Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>"Ok, then," what? You have just been ridiculed, and >for good reason. You can't see the forest for the T's. >Just another Trib kiddie copy desk hack, hung up on >just about anything but substance. Style over >substance is the standard at the Trib. Problem is, >there isn't even any real style. The Trib, all >imaginary, nothing is real. Leary, -We are dealing >with the best-educated generation in history. But >they've got a brain dressed up with nowhere to go. > >>OK, then. >> >>>I stand by my message but if you choose a little >>>diversion, here goes. Just remember, you started >>this. >>> >>>"I don't really understand how it is that people" >>>-clean, clear, concise -Much better to write, "I >don't >>>understand." "Really" is totally unnecessary. >>> >>>"How it is?" This phrase adds nothing to the sentence >>>so it is also unnecessary! >>> >>>"I don't really understand how it is that people want >>>to have serious conversations on this forum." Try >this >>>for clarity, "I don't understand that people want to >>>have serious conversations on this forum." >>> >>>"On this forum, and riddle" "And riddle?" Did you >mean >>>their comments are riddled with errors. "And riddle >>>their comments with," implies that the errors were >>>intentional. They weren't. In haste, I goofed. >>> >>>"With errors -- and then" What is with the "errors -- >>>and?" >>>How about a simple comma after errors? >>> >>>"You do realize that part of a journalist's job is to >>>be able to construct a sentence, don't you?" >Basically >>>this asks two questions when only one question would >>>do. Either, "You do realize that part of a >>>journalist's job is to be able to construct a >>>sentence," or Don't you realize that part of a >>>journalist's job is to be able to construct a >>>sentence?" >>> >>>"I'm sorry, but." This begs the question, "why would >>>you be sorry?" >>> >>>"But I happen to judge intelligence." Let me get this >>>straight, you "happen" to judge intelligence, or do >>>you mean you judge intelligence? You "happen" to use >a >>>lot of unnecessary words in your writing. >>> >>>"So you can call me." And, so, or, perhaps you may >>>choose to start a sentence with those words although >>>there should be a good compelling reason to do so. >The >>>key, if you must, should be to do so very >>>infrequently. >>> >>>"You can't even write." Why not, "you can't write?" >>>(clean, clear, concise!) >>> >>>"And, as far as your "fodder", you basically >>>cut-and-copied an old post, and bring nothing new to >>>the discussion." What-old-post-did-I-cut-and-copy? >Was >>>this forum around 10 years ago? >>> >>>"P.S.: God, I hope you misspelled "faltering" on >>>purpose. Or that you're posting from England." 1 -I >am >>>not God. 2 -Why would you hope that I misspelled a >>>word? 3 -"Or that you're posting from England." Does >>>this grouping of words even remotely resemble a >>>sentence? >>> >>>I have to hand it to you, you must be a great writer >>>because as Isaac Asimov said, "A good writer can >break >>>any rule." >>> >>>>I don't really understand how it is that people want >>>>to have serious conversations on this forum, and >>>>riddle their comments with errors -- and then expect >>>>to be taken seriously. You do realize that part of a >>>>journalist's job is to be able to construct a >>>>sentence, don't you? I'm sorry, but I happen to >judge >>>>intelligence based on someone's ability to spell. So >>>>you can call me whatever you want. Your opinion >isn't >>>>really breaking my heart right now. You can't even >>>>write. >>>>And, as far as your "fodder", you basically >>>>cut-and-copied an old post, and bring nothing new to >>>>the discussion. If you think there's something going >>>>on, well, then. Assuming you work at a newspaper, >why >>>>don't you just do a story about it, whatever you >>>>determine "it" is. >>>>P.S.: God, I hope you misspelled "faltering" on >>>>purpose. Or that you're posting from England. >>>> >>>>>Yeah, I also wrote "10 years since the >anniversary." >>>>>Sorry I don't have my own Trib Kiddie to proofread >>>for >>>>>me. >>>>> >>>>>But I can handle your takedown. What bothers me is >>>>>that I gave you all that fodder and your retort is >>>>>concerned with a stupid misspelling. >>>>> >>>>>No wonder papers are faultering -too many reporters >>>>>like you waiting in the wings to hang your comrades >>>>>for goofy infractions instead of doing something of >>>>>substance. >>>>> >>>>>It's been 10 years since Kangas died. Duggan's and >>>his >>>>>suspicious deaths have all but been forgotten. >>Scaife >>>>>is still at the helm of the biggest propaganda >>>machine >>>>>in history. And you, Mr. Reporter, are making >>>pathetic >>>>>grammar school jokes about a stupid mistake. