Idle Political Speculation on Forged Documents

[CamEdwards]

I'm sure this will soon turn into a partisan thread, but I'll post it anyway.

According to the Boston Globe

A group of veterans in West Virginia, organized by the Democratic National Committee, also held a news conference yesterday to challenge Bush's Guard record, and veterans in Pennsylvania and Ohio plan to do the same today. More are planned in other battleground states, Howard Wolfson, Democratic National Committee adviser, said yesterday.

It seems like the Kerry campaign has had either a run of bad luck or ineptitude (depending on your political affiliation) lately. My thinking is that doing stuff like this while there are most likely forged documents out there (and at least one "unnamed source" saying these documents were seen by both the Kerry Campaign and the DNC) could be disastrous. Even if there's no connection between the Kerry campaign and the forged documents... it really looks bad on the surface.

Thoughts on the political mchinations, not the candidates, would be greatly appreciated.

[Butter]

What documents are forged?

Not trying to be argumentative, but I'm not sure what you're talking about. Has there been talk that the new documents on Bush's Guard record are forged?

[Honolulu_Blue]

As a plotical "machine" the Democractic party is pathetically inept. The word Traveshamockery comes to mind. I mean seriously. They have already totally blown the one issue that should have been a slam dunk: Kerry's war record versus Bush's draft dodging ways. They totally blew that one. It's ridiculous.

That's all I got... for now.

[sachmo71]

Well, I'm temped to say that all of the focus on these innane issues are a complete waste of time, but since my fellow Americans still seem to be swayed by whether their politician is a LIAR or not, I'd be wasting my time.

If this is proved to be a forgery, then Kerry will brand himself a liar. Apparently, that's worse then anything President Bush ever did.

[miked]

Yes, because these allegedly forged documents were released by Kerry...er...no the DOD at the lawsuit of the AP.

I find it funny that most people on this board were very quick to question Kerry when the Swift Boat people made their accusations without ever having actually served with him, but when these records are released...by the DOD...they are obviously forged and so on. Who really cares? Are you going to vote for Bush because you think Kerry didn't earn his medals given before you were born?

I'm more concerned with my research funding, personally. Bush has cut NIH funding drastically in the last 2 years (hey...wars aren't cheap) and I haven't seen a penny from his tax cuts (other than that wonderful $300 check 3-4 yrs ago). You people can bicker all you want about who served when and where 30 years ago if that's important to you, but how about focusing on whether the economy is going to really turn around...or whether our ballooning deficit will be turned around by either (I saw a projection yesterday that said it would be 2.5 trillion in 8 years or something).

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by miked

Yes, because these allegedly forged documents were released by Kerry...er...no the DOD at the lawsuit of the AP.

I find it funny that most people on this board were very quick to question Kerry when the Swift Boat people made their accusations without ever having actually served with him, but when these records are released...by the DOD...they are obviously forged and so on.

I find it funny that both sides have used this same statement.

Originally Posted by miked

Who really cares? Are you going to vote for Bush because you think Kerry didn't earn his medals given before you were born?

Too many people, unfortunately.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

As a plotical "machine" the Democractic party is pathetically inept. The word Traveshamockery comes to mind. I mean seriously. They have already totally blown the one issue that should have been a slam dunk: Kerry's war record versus Bush's draft dodging ways. They totally blew that one. It's ridiculous.

That's all I got... for now.

And it keeps happening again and again and again. This is the third election cycle in a row that the Dems have failed to frame the debate (2000 should have been a referendum on Clinton-Gore, instead, they did all they could to move Gore away from Clinton; 2002 they tried to make a referendum on Bush when it clearly wasn't the time to do that yet; and this year it is just comical). The plus on McAuliffe is that he is supposedly a tremendous fund raiser. The problem is those funds aren't much good if you can't use them effectively.

[clintl]

If it turns out they were forged, everyone drops this and moves on.

It's not like the Bush Administration has never used forged documents to press a case for something.

