ ] Flamer
[X ] Loser [ ] Spammer [ ] Troller
[ ] "Me too" er [ ] Pervert [ ] Geek
[ ] Freak [ ] Nerd [ ] Elvis
[ ] Racist [ ] Fed [X ] Satanist [ ] Homeopath
[X ] Unbearably self-righteous person


I took exception to your recent:

[ ] Email [X ] Post to rec.crafts.metalworking (Newsgroup)

It was (check all that apply):

[X ] Lame [X ] Stupid [ ] Abusive
[X ] Clueless [X ] Idiotic [ X] Brain-damaged
[X ] Imbecilic [ ] Arrogant [ ] Malevolent
[ ] Contemptible [ ] Libelous [ X] Ignorant
[X ] Stupid [ ] Fundamentalist
[X ] Boring [X ] Dumb [ ] Cowardly
[ ] Deceitful [ ] Demented [ ] Self-righteous
[ ] Crazy [ ] Weird [ ] Hypocritical
[X ] Loathsome [ X] Satanic [ ] Despicable
[ ] Belligerent [ ] Mind-numbing [ ] Maladroit
[X ] Much longer than any worthwhile thought
of which you may be capable.


Your attention is drawn to the fact that:

[ ] You posted what should have been emailed
[ ] You obviously don't know how to read your newsgroups line
[ ] You are trying to make money on a non-commercial newsgroup
[ X] You self-righteously impose your religious beliefs on others
[ ] You self-righteously impose your racial beliefs on others
[ X] You self-righteously impose your perverted beliefs on others
[ ] You posted a binary in a non-binaries group
[ X] You don't know which group to post in
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] You crossposted to way too many newsgroups
[ ] I don't like your tone of voice
[ X] What you posted has been done before.
[ X] Not only that, it was also done better the last time.
[ ] You quoted an entire post in your reply
[ ] You started a long, stupid thread
[ ] You continued spreading a long stupid thread
[ ] Your post is absurdly off topic for where you posted it
[ ] You posted a follow-up to crossposted robot-generated SPAM
[ ] You posted a "test" in a discussion group rather than in alt.test
[ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message
[ X] You posted low-IQ flamebait
[ X] You posted a blatantly obvious troll
[ ] You followed up to a blatantly obvious troll
[ ] You said "me too" to something
[ ] You make no sense
[ ] Your sig./alias is dreadful
[ X] You must have spent your life in a
skinner box to be this clueless.
[ ] You posted a phone-sex ad
[ ] You posted a stupid pyramid money making scheme
[ ] You claimed a pyramid-scheme/chain letter for money was legal
[ ] Your margin settings (or lack of) make your post unreadable. Each
line just goes on and on, not stopping at 75 characters,
[ ] You posted in ELitE CaPitALs to look k0OwL
[ ] You posted a message in ALL CAPS, and you don't even own a TRS-80
[ ] Your post was FULL of RANDOM CAPS for NO APPARENT REASON
[ ] You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of this newsgroup.
[ ] You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of the Internet.
[ X] You are a loser.
[ ] This has been pointed out to you before.
[ ] You didn't do anything specific, but appear to be so generally
worthless that you are being flamed on general principles.


It is recommended that you:

[ X] Get a clue
[ X] Get a life
[ X] Go away
[ ] Grow up
[ X] Never post again
[ ] Read every newsgroup you posted to for a week
[ X] stop reading Usenet news and get a life
[ ] stop sending Email and get a life
[ X] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it
[ X] Have your medication adjusted
[ X] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor
[ X] find a volcano and throw yourself in
[ X] Actually post something relevant
[ ] Read the FAQ
[ ] stick to FidoNet and come back when you've grown up
[ X] Apologize to everybody in this newsgroup
[ X] consume excrement
[ ] Post your tests to alt.test/misc.test
[ X] Put your home phone number in your ads from now on
[ ] Refrain from posting until you have a
vague idea what you're doing


In Closing, I'd Like to Say:

[ X] You need to seek psychiatric help
[ X] Take your gibberish somewhere else
[ ] PLONK
[ ] Learn how to post or get off the usenet
[ X] Most of the above
[ ] All of the above
[ ] Some of the above, not including All of the above
[ ] You're so clueless I didn't even fill-in this form.



  #32   Report Post  
\PrecisionMachinisT\
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media


"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 22:10:59 -0800, "\"PrecisionMachinisT\""
wrote:


It was simply for others to read, or not to read, their choice.

