| |
Main
Date: 15 Oct 2007 20:42:45
From:
Subject: Nobel Prize
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html
--
Jobst Brandt
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 20:17:51
From: Jym Dyer
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
> Bill "a weak later" S.
=x= I approve of truth in typos.
<_Jym_ >
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 22:54:43
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
Jym Dyer wrote:
>> Bill "a weak later" S.
>
> =x= I approve of truth in typos.
> <_Jym_>
Psst. It wasn't a typo. (Which was obvious before you removed all
context.)
Bill "nice posting format, BTW" S.
PS: And nice trick with the "Reply To:" field, too.
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 15:35:51
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
Who knows more about climate change -- a board-certified meteorologist and
the founder of The Weather Channel, or Divinity School Drop-out AlGore? LOL
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/
Read it...I dare you.
Bill "staying /on topic/" S.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 15:09:08
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
REALLY good one! LOL
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 00:34:32
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/HOT%20AND%20COLD%20MEDIA%20SPIN%20CYCLE.pdf
|
| |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 22:48:33
From:
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
On Oct 24, 8:35 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> > SMS wrote:
> >> Thanks for posting that.
> > What if it were something with which you DISAGREED? Would you still
> > thank someone for posting off-topic, political (or whatever for that
> > matter) stuff here?
>
> {Blowing Tumbleweed Wave File Goes Here}
>
> Bill "a weak later" S.
l
e
t
i
t
g
o
,
b
i
l
l
|
| |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 08:14:42
From:
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
On Oct 22, 10:37 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> I don't do blogs. Period.
If somebody has either the time or the inclination, would they kindly
draw the distinction between "blogs" and the sites that Sornson /
constantly/ references?
I really see no substantive difference whatsoever.
Thanks.
|
| |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 18:07:24
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
Read more about ol' Al:
http://www.newsmax.com/lowell_ponte/al_gore/2007/10/18/41997.html
(Attack the /facts/ presented, if you can, not their source. Silence?)
|
| | |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 21:30:25
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Read more about ol' Al:
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/lowell_ponte/al_gore/2007/10/18/41997.html
>
> (Attack the /facts/ presented, if you can, not their source. Silence?)
There are no facts presented there. If you believe that "analysis",
then yes, silence is the only response.
--
David L. Johnson
And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you killed
all of us? From every corner of Europe, hundreds, thousands would
rise up to take our places. Even Nazis can't kill that fast.
-- Paul Henreid (Casablanca).
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 20:41:13
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
David L. Johnson wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Read more about ol' Al:
>>
>> http://www.newsmax.com/lowell_ponte/al_gore/2007/10/18/41997.html
>>
>> (Attack the /facts/ presented, if you can, not their source. Silence?)
>
> There are no facts presented there. If you believe that "analysis",
> then yes, silence is the only response.
It's not a FACT that Gore flunked out of divinity school and got
below-average grades elsewhere?
It's not a FACT where his family fortune originated?
You may not agree with the author's argument or conclusions, but the facts
he presents are true AFAIK. Please enlighten me if you know otherwise.
Bill "on topic (in THIS disgraceful thread)" S.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Oct 2007 00:36:23
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> Read more about ol' Al:
>>>
>>> http://www.newsmax.com/lowell_ponte/al_gore/2007/10/18/41997.html
>>>
>>> (Attack the /facts/ presented, if you can, not their source. Silence?)
>> There are no facts presented there. If you believe that "analysis",
>> then yes, silence is the only response.
>
> It's not a FACT that Gore flunked out of divinity school and got
> below-average grades elsewhere?
>
> It's not a FACT where his family fortune originated?
>
> You may not agree with the author's argument or conclusions, but the facts
> he presents are true AFAIK. Please enlighten me if you know otherwise.
The key here is the "AFAIK". Unless you received an official manuscript
from his schools, what you are doing is repeating hearsay. So, where
did you hear this from?
You can poke around on the net and hear all about Gore's terrible
grades. But they don't report all of the story:
"Gore flirted with English at Harvard, dreaming of a life as a novelist,
but decided to make government his concentration. He got off to an
uncertain start in that subject, with a C and C-minus in his first two
courses, before righting himself. In his junior year, he earned a B, a
B-plus and an A-minus in three government courses, and he aced his
senior government thesis on the impact of television on the presidency,
a strong finish that made him a cum laude graduate."