[John Galt]

If these documents are forged, I think it would be amazing if this was really Karl Rove's doing. What better way to discredit Kerry than having his campaign appear responsible for forging military documents. I'm not usually into conspiracy theories, but I just found this line of thinking fun. The reason this seems viable at all to me is how quickly the forgery has been discovered. I doubt Karl Rove is behind it, but if turns out they are forgeries, I am sure is wondering why he didn't think of planting them. He is truly in evil man when "truth" is the issue.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by John Galt

If these documents are forged, I think it would be amazing if this was really Karl Rove's doing. What better way to discredit Kerry than having his campaign appear responsible for forging military documents. I'm not usually into conspiracy theories, but I just found this line of thinking fun. The reason this seems viable at all to me is how quickly the forgery has been discovered. I doubt Karl Rove is behind it, but if turns out they are forgeries, I am sure is wondering why he didn't think of planting them. He is truly in evil man when "truth" is the issue.

I was actually hoping it would be discovered that someone who has volunteered for the Kerry campaign had planted them. Because then it would then be obvious that Kerry's campaign was responsible for the forgeries.

[miked]

Yes, and then you can give us more pointless reasons to not vote for somebody you don't like. Weren't these documents released by the Pentagon/DOD? Are you trying to say that somebody from Kerry's camp typed these out and somehow snuck them into the Pentagon or its computer system?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by miked

Yes, and then you can give us more pointless reasons to not vote for somebody you don't like. Weren't these documents released by the Pentagon/DOD? Are you trying to say that somebody from Kerry's camp typed these out and somehow snuck them into the Pentagon or its computer system?

\

No.

I was paralleling the logic used to tie the Swift Boat Vet group to Bush's Campaign.

We really do need a sarcasm smilie. Maybe I should have used the "winking" smilie.

[JPhillips]

Cam: I think it turned into a partisan thread with your post. You state clearly that the documents were forged even when that is very much an open question. You also repeat a very questionable claim that Kerry and the DNC saw the documents. Then you end by saying even if there is no connection and the documents aren't forged, it still looks bad.

An non-partisan thread wouldn't have worked so hard to paint Kerry and the DNC as being involved in a scandal that doesn't even exist.

[randal7]

The documents that appear to be forgeries did not come from DoD. CBS news claimed they were personal documents of Bush's Lt. Colonel in the Guard. They have so far declined to say exactly where or how they got them. What I find the most amazing is that CBS ran the story. You look at the type on these things and it is clearly not done on a typewriter, which is of course what they used in 1972/73. I see it as more of an indictment of how eager CBS was to make Bush look bad than an indication of a dirty trick by the Kerry camp. If that really was a democrat plant (which I do not believe), they are WAY too stupid to run the country.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by randal7

You look at the type on these things and it is clearly not done on a typewriter, which is of course what they used in 1972/73.

They had pens and paper in 72-73 also.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by randal7

The documents that appear to be forgeries did not come from DoD. CBS news claimed they were personal documents of Bush's Lt. Colonel in the Guard. They have so far declined to say exactly where or how they got them. What I find the most amazing is that CBS ran the story. You look at the type on these things and it is clearly not done on a typewriter, which is of course what they used in 1972/73. I see it as more of an indictment of how eager CBS was to make Bush look bad than an indication of a dirty trick by the Kerry camp. If that really was a democrat plant (which I do not believe), they are WAY too stupid to run the country.

The question of whether a typewriter could produce the documents is still an open question. I've been a little confused by those saying it is clearly a computer because several of their arguments are just wrong (proportional fonts were in use decades before this, superscripts and subscripts could also be created, variable spacing between lines existed). That makes me wonder about the overall conclusions based on more open questions (the apostrophes, New Times Roman, etc.). I have no idea either way if these were forged, but some of the reasons "experts" are saying they were forged are just plain wrong.

[rkmsuf]

please get this election over with

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

please get this election over with

I'm with smurf on this one.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by John Galt

The question of whether a typewriter could produce the documents is still an open question. I've been a little confused by those saying it is clearly a computer because several of their arguments are just wrong (proportional fonts were in use decades before this, superscripts and subscripts could also be created, variable spacing between lines existed). That makes me wonder about the overall conclusions based on more open questions (the apostrophes, New Times Roman, etc.). I have no idea either way if these were forged, but some of the reasons "experts" are saying they were forged are just plain wrong.

