Alan Baker

In article <>,
"MNMikeW" <> wrote:

> "William Clark" <> wrote in message
> news:wclark2-...
> > In article
> > <alangbaker->,
> > Alan Baker <> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <>,
> >> "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "William Clark" <> wrote in message
> >> > news:wclark2-...
> >> >
> >> > Picture this:
> >>
> >> Mike once again posting someone else's words, but neglecting the
> >> attribution...
> >>
> >> Let me help:
> >>
> >> <http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/...election-at-ri
> >> sk/>
> >>
> >> So after complaining that an actual newspaper wasn't sufficiently
> >> unbiased, what does Mike post in rebuttal to a point: a hard-core
> >> rightwing website blog post.
> >>
> >> Wow.
> >>
> > Yup, I thought so. And he even tried to make it look like I posted it.
>
> I simply cut too much of your blather, no conspiracy, take a breath. Simply
> a little right wing spin on your left wing spin. I'm sure the folks from
> ACORN will be taking up residence on Ohio soon.

What was his spin?

What did he post that wasn't factual?

William A. T. Clark

In article
<alangbaker->,
Alan Baker <> wrote:

> In article <>,
> "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
>
> > "William Clark" <> wrote in message
> > news:wclark2-...
> > > In article
> > > <alangbaker->,
> > > Alan Baker <> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <>,
> > >> "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > "William Clark" <> wrote in message
> > >> > news:wclark2-...
> > >> >
> > >> > Picture this:
> > >>
> > >> Mike once again posting someone else's words, but neglecting the
> > >> attribution...
> > >>
> > >> Let me help:
> > >>
> > >> <http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/...election-at-ri
> > >> sk/>
> > >>
> > >> So after complaining that an actual newspaper wasn't sufficiently
> > >> unbiased, what does Mike post in rebuttal to a point: a hard-core
> > >> rightwing website blog post.
> > >>
> > >> Wow.
> > >>
> > > Yup, I thought so. And he even tried to make it look like I posted it.
> >
> > I simply cut too much of your blather, no conspiracy, take a breath. Simply
> > a little right wing spin on your left wing spin. I'm sure the folks from
> > ACORN will be taking up residence on Ohio soon.
>
> What was his spin?
>
> What did he post that wasn't factual?

Anything that doesn't gibe with the GoP playbook, apparently.

William A. T. Clark

In article
<alangbaker->,
Alan Baker <> wrote:

> In article
> <wclark2->,
> William Clark <> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <alangbaker->,
> > Alan Baker <> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <>,
> > > "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "William Clark" <> wrote in message
> > > > news:wclark2-...
> > > >
> > > > Picture this:
> > >
> > > Mike once again posting someone else's words, but neglecting the
> > > attribution...
> > >
> > > Let me help:
> > >
> > > <http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/...election-at-ri
> > > sk/>
> > >
> > > So after complaining that an actual newspaper wasn't sufficiently
> > > unbiased, what does Mike post in rebuttal to a point: a hard-core
> > > rightwing website blog post.
> > >
> > > Wow.
> > >
> > Yup, I thought so. And he even tried to make it look like I posted it.
>
> No. That he didn't do.
>
> His line:
>
> '"William Clark" <> wrote in message
> news:wclark2-...'
>
> Would be followed by your text preceded by the quoting characters.
>
> If each line of the text that followed had been preceded by "> ", then
> he would have been trying to make it look like you posted it.

Then why was my name on it at all, when he didn't quote a single line of
what I posted? I accept it was probably an error, but, added to the fact
that he carefully avoided any attribution so that he would not be
laughed at for quoting a far right blog, the end result is highly
misleading.

MNMikeW

"William A. T. Clark" <> wrote in message
news:clark-...
> In article
> <alangbaker->,
> Alan Baker <> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <wclark2->,
>> William Clark <> wrote:
>>
>> > In article
>> > <alangbaker->,
>> > Alan Baker <> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <>,
>> > > "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > "William Clark" <> wrote in message
>> > > > news:wclark2-...
>> > > >
>> > > > Picture this:
>> > >
>> > > Mike once again posting someone else's words, but neglecting the
>> > > attribution...
>> > >
>> > > Let me help:
>> > >
>> > > <http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/...election-at-ri
>> > > sk/>
>> > >
>> > > So after complaining that an actual newspaper wasn't sufficiently
>> > > unbiased, what does Mike post in rebuttal to a point: a hard-core
>> > > rightwing website blog post.
>> > >
>> > > Wow.
>> > >
>> > Yup, I thought so. And he even tried to make it look like I posted it.
>>
>> No. That he didn't do.
>>
>> His line:
>>
>> '"William Clark" <> wrote in message
>> news:wclark2-...'
>>
>> Would be followed by your text preceded by the quoting characters.
>>
>> If each line of the text that followed had been preceded by "> ", then
>> he would have been trying to make it look like you posted it.
>
> Then why was my name on it at all, when he didn't quote a single line of
> what I posted? I accept it was probably an error, but, added to the fact
> that he carefully avoided any attribution so that he would not be
> laughed at for quoting a far right blog, the end result is highly
> misleading.

