townhall.com

Jonah Goldberg (back to story)

April 6, 2001

DAN RATHER TRIES TO DODGE THE LIBERAL-BIAS BULLET

How many people need to tell you that you've got bad breath before you take their word for it?

For years, decades even, people have pointed out to Dan Rather that he's a liberal. Or, perhaps more accurately, that he is unfair to conservatives and Republicans. There's even a Web site - www.ratherbiased.com - dedicated solely to chronicling Rather's less-than-partial comments and coverage.

But because Dan is just about the only guy out there who can't smell the stench, he refuses to admit it - even this week, after Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post broke the story that the CBS anchorman had spoken at a Democratic Party fund-raiser in Texas. Rather has called liberal media bias "one of the great political myths." He told the New York Post a few years ago that the charge of liberal bias is bunk and really just a way for conservatives to intimidate reporters, "to force you to report the news the way they want you to report it."

But Rather is too strong and principled for that. "I will wear a sandwich board. I will do whatever is necessary to say I am not going to be cowed by anybody's special political agenda, inside, outside, upside, downside." When conservative critics like Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., criticize Rather's bias, he wears it like a badge of honor. "My job is to be accurate and fair, an honest broker of information. Period," he wrote in his 1991 book "I Remember." "It is a job that automatically puts me down in places Senator Helms dislikes."

In 1992, Rather explained to the Los Angeles Times: "I walk out every day trying to have a big 'I' for independence stamped right in the middle of my forehead. I try to play no favorites, pull no punches."

It's because of the "I" on his forehead that he takes offense at the notion his constant barbed shots at former presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bush were anything but tough journalism. And Rather probably didn't think he was playing favorites in 1993, at a CBS affiliates meeting, when he said to Bill Clinton: "If (co-anchor Connie Chung and I) could be one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham-Clinton have been in the White House - we'd walk away winners. ... Thank you very much, and tell Mrs. Clinton we respect her, and we're pulling for her."

Rather boasted to NBC's Tim Russert in an interview: "You know my job is to be accurate, be fair and, in so far as it's humanly possible, to keep my feelings out of every story. ... I do agree that one test of a reporter is how often he or she is able to keep their emotions out of what they are doing and keep their own biases and agendas out of it."

It's hard to see how this meshes with his on-air tears of joy at the sight of Elian Gonzalez being snatched from Florida in a midnight raid. Go spelunking at the Media Research Center's Web site (www.mrc.org) - or just watch him on television and see for yourself. Rather regularly introduces segments by saying, for example: "Republicans kill the bill to clean up sleazy political fund-raising. The business of dirty campaign money will stay business as usual. ..." Or: "The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor."

You'd think it might occur to Rather that the mere fact that he's had to defend himself on the charge of bias thousands of times over the years would be a sign that the "I" on his forehead could use some polishing. I mean, just as a matter of mathematical averages, if he were truly "playing it straight," then every now and again some liberal group somewhere would complain, too. Survey after survey of journalists and the general public and studies of actual network coverage have shown the same thing: The network news, in general, and Rather, specifically, are either pro-liberal or anti-conservative.

A Freedom Forum survey found that 89 percent of journalists voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. A Lou Harris Poll revealed that 70 percent of self-described liberals think the media tilts to the left.

More to the point, a whole cottage industry is dedicated to exposing the "myth" Dan Rather dismisses. It is similar to the scandal machine that developed around Bill Clinton, which was sustained by the fact that the former president couldn't bring himself to admit the truth. If Rather and colleagues like Bryant Gumbel and Peter Jennings would simply admit the truth, the world wouldn't end, and the critics would lose a lot of ammo.

Rather had an opportunity to do precisely that this week when he apologized for appearing at the Democratic fund-raiser. Instead, he chose to apologize for, in effect, the false impression his visit might have made on the viewing public. He should have simply torn that fraudulent "I" from his forehead - and given the public the real story.

-- Whatever happened (to@Citizen.Kane?), April 06, 2001

Answers

I see you are running away from your old moniker, Ain't Gonna Happen Here. Why? Too many people who just ignored you?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 06, 2001.

Haven't you figured out that Dan Rather is a talking head? He reads the words other people write for him.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 06, 2001.

