Roger the right wing wacko clutched at straws and wrote:
>
> "Richard Rongstad" wrote in message
> news:402CE177.26AA3778@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com...
> > Right wing wacko Roger mounted an attack on a Liberal and wrote:
> > >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > (1) By your standards then, far left-wing wackos think that
> > > > because another newspaper is "Washington Post", that it's credible.
> > >
> > > It's credible because it's credible. Because it has a history of being
> > > credible.
> >
> > That's incredible.
> >
> > > > (2) I'm neither a Moonie or a right-wing wacko,
> > > > and I find the Washington Times at least as credible
> > > > if not more so than Wash. Post and NY Times, so
> > > > part of your wacko theory is out the window.
> > >
> > > You're probably more right-wing wacko than you think. Or more gullable.
> >
> > Impossible. I am a Liberal.
> >
> > > >
> > > > (3) The Washington Times might owe it's credibility to
> > > > the lack of credibility exhibited by the fish wrap newspapers
> > > > such as Washington Post and New York Times, which is no real
> > > > compliment to Washington Times, and does not speak well of
> > > > Washington Post and NY Times.
> > >
> > > If you think the NYT and WP are "fish wrapers", you are a right-wing
> wacko.
> >
> > Impossible. I am a Liberal.
>

You obviously crave attention and really need it,
so I'm going to help you.

> Bullshit. You prefer the WT over the NYT and WP.

Correct. That's why I haven't read the Washington Times
for over five years, but read stories from New York Times
and Washington Post on a daily basis. The Washington Times
is just not available, because I live in the midst of
liberals.

That's because I am a Liberal.