On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:45:22 GMT, "Roger" 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.
>
>Bullshit. You prefer the WT over the NYT and WP.
>
>Liar.
>

Richard didn't say he was a socialist, he said he was a Liberal. You
need to pull your head out of your armpit long enough to learn the
difference.