R.I.P. Rathergate

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:16:51 -0700, BC wrote:

Sorry, but the logic seems pretty basic

It is. You're missing it completely. Save the blather until you've
found a trail of posession, or an original that the CBS docs came from.

Aside from that - and I mean *anything* aside from that, you're spinning
your wheels.

On Mar 19, 11:25 am, KK wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:16:51 -0700, BC wrote:
Sorry, but the logic seems pretty basic

It is. You're missing it completely. Save the blather until you've
found a trail of posession, or an original that the CBS docs came from.

Aside from that - and I mean *anything* aside from that, you're spinning
your wheels.

Please, then explain to the hushed audience how
could anyone forge a memo with information that
was not available anywhere for at least for a couple
of decades, and then only through official and
restricted military channels?

It you can't, then I'm not really the one spinning any
wheels, am I?

Again, the memos could not have been forged,
period. And, again, there is no need for chain of
custody proof, because if they could not have been
forged, then there is no real alternative explanation
aside from them being real.

But feel free to come up with any, and I mean
ANY other possible alternative explanation that
doesn't involve time travel.

-BC

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:37:18 -0700, BC wrote:

It is. You're missing it completely. Save the blather until you've
found a trail of posession, or an original that the CBS docs came from.

Aside from that - and I mean *anything* aside from that, you're spinning
your wheels.

Please, then explain to the hushed audience

No. I've told you what would be acceptable evidence to any rational,
non-frothing person. Short of that, save your time.

On Mar 19, 11:40 am, KK wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:37:18 -0700, BC wrote:
It is. You're missing it completely. Save the blather until you've
found a trail of posession, or an original that the CBS docs came from.

Aside from that - and I mean *anything* aside from that, you're spinning
your wheels.

Please, then explain to the hushed audience

No. I've told you what would be acceptable evidence to any rational,
non-frothing person. Short of that, save your time.

You have nothing, then, just as I kinda, sorta
suspected. I suggest you Google "disjunctive
syllogism" to see how dumb and illogical your
assertion is, especially to a genuinely rational,
person who only occasionally froths at best.

Again, if the memos could not have been forged
as claimed, what is the only alternative explanation
for them? Or is there more than one alternative
explanation that you or anyone else can think
of? Again, time traveling is not allowed.

-BC

On 19 Mar 2007 10:02:33 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

On Mar 19, 11:40 am, KK wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:37:18 -0700, BC wrote:
It is. You're missing it completely. Save the blather until you've
found a trail of posession, or an original that the CBS docs came from.

Aside from that - and I mean *anything* aside from that, you're spinning
your wheels.

Please, then explain to the hushed audience

No. I've told you what would be acceptable evidence to any rational,
non-frothing person. Short of that, save your time.

You have nothing, then, just as I kinda, sorta
suspected. I suggest you Google "disjunctive
syllogism" to see how dumb and illogical your
assertion is, especially to a genuinely rational,
person who only occasionally froths at best.

Again, if the memos could not have been forged
as claimed, what is the only alternative explanation
for them?

We don't buy the claim (though, again, they weren't "forged"--they
were faked).

Or is there more than one alternative
explanation that you or anyone else can think
of? Again, time traveling is not allowed.

Burkett didn't have to "time travel" in order to gather information
from 1972. He'd already been there.

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:02:33 -0700, BC wrote:

No. I've told you what would be acceptable evidence to any rational,
non-frothing person. Short of that, save your time.

You have nothing, then, just as I kinda, sorta
suspected.

Right. Asking for legitimate authentication of a document that's been
denied as genuine by the people who publicized it, who received it
(allegedly at best) from a semi-unstable person with a political axe to
grind, is an unreasonable hurdle.



I suggest you Google "disjunctive
syllogism"



I suggest you take a remedial course in logic.



to see how dumb and illogical your
assertion is, especially to a genuinely rational,
person who only occasionally froths at best.

Sure. Keep putting more wasted effort into a dead cause. That's not
froth-like at all.

On 19 Mar 2007 10:02:33 -0700, "BC" puked:

Again, if the memos could not have been forged
as claimed, what is the only alternative explanation
for them?

A democrat typed it up on their PC. It's just a lie and slander.
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

: h (Rand Simberg)
: Burkett didn't have to "time travel" in order to gather information
: from 1972. He'd already been there.

Yeah, that one is particularly brilliant. "I have information now that
wasn't generally available then, which the memos also contain, therefore
the memos couldn't have been created now as alleged, because of the
information that wasn't available then".

Again, as the beer commercials say, "Brilliant!".


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

On Mar 19, 12:12 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On 19 Mar 2007 10:02:33 -0700, in a place far, far away, "BC"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:



On Mar 19, 11:40 am, KK wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:37:18 -0700, BC wrote:
It is. You're missing it completely. Save the blather until you've
found a trail of posession, or an original that the CBS docs came from.

Aside from that - and I mean *anything* aside from that, you're spinning
your wheels.

Please, then explain to the hushed audience

No. I've told you what would be acceptable evidence to any rational,
non-frothing person. Short of that, save your time.

You have nothing, then, just as I kinda, sorta
suspected. I suggest you Google "disjunctive
syllogism" to see how dumb and illogical your
assertion is, especially to a genuinely rational,
person who only occasionally froths at best.

Again, if the memos could not have been forged
as claimed, what is the only alternative explanation
for them?

We don't buy the claim (though, again, they weren't "forged"--they
were faked).

Or is there more than one alternative
explanation that you or anyone else can think
of? Again, time traveling is not allowed.

Burkett didn't have to "time travel" in order to gather information
from 1972. He'd already been there.

Umm, Burkett had nothing to do with Bush or Ellington
in 1972 as best as can be determined.

His first and only tenuous first contact with Bush
Jr. related didn't come until much, MUCH later in
1998 (by the way, they had Windows and laser
printers even way back in 1998, in case you were
wondering)

From this Washington Post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep17.html

"He worked at the Austin headquarters of the Texas
Guard before his retirement in 1998, has said he
saw some of the younger Bush's records in a trash
can when Bush was preparing to run for reelection
as governor of Texas. Guard officials have called
his assertion fictitious."

So let's assume the worse - Burkett somehow
managed to get his hands on those supposedly
trashed records and that a copy of the flight
records were in them (although, supposedly by
even by that time, they were already "lost"), and
then analyzed the heck out of them to forge the
Feb 2nd, 1972 memo.

Well, in order for that to have happened, then he
would have to have been 100% right in his
assertion that Bush's more embarrassing
military records were systematically purged,
making those Guard officials liars and providing
very strong indirect evidence that Bush indeed
blew off his TANG service at the very least and
got away with it, just as has been charged with
or without the Killian memos.

Also, even 1998, the word processing systems
would have the same odd issues with
superscripting and what not as the ones in 2004.

So you would still have Bush guilty as charged
and described in the memos.

Give it up -- this is a no win situation for you. I
did the homework very thoroughly,

-BC

On Mar 19, 12:12 pm, KK wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:02:33 -0700, BC wrote:
No. I've told you what would be acceptable evidence to any rational,
non-frothing person. Short of that, save your time.

You have nothing, then, just as I kinda, sorta
suspected.

Right. Asking for legitimate authentication of a document that's been
denied as genuine by the people who publicized it, who received it
(allegedly at best) from a semi-unstable person with a political axe to
grind, is an unreasonable hurdle.

We don't care about Burkett -- all we care about
is the documents, their characteristics and the
dated contents contained in them. Everything
else is opinion.

Also, would a "semi-unstable" been able to have
forged so brilliantly, even if he could time travel?

-BC