Text 7007, 87 rader
Skriven 2005-01-05 23:12:36 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
   Kommentar till text 6989 av Darryl Perry (1:106/324)
Ärende: Special Treatment
=========================
Darryl Perry -> Gary Braswell wrote:
 DP> On 01-05-05, Gary Braswell said...

 GB>> Darryl Perry -> Ed Hulett wrote:

 DP>>> On 01-04-05, Ed Hulett said...

 EH>>>> Darryl Perry -> Stan Hardegree wrote:

 DP>>>>> On 01-03-05, Stan Hardegree said...

 DP>>>>>>>>> GWB got special treatment to get into the champaign squadron

 SH>>>>>>>> You are a liar.

 DP>>>>>>> Prove that I'm wrong.

 SH>>>>>> Screw you.  You made the claim, YOU substantiate it.

 DP>>>>> I made the claim and I stand by it.  You call me a liar, and if
 DP>>> you c
 DP>>>>> prove that, then screw YOU!

 EH>>>> So, let me get this straight. You made the claim and stand by
 DP> it whi
 EH>>>> refusing to show any proof. At the same time, Stan is required to
 DP>>> prove hi
 EH>>>> assertion that you are a liar?

 DP>>> Stan initially did not ever require that I show proof for my
 DP> claims.
 DP>>> just threw out the 'you are a liar' claim.  It was me who first
 DP> calle
 DP>>> for substatiation on HIS claim.  If he doesn't want to show any
 DP> proof
 GB>> why
 DP>>> should I?

 GB>> Its a rule on the echo, put up or shut up.

 GB>> Since you made a claim that GW got special treatment to get into his
 DP> squad
 GB>> you made the initial claim.

 GB>> They were asking for proof of that claim.

 DP> Stan made no request for proof of a claim.  He just made a personal
attack.
 DP> How inclinde would you be to be accomdating under those condidions.

 GB>> While I personally suspect he did get some special treatment, asked
 DP> or not
 GB>> my knowledge there is no proof of it happening. The offspring of
 DP> powerful
 GB>> often get special treatment, even if they or their parents don't ask
 DP> for i

 GB>> So if you have some proof, post it.

 DP> I did.  See my previous post.  I cite an article that reports that the
 DP> person who actually gave him the preferential treatment admitted doing so.
 DP> It wasn't some 3rd party person who heard it from another source or other
 DP> tripe like that.

I would like to point out that citing something that is 5 years old and has
been debunked by the guy's own children, not to mention every officer in Bush's
chain of command is not much of a source.  Kerry tried to use this same article
as background during the CBS document scandal, and it got blown out of the
water again.


 GB>> As a general rule, people who have been in echo for some time and have
 GB>> established their reputation for not lying and making up claims.

 DP> No, but they can go around making personal attacks I see.  They do all
have
 DP> reputations, that is for certain.


Another FYI.  We never used to be that way.  Back in the day when people
followed the rules as a personal thing rather than because they had to, you
didn't see this sort of stuff.  But, you can't expect a good dog to remain a
good dog if you go out and beat it every afternoon while its chained up.  All
you end up with is a vicious animal looking for the jugular.

--- Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)