Tar, that's the second time I've read you post the comment about Rather. NO, he gives his own twist to the news, most reporters do. Most DON'T just read copy. Most edit the copy they receive. And someone as "high up" on the chain as Rather would most certainly add his own editorials (oops I mean editing). Please recall what he said when Harris was validating the votes in Florida. He kept saying, "...the vote, AS SHE SEES IT..." and other off-the-top of his head remarks, not from copy.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 06, 2001.

Ain't Gonna is on a little well-deserved vacation. Friends and family are striving to fill the gap.

-- Might Happen (But WON'T@ha.ha), April 06, 2001.

So what's your point, Maria? Rather shouldn't be a talking head because he's a human being, and as such, has biases? News flash, honeybunch -- ALL human beings have biases. Should no biased human be permitted to be a reporter?

Oh, no! Jonah Goldberg is a biased human being! Surely he's letting his biases show in his biased article about biased Dan Rather! And I must be biased for pointing it out! Oh, NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Grow up, Maria. Every human being has biases. And objectivity in the news was largely abandoned years ago. If you think that bias in the news is unacceptable, or that the bias that is there is unfair, then get into the news system and do something about it yourself. Bitching about bias is a sure way to get labeled a crank.

Oh, wait, I'm too late. You're already wearing your "CRANK" nametag.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 08, 2001.

Houston Chronicle

April 6, 2001, 10:26PM

Rather appalling appearance, response

By CRAGG HINES

What a surprise. Dan Rather was featured guest at a Democratic fund-raiser in Austin. Suspicions confirmed, some of you are saying? Unfortunately, yes.

Before wading into the details of this absolutely stupefying development, let me make one thing clear. On many issues, I think Rather has the correct left-of-center bias. Given his body of work all these years, it's breathtakingly ludicrous for him to deny those biases exist.

And while we're at it, ditto Bryant Gumbel and Katie Couric and a bunch of other network talking-heads. Is there a countervailing conservative force at work at Fox News Channel overseen by Roger Ailes, a Dark Prince of the Right? Yeah, but that's cable. Not that it excuses him, any more than it does Ted Turner, the CNN founder and loud mouth who so frequently gives liberals a bad name.

But back to Rather. On March 21, the CBS Evening News anchor was in his beloved Texas and appeared at a shindig billed as "An Insider View of Politics and Power." (Rather, in case you had any doubt, was the Insider). To share in his cerebral ruminations, attendees ponied up from $150 to $1,000 for the Travis County Democratic Party. About $20,000 was raised, which, ethical considerations aside, doesn't say much for Rather's drawing power.

Rather has said that he appeared at the behest of an old friend, Austin City Council member Will Wynn, whose backyard was scene of the get-together. Another host was the anchor's daughter, environmentalist Robin, who, it turns out, is thinking of running for mayor of Austin. These municipal posts are nonpartisan (if only nominally so), but they are elected positions.

So from the get-go, politics suffused the event, and Rather's antenna, in considering whether to participate, should have been on high-alert. They were not. Rather has said that until arriving he was unaware it was a Democratic fund-raising event. So? What about when he arrived? Would it have been difficult to back out? Yes. Would it have been the correct thing to do? Yes. Did he? No.

After he was found out (by the Washington Post's media writer), Rather became Mr. Apology, rending his garments and calling for more sackcloth and ashes -- except, of course, on air.

"It was a serious mistake," Rather said in a written statement. He promised to guard against "any future word and deed that would even suggest any question about where CBS News and I stand when it comes to ethical journalistic conduct."

If Rather means he's going to be vigilant about not appearing to have certain left-of-center political views, and if the past is any guide, he will be very, very busy.

You don't have to look back very far. Less than a week, actually. Last Monday, after the vote on McCain-Feingold, Rather proclaimed for his audience: "The U.S. Senate says yes to serious campaign finance reform ... "

Says who? Says the orthodox modern pieties of which Rather is such a tireless promoter.

I should be up front. I don't keep a file on Rather. I don't have to. There are plenty of paranoids on the Right who do that, and they have Web sites, and, well, one click leads to another, and there it all is, the legitimate stuff as well as the nit-picking.