The superscript stuff was only available as special-order, and unlikely at best for the AF to be uding (especially for an informal memo) but clearly the most damning aspect is the kerning. There is absolutely no way to do that on a typewriter (how could it know what letter is next?) which pretty much proves they are forgeries. So now the interesting questions are where did they come from and why was CBS so eager to run the story?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by miked

Yes, and then you can give us more pointless reasons to not vote for somebody you don't like. Weren't these documents released by the Pentagon/DOD? Are you trying to say that somebody from Kerry's camp typed these out and somehow snuck them into the Pentagon or its computer system?

Oh, I know I responded earlier, but Just wanted to clear something up. As I understand it, these documents were NOT released by the Pentagon/DoD. They purportedly came from the Author's family and his personal records. His son has come out and said that those documents did not come from anyone in his family.


Edit: Randal already beat me to it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

please get this election over with

Do you really think it's going to matter much?

{I'm not trying to be funny or give you a hard time, I'm serious}

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Do you really think it's going to matter much?

{I'm not trying to be funny or give you a hard time, I'm serious}

What matter? I'm totally missing what you are saying...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

What matter? I'm totally missing what you are saying...

Erm ... maybe I'm confused.

I took your "please get this election over with" comment to be a sort of "plea for civility" and/or "wish for the end to general bickering" (since that's usually the point of similar remarks I've seen for several years).

I then asked "Do you really think it's going to matter" as in "I don't believe the election ending is going to make many people actually like any better than they do right now".

Maybe I just misread the intent of your election comment.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Erm ... maybe I'm confused.

I took your "please get this election over with" comment to be a sort of "plea for civility" and/or "wish for the end to general bickering" (since that's usually the point of similar remarks I've seen for several years).

I then asked "Do you really think it's going to matter" as in "I don't believe the election ending is going to make many people actually like any better than they do right now".

Maybe I just misread the intent of your election comment.

I'm just tired of the endless, meaningless minutia that gets critical examination ad nausea. Stuff that is amazingly so stupid and yet people go on discourses like they are talking about great issues of our time.

I can't believe America is reduced to superscripts, kerning and typewriter models. What a bunch of geniuses we all are.

We should open up a discussion about when you say "Lier, lier pants on fire" and whether your pants are actually on fire.

Better yet let's make the Enquirer the pool reporter for the whole darn process and really dig into some issues like how Kerry has more cellulite on his ass than Bush so vote Bush!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I'm just tired of the endless, meaningless minutia that gets critical examination ad nausea.

Okay, so I think I was reading you about right then, give or take a little.
My point was/is that the election really doesn't have much to do with it IMO -- the same trivial shit has been bantered about since the last election & will continue to be argument fodder for the next four years regardless of who wins.

The point isn't really "insert a topic here" -- that's just a stage prop for people who really don't fucking like each other much to use while expressing their hostility.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Okay, so I think I was reading you about right then, give or take a little.
My point was/is that the election really doesn't have much to do with it IMO -- the same trivial shit has been bantered about since the last election & will continue to be argument fodder for the next four years regardless of who wins.

The point isn't really "insert a topic here" -- that's just a stage prop for people who really don't fucking like each other much to use while expressing their hostility.

Completely agree. I find it offensive that it's 99.99% backbiting and you suck and .01% here's what I'd like to do to help this country.

This is all just a high school popularity contest...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Completely agree. I find it offensive that it's 99.99% backbiting and you suck and .01% here's what I'd like to do to help this country.

That's because, deep down, what a lot of people believe would "help this country" is to contain/minimize/eliminate enough of "the people who suck" in order to render them effectively meaningless.

No arguing with you or debating you or anything, it's just a topic that I've found rather interesting for at least a couple of years now -- particularly the way so many people seem to invest a lot of effort into denying this reality.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's because, deep down, what a lot of people believe would "help this country" is to contain/minimize/eliminate enough of "the people who suck" in order to render them effectively meaningless.

No arguing with you or debating you or anything, it's just a topic that I've found rather interesting for at least a couple of years now -- particularly the way so many people seem to invest a lot of effort into denying this reality.