Simple, no?


Hey no biggee, just that I fell asleep three times before I figured out

it
was a total waste of my time to continue reading.

Holy cow, its no wonder I almost never watch the tevee anymore.

What we need is a lot more shows like " The Simpsons", IMO........

--

SVL


Thats ok, Ill just put you down in the Pearls catagory.

G


Uhh.......thanks, I think.

Without question, the writer had a message to put forth......I do believe he
could have easily done this using 1/4 the amount of text though.

Not a very good writer, IMO

--

SVL


  #33   Report Post  
Gary
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

Glen wrote:

Who is this guy and why can't he have an original thought?


So Glen, the Satanic religious spew from you?
That's original?

Seems you are the one with no original thought, relying on a bunch
of long dead middle eastern souperstitious loons to do all your
thinking.


Gary & Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD)
  #34   Report Post  
wmbjk
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Ed
Huntress says...

There. Let's see if Rush Limbaugh is still laughing after the U.S.
Forest Service is through with him!


Yep, just be sure to 'remove horseshoes to prevent damage
from flying debris!'

Jim


Some things are just too big to be handled by explosives, and as you can
see here http://www.howeird.com/whale.html, a Rush-sized operation has
already been attempted without success. When Rush goes, he should simply
be moved in next door to Robert Durst.

Wayne


  #35   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:56:15 GMT, "wmbjk" wrote:

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Ed
Huntress says...

There. Let's see if Rush Limbaugh is still laughing after the U.S.
Forest Service is through with him!


Yep, just be sure to 'remove horseshoes to prevent damage
from flying debris!'

Jim


Some things are just too big to be handled by explosives, and as you can
see here http://www.howeird.com/whale.html, a Rush-sized operation has
already been attempted without success. When Rush goes, he should simply
be moved in next door to Robert Durst.

Wayne

Rush who? Are you talking about Limbaugh, the fellow that is rather
neat and trim?

Gunner

"The British attitude is to treat society like a game preserve where a
certain percentage of the 'antelope' are expected to be eaten by the
"lions".
Christopher Morton


  #36   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Rush who? Are you talking about Limbaugh, the fellow that is rather
neat and trim?

Gunner



Compared to what, a beach ball? g Yes, I know, he's drugged himself into
relative slimness. Now you can tell that he's not really a manatee in a
suit.

Ed Huntress


  #37   Report Post  
wmbjk
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

Gunner wrote:

Rush who? Are you talking about Limbaugh, the fellow that is rather
neat and trim?


He's a hypocritical fat-ass with a blowhole. Check out his anti-drug
quotes here http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/10/1652834.php Now see what
people think about his own drug use here
http://www.bestandworst.com/pages/vo...sult-3291.html I
expect him to be doing a Cartman imitation any time now.... "I am not a
hypocrite, I just have back pain".

Wayne


  #38   Report Post  
Brian and Maryann
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

I didn't realize originality was a requirement here. You sure don't get it
from the off topic cut and paste postings that Gunner puts here.



"Gary" wrote in message
...
Glen wrote:

Who is this guy and why can't he have an original thought?


So Glen, the Satanic religious spew from you?
That's original?

Seems you are the one with no original thought, relying on a bunch
of long dead middle eastern souperstitious loons to do all your
thinking.


Gary & Harvey (the one & only "TRUE" GOD)



  #39   Report Post  
Larry Jaques
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:12:57 GMT, Gunner
brought forth from the murky depths:

Rush who? Are you talking about Limbaugh, the fellow that is rather
neat and trim?


Wayne obviously hasn't seen him since he got married and
tried drugs. One of the two made a real difference in the
way he looks. I almost didn't recognize him in the last
picture I saw of him. What'd he lose, about 80lbs? Wow!

What's this about ten pounds of C4 and a shoeless horse?


---
- Friends don't let friends use FrontPage -
http://diversify.com Dynamic Website Programming
  #40   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT=Sea Changes in the Media

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:15:55 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Rush who? Are you talking about Limbaugh, the fellow that is rather
neat and trim?

Gunner



Compared to what, a beach ball? g Yes, I know, he's drugged himself into
relative slimness. Now you can tell that he's not really a manatee in a
suit.

Ed Huntress

Obviously you havent seen a picture of him recently. Granted he isnt a
dried up, wrinkled old Easterner..but...
G

Gunner

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus
ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
O.T.: Patriot Act II / Library Surveilance clay Metalworking 58 October 11th 03 05:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"