(For those who relish Rather's quaint linguistic formations, as opposed to the ideological stuff, do have a look at the Election Night 2000 segment of the www.RatherBiased.com site. Gagging buzzards, sweating fingernails, shaky Jell-O etc.)

Some hard-right media critics contend Rather is only the most blatant example of universal journalistic liberal bias, a broad-brush approach I can't buy. But there is a body of evidence to examine. Is it especially noticeable in broadcast news or is television's footprint just so immense?

It doesn't have to be this way. It's fair to assume that Tim Russert, now the head of NBC News in Washington and host of the network's justly praised Meet the Press, hasn't cast aside the views that made it attractive and logical for him to work for Mario Cuomo and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, two unapologetic New Deal Democrats from New York.

Early on, Russert's involvement in news coverage seemed a glaring confirmation of the right's accusations about the revolving door between political activity and journalism. But Russert, aware of the credibility problem, has become the best interrogator on television, an equal-opportunity scourge to guests from the right, left and center.

CBS News President Andrew Heyward, after saying Rather made "an honest mistake" that he was certain would not happen again, considers the matter closed. Sorry, that's not good enough. What should happen? Something real-world. Perhaps Rather should be suspended for a week without pay. It's the least that would happen to a political reporter on a small-town daily caught in the same serious lapse.

-- Oops! (Here's@nother.one), April 08, 2001.

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Rather comes out

Busted! Dan Rather is.

Not only does it turn out that the managing editor and anchor of ``The CBS Evening News'' is the overtly partisan Democrat we've long held that he is, it turns out he and CBS also are big fans of Clintonian excuse-making.

In a most surprising dispatch, The Washington Post reported Wednesday last that Mr. Rather was the guest speaker at a March 21 Democratic Party fund-raiser in Austin, Texas. Donors paid as much as $1,000 to attend the private event, The Post said. Rather was the draw; he was not compensated.

The event raised $20,000 for the Travis County Democratic Party. Rather's daughter, Robin, was the co-host. She's considering a run for mayor of Austin.

Rather insists he was invited to an old friend's backyard gathering to talk about election coverage. Once he arrived, however, Rather said he became ``very aware that it was a fund-raising event.''

The CBS talking head, who issued a public apology after The Post story broke, said he ``wouldn't be surprised'' if critics use the event to try to bolster their claims of anchorman bias. And there's good reason to do just that.

CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius told The Post that ``obviously our standards don't allow correspondents to participate in political party fund-raisers. No one believes in this and upholds it more fervently than Dan Rather.''

So why didn't he on March 21?

-- Oh (heres@yet.another), April 08, 2001.

BWAHAHAHA, Ain't troll, I wasn't bitching about it; just calling it like it is, something Tar doesn't like to do. I could give a shit what political leaning Rather NOT has. I only watch him to get a laugh.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 09, 2001.

"BWAHAHAHA, Ain't troll, I wasn't bitching about it;"

Sure you were. You were doing nothing if not bitching.

By the way, I'm not a troll. Calling me one might seem to be a good way to shut me up, but Ain't tried it, and it didn't work.

Also, that's a cute use of the patented Dennis Olsen cackle. Are you actually a sock puppet, Maria?

"just calling it like it is,"

People have biases. Jonah Goldberg is a well-known conservative columnist, and has written articles for both Brill's Content and the National Review, both of which I subscribe to. So shouldn't you tell us about Goldberg's political leanings if you're going to skewer Rather for his? I personally don't care what side of the political road reporters come from, because I don't trust anything ANY media outlet reports on its own merits. If I can't find corroboration of something in at least five different news outlets or commentaries, then I don't trust it. Sure, I am a voracious media consumer, but I also like to know what I'm being fed. I don't swallow what Rather or anyone else has to say -- at least not without asking what's in it. If someone does, then they deserve whatever inaccuracies and errors they get.

"something Tar doesn't like to do."

In my experience, Tarzan does a much better job of "calling it like it is" than you do. He also seems to beat you up on a fairly regular basis. In any event, "calling it like it is" would include giving us not only the skinny on Rather, but also the skinny on the person who is writing about Rather. Sauce for the goose, you understand.

