[effgee]

First off - there's no republican conspiracy at work here, no tin foil being handed out. If that's what you're looking for - there's nothing to see here. Move along.

So before all the lefties start gloating and the righties start foaming at the mouth - it's nothing but a minor fsck-up by some poor schmuck of a graphic designer in some ad agency.

Below is a still from Dubya's new TV ad "Whatever it takes" - the designer obviously needed an image depicting a large crowd of troops, couldn't find one and so he/she decided to make his/her own - notice the remarkable number of twins, triplets, etc.?

• 

So lean back, have an unprejudiced giggle and tell us how many duplicates you counted.

[icruise]

"Whatever it takes" -- I guess that sums it up pretty well...

[Mithras]

My the echo chamber gets small sometimes!
That's my DailyKos diary the image is from. And I wasn't the first to notice it -- that was mikellanes in this post just a few threads down at MacNN.

That's my first Internet rumor to go full circle on me though!

[effgee]

Originally posted by Mithras:
My the echo chamber gets small sometimes!
That's my DailyKos diary the image is from. And I wasn't the first to notice it -- that was mikellanes in this post just a few threads down at MacNN.

He, he ... my echo chamber rarely exceeds 1in³ But ...? D'oh! I didn't even notice that mikellanes posted the pic in the thread above ... time for a mod then to lock this one and let it sink into oblivion. Must have had badly swollen eyes this morning ...

Originally posted by Mithras:
That's my first Internet rumor to go full circle on me though!

[greenamp]

The original picture simply had Bush speaking behind a podium in the area in front of where the doctored troops are. They wanted to take Bush out of the pic and simply show the troops. I don't see where the big deal is here.

[effgee]

Originally posted by greenamp:
The original picture simply had Bush speaking behind a podium in the area in front of where the doctored troops are. They wanted to take Bush out of the pic and simply show the troops. I don't see where the big deal is here.

did anyone say that it's a big deal? it's worth a giggle, nothing more, nothing less.

[Nicko]

Send in the clones!

[greenamp]

Originally posted by effgee:
did anyone say that it's a big deal? it's worth a giggle, nothing more, nothing less.

If it wasn't being made into a big deal, why did I just see a rather somber looking CNN anchor interviewing someone about it on TV?

The left is really showing it's desperation in these last few days.

[Mithras]

Apparently this was just on CNN Inside Politics hosted by Judy Woodruff!
They used red and green circles just like the ones I made, so this was clearly their source.

A Bush campaign spokesman said he "wishes it hadn't happened", and that it was a "low level staffer" at an outsourced contractor did the Photoshopping. I haven't seen video or the transcript yet, but the guests called on the campaign to pull or redo the ad.

shit that's neat! Just a few hours from an offhand comment by mikellanes, to my sticking it up on a group blog, to CNN!

[Mithras]

Originally posted by greenamp:
If it wasn't being made into a big deal, why did I just see a rather somber looking CNN anchor interviewing someone about it on TV?

The left is really showing it's desperation in these last few days.

Dude, in my original diary post, as you can read, I said "this isn't really a big deal." But it is lamentable that nobody thinks twice about altering photos these days.

And come on, don't mikellanes and I get a MacNN point or two for actually breaking something out into "the real world" instead of our own pathetic little stewpot here?

[greenamp]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Dude, in my original diary post, as you can read, I said "this isn't really a big deal." But it is lamentable that nobody thinks twice about altering photos these days.

And come on, don't mikellanes and I get a MacNN point or two for actually breaking something out into "the real world" instead of our own pathetic little stewpot here?

Not everything is about you and your cohorts. I was speaking in a general sense.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Apparently this was just on CNN Inside Politics hosted by Judy Woodruff!
They used red and green circles just like the ones I made, so this was clearly their source.

A Bush campaign spokesman said he "wishes it hadn't happened", and that it was a "low level staffer" at an outsourced contractor did the Photoshopping. I haven't seen video or the transcript yet, but the guests called on the campaign to pull or redo the ad.

shit that's neat! Just a few hours from an offhand comment by mikellanes, to my sticking it up on a group blog, to CNN!

Clever how you fail to mention that in that CNN interview, which I saw too, they acknowledged the original photo with Bush in front of those soldiers, and also acknowledged that the artwork was the idea of the designers and editors, not the Bush camp.

Twist news much?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Dude, in my original diary post, as you can read, I said "this isn't really a big deal." But it is lamentable that nobody thinks twice about altering photos these days.

And come on, don't mikellanes and I get a MacNN point or two for actually breaking something out into "the real world" instead of our own pathetic little stewpot here?

Hey that's pretty funny Mithras! And now Lockhart from the Kerry campaign has issued a nasty statement about it.

Do you have the original picture that has Bush in it?

