From: Reeza! <howree@cable.navy.mil>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 13:28:39 +0800
To: Anonymous <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Clinton's fake apologies (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <604c1f67fef5147bd9135cda03e0d7da@anonymous>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980923042746.007bf140@205.83.192.13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 01:15 AM 9/23/98 +0900, Anonymous wrote:
>on 20 Sep 1998 at 09:52:24 Reeza! wrote:
>> At 09:21 PM 9/19/98 -0000, Anonymous wrote:
>> >What? To tell a lie is one thing, but ...[etc]
>
>> It was prefaced with "...to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
>> but the truth...".
>> Straighten out your head, you seem to be a few neurons short of a
>> functional synapse.
>> 
>> Reeza!
>
>I understand you think this is persuasive, but I don't understand why.
>
>and then at Sun, 20 Sep 1998 15:26:05 Reeza! wrote:
>> At 03:24 AM 9/20/98 -0000, Anonymous wrote:
>> >
>> >I agree it's bad. I agree it undermines the justice system a little bit.
>> >But, ... impeachment?
>> >
>> 
>> I could care less if he had an affair, personally. But he had an affair
>> with a subordinate in his direct employ.
>[more]
>
>> I congratulate you for your defense of a person who demonstrably has broken
>> his marriage vows, his oath of public office, and purjured himself while
>> under an additional oath in a court of law.
>
>You do remember from 6 hours earlier that we're talking about lieing?  
>Your raising other issues is irrelevant. You're building up the bogey man.
>[Jim Choate recently described this method as a "Strawman".] 
>I suggested there are things Bill's done that are worse. Are you sure you're
>disagreeing?
>
>Do you have anything worthwhile to bring to the discussion?
>
>> You, too, are a few neurons short of a functional synapse.
>> 
>> I suggest you discuss it with the maker. The best way is large caliber
>> bullet at sufficient velocity to penetrate and exit the cranial cavity.
>> 
>> God speed, you fucking idiot.
>> 
>
>I guess not.
>
>> Reeza!
>
>-- an anonymous aol32 user.
>


Well, it seems I have an admirer. A follower, anyway. Quoting things I said
from two separate posts.
Persuasive, no. Revealing, yes.
I believe the other issues are relevant. When a person micro-focuses on one
instance of one issue, it is easily dismissable. That oversight, that
disregard of clear evidence of malfeasance in many, and every area should
not be ignored just because you think the issue should be simply (and only)
one particular instance of, shall we say, hormone driven behaviour, to put
it mildly.
I'm not building up the bogey man, I'm discussing what I see. What I see,
on every major and minor newstation, is a disgrace. A documented, public
record disgrace.

anonymouse, 32 bit aohell to boot. you must feel very safe. Yours is hardly
the type of post that might necessitate the use of a remailer, so it should
be safe to assume you haven't the courage to stand behind your words, even
as mild as they are.

Fuck you too. I suggest you discuss your lack of a spine with the maker.
See the above for instructions to meet the maker.

Reeza!

"...The world was on fire, but no one could save me but you...
	Strange what desire will make foolish people do...
		(and the background vocalists sang)
			This world is only gonna break your heart...."

					==C.I.==