authfriend wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozg...@...> wrote: > >> authfriend wrote: >> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> authfriend wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> authfriend wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Not that this isn't all horrendously dire, but it really >>>>>>> doesn't help to exaggerate it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Or maybe it does. I've said before it's a tug-a-war and >>>>>> sometimes you have to exaggerate to win or just pull >>>>>> things back into reason. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> It's *way more* than bad enough to do that just by >>>>> reporting it accurately. That's my point. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> It's not necessarily about exaggeration either. In this >>>> case even I heard that by a number of credible sources the >>>> rig fell on the well. How do you know that what you read >>>> was *not* propaganda from BP or the oil bastards >>>> >>> You mean, the article titled "Mother of all gushers >>> could kill Earths oceans" could be propaganda from BP >>> or the oil bastards? >>> >> No, these were calls from folks who work in that industry >> and know what is going on. Sometimes you have to fight >> fire with fire. >> > > Man, sometimes you can be dense! >
You're the one who is about 45 degrees of course from what I'm saying. But that's okay people often tell me I talk over people's heads. ;-) >> >> You mean like the twin towers should have fallen over >> rather than on their footprint? >> > > They sank in the ocean? Good example right here. You're supposed to be an editor but missed that "like" was the active word in my sentence. Of course I was also ribbing you.
