[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
......not to preach
>Subject: Re: Fox News coverage
><PRE>I haven't had a chance to watch Fox news and I usually do. I find them
>less one way politically and more in the middle. This upsets me that they
>not being fair to Pete. Could you tell me what was said? Was this O'Rielly
>that made these statements? Thanks...Sandy
Ummm, Fox News is as pro-conservative as it gets.
Associated Press even sanctioned them once due to the person at Fox who is
responsible for "calling" elections being a relative of GW.
Fox "in the middle" ???
>From: Bjorn Ciggaar <email@example.com>
>Subject: What this looks like to me....
>First of all, the proper authorities seem to have done *NOTHING* about it.
>That Fullham detective just told him to go elsewhere with his complaint,
>instead of doing his work and taking ACTION.
While I agree, that Fullham detective was retired at the time.
Question is, why didn't Pete take her advise and contact the two entities
>there was a whole highly financed and politically cool OPERATION going on.
Ummm, it deserves high finance. Politically cool? Not the best way to
describe this, I'd say.
>From: "Neil E. Weissman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: Pete
>No matter how this turns out, Pete is very wrong on so many levels.
Not really. Just one. Never, NEVER, give traceable information to anyone
who is doing anything illegal.
Too bad? A pretty mild reaction.
>Guilty by association is guilt.
Not even by a long shot.
Kevin in VT