[effgee]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Clever how you fail to mention that in that CNN interview, which I saw too, they acknowledged the original photo with Bush in front of those soldiers, and also acknowledged that the artwork was the idea of the designers and editors, not the Bush camp. Twist news much?

Yada-yada-yada ... he's their boss, fer crying out loud. A simple statement like "a small mistake was made, the agency wasn't properly supervised" and nobody would have given a shit. Do you people ever take responsibility for anything - or is pointing fingers at the weakest link while claiming your innocence all you do? Cowards.

Oh crap! Kerry's toast ... just look at all those Photoshop'ed clones ...

• 
  Madison, WI; pop.: 250,000, # of folks attending
  Kerry's "I'm toast event": approx. 90,000

He's dead in the water, alright.

[effgee]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Dude, in my original diary post, as you can read, I said "this isn't really a big deal." But it is lamentable that nobody thinks twice about altering photos these days.

And come on, don't mikellanes and I get a MacNN point or two for actually breaking something out into "the real world" instead of our own pathetic little stewpot here?

**issues1000MacNNpointstoeachofyou**

[greenamp]

Originally posted by effgee:
Yada-yada-yada ... he's their boss, fer crying out loud. A simple statement like "a small mistake was made, the agency wasn't properly supervised" and nobody would have given a shit. Do you people ever take responsibility for anything - or is pointing fingers at the weakest link while claiming your innocence all you do? Cowards.

Oh crap! Kerry's toast ... just look at all those Photoshop'ed clones ...

• SNIP
  Madison, WI; pop.: 250,000, # of folks attending
  Kerry's "I'm toast event": approx. 90,000

He's dead in the water, alright.

Bush owns an advertising agency now? LMAO

Im sure they previewed the ad, but not being trained in multimedia design I'm sure they just didn't even notice.

Can you guys find some news that actually IS news for a change? Wait I forgot, you support a campaign platform based on nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Asking you to focus on something logical is indeed asking too much.

[effgee]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Bush owns an advertising agency now? LMAO

Im sure they previewed the ad, but not being trained in multimedia design I'm sure they just didn't even notice.

Can you guys find some news that actually IS news for a change? Wait I forgot, you support a campaign platform based on nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Asking you to focus on something logical is indeed asking too much.

Crap, you guys really take the cake every single time - as soon as you run of ouf real arguments, you simply start making shit up.

• nobody said Bush owned an ad agency
• nobody said this was news (read my initial post, if you don't get it ask someone to help you)

Also, if you have no idea who's ultimately responsible for the output of an ad agency and how the contractual relation is structured, I suggest you simply be quiet before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with not knowing every single detail about every single topic out there - but there's everything wrong with pretending you do and subsequently being caught with your pants down.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by effgee:
Crap, you guys really take the cake every single time - as soon as you run of ouf real arguments, you simply start making shit up.

• nobody said Bush owned an ad agency
• nobody said this was news (read my initial post, if you don't get it ask someone to help you)

Also, if you have no idea who's ultimately responsible for the output of an ad agency and how the contractual relation is structured, I suggest you simply be quiet before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with not knowing every single detail about every single topic out there - but there's everything wrong with pretending you do and subsequently being caught with your pants down.

First of all, who is this magical "you guys" to whom you keep refering? I am the only one who has so far been bored enough to go rounds with you on this silly issue.

Secondly, yes I do know how contractual agreements gowith ad agencies and their customers, do you?

clinet: I want [this certain] ad, with [this certain] image and feeling
agency: ok, we will work on a mock up of those particulars
agency: here's the mock up, u like?
client: yes looks good.
agency: ok here's the final, do u approve?
client: yes we like
... ad goes live

Now what exactly are you frothing about again?

[effgee]

Originally posted by greenamp:
...
clinet: I want [this certain] ad, with [this certain] image and feeling
agency: ok, we will work on a mock up of those particulars
agency: here's the mock up, u like?
client: yes looks good.
agency: ok here's the final, do u approve?
client: yes we like
... ad goes live
...

i concede defeat - your brilliant example makes it quite obvious that your experience in the field of advertising outshines mine by lightyears.






oh, btw ... "you guys"

[greenamp]

Originally posted by effgee:


i concede defeat - your brilliant example makes it quite obvious that your experience in the field of advertising outshines mine by lightyears.






oh, btw ... "you guys"

Oh god. So everyone who disagrees with you gets bunched into some mythical group of bad guys? How's life going so far with that philosophy?

Bolstering ones personal credentials on a forum in response to an argument is pretty much a universal a signal of defeat. I suppose next [bait]your gonna[/bait] correct my grammar.

You are an advertising genius. I bow to your [dramatic echo]years of experience.[/dramatic echo]

[Spheric Harlot]

The ONLY point greenamp has, AFAICS, is that CNN featured this thing as a newsworthy event.

Since that decision has nothing to do with anybody on MacNN, everything else is all in his head - including his interesting fantasies on how the advertising business works.

