alan@bloomfieldpress.com wrote:
> Newscasters and reporters are falling all over themselves trying to
> out-praise the now deceased Peter Jennings. I suppose it's only
> natural, but it hides something important.
You're entitled to your opinion. However, I think you're exceedingly
foolish if you believe any particular slant in ABC's coverage is the
fault of Jennings or any other reporter. Your posthumous attack seems
rather sleazy to me -- you should direct your ire at the people
actually responsible for making decisions about coverage.
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
n
Path: telecom-digest.org!ptownson
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 06:09:51 -0700
From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Don't Forget Peter Jennings'... Flaw
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com
Message-ID: <telecom24.362.12@telecom-digest.org>
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Sender: editor@telecom-digest.org
X-URL: http://telecom-digest.org/
X-Submissions-To: editor@telecom-digest.org
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 24, Issue 362, Message 12 of 12
Lines: 38
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:41:13 -0400, alan@bloomfieldpress.com wrote:
> Newscasters and reporters are falling all over themselves trying to
> out-praise the now deceased Peter Jennings. I suppose it's only
> natural, but it hides something important.
> Jennings was one of the prime actors in the greatest news suppression
> and anti-rights campaigns ever waged. Yes, it's the anti-gun-rights,
> unabated to this day.
Once again, Pat uses his "good" judgment to permit this article which
doesn't have a damned thing to do with telecom to allow this lug nut
to spew his crap. I guess Telecom Digest and CDT have really gone
into the toilet.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This Digest does not exist to serve as
a mouthpiece for CDT or for that matter, _any of Usenet_. Usenet is
so nineteen-sixtyish it is not funny. It might have been a cute and
quaint thing back in the 1980's or even the 1990's, but this is 2005
for god's sake. Only a ... well ... Usenetter would pay any attention
to the load of crap coming out of that network most of the time.
And although you (obviously!) do not believe in the Second Amendment
to the US Constitution it _is_ one of our rights (not privileges) as
citizens here. I dunno why the legislature simply does not retract
the Second Amendment or amend it to make it read the way some of you
think it should read. Yes, that would be a chore to do and should not
be taken lightly, but we have what -- twenty four or twenty five
amendments to the constitution and one that was even repealed
totally (Prohibition) so the Second _can_ be amended or repealed if
that is the wishes of the people through their legislators. Make it
read the way _you_ think it should read, if not outright abolish it.
It has been watered down and diddled with so substantially now it
might was well not exist anyway. I know John Ashcroft and Senor
Gonzales and Mr. Bush wish a few of the amendments were not present
or could be easily eliminated. Why not number two as well? PAT]
Steve Sobol (sjsobol@JustThe.net)