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Ah, if only someone was more diligent about his >>>>>>spelling. Homocide? Are you trying to accuse >Scaife >>>>of >>>>>>something you'd like to share with the class? >>>>>> >>>>>>>It's been 10 years since the anniversary of Steve >>>>>>>Kangas's death, perhaps suicide, perhaps >homocide. >>>>>>>Kangas ran a liberal website, critical of >>>>>>>conservatives, including Dick Scaife. Interesting >>>>man >>>>>>>and story. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Just throwing this out there since I don't recall >>>>>many >>>>>>>follow ups except for a post on this site from >>>2005: >>>>>>><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >>>>>>>href="http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/200 >5 >>/ >>>1 >>>>1 >>>>>/ >>>>>>s >>>>>>>teve_kangas_st_1.htm">http://www.seeingtheforest. >c >>o >>>m >>>>/ >>>>>a >>>>>>r >>>>>>>chives/2005/11/steve_kangas_st_1.htm</a> Perhaps >>>an >>>>>>>enterprising soul may be interested in having >>their >>>>>>>paper do a follow up. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Kangas's body was found, sitting slumped on a >>>toilet >>>>>>>with a gunshot wound to the head, on the 39th >>>floor, >>>>>>>60 ft. from the door of the Pittsburgh offices of >>>>>none >>>>>>>other than Dick Scaife. No above ambient gun >>powder >>>>>>>residue was found on his hands. Deputy Police >>Chief >>>>>>>Charles Moffett said the suicide/homocide was >>>"under >>>>>>>investigation in the homicide section," at the >>>time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>"This isn't the first time Scaife has been linked >>>to >>>>>a >>>>>>>strange suicide: in 1973 former mentor and close >>>>>>>friend Pittsburgh District Attorney Robert >Duggan, >>>>>>>under Federal investigation for Mob payoffs, was >>>>>found >>>>>>>shot to death with a shotgun bearing no >>>>>fingerprints." >>>>>>>He "shot himself on his hidden farm property on >>the >>>>>>>day the grand jury returned the indictment for >>>>>>>corruption." "Scaife had cut all ties with >Duggan, >>>>>who >>>>>>>had married Scaife's sister Cordelia shortly >>before >>>>>>>his death." -Chris Potter, Managin Editor, of the >>>>>>>Pittsburgh City Paper, 1999 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Really interesting story by PG's John Craig on >>>>>Sunday, >>>>>>>March 28, 1999 with the sub-head: >>>>>>>Dick Scaife couldn't keep his probe of Kangas a >>>>>secret >>>>>>><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >>>>>>>href="http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/19990328e >d >>c >>>r >>>>a >>>>>i >>>>>>g >>>>>>>4.asp">http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/19990328 >e >>d >>>c >>>>r >>>>>a >>>>>>i >>>>>>>g4.asp</a> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Interesting also is a summary of Scaife's >scandals >>>>on >>>>>>>Kangas's website from -well, from 1999 or prior >to >>>>>>>1999. Interesting that it is still online. >>>>>>>Head lined with -Myth: There’s no "vast right >wing >>>>>>>conspiracy" to get Clinton. >>>>>>>Fact: Richard Mellon Scaife and the Republican >>>>>>>Establishment have poured millions into the >>effort. >>>>>>>(some excepts) >>>>>>>In 1997, Scaife donated $550,000 to Judicial >>Watch, >>>>>>>whose director, Larry Klayman, has filed 18 >>>lawsuits >>>>>>>against the Clinton Administration. (10) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Scaife also assigned one of his newspaper’s >>>>>reporters, >>>>>>>Christopher Ruddy, to a full-time, ongoing >>>>>>>investigation into the deaths of Vince Foster and >>>>Ron >>>>>>>Brown, trying to find evidence that the Clintons >>>>>>>murdered them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Scaife also gave $2.4 million to American >>Spectator >>>>>>>magazine. This money went to create the "Arkansas >>>>>>>Project," a massive investigation trying to dig >up >>>>>>>dirt on Clinton’s past. The Arkansas Project >>gained >>>>>>>notoriety when it was revealed that David Hale, >>the >>>>>>>only Whitewater witness who claimed personal >>>>>knowledge >>>>>>>of Clinton’s wrong-doing, had been paid at least >>>>>>>$5,000 by Parker Dozhier, one of operatives of >the >>>>>>>Arkansas Project. Parker’s girlfriend and her >>>>17-year >>>>>>>old son both claim they saw Parker give >>>Scaife-money >>>>>>>to Hale on numerous occasions. When reporters >>>>>>>confronted Parker, he