This was from the Washingtonpost.com, which broke the original story.
The right-wing bloggers seem to have always cut that part out.
Graduating cum laude is not exactly "below average".
--
David L. Johnson
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on
no account be allowed to do the job.
-- Douglas Adams
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 22:37:00
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
David L. Johnson wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> David L. Johnson wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> Read more about ol' Al:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.newsmax.com/lowell_ponte/al_gore/2007/10/18/41997.html
>>>>
>>>> (Attack the /facts/ presented, if you can, not their source.
>>>> Silence?)
>>> There are no facts presented there. If you believe that "analysis",
>>> then yes, silence is the only response.
>>
>> It's not a FACT that Gore flunked out of divinity school and got
>> below-average grades elsewhere?
>>
>> It's not a FACT where his family fortune originated?
>>
>> You may not agree with the author's argument or conclusions, but the
>> facts he presents are true AFAIK. Please enlighten me if you know
>> otherwise.
> The key here is the "AFAIK". Unless you received an official
> manuscript from his schools, what you are doing is repeating hearsay.
> So, where did you hear this from?
Are you saying the following is a lie?
"Young Gore earned mostly Cs and Ds at Harvard, flunked out of Vanderbilt
University's Divinity School, and with bottom-scraping grades dropped out of
Vanderbilt's Law School."
And from the very Washington Post article you reference (at least the first
Google hit): "From his lower school years at St. Albans to his incomplete
effort at Vanderbilt law school, Gore was often an underachiever. Though his
IQ numbers and aptitude test scores were well above average, his grades were
uneven, never approaching the plateau of A's and B's that might be expected
of one who possesses such a pedagogical demeanor."
> You can poke around on the net and hear all about Gore's terrible
> grades. But they don't report all of the story:
>
> "Gore flirted with English at Harvard, dreaming of a life as a
> novelist, but decided to make government his concentration. He got
> off to an uncertain start in that subject, with a C and C-minus in
> his first two courses, before righting himself. In his junior year,
> he earned a B, a B-plus and an A-minus in three government courses,
> and he aced his senior government thesis on the impact of television
> on the presidency, a strong finish that made him a cum laude
> graduate."
> This was from the Washingtonpost.com, which broke the original story.
WHAT original story? The article I linked to was an opinion piece comparing
Gore to Nixon. (BTW, the TITLE of that Post article -- at least the first
hit I get on "al gore grades" -- is, "Gore's Grades Belie Image of
Studiousness":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18)
HTH
> The right-wing bloggers seem to have always cut that part out.
> Graduating cum laude is not exactly "below average".
I don't do blogs. Period.
Flunking out of one school and dropping out of at least one other sure
suggest he's not "the smartest guy in the room" as many contend. That he
would be awarded the NOBEL *PEACE* PRIZE for a propaganda hit piece is just
plain pathetic. (Almost as pathetic as Brandt starting a thread about it on
a cycling newsgroup, and no one having the balls to tell him to "CUT IT OUT"
as he often puts it.)
HTH
The following links are simple Google hits for "al gore grades" or "al gore
divinity school":
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/gore.html
http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm
http://www.three-peaks.net/gore.htm
Happy Reading! LOL
BS (out)
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 15:48:41
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/10/17/41855.html?s=al&promo_code=3BA7-1
"Give me a break"...indeed! LOL
|
| | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 23:56:45
From:
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
Bill Sornson writes:
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/10/17/41855.html?s=al&promo_code=3BA7-1
> "Give me a break"...indeed! LOL
Where did I write that? I think you are imagining things or making them up.
Jobst Brandt
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 17:13:27
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
Another good one! LOL
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 09:59:26
From:
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
On Oct 16, 9:50 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> dgk wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:53:13 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me>
> > wrote:
>
> >> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >>>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&oref=sl...
> >>>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html
>
> >> Why did you tell Luigi not to post "off -topic" RIDE REPORTS here,
> >> but persist in posting this stuff? Proof:
>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/browse_frm/thread/47...
> >> (scroll up for full thread).
>
> >> Why don't you label it "(OT)" at the very least?
>
> >> Did you read the REST of Sanchez' remarks the other day? (You know,
> >> where he berated the media for biased, agenda-driven distortions and
> >> outright lies.)
>
> >> When will Sandy Berger (currently advising the Klinton Kampain) take
> >> the LIE DETECTOR TEST that was part of his plea deal for STEALING
> >> AND DESTROYING CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES?