"I could give a shit what political leaning Rather NOT has. I only watch him to get a laugh."

Then you obviously do not consider him a reporter. So what's your beef?

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 09, 2001.

Already:

What's a bit disturbing is the combination of the size and perspicacity of the audience. More people watch Rather than read Jonah Goldberg, by a few orders of magnitude. And almost none of them reject Rather's insinuations, innuendoes, vocal mannerisms, lead-in lines, choices of emphasis and the like in favor of at least 5 other views of the same material from sources known to cover the spectrum. For most people, Rather IS the news.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 09, 2001.

Nothing new, Flint. People have always been manipulated throughout history. And biased people have always -- and WILL always -- be the gatekeepers on information.

Informing oneself is the best weapon against manipulation, lies, untruth and ignorance. But informing oneself against ALL manipulation is better, though much harder. This is the central point that Maria misses.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 09, 2001.

Already, truth hurts doesn't it, troll? I didn't miss any points, I's just tryin to make one. You don't like it, fine, but save your cyber-pyscho-babble for someone who's interested.

"Then you obviously do not consider him a reporter. So what's your beef?" I have no beef, just making a point on Tar's comment. You're the one making it into a beef.

"But informing oneself against ALL manipulation is better, though much harder." I miss this point? How would you know you twirp? My aren't we being real profound today, troll.

Have a nice day. :)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 10, 2001.

"Also, that's a cute use of the patented Dennis Olsen cackle. Are you actually a sock puppet, Maria?"

Hmmmm...

The crazy "BWAHAHAHA", the over-use of the term "troll" and the intense invective covering a lack of coherent thought. Yes, I think it's time to say it.

Maria=Dennis

-- ICU (ICU@yes.you), April 10, 2001.

Let me recap here because this is just too funny.

TAR: Haven't you figured out that Dan Rather is a talking head? He reads the words other people write for him.

MARIA: NO, he gives his own twist to the news, most reporters do. Most DON'T just read copy. Most edit the copy they receive. And someone as "high up" on the chain as Rather would most certainly add his own editorials (oops I mean editing).

ALREADY: News flash, honeybunch -- ALL human beings have biases. Should no biased human be permitted to be a reporter? . . . Grow up, Maria. Every human being has biases. And objectivity in the news was largely abandoned years ago. If you think that bias in the news is unacceptable, or that the bias that is there is unfair, then get into the news system and do something about it yourself. Bitching about bias is a sure way to get labeled a crank.

Notice I commented that Rather most definitely adds "his own editorials". I didn't say anything about what I think about it, that is, if it's "unacceptable" or "unfair", just the way it is. I wasn't bitching about it (but of course Already knows what I meant to say because it's obvious to him that I am indeed bitching.) And for the record, yes I know that all humans have "biases". Thanks Already for pointing out this very profound fact. Where would I be without your knowledge and insight? :(

Then already goes into some whining and gives more insightful thinking about comparing me to Dennis Olsen. "By the way, I'm not a troll. . . . . Are you actually a sock puppet, Maria?" Then more on biases, "People have biases. . ." And then this rather sincere aspect of his own reasoning capabilities, "because I don't trust anything ANY media outlet reports on its own merits. If I can't find corroboration of something in at least five different". There must be something magic about the number five. Hmmmmmm.

Already, I too don't swallow what Rather or any reporter has to say. Save me your rhetoric.

Then Already goes on to recount my exchanges with Tar, ". . . beat you up." And that I needed to provide more "skinny on the person who is writing about Rather." Thanks already, I'll take it under advisement. So let me get this straight, your beef is that I didn't say all reporters are biased and didn't talk about the apparent bias of this particular article. I didn't speak the way you wanted me to speak about this topic. What a fucking ego!

Then Already continues, with his post to Flint, to insist that I miss some great point that he has made. WOW what a fucking ego, already! (I had to repeat myself on that one.) And he himself misses the point that Flint has made, "For most people, Rather IS the news."

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 10, 2001.

And Maria is obsessive like Dennis, too. Both you and Already suffer from diarehha of the mouth.

-- ICU (ICU@yes.you), April 10, 2001.