warned that the 17-year old >>>>son >>>>>>>"was destined to become a chalk outline >>somewhere." >>>>>>>Alarmed by such threats and prospects of witness >>>>>>>tampering, the Justice Department has ordered an >>>>>>>investigation, the results of which are yet to be >>>>>>>revealed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Scaife has also given $450,000 over three years >to >>>>>the >>>>>>>Independent Women’s Forum. (13) This is a >>>>>>>media-booking agency that heavily seeds female >>>>>>>conservative pundits into the media. (This is an >>>>>>>attempt to reduce the "gender gap" that Democrats >>>>>>>enjoy in the polls.) The IWF has given generous >>>>>public >>>>>>>support to Paula Jones in her lawsuit. In fact, >>one >>>>>>>IWF pundit, Ann Coulter, heard at least one of >the >>>>>>>Linda Tripp tapes before it even reached Ken >>Starr. >>>>>>>This proved that she was deeply involved with the >>>>>>>Paula Jones’ camp (who received the tapes first), >>>>>even >>>>>>>though she was pretending to be an objective >>>>>>>commentator on the scandal in the media. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>But perhaps most alarming is Scaife’s ties to >>>>>>>independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Starr’s >>>>>>>conflicts of interest are almost too numerous to >>>>>>>mention. Early on, Starr had been given an >>>>open-ended >>>>>>>job offer as the dean of Pepperdine University’s >>>>>>>Schools of Law and Public Policy. At first, Starr >>>>>>>planned to accept the job after finishing his >>>>>>>investigation. But it turns out this school is a >>>>>heavy >>>>>>>recipient of Scaife money, and the resulting >media >>>>>>>scandal finally convinced Starr to refuse the >job. >>>>>But >>>>>>>the appearance of Scaife attempting to pay off >>>Starr >>>>>>>for getting Clinton lingers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There are many other connections between the two >>>>men. >>>>>>>Between 1988 and 1996, Scaife gave $3 million to >>>the >>>>>>>conservative Washington Legal Foundation, where >>>>Starr >>>>>>>sits on the board. Scaife also gave $920,000 to >>the >>>>>>>Federalist Society, a conservative legal >>>>organization >>>>>>>where Starr is a member. Scaife donated $650,000 >>to >>>>>>>the Landmark Legal Foundation between 1992 and >>>1996; >>>>>>>Starr has done work for this organization, which >>>has >>>>>>>helped Paula Jones in her lawsuit. (15) Starr >also >>>>>>>prepared a legal brief for the Paula Jones >lawsuit >>>>on >>>>>>>behalf of the Independent Women’s Forum, which is >>>>>>>substantially funded by Scaife. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Scaife’s personality profile is similarly >>>>>interesting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Pat Minarcin knows Scaife well, after serving as >>>one >>>>>>>of his magazine editors. "He [Scaife] has the >>>>>>>emotional maturity of a very angry 12-year-old, >>and >>>>>he >>>>>>>has all this money and he can do whatever he >wants >>>>>>>with it," says Minarcin. While the magazine was >>>>>>>operating, "[Scaife] presented a list of people >>who >>>>>he >>>>>>>wanted the magazine to attack, a kind of enemies >>>>>>>list." Minarcin eventually resigned. >>>>>>>(Kiddies -still want to argue that the Trib is >>>>>>>non-biased with no direct control of content by >>>>>>>Scaife?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It’s also well-known that Scaife is obsessed with >>>>>>>proving that Vince Foster’s suicide was actually >a >>>>>>>murder. He goes so far as to call his death "the >>>>>>>Rosetta Stone of the Clinton administration." But >>>>>why? >>>>>>>Scaife’s history is revealing. In the 1960s, he >>>>>>>financially supported Robert Duggan as a >candidate >>>>>for >>>>>>>district attorney. The two men angrily parted >>>>company >>>>>>>after Duggan came under investigation for >>>>corruption. >>>>>>>To make matters worse, Duggan then eloped with >>>>>>>Scaife’s sister, Cordelia. A few months later, >>>>Duggan >>>>>>>was found dead, apparently by suicide. But the >>>>>shotgun >>>>>>>used was found several feet away from Duggan’s >>>body, >>>>>>>and it had no fingerprints. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Another interesting site: >>>>>>><a rel=nofollow target=_blank >>>>>>>href="http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/steve.ht >m >>" >>>> >>>>h >>>>>t >>>>>>t >>>>>>>p://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/steve.htm</a>

Note: This forum is moderated -- new posts are not visible until approved.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.