>
> > I'm not sure what Berger had to do with Gore?
>
> Nothing. I just got the impression that suddenly it's Ok to post random
> political stuff here. (After all, no one other than I and Brickson even
> criticized JB for doing it. Is everyone so intimidated by him that they're
> afraid to speak up?)
It's entirely possible that nobody else really cares.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 15:58:30
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
>> > I'm not sure what Berger had to do with Gore?
>>
>> Nothing. I just got the impression that suddenly it's Ok to post random
>> political stuff here. (After all, no one other than I and Brickson even
>> criticized JB for doing it. Is everyone so intimidated by him that
>> they're
>> afraid to speak up?)
>
> It's entirely possible that nobody else really cares.
Yeah, that's me. It's easy to just pass by and not read it. Besides, every
time JB posts something, somebody will jump in and say, "But Clinton
did...." and who needs the arguments 24/7?
>
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 00:17:33
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
Good one! LOL
(And it doesn't even mention his 1970s era Gulfstream, that belches way more
carbon into the air than modern private jets.)
Thanks again, JB!
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 00:12:37
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Easy Money!!!
|
http://www.junkscience.com/
Six months and counting. LOL
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 23:52:18
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html
She deserves a Nobel for spying on her hubby's tarts?!? LOL
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 21:05:02
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Note to J. Brandt (was: Nobel Prize)
|
Have the courtesy to label this stuff "OT" (you know, "Off Topic")
On Oct 15, 3:42 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&oref=sl...http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html
>
> --
> Jobst Brandt
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 14:35:21
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html
>
> --
> Jobst Brandt
Thanks for posting that. Now if only Gore decides to run against the
unelectable Hillary.
Gore may have been right in not running for re-election in 2004, but
now's the time.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 23:50:10
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
SMS aka Steven Scharf wrote:
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html
>>
>> --
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> Thanks for posting that. Now if only Gore decides to run against the
> unelectable Hillary.
>
> Gore may have been right in not running for re-election in 2004, but
> now's the time.
If the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, I am voting for gene daniels
as a write-in candidate.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 22:03:51
From:
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
Steven scharf writes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html
> Thanks for posting that. Now if only Gore decides to run against the
> unelectable Hillary.
> Gore may have been right in not running for re-election in 2004, but
> now's the time.
I disagree. He has the Oscars and Nobel Prise as environmental
baggage that, at present, people seem to hear but don't want to bear
the consequences. They want their oil powered lives unchanged and
their growth oriented economy to keep the Ponzi scheme on track.
Although they may agree with Mr. Gore's assessment of man's effect on
the earth, thy hope it doesn't crash in their lifetime. Voting for
the man is not a reality. The two articles in the above URL say as
much. Its the Wall Street Journal after all. I think Sorni expresses
that sentiment well.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 22:24:27
From:
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
I wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html
>> Thanks for posting that. Now if only Gore decides to run against the
>> unelectable Hillary.
>> Gore may have been right in not running for re-election in 2004, but
>> now's the time.
> I disagree. He has the Oscars and Nobel Prise as environmental
> baggage that, at present, people seem to hear but don't want to bear
> the consequences. They want their oil powered lives unchanged and
> their growth oriented economy to keep the Ponzi scheme on track.
> Although they may agree with Mr. Gore's assessment of man's effect
> on the earth, thy hope it doesn't crash in their lifetime. Voting
> for the man is not a reality. The two articles in the above URL say
> as much. Its the Wall Street Journal after all. I think Sorni
> expresses that sentiment well.
On a recent broadcast, a population expert expanded on that, and while
he didn't say so, it was painfully and abundantly clear that Prof.
Paul Ehrlich was right about the "Population Bomb"... it's just that
his timing was off and he didn't figure that its first effects would
be the planet-changing from carbon emissions. The world is massively
overpopulated for the standard of carbon-fueled living its inhabitants
either seek or aspire to, and they do not want to begin thinking about
giving it up. Like the proverbial oil tanker running full steam
ahead, even if we were to (and we clearly won't) slam on the brakes
now, we're doomed to move in the wrong direction for a long time!
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 23:53:05
From: DaveH
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
>On a recent broadcast, a population expert expanded on that, and while
>he didn't say so, it was painfully and abundantly clear that Prof.