Jesus Christ you two are the most petty nitpicking dorks in this group.

William A. T. Clark

In article <>,
"MNMikeW" <> wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" <> wrote in message
> news:clark-...
> > In article
> > <alangbaker->,
> > Alan Baker <> wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <wclark2->,
> >> William Clark <> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article
> >> > <alangbaker->,
> >> > Alan Baker <> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In article <>,
> >> > > "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > "William Clark" <> wrote in message
> >> > > > news:wclark2-...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Picture this:
> >> > >
> >> > > Mike once again posting someone else's words, but neglecting the
> >> > > attribution...
> >> > >
> >> > > Let me help:
> >> > >
> >> > > <http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/...o-election-at-
> >> > > ri
> >> > > sk/>
> >> > >
> >> > > So after complaining that an actual newspaper wasn't sufficiently
> >> > > unbiased, what does Mike post in rebuttal to a point: a hard-core
> >> > > rightwing website blog post.
> >> > >
> >> > > Wow.
> >> > >
> >> > Yup, I thought so. And he even tried to make it look like I posted it.
> >>
> >> No. That he didn't do.
> >>
> >> His line:
> >>
> >> '"William Clark" <> wrote in message
> >> news:wclark2-...'
> >>
> >> Would be followed by your text preceded by the quoting characters.
> >>
> >> If each line of the text that followed had been preceded by "> ", then
> >> he would have been trying to make it look like you posted it.
> >
> > Then why was my name on it at all, when he didn't quote a single line of
> > what I posted? I accept it was probably an error, but, added to the fact
> > that he carefully avoided any attribution so that he would not be
> > laughed at for quoting a far right blog, the end result is highly
> > misleading.
>
> Jesus Christ you two are the most petty nitpicking dorks in this group.

Oh, oh. Back to one sentence I see. I thought we were past that.

MNMikeW

"William A. T. Clark" <> wrote in message
news:clark-...
> In article <>,
> "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
>
>> "William A. T. Clark" <> wrote in
>> message
>> news:clark-...
>> > In article
>> > <alangbaker->,
>> > Alan Baker <> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article
>> >> <wclark2->,
>> >> William Clark <> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article
>> >> > <alangbaker->,
>> >> > Alan Baker <> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > In article <>,
>> >> > > "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > "William Clark" <> wrote in message
>> >> > > > news:wclark2-...
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Picture this:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Mike once again posting someone else's words, but neglecting the
>> >> > > attribution...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Let me help:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > <http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/...o-election-at-
>> >> > > ri
>> >> > > sk/>
>> >> > >
>> >> > > So after complaining that an actual newspaper wasn't sufficiently
>> >> > > unbiased, what does Mike post in rebuttal to a point: a hard-core
>> >> > > rightwing website blog post.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Wow.
>> >> > >
>> >> > Yup, I thought so. And he even tried to make it look like I posted
>> >> > it.
>> >>
>> >> No. That he didn't do.
>> >>
>> >> His line:
>> >>
>> >> '"William Clark" <> wrote in message
>> >> news:wclark2-...'
>> >>
>> >> Would be followed by your text preceded by the quoting characters.
>> >>
>> >> If each line of the text that followed had been preceded by "> ", then
>> >> he would have been trying to make it look like you posted it.
>> >
>> > Then why was my name on it at all, when he didn't quote a single line
>> > of
>> > what I posted? I accept it was probably an error, but, added to the
>> > fact
>> > that he carefully avoided any attribution so that he would not be
>> > laughed at for quoting a far right blog, the end result is highly
>> > misleading.
>>
>> Jesus Christ you two are the most petty nitpicking dorks in this group.
>
> Oh, oh. Back to one sentence I see. I thought we were past that.

Only takes one to describe you to a tee.

Bobby Knight

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:33:34 -0500, "MNMikeW" <>
wrote:

