On Tue, 17 May 2005 07:56:02 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

The Dairy Queen turds are the worst ones for the new terlits to
handle. When they coil around and around the bowl like a DQ chocolate
icecream cone. The 1.6 gallon toilets simply wet it down a little and
you wind up having to go find a stick or something to break it up..and
then wonder where to put the stick.

Cabbage and a big plate of cornbread and beans seems to be the main
source for the DQ turds, though a large Ceaser salad tends to also
generate such.

I suggest a change in your diet.

HTH
--
Cliff

On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:42:39 -0700, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:

Reminds me in a way of the recent report by Newsday......( now
retracted )--where someone apparently had flushed the Koran down the
toilert....(much to the chagrin of all them holy muslim worriers in
Afghanistan)

Newsday or Newsweek?
In any case, it was retracted after VERY HEAVY DOD,
Whitehouse & neocon pressure.
And it's claimed that the source (probably also under much
pressure) sort of changed their story.

This does not mean that it was not true to begin with,
just classified.

I'd really like to see bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etal
wiping with pages from the bible on TV ..... fair is,
after all, fair.
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:42:39 -0700, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:

Reminds me in a way of the recent report by Newsday......( now
retracted )--where someone apparently had flushed the Koran down the
toilert....(much to the chagrin of all them holy muslim worriers in
Afghanistan)

Newsday or Newsweek?
In any case, it was retracted after VERY HEAVY DOD,
Whitehouse & neocon pressure.
And it's claimed that the source (probably also under much
pressure) sort of changed their story.

This does not mean that it was not true to begin with,
just classified.

I'd really like to see bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etal
wiping with pages from the bible on TV ..... fair is,
after all, fair.
--
Cliff

The key difference Cliffy is that if I flush a bible down the toilet
some people will be offended, may complain and perhaps even have a
pathetic little prayer service, there would not be riots in the streets
and people being killed.

Also, just because a story is retracted after much attention does not
mean that it was true either. One is reminded of a certain disgraced
ex-anchorman.

Pete C.

"Pete C." wrote in :

Cliff

Also, just because a story is retracted after much attention does not
mean that it was true either. One is reminded of a certain disgraced
ex-anchorman.

Retraction will be buried on page 15 inna lil corner somewhere.

Damage has been done, thank ya.

Hopefully our soldiers wont suffer much from the fallout. But lib editors
dont seem to care about that much.

Bing

On Wed, 18 May 2005 02:12:43 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:42:39 -0700, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:

Reminds me in a way of the recent report by Newsday......( now
retracted )--where someone apparently had flushed the Koran down the
toilert....(much to the chagrin of all them holy muslim worriers in
Afghanistan)

Newsday or Newsweek?
In any case, it was retracted after VERY HEAVY DOD,
Whitehouse & neocon pressure.
And it's claimed that the source (probably also under much
pressure) sort of changed their story.

This does not mean that it was not true to begin with,
just classified.

I'd really like to see bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etal
wiping with pages from the bible on TV ..... fair is,
after all, fair.

The key difference Cliffy is that if I flush a bible down the toilet
some people will be offended, may complain and perhaps even have a
pathetic little prayer service, there would not be riots in the streets
and people being killed.

Watch bush wipe & the fundies riot.

Also, just because a story is retracted after much attention does not
mean that it was true either. One is reminded of a certain disgraced
ex-anchorman.

Whose story, in almost all details, was already well known. The only
problem was that a few certain documents for one aspect could not
be verified and seemed to have been planted by (IIIRC) a republican
lawyer from (IIRC) Ohio.
Typical bait & switch disinformation. If you cannot fight the
truth of the charges try to discredit something about the
messenger or some small detail. Make THAT really large & distracting..
--
Cliff

On Wed, 18 May 2005 02:12:43 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Also, just because a story is retracted after much attention does not
mean that it was true either. One is reminded of a certain disgraced
ex-anchorman.

[
Seymour M. Hersh, a reporter cut from the same cloth as Mr. Isikoff,
said of him: "He's very smart and very tough. He does that magic thing
that's so obvious but that nobody does: He reads before he writes."
]

HTH
--
Cliff