I predict that one day soon, TV News will finally have to declare where it is coming from. And why not, print journalism has neen doing this for years?

There will be openly Liberal channels, openly Conservative channels and everything in between. The days of Rather-like pretense are oudated.

With hundreds of channels, the only way to compete will be by targeting a niche market.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), April 10, 2001.

"Already, truth hurts doesn't it, troll?"

Maria, in the first place, YOU seem to be objecting to the truth I have brought to the table, which is that Jonah Goldberg is quite a well-known conservative writer, so that his comments about Rather should be viewed in that light. You, OTOH, seem not to want to see that point. Looks like the truth is hurting you more than me.

In the second place, you are continuing to misuse the word "troll" when referring to me. Persist if you must, but you only make yourself look foolish. Especially since your recent trolling attempt on one of the religious threads was exposed, troll.

"I didn't miss any points,"

Ohhhhh, yes you did, honeybunch. If it is important that Rather is a liberal, then is it not important that someone commenting on Rather is a conservative? You can't have one without the other, Maria. Either both pieces of information are significant, or neither one is. QED.

"I's just tryin to make one."

Trying, but failing. But don't let that slow you down. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

"You don't like it, fine,"

I am free to comment however I see fit. If you don't like it, then that's just too bad for you.

"but save your cyber-pyscho-babble for someone who's interested."

I'm terribly sorry, Maria. I didn't realize I was talking over your head. Shall I keep my answers down to words of one syllable or less? Would that make it easier for your punkin head? We already know that you think that long posts = boring posts. Do long words = too much trouble to deal with in Maria-Land?

"I have no beef, just making a point on Tar's comment. You're the one making it into a beef."

Ah. My comments are "beefs." Yours are not. Can you say "double standard?"

No, Maria, you're beefing about Rather. What a tedious WHINER you are.

>>>"But informing oneself against ALL manipulation is better, though much harder."

"I miss this point?"

Yes, you did. You obviously don't know anything about Mr. Goldberg, and you apparently don't want to know anything about him, either. That's ignorance (and submission to manipulation) in my book.

"How would you know you twirp?"

The word you are searching for is "twerp." Please try to use it correctly next time.

How I know is that you have blown past my presentation of information on Mr. Goldberg without so much as an "oh, I see." Apparently, Maria, you feel that the biases of someone who agrees with you are totally insignificant and unimportant, while the biases of someone who disagrees with you are of tremendous and momentous import.

That's called HYPOCRISY, Maria.

You are obviously ignorant, and don't care to view information that might shake your preconceptions. That's how I know.

"My aren't we being real profound today, troll."

Profundities appear to be lost on you, Madam.

"Notice I commented that Rather most definitely adds "his own editorials". I didn't say anything about what I think about it, that is, if it's "unacceptable" or "unfair", just the way it is."

Silly, silly girl. I ASKED you what you were trying to say. I gave you ample opportunity to clarify your statement, and I got a short, snotty post in reply. If you're going to whine about being misunderstood, then maybe you ought to take the time to clarify your position when asked.

"I wasn't bitching about it"

I disagree. Your response to my initial post indicates to me that you were not interested in discourse; you were more interested in crapping about Rather.

"(but of course Already knows what I meant to say because it's obvious to him that I am indeed bitching.)"

Yup. If you can't be bothered to clarify your statements, and if you get huffy from the start, then yes, you're bitching.

"And for the record, yes I know that all humans have "biases". Thanks Already for pointing out this very profound fact. Where would I be without your knowledge and insight? :( "

You would be even more ignorant that you already are. What a remarkable achievement that would be!

"Then already goes into some whining"

Erudite and well-written disagreement is not whining, Maria. We could, however, observe that you were whining about Tarzan, though. The remainder of your post (which I am commenting on here) is also a great example of whining, too.

"and gives more insightful thinking about comparing me to Dennis Olsen. "By the way, I'm not a troll. . . . . Are you actually a sock puppet, Maria?"

Well, Maria, are you?

"Then more on biases, "People have biases. . ." And then this rather sincere aspect of his own reasoning capabilities, "because I don't trust anything ANY media outlet reports on its own merits. If I can't find corroboration of something in at least five different". There must be something magic about the number five. Hmmmmmm."