That may be true and it's like saying "Uh, I have no idea what I'd really like to get accomplished but you suck and I want to beat you. We'll worry about the pesky details later. The only reason I'm running is because you are bad. I had no real desire to lead the country, I'm just tired of you."

I want to know why your opposition sucks other than malarky from 30 years ago, funny pictures or misspeaks. Also what I am going to better other than avoiding talking about 30 years ago, avoiding funny pictures and avoiding misspeaking.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's because, deep down, what a lot of people believe would "help this country" is to contain/minimize/eliminate enough of "the people who suck" in order to render them effectively meaningless.

No arguing with you or debating you or anything, it's just a topic that I've found rather interesting for at least a couple of years now -- particularly the way so many people seem to invest a lot of effort into denying this reality.

Exactly- I think your first line is the best summary of this. If I believe my best strategy towards success is to convert my opponent, I will try ad nauseam- especially in the abscense of better options.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

That may be true and it's like saying "Uh, I have no idea what I'd really like to get accomplished but you suck and I want to beat you. We'll worry about the pesky details later. The only reason I'm running is because you are bad. I had no real desire to lead the country, I'm just tired of you."

I want to know why your opposition sucks other than malarky from 30 years ago, funny pictures or misspeaks. Also what I am going to better other than avoiding talking about 30 years ago, avoiding funny pictures and avoiding misspeaking.

well, its simple really- If I want you to vote for A- I dont particularly care why you do so, as long as you do. If I dont believe his stance on ABC will convince, I need to give you other reasons why not to vote for him - ad hominem attacks so to speak. If the goal is win at all costs, and it seems like it would be effective- why not ?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Aadik

well, its simple really- If I want you to vote for A- I dont particularly care why you do so, as long as you do. If I dont believe his stance on ABC will convince, I need to give you other reasons why not to vote for him - ad hominem attacks so to speak. If the goal is win at all costs, and it seems like it would be effective- why not ?

I guess you have to do it but it's at the point that whatever happens everyone sucks.

[miked]

Damn...we need more smileys! I didn't get the sarcasm. As for the DoD thingy, I guess I misread. Some of them are from the DoD and others are personal "gifts" or something? Anyways...who cares...let's figure out who's going to feed and fund me, they get my vote.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I guess you have to do it but it's at the point that whatever happens everyone sucks.

Im not stating the ideals means - its simply an ends justify the means arguement. If I am certain the country will go to hell if Kerry/Bush/Nader/Barney is elected, do I not have an obligation to do whatever it takes to prevent that happening ?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Im not stating the ideals means - its simply an ends justify the means arguement. If I am certain the country will go to hell if Kerry/Bush/Nader/Barney is elected, do I not have an obligation to do whatever it takes to prevent that happening ?

How can you be certain of anything if there's no discussion of the issues or a refusal of voters to evalutate the issues? The whole thing becomes a meaningless exercise.

[Whar]

I know people think the media is left-wing but how incompetent do you think they are? CBS had these documents for weeks. They submitted them to type-writer experts and hand-writing experts. They passed muster. They have sources, from the time period, that state the documents are geniune. They have Maj Gen Hodges, Killians commanding officer, stating that the documents contain the same information that Killian and verbally communicated to him.

While I believe the documents could be fakes I think it is remote. First lets consider the physical. Modern printers are almost all laser printers. A laser print makes no mark on the page except the ink. A type-writer strikes the page to leave the ink mark. I believe I could tell the difference between a typed page and a laser printed page. I am certain a moderately competent expert could tell you that without caring about the fancy fonts.

Therefore the document had to be made on a printer that would simulate the strike of a type-writer. A Dot Matrix printer I am certain would also leave tell tale signs as well. So now our forger has to be bright enough to buy a fancy electronic type writer to make his forgery, yet stupid enough to leave in all the fancy font settings. (And of course stupid enough not to get an old type writer to make his forgeries on.)

Further the experts CBS used have to be stupid enough not to notice in the weeks they had the documents these inconsistancy which people examining the documents on the internet noticed in about a day.