My 2¢€

[effgee]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Oh god. So everyone who disagrees with you gets bunched into some mythical group of bad guys? How's life going so far with that philosophy?

Fine, thank you - just taking a page out of the good 'ole "you damn liberals" book. Of course that's nothing any of "you guys" would ever say. My therapist told me it would do wonders for my low self esteem. She was right.

Originally posted by greenamp:
Bolstering ones personal credentials on a forum in response to an argument is pretty much a universal a signal of defeat. I suppose next [bait]your gonna[/bait] correct my grammar.

You are an advertising genius. I bow to your [dramatic echo]years of experience.[/dramatic echo]

Heh - you're cute IIRC you were the one telling me/us how "multimedia design" works, not vice versa. Making up shit to prove your point might work were you come from - it don't fly here. If I had wanted to show off, I'd have sent you a link to my resume (get it? in some parts of the the country, people call it "sarcasm").

I simply told you that you were making a fool out of yourself while pretending to know how the ad agency business works. Bad luck, Buster - this one's my topic. Next time we'll be talking about your topic, I'll be making a fool out of myself and the laugh will be on you. Could I have been more polite about it? Absolutely. But "as you yell into the forest so it shall echo back" - didn't like a healthy dose of your own medicine, didn't you?

But not this time - mighty drafty, isn't it?






And sheesh how am I to correct your grammer? I'm happy as long as I can keep my own (somewhat) in check.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by effgee:
Fine, thank you - just taking a page out of the good 'ole "you damn liberals" book. Of course that's nothing any of "you guys" would ever say. My therapist told me it would do wonders for my low self esteem. She was right.




Heh - you're cute IIRC you were the one telling me/us how "multimedia design" works, not vice versa. Making up shit to prove your point might work were you come from - it don't fly here. If I had wanted to show off, I'd have sent you a link to my resume (get it? in some parts of the the country, people call it "sarcasm").

I simply told you that you were making a fool out of yourself while pretending to know how the ad agency business works. Bad luck, Buster - this one's my topic. Next time we'll be talking about your topic, I'll be making a fool out of myself and the laugh will be on you. Could I have been more polite about it? Absolutely. But "as you yell into the forest so it shall echo back" - didn't like a healthy dose of your own medicine, didn't you?

But not this time - mighty drafty, isn't it?






And sheesh how am I to correct your grammer? I'm happy as long as I can keep my own (somewhat) in check.

What color are the walls in your strange little world? You were the 1st to play the "you must not know about blah blah blah like I do" card. I stated facts about the ad, saying that it was a design goof up that the Bush team [the client] didn't catch. You then attempted to derail what i said, stating that I didn't know anything about advertising contracts, lol, like that has any bearing on this topic either way. You're a funny little man.

PS: it's spelled, grammar, the original way I spelled it. If you're going to resort to correcting someone's grammAR, you should at least get it right, or just turn on Safari's built in spell check function. Kind of foolish of you

[effgee]

Originally posted by greenamp:
What color are the walls in your strange little world? You were the 1st to play the "you must not know about blah blah blah like I do" card. I stated facts about the ad, saying that it was a design goof up that the Bush team [the client] didn't catch. You then attempted to derail what i said, stating that I didn't know anything about advertising contracts, lol, like that has any bearing on this topic either way. You're a funny little man.

1. walls are padded - no color, really. sort of off-white, maybe.
2. you didn't state any facts - you made shit up. and factually wrong shit at that because you don't have the faintest idea what in the world you're talking about. the client is always responsible for any and all mistakes the agency makes - big or small - because no ad ever goes live without the clients' approval - as in "ever". if you had ever even so much as seen a real agency contract you'd have never said anything about this to begin with.
3. goof-up, yes - read my initial post again.
4. yes i am a funny man, thank you again. and i will be with you for "zee resst of zee week".

Originally posted by greenamp:
PS: it's spelled, grammar, the original way I spelled it. If you're going to resort to correcting someone's grammAR, you should at least get it right, or just turn on Safari's built in spell check function. Kind of foolish of you

He, he, he ... c'mon now ... ***chuckle* ... you're joking, right? i refuse to believe that you could actually be that dim. scroll up to that part of my post, take a very, very, very close look at the font style and then tell me again i was correcting your spelling. and yes, it would have been me correcting your "spelling"not your "grammar" - ask someone in your neighborhood if you don't believe me - they'll be impressed with all the stuff you know.



but don't worry - you don't look foolish either.


edit & p.s. ...
how is it that me correcting your "grammar" would have made me an idiot but you correcting my (supposed) "spelling" mistake makes you look cool? just curious about that ...