Nothing magic about it. In my experience, checking two or three news outlets isn't digging deeply enough to ensure that you are getting a balanced view. Four is good, but five is better. I don't often have the time to research more than five sources at a time, but I sometimes do, particularly if the story deals with international issues. Perhaps you should try that, Maria.

"Already, I too don't swallow what Rather or any reporter has to say."

Strange how you're so interested in Rather, but not in the guy who's writing about him.

"Save me your rhetoric."

The phrase is "spare me your rhetoric." And the answer is "No. Deal with it."

"Then Already goes on to recount my exchanges with Tar, ". . . beat you up." And that I needed to provide more "skinny on the person who is writing about Rather." Thanks already, I'll take it under advisement."

Good. You do that.

"So let me get this straight, your beef is that I didn't say all reporters are biased and didn't talk about the apparent bias of this particular article. I didn't speak the way you wanted me to speak about this topic."

No, you left out a significant FACT about the AUTHOR that should be presented. And when I told you about it, you got all huffy. You COULD have said something like "I didn't know that about Goldberg, does he write for any newspapers or other magazines?" But you chose not to, Maria. You chose to come on like Gangbusters and claim that you're "telling it like it is" even when you are NOT telling it like is is. In fact, Maria, when presented with evidence that you are not telling it like it is, you let your own biases out of the bag and start whining. Absolutely pathetic.

"What a fucking ego!"

Yes, that is quite a big ego you're packing there, Maria.

"Then Already continues, with his post to Flint, to insist that I miss some great point that he has made."

Well, you DID miss it, lady. :)

"WOW what a fucking ego, already!"

As I said, that is a great big ego you're packing there, Madam.

"(I had to repeat myself on that one.)"

Yes, I don't suppose that your ego would permit you to let that slide.

"And he himself misses the point that Flint has made, "For most people, Rather IS the news."

I didn't miss it -- in fact, I covered it before Flint made his post. "If anyone does, then they deserve whatever inaccuracies and errors they get."

You and Flint missed the point that I made, Maria. In your case, that was one of many that you missed.

Look, lady, if reading my posts is so painful for you, then I suggest you just not read them. I'll make it easier for you by putting my name at the top of the posts from now on. But I am certainly going to comment on what you say, and I'll respond when and how I please. If I piss you off as much as I appear to, then that's just a problem you will have to deal with.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 10, 2001.

LOL Already, too funny. Got your pants in a bunch, eh? Thanks for translating my words, I do so appreciate it. But I really did mean SAVE, not spare, oh great and noble wise man.

"Look, lady, if reading my posts is so painful for you..." Great advice, I'll take it.

"If I piss you off as much as I appear to..." Don't flatter yourself sweethear, no piss whatsoever, just fun. Though you on the other hand who just went to dissect each and every word of mine, correcting all my typos as you go, now that's what I call getting pissed off.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 12, 2001.

ALREADY DONE HAPPENED

"LOL Already, too funny."

Glad you liked it. I had great fun writing it.

"Got your pants in a bunch, eh?"

Not NEARLY as great a bunch as yours are in, sweetcheeks.

"Thanks for translating my words, I do so appreciate it."

Didn't do it for you. I did it for the benefit of others who might have trouble figuring out what you were whining so loudly about.

"But I really did mean SAVE, not spare, oh great and noble wise man."

No. You meant "spare." You just didn't know any better. It's okay, Maria. I won't be sending you a bill.

>>>"Look, lady, if reading my posts is so painful for you..."

"Great advice, I'll take it."

Good. So we can expect that you won't be reading any more of my posts, right?

>>>"If I piss you off as much as I appear to..."

"Don't flatter yourself sweethear, no piss whatsoever, just fun."

No. That would be me. You are a simple person, Maria, here only to provide me with amusement.

"Though you on the other hand who just went to dissect each and every word of mine, correcting all my typos as you go, now that's what I call getting pissed off."

Maria, I only dissected YOUR words. YOU, OTOH, dissected the ENTIRE THREAD. Now who's more pissed off?

YOU.

Chuckle.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), April 13, 2001.