It just does not seem to reasonable. If CBS reported on forgeries it would be the Mother of All Journalistic Fuckup! They know this and vetted the documents.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

How can you be certain of anything if there's no discussion of the issues or a refusal of voters to evalutate the issues? The whole thing becomes a meaningless exercise.

Playing the advocate again, you're missing the point. The point being is that if I believe with certainty about the potential downside to an action, I should (and will) take steps to prevent them from happening, as long as the potential downside of the steps (the opportunity cost of it, so to speak) are less than the potential downside of the original action. We're not debating if Im right or not to be certain (though I do find the concept that the average newspaper man or tv journalist is going to wow me with his economic insight or logic- sometime discussion is pointless), we're debating my actions as if I am. To some extent, I think Jon is a good example of this- he's certain that the left will be the downside of the US, and given that that is the case, he should take every step he can to prevent it from coming to power, whatever the potential costs (since they are liable to be less than doing nothing)- its a perfectly rational action. Which is why even if I dont agree with him on a few things, I understand his stance completely.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Whar

I know people think the media is left-wing but how incompetent do you think they are? CBS had these documents for weeks. They submitted them to type-writer experts and hand-writing experts. They passed muster. They have sources, from the time period, that state the documents are geniune. They have Maj Gen Hodges, Killians commanding officer, stating that the documents contain the same information that Killian and verbally communicated to him.

While I believe the documents could be fakes I think it is remote. First lets consider the physical. Modern printers are almost all laser printers. A laser print makes no mark on the page except the ink. A type-writer strikes the page to leave the ink mark. I believe I could tell the difference between a typed page and a laser printed page. I am certain a moderately competent expert could tell you that without caring about the fancy fonts.

Therefore the document had to be made on a printer that would simulate the strike of a type-writer. A Dot Matrix printer I am certain would also leave tell tale signs as well. So now our forger has to be bright enough to buy a fancy electronic type writer to make his forgery, yet stupid enough to leave in all the fancy font settings. (And of course stupid enough not to get an old type writer to make his forgeries on.)

Further the experts CBS used have to be stupid enough not to notice in the weeks they had the documents these inconsistancy which people examining the documents on the internet noticed in about a day.

It just does not seem to reasonable. If CBS reported on forgeries it would be the Mother of All Journalistic Fuckup! They know this and vetted the documents.

It doesn't matter now. It's "out there". The voters will soon have it drilled into their heads that Kerry got desperate, made some stuff up about whether Bush reported for duty and then got it back in spades.

It's all about who spins better, and GWB has the best spinners in the world on his side.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

...

It's all about who spins better, and GWB has the best spinners in the world on his side.

Well these "spinners" work for the Washington Post, and I didn't realize they had the President's back.

Oh and AFAIK all the Bush camp has said about this, is that the President served honorably in the Guard, and that he is proud of his service. Not a lot of spin there. The Whitehouse isn't going to declare these papers as frauds, they will wait and let an independant source do that. This is not the kind of thing they want to be wrong about.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I want to know why your opposition sucks other than malarky from 30 years ago, funny pictures or misspeaks. Also what I am going to better other than avoiding talking about 30 years ago, avoiding funny pictures and avoiding misspeaking.

I agree with you but I also disagree with you. More people will get swayed by this stupid crap they keep pulling than by political arguments. You gain more votes going after the other guy on personality than on issues. If you attack a guy's character, you are siphoning votes directly from him whereas if you take a stance on a major issue, you could gain some votes from him but you also risk alienating your people.

I'll echo that this is becoming more and more like a giant popularity contest in high school for class president. Then again, this is a country where Survivor and reality tv get good ratings that dwarf CSPAN, PBS, and cable news outlets.

And, I think it will get better once the election is over, at least for a little while, because people's opinions are much more important during the election cycle than during the rest of the time when political capital is much more important.

SI

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well these "spinners" work for the Washington Post, and I didn't realize they had the President's back.