>Paul Ehrlich was right about the "Population Bomb"... it's just that
>his timing was off and he didn't figure that its first effects would
>be the planet-changing from carbon emissions. The world is massively
>overpopulated for the standard of carbon-fueled living its inhabitants
>either seek or aspire to, and they do not want to begin thinking about
>giving it up. Like the proverbial oil tanker running full steam
>ahead, even if we were to (and we clearly won't) slam on the brakes
>now, we're doomed to move in the wrong direction for a long time!
>
>Jobst Brandt
..."Like the proverbial oil tanker running full steam
ahead, even if we were to (and we clearly won't) slam on the brakes
now, we're doomed to move in the wrong direction for a long time!"
Non-sequitur, but...whatever.
---------------
Leftists adore global warming because it is the perfect global
collectivization Trojan horse.
Rightists hate the prospect because of the Trojan Horse nightmare.
There is no mystery.
Of course people don't want to give up their oil-filled lives. What do
you expect? Indigenous peoples don't want Multi-National Gargoyles
leveling the Jungle ("Rain Forest"). Can't say I blame them.
Of course, oil is energy, not Truffle oil or Saffron.
So what do we do? Slam on the brakes, partially engage the brakes,
throttle down a bit? We should have anticipated the problem about 110
years ago. What % of Florida's land mass will be saved by the Kyoto
protocols, for example? Care to make a wild guess?
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 14:41:02
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
SMS wrote:
> Thanks for posting that.
What if it were something with which you DISAGREED? Would you still thank
someone for posting off-topic, political (or whatever for that matter) stuff
here?
Just curious...
BS (detected)
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Oct 2007 20:35:41
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Thanks for posting that.
> What if it were something with which you DISAGREED? Would you still
> thank someone for posting off-topic, political (or whatever for that
> matter) stuff here?
{Blowing Tumbleweed Wave File Goes Here}
Bill "a weak later" S.
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 14:04:04
From:
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
On Oct 15, 1:42 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&oref=sl...http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html
>
> --
> Jobst Brandt
Nice, Jobst.
Hadn't seen that.
Thanks much.
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 14:00:00
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html
Plonk. (Enough is enough.)
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 13:57:52
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/al-gore-wins-nobel-peace-prize-for-slide-show
ANOTHER GOOD ONE! LOL
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 13:54:26
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
Good one! LOL
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 20:55:51
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
>
> Good one! LOL
>
>
You know, an internet article on the "nine errors" he supposedly makes
has the space available to print all nine. So, what happened to the
other 6? How come those weren't part of the article?
--
David L. Johnson
If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a
conclusion.
-- George Bernard Shaw
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2007 08:38:07
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
David L. Johnson wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
>>
>> Good one! LOL
>>
>>
> You know, an internet article on the "nine errors" he supposedly makes
> has the space available to print all nine. So, what happened to the
> other 6? How come those weren't part of the article?
All NINE errors are spelled out here:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22821
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2007 15:13:03
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
>>>
>>> Good one! LOL
>>>
>>>
>> You know, an internet article on the "nine errors" he supposedly makes
>> has the space available to print all nine. So, what happened to the
>> other 6? How come those weren't part of the article?
>
> All NINE errors are spelled out here:
> http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22821
LOL, yeah that's a web site that can be believed--not.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2007 18:13:01
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
SMS wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> David L. Johnson wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
>>>>
>>>> Good one! LOL
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You know, an internet article on the "nine errors" he supposedly
>>> makes has the space available to print all nine. So, what happened
>>> to the other 6? How come those weren't part of the article?
>>
>> All NINE errors are spelled out here:
>> http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22821
>
> LOL, yeah that's a web site that can be believed--not.
The nine lies--- err, "errors" were determined by a (liberal) British judge.
The fact that only a conservative commentator will list them only proves the
mainstream media's bias.
A *LABOR PARTY* judge ruled that British schoolchildren must be told that
the film is dishonest and distorted (before being forced to watch it). Take
it up with him if you don't agree.
Bill "and tell Al to stop flying all over kingdom come in his '70s-era
private carbon emitter" S.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 18:45:25
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
David L. Johnson wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
>>
>> Good one! LOL
>>
>>
> You know, an internet article on the "nine errors" he supposedly makes
> has the space available to print all nine. So, what happened to the
> other 6? How come those weren't part of the article?
Your Google broke or somethin'?
