g - thnx for the feedback - always appreciated.

i know that i undermine my credibility when i rant about something so stupid - even with the "the following is one of those very speculative" disclaimer. i try not to indulge in this sort of thing too much - next time theres a 'mistake' which is pro-kerry i'll point that out too :-)

i will take the opportunity to say/repeat that in a world where 2000 pages of the taguba report went missing 'inadvertently', all inadvertent mistakes are worthy of a 2nd glance. and im pretty comfortable that of all the inadvertent mistakes i see, they nearly all fall the same way - i can guarantee that fauxnews has made an artform of it.

speaking of feedback - i sent an email asking for feedback a few weeks ago (email subject 'opt-in' i think) and g/mlh/pam all sent responses but then my folx turned up and my process got all screwy and i naughtily didnt get around to implementing any changes, and now my computer is packed away - can the 3 of u fwd me your responses again please? (my folx are still here for a few weeks so im still not in full swing)

im also sans cabletv - so im missing the fauxnews ugly mirror and the constant drone of mediamsgs so i prolly wont be as switched in to the brainwash dujour.

maybe thats how 43 got a c @ yale - by having clear handwriting... id love to hear him pronounce 'illegible'

weirdoluke

On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:11:19 -0400, wrote:

>
> Re more opt-in feedback...I'd agree that this would be
> on the more
> speculative side...a funny typo (and good question),
> but nothing more (I
> can't even begin to imagine what the neocon line on
> that one would be,
> "Let's try to subconsciously imply that Bush has good
> handwriting, ergo
> honest, ergo re-elect!")
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 5:26 AM
> To:
> Subject: skewer
>
>
> brd - i normally try to give some sense of how
> speculative my ideas are - in some examples im talking
> about fact, and other times i get totally speculative.
> the following is one of those very speculative
> occasions where i rant about stuff that looks
> 'accidental' and is prolly meaningless, but it happens
> so often, and if the hypothesis is correct, it points
> to something really sinister... but its one of those
> things where each specific example doesnt point to
> anything but, in aggregate, the body of evidence seems
> to start to pointing in the same direction as all the
> other stuff that i comment on...
>
> this reuters article
> (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5279943) was
> distributed everywhere and is
> titled "Bush Says He Was Cure for Illegible
> Prescriptions" - presumably thats a mistake cos it
> doesnt make sense as it is, and presumably they meant
> to say "Bush Says He *Has* Cure for Illegible
> Prescriptions" and it can prolly be excused as a typo
> (ie plausibly deniable) - but theres a big difference
> between having a cure, and being the cure. in fact, in
> the transcript
> (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040527-5.html) he
> doesnt even mention the word 'cure'
>
> if bush is the cure, wtf is the problem?
>
> sir rantalot
>
> _______________________________________________
> the king is alive. short live the king.
> wotisitgood4.blogspot.com