Oh and AFAIK all the Bush camp has said about this, is that the President served honorably in the Guard, and that he is proud of his service. Not a lot of spin there. The Whitehouse isn't going to declare these papers as frauds, they will wait and let an independant source do that. This is not the kind of thing they want to be wrong about.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I agree with you but I also disagree with you. More people will get swayed by this stupid crap they keep pulling than by political arguments. You gain more votes going after the other guy on personality than on issues. If you attack a guy's character, you are siphoning votes directly from him whereas if you take a stance on a major issue, you could gain some votes from him but you also risk alienating your people.

I'll echo that this is becoming more and more like a giant popularity contest in high school for class president. Then again, this is a country where Survivor and reality tv get good ratings that dwarf CSPAN, PBS, and cable news outlets.

And, I think it will get better once the election is over, at least for a little while, because people's opinions are much more important during the election cycle than during the rest of the time when political capital is much more important.

SI

I know why they do it.

I'll echo that this is becoming more and more like a giant popularity contest in high school for class president.

That probably sums up quite well my feelings on the topic.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Whar

I know people think the media is left-wing but how incompetent do you think they are?

Was it Nightline or one of the other news shows that fake the pickup truck gas tank explosions by planting explosives to go off during their tests? Didn't a British newspaper recently admit having faked photos of British abuse of prisoners in Iraq? There's two quick examples for you.

Frankly I think most of the media is "incompetent" at reporting good hard news, but very "competent" at entertaining the public and selling advertising space.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

That probably sums up quite well my feelings on the topic.

It's a shame that they don't have to give more respect to the voting public. However, they don't have to because there are far too many stupid people swayed much more by mindless arguments and bickering than by actual issues. If you find me a solution to that problem, I'd love to hear it so we aren't stuck with this crap.

SI

[rkmsuf]

http://www.fakeconstitution.50megs.com/

[randal7]

Originally Posted by Whar

CBS had these documents for weeks. They submitted them to type-writer experts and hand-writing experts. They passed muster. They have sources, from the time period, that state the documents are geniune. They have Maj Gen Hodges, Killians commanding officer, stating that the documents contain the same information that Killian and verbally communicated to him.

While I believe the documents could be fakes I think it is remote. First lets consider the physical. Modern printers are almost all laser printers. A laser print makes no mark on the page except the ink. A type-writer strikes the page to leave the ink mark. I believe I could tell the difference between a typed page and a laser printed page. I am certain a moderately competent expert could tell you that without caring about the fancy fonts.

Therefore the document had to be made on a printer that would simulate the strike of a type-writer. A Dot Matrix printer I am certain would also leave tell tale signs as well. So now our forger has to be bright enough to buy a fancy electronic type writer to make his forgery, yet stupid enough to leave in all the fancy font settings. (And of course stupid enough not to get an old type writer to make his forgeries on.)

Further the experts CBS used have to be stupid enough not to notice in the weeks they had the documents these inconsistancy which people examining the documents on the internet noticed in about a day.

It just does not seem to reasonable. If CBS reported on forgeries it would be the Mother of All Journalistic Fuckup! They know this and vetted the documents.

Re: paragraph 1:
CBS is defending the documents (last I read anyway) by saying people have told them the documents are consistent with what the colonel told them during that time, IE hearsay. Other people, including the colonel's wife and son, say he thought highly of Bush, and did not keep private files or notes such as these documents. And CBS has yet to say how they got the documents, so we don't know they had them for weeks. If they thought it was real, it is highly unlikely they would sit on something that hot for very long. My guess is they trusted the source enough that they didn't check thoroughly, and got burned.

Re: rest of post:
My understanding is these are copies, not originals, so there would be no impressions from the typewriter keys.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Rolled eyes is nice, but no response to the Washington Post reporting that their experts beleive the documents were likely forged?

[GrantDawg]

I love how people ignore the facts they don't like, and then make up others that don't exist. Fun.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I love how people ignore the facts they don't like, and then make up others that don't exist. Fun.

Please do elaborate. I don't know if you are referring to my post, but if you are I'd like to know what I made up.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Please do elaborate. I don't know if you are referring to my post, but if you are I'd like to know what I made up.

No, stop being paraniod. AND LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!!!!!

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

No, stop being paraniod. AND LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!!!!!

Damn! I had never even noticed that camera in my office. Thanks a bunch.