>
>"William A. T. Clark" <> wrote in message
>news:clark-...
>> In article <>,
>> "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
>>
>>> "William A. T. Clark" <> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:clark-...
>>> > In article
>>> > <alangbaker->,
>>> > Alan Baker <> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In article
>>> >> <wclark2->,
>>> >> William Clark <> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > In article
>>> >> > <alangbaker->,
>>> >> > Alan Baker <> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > In article <>,
>>> >> > > "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > > "William Clark" <> wrote in message
>>> >> > > > news:wclark2-...
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > Picture this:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Mike once again posting someone else's words, but neglecting the
>>> >> > > attribution...
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Let me help:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > <http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/...o-election-at-
>>> >> > > ri
>>> >> > > sk/>
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > So after complaining that an actual newspaper wasn't sufficiently
>>> >> > > unbiased, what does Mike post in rebuttal to a point: a hard-core
>>> >> > > rightwing website blog post.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Wow.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > Yup, I thought so. And he even tried to make it look like I posted
>>> >> > it.
>>> >>
>>> >> No. That he didn't do.
>>> >>
>>> >> His line:
>>> >>
>>> >> '"William Clark" <> wrote in message
>>> >> news:wclark2-...'
>>> >>
>>> >> Would be followed by your text preceded by the quoting characters.
>>> >>
>>> >> If each line of the text that followed had been preceded by "> ", then
>>> >> he would have been trying to make it look like you posted it.
>>> >
>>> > Then why was my name on it at all, when he didn't quote a single line
>>> > of
>>> > what I posted? I accept it was probably an error, but, added to the
>>> > fact
>>> > that he carefully avoided any attribution so that he would not be
>>> > laughed at for quoting a far right blog, the end result is highly
>>> > misleading.
>>>
>>> Jesus Christ you two are the most petty nitpicking dorks in this group.
>>
>> Oh, oh. Back to one sentence I see. I thought we were past that.
>
>Only takes one to describe you to a tee.
>
Neither of you have the ability, or knowledge, of clippage? :-)
bk

MNMikeW

"Bobby Knight" <> wrote in message
news:...
> >>
> Neither of you have the ability, or knowledge, of clippage? :-)
> bk

How do you think we got to this point? I clipped too much and all hell
breaks loose with the Bobsy Twins.

Alan Baker

In article
<clark->,
"William A. T. Clark" <> wrote:

> In article
> <alangbaker->,
> Alan Baker <> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <wclark2->,
> > William Clark <> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <alangbaker->,
> > > Alan Baker <> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <>,
> > > > "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "William Clark" <> wrote in message
> > > > > news:wclark2-...
> > > > >
> > > > > Picture this:
> > > >
> > > > Mike once again posting someone else's words, but neglecting the
> > > > attribution...
> > > >
> > > > Let me help:
> > > >
> > > > <http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/...-election-at-r
> > > > i
> > > > sk/>
> > > >
> > > > So after complaining that an actual newspaper wasn't sufficiently
> > > > unbiased, what does Mike post in rebuttal to a point: a hard-core
> > > > rightwing website blog post.
> > > >
> > > > Wow.
> > > >
> > > Yup, I thought so. And he even tried to make it look like I posted it.
> >
> > No. That he didn't do.
> >
> > His line:
> >
> > '"William Clark" <> wrote in message
> > news:wclark2-...'
> >
> > Would be followed by your text preceded by the quoting characters.
> >
> > If each line of the text that followed had been preceded by "> ", then
> > he would have been trying to make it look like you posted it.
>
> Then why was my name on it at all, when he didn't quote a single line of
> what I posted? I accept it was probably an error, but, added to the fact
> that he carefully avoided any attribution so that he would not be
> laughed at for quoting a far right blog, the end result is highly
> misleading.

I agree it was misleading, I just don't think there was any intent to
mislead people into thinking it was from you.

As to why he clipped all your text, I think that was just an error.

Alan Baker

In article <>,
"MNMikeW" <> wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" <> wrote in message
> news:clark-...
> > In article
> > <alangbaker->,
> > Alan Baker <> wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <wclark2->,
> >> William Clark <> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article
> >> > <alangbaker->,
> >> > Alan Baker <> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In article <>,
> >> > > "MNMikeW" <> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > "William Clark" <> wrote in message
> >> > > > news:wclark2-...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Picture this:
> >> > >
> >> > > Mike once again posting someone else's words, but neglecting the
> >> > > attribution...
> >> > >
> >> > > Let me help:
> >> > >
> >> > > <http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/15/...o-election-at-
> >> > > ri
> >> > > sk/>
> >> > >
> >> > > So after complaining that an actual newspaper wasn't sufficiently
> >> > > unbiased, what does Mike post in rebuttal to a point: a hard-core
> >> > > rightwing website blog post.
> >> > >
> >> > > Wow.
> >> > >
> >> > Yup, I thought so. And he even tried to make it look like I posted it.
> >>
> >> No. That he didn't do.
> >>
> >> His line:
> >>
> >> '"William Clark" <> wrote in message
> >> news:wclark2-...'
> >>
> >> Would be followed by your text preceded by the quoting characters.
> >>
> >> If each line of the text that followed had been preceded by "> ", then
> >> he would have been trying to make it look like you posted it.
> >
> > Then why was my name on it at all, when he didn't quote a single line of
> > what I posted? I accept it was probably an error, but, added to the fact
> > that he carefully avoided any attribution so that he would not be
> > laughed at for quoting a far right blog, the end result is highly
> > misleading.
>
> Jesus Christ you two are the most petty nitpicking dorks in this group.

If you weren't busy trying to take offense, you might see that I was
defending you.