[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

......not to preach

>From: Jdtr006@aol.com
>Subject: Re: Fox News coverage
><PRE>I haven't had a chance to watch Fox news and I usually do. I find them
to be 
>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" ???
Not even.

>From: Bjorn Ciggaar <ciggaar@warande.net>
>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
she recommended?

>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.
It's needed.
>From: "Neil E. Weissman" <neilweissman@yahoo.com>
>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.

Too bad?  A pretty mild reaction.

>Guilty by association is guilt.

Not even by a long shot.

Kevin in VT