Thanks, America!

wrote in message
oups.com...
You really should check snopes.com before you post.

WOW!! How profound!

Was the gist of the article correct? I got it from a historical journal. It
was originally written in 1994 and placed on the internet in 1999. My file
date says July 1, 1994.

*******************************
Sophomoric response.
Kiss my ass.

Geeze, Matt . . . how old are you? Fourteen?

Well, how about a response like this:

Drucker: No Matt, that document has some flaws; see http://www.snopes.com,
etc.

First, I don't check out documents I've had for years, on snopes...for one
thing, snopes isn't entirely accurate, either (check the same document onf
truthorfiction.com)

Why don't you go find out how much of history is subject to debate.

Maybe some other website can tell you that. Strangley, your fanatical quet
for accuracy has suddenly died along with that inflated ego of yours.

Finally, I'm fifty...so go **** yourself.



Then get your inflated ego out of that tightass of yours.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Well, you might check your assumptions because I didn't get it through
a
chain e-mail. I got it from a magazine several years ago.

You got it from "a magazine"? Was it called Chain Email Digest?

No, ****-for-brains. _American History Digest_, first published the
article in 1994.



Seriously though, I'd be interested to know what magazine you rely on
that
prints recycled urban legends without bothering to fact-check.

Maybe ones that checks their facts about "joy riding"; they don't then start
tap dancing when found to be completely wrong.

Scumbag!

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Well, you might check your assumptions because I didn't get it
through a chain e-mail. I got it from a magazine several years ago.

You got it from "a magazine"? Was it called Chain Email Digest?

_American History Digest_, first published the article in 1994.

Is that the source of many of your ideas? Does it not cross your mind to
draw the obvious conclusion about their reliability?

By the way, the Library of Congress has no record of any publication of that
title (http://catalog.loc.gov). Any idea why?

--Gary

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
First, I don't check out documents I've had for years, on snopes...

Or anywhere else, unfortunately.

for one thing, snopes isn't entirely accurate, either

Snopes has a well-deserved reputation for accuracy, but you're missing two
important points. One is that you need to fact-check *somewhere* that
provides pointers to primary sources, if you care whether what you say is
true. The other is that--because Snopes behaves responsibly--they do not
*ask* you to take their word for what they say--*they* cite sources that you
are encouraged to consult for yourself.

--Gary

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
you're full of ****... Parasite... go play with yourself...
kiss my ass... ****-for-brains... go **** yourself... Scumbag!

Matt, people who've followed this forum for the past several years know that
I rarely indulge in a post whose content is primarily ad hominem.

However.

You have quickly established yourself here as an abusive, blustering
buffoon. With almost comic reliability, anything you say without citing a
source can be presumed false, and can usually be *shown* false with just a
brief effort at fact-checking--as you yourself could easily discover if you
bothered to verify what you say before you go ahead and say it. But you
*don't* bother, because your contempt for the truth is breathtaking--rivaled
only by your contempt for civility. You'll apparently say and believe almost
anything if you think it helps promote your venal, puerile, cultish
ideology.

Nonetheless, I stand ready at any time to engage you in serious, respectful
discussion on any issue we disagree about, should you be interested in such
an exchange. I'm not holding my breath though.

--Gary

I am pleased that you recognize that in some cases, unfettered "free
enterprise" may actually be detrimental to one's quality of life!!! You
are going to be accused of starting to sound like one of those
damn-socialist Canadians! ;-)

Totally unfettered free trade would be a complete failure in those avenues
of life where this horrible thing we call "Government" must preside.

This is why government was invented, of course. Why would you believe that
I should think otherwise?

Of course, I suspect my version of those required avenues would be
substantially different than yours...

;-)

Hope your Holiday celebrations went safely and well.

Thanks!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

But the thing is, there's often much more at stake than the enjoyment of
General Aviation. Just as we need to thwart market forces in order to
promote access to recreational flying and other GA, we also--but much more
urgently--need to thwart market forces in order to promote expanded access
to education, medical care, and other prerequisites to being able to work
hard and enjoy the fruits of one's efforts.

As usual, I suspect this is where we part ways, politically. But, as
always, it's been my pleasure jousting with you!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Hope all of you across America (and overseas) are having a wonderful
Fourth
of July.

It was a workday like every other workday. But this was here.
Hope you enjoyed your holiday.

Really? I figured your trade unions would have found *some* way to get our
Independence Day off by now!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ZOvye.124274$x96.93531@attbi_s72...
As usual, I suspect this is where we part ways, politically. But, as
always, it's been my pleasure jousting with you!

Same here. It's always good to be able to have a respectful debate. Perhaps
someday we can continue the discussion long enough to convert one another.


--Gary

Jay,

I figured your trade unions would have found *some* way to get our
Independence Day off by now!


Ah, trade unions... They aren't what they used to be. We still have 30
workdays of vacation per year, so - no reason to complain...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)