Thanks, America!

wrote in message
oups.com...
You really should check snopes.com before you post.



WOW!! How profound!

*******************************
Sophomoric response.

Kiss my ass.


Nothing "profound" in what I wrote, and not intended to be. Just
trying to point out that the stuff you get by chain emails isn't always
to be swallowed as factual and then passed along as if it is.

Well, you might check your assumptions because I didn't get it through a
chain e-mail. I got it from a magazine several years ago.

So, as above.

You really should check snopes.com before you post.

WOW!! How profound!


******************************=AD*
Sophomoric response.


Kiss my ass.=20

Geeze, Matt . . . how old are you? Fourteen?

wrote in message
oups.com...
You really should check snopes.com before you post.

WOW!! How profound!

Was the gist of the article correct? I got it from a historical journal. It
was originally written in 1994 and placed on the internet in 1999. My file
date says July 1, 1994.

*******************************
Sophomoric response.
Kiss my ass.

Geeze, Matt . . . how old are you? Fourteen?

Well, how about a response like this:

Drucker: No Matt, that document has some flaws; see http://www.snopes.com,
etc.

First, I don't check out documents I've had for years, on snopes...for one
thing, snopes isn't entirely accurate, either (check the same document onf
truthorfiction.com)

Why don't you go find out how much of history is subject to debate.

Maybe some other website can tell you that. Strangley, your fanatical quet
for accuracy has suddenly died along with that inflated ego of yours.

Finally, I'm fifty...so go **** yourself.



Then get your inflated ego out of that tightass of yours.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
First, I don't check out documents I've had for years, on snopes...

Or anywhere else, unfortunately.

for one thing, snopes isn't entirely accurate, either

Snopes has a well-deserved reputation for accuracy, but you're missing two
important points. One is that you need to fact-check *somewhere* that
provides pointers to primary sources, if you care whether what you say is
true. The other is that--because Snopes behaves responsibly--they do not
*ask* you to take their word for what they say--*they* cite sources that you
are encouraged to consult for yourself.

--Gary

your fanatical quet (sic)
for accuracy has suddenly died along with that inflated ego of yours.

Finally, I'm fifty...so go **** yourself.

Then get your inflated ego out of that tightass of yours.

**************************

Fifty years old and you speak like that in a forum of aviators? You
should be ashamed and embarrassed, but you probably aren't. What began
as a polite attempt to correct your erroneous and obviously forwarded
chain email quickly degenerated into an abusive display of your
childishness. You have shown yourself to be a vulgar liar. Don't
bother responding.

PLONK!

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Well, you might check your assumptions because I didn't get it through a
chain e-mail. I got it from a magazine several years ago.

You got it from "a magazine"? Was it called Chain Email Digest?

Seriously though, I'd be interested to know what magazine you rely on that
prints recycled urban legends without bothering to fact-check.

--Gary

Geesh it could have been CBS evening news!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Well, you might check your assumptions because I didn't get it through a
chain e-mail. I got it from a magazine several years ago.

You got it from "a magazine"? Was it called Chain Email Digest?

Seriously though, I'd be interested to know what magazine you rely on that
prints recycled urban legends without bothering to fact-check.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Well, you might check your assumptions because I didn't get it through
a
chain e-mail. I got it from a magazine several years ago.

You got it from "a magazine"? Was it called Chain Email Digest?

No, ****-for-brains. _American History Digest_, first published the
article in 1994.



Seriously though, I'd be interested to know what magazine you rely on
that
prints recycled urban legends without bothering to fact-check.

Maybe ones that checks their facts about "joy riding"; they don't then start
tap dancing when found to be completely wrong.

Scumbag!

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Well, you might check your assumptions because I didn't get it
through a chain e-mail. I got it from a magazine several years ago.

You got it from "a magazine"? Was it called Chain Email Digest?

_American History Digest_, first published the article in 1994.

Is that the source of many of your ideas? Does it not cross your mind to
draw the obvious conclusion about their reliability?

By the way, the Library of Congress has no record of any publication of that
title (http://catalog.loc.gov). Any idea why?

--Gary