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 13:53:13
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html
Why did you tell Luigi not to post "off -topic" RIDE REPORTS here, but
persist in posting this stuff? Proof:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/browse_frm/thread/4748fbfda93915e/cd347af3ab41c5d7?lnk=gst&q=ride+report#cd347af3ab41c5d7
(scroll up for full thread).
Why don't you label it "(OT)" at the very least?
Did you read the REST of Sanchez' remarks the other day? (You know, where
he berated the media for biased, agenda-driven distortions and outright
lies.)
When will Sandy Berger (currently advising the Klinton Kampain) take the LIE
DETECTOR TEST that was part of his plea deal for STEALING AND DESTROYING
CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 08:13:38
From: dgk
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:53:13 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:
>jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html
>
>
>Why did you tell Luigi not to post "off -topic" RIDE REPORTS here, but
>persist in posting this stuff? Proof:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/browse_frm/thread/4748fbfda93915e/cd347af3ab41c5d7?lnk=gst&q=ride+report#cd347af3ab41c5d7
>(scroll up for full thread).
>
>Why don't you label it "(OT)" at the very least?
>
>Did you read the REST of Sanchez' remarks the other day? (You know, where
>he berated the media for biased, agenda-driven distortions and outright
>lies.)
>
>When will Sandy Berger (currently advising the Klinton Kampain) take the LIE
>DETECTOR TEST that was part of his plea deal for STEALING AND DESTROYING
>CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES?
>
I'm not sure what Berger had to do with Gore?
Friedman is an interesting case though. A cheerleader for the Iraq war
who says that Bush didn't know what to do for the first year. Bush had
a plan all right, to invade Iraq. That was always his plan. Just look
at the Project for a New American Century. Have you done that Bill?
What they needed was a pretext, and 9/11 gave them that.
Cheerleader Friedman was all with them then.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 23:49:08
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
dgk ??? wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:53:13 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
>> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html
>>
>> Why did you tell Luigi not to post "off -topic" RIDE REPORTS here, but
>> persist in posting this stuff? Proof:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/browse_frm/thread/4748fbfda93915e/cd347af3ab41c5d7?lnk=gst&q=ride+report#cd347af3ab41c5d7
>> (scroll up for full thread).
>>
>> Why don't you label it "(OT)" at the very least?
>>
>> Did you read the REST of Sanchez' remarks the other day? (You know, where
>> he berated the media for biased, agenda-driven distortions and outright
>> lies.)
>>
>> When will Sandy Berger (currently advising the Klinton Kampain) take the LIE
>> DETECTOR TEST that was part of his plea deal for STEALING AND DESTROYING
>> CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES?
>>
>
> I'm not sure what Berger had to do with Gore?
>
> Friedman is an interesting case though. A cheerleader for the Iraq war
> who says that Bush didn't know what to do for the first year. Bush had
> a plan all right, to invade Iraq. That was always his plan. Just look
> at the Project for a New American Century. Have you done that Bill?
>
> What they needed was a pretext, and 9/11 gave them that.
>
> Cheerleader Friedman was all with them then.
"dgk" presumably means "Billionaire Tom Friedman". Ever notice how
Friedman's op-ed opinions favor his class (the already rich who make
money from investments) and not the majority of people who make most of
their money from labor?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 09:50:51
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
|
dgk wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:53:13 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
>> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html
>>
>>
>> Why did you tell Luigi not to post "off -topic" RIDE REPORTS here,
>> but persist in posting this stuff? Proof:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/browse_frm/thread/4748fbfda93915e/cd347af3ab41c5d7?lnk=gst&q=ride+report#cd347af3ab41c5d7
>> (scroll up for full thread).
>>
>> Why don't you label it "(OT)" at the very least?
>>
>> Did you read the REST of Sanchez' remarks the other day? (You know,
>> where he berated the media for biased, agenda-driven distortions and
>> outright lies.)
>>
>> When will Sandy Berger (currently advising the Klinton Kampain) take
>> the LIE DETECTOR TEST that was part of his plea deal for STEALING
>> AND DESTROYING CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES?
>>
>
> I'm not sure what Berger had to do with Gore?
Nothing. I just got the impression that suddenly it's Ok to post random
political stuff here. (After all, no one other than I and Brickson even
criticized JB for doing it. Is everyone so intimidated by him that they're
afraid to speak up?)
|
|