[icruise]

Originally posted by effgee:
He, he, he ... c'mon now ... ***chuckle* ... you're joking, right? i refuse to believe that you could actually be that dim. scroll up to that part of my post, take a very, very, very close look at the font style and then tell me again i was correcting your spelling. and yes, it would have been me correcting your "spelling"not your "grammar" - ask someone in your neighborhood if you don't believe me - they'll be impressed with all the stuff you know.

I'm not sure where you're going with this one...

By the way, the Bush campaign is apparently redoing the doctored photo. This is an interesting story, but hardly something to condemn the Bush campaign over (there are already plenty of reasons to do that).

[effgee]

Originally posted by Icruise:
I'm not sure where you're going with this one...

d'oh! maybe it was a skit on greenamp thinking i'd attempt to correct his writing when i don't really give a rat's hiney and therefore added the second part that about my own spelling/grammer being far from perfect?

[greenamp]

Originally posted by effgee:
[

He, he, he ... c'mon now ... ***chuckle* ... you're joking, right? i refuse to believe that you could actually be that dim. scroll up to that part of my post, take a very, very, very close look at the font style and then tell me again i was correcting your spelling. and yes, it would have been me correcting your "spelling"not your "grammar" - ask someone in your neighborhood if you don't believe me - they'll be impressed with all the stuff you know.



but don't worry - you don't look foolish either.


edit & p.s. ...
how is it that me correcting your "grammar" would have made me an idiot but you correcting my (supposed) "spelling" mistake makes you look cool? just curious about that ...

So now that you have absolutely nothing more to say, you decide to dive head first into the murky waters of arguing over semantics. Good game.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by effgee:
d'oh! maybe it was a skit on greenamp thinking i'd attempt to correct his writing when i don't really give a rat's hiney and therefore added the second part that about my own spelling/grammer being far from perfect?

HOLY RUN ON SENTENCE BATMAN!!!

lmao

[Mithras]

Would you two chill? Jesus.

[vmpaul]

Maybe they ran out of Loyalty Oaths for people to sign and had to let in fewer people? This is their way of filling out the crowd. No harm.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Would you two chill? Jesus.

Whatever it takes

[effgee]

Originally posted by greenamp:
So now that you have absolutely nothing more to say, you decide to dive head first into the murky waters of arguing over semantics. Good game.

right again you are, buster. re-read "a." - "d." above.

but that's what "you guys" always do - start a discussion, talk about something you have no clue about, make a fool of yourselves and then - in the desperate attempt to save face and "win" (whatever it is you might win in here is a mystery to me anyway) - try to turn any and all points you initially made around and blame the other party for it.

maybe that works in your local debate group - but as stated above - it don't fly here.

you were the one correcting me when, in your own post, you said i would be an ass if i corrected you. doesn't that make you feel a bit ... uhm, uncomfortable ... i mean lying and all? remember your home-made "[bait][/bait]" tag and how stupid i would look if i dared to correct your grammer?

me, i'm going to bed now - think of something nice in the meantime. i'll be back tomorrow morning (and for zee resst of zee week).

[effgee]

Originally posted by greenamp:
HOLY RUN ON SENTENCE BATMAN!!!

lmao

why buster, was that too many words in a row for you?



*offtobed*

[icruise]

you were the one correcting me when, in your own post, you said i would be an ass if i corrected you. doesn't that make you feel a bit ... uhm, uncomfortable ... i mean lying and all? remember your home-made "[bait][/bait]" tag and how stupid i would look if i dared to correct your grammer?

It's grammar, dude.

[effgee]

Originally posted by Icruise:
It's grammar, dude.

why do you think i even put it in red now? because i'd still think it's spelled with an "e"? sheesh. take a peek at the first appearance of the "e" above, please ...

[greenamp]

Originally posted by effgee:
right again you are, buster. re-read "a." - "d." above.

but that's what "you guys" always do - start a discussion, talk about something you have no clue about, make a fool of yourselves and then - in the desperate attempt to save face and "win" (whatever it is you might win in here is a mystery to me anyway) - try to turn any and all points you initially made around and blame the other party for it.

maybe that works in your local debate group - but as stated above - it don't fly here.

you were the one correcting me when, in your own post, you said i would be an ass if i corrected you. doesn't that make you feel a bit ... uhm, uncomfortable ... i mean lying and all? remember your home-made "[bait][/bait]" tag and how stupid i would look if i dared to correct your grammer?

me, i'm going to bed now - think of something nice in the meantime. i'll be back tomorrow morning (and for zee resst of zee week).

LMAO. Ermmmm, last I checked, you started this thread captain, not me. I said nothing more than making a statement that the doctored ad was no big deal really, and explained why. Then you went on this crazy rant about ad contracts, how I was not qualified to make judgments about ad contracts (LOL), and semantics.

I really have no clue which issue you're arguing at the moment. Regardless, I stand by my original statement that the doctored ad is no big deal.

[icruise]

Originally posted by effgee:
why do you think i even put it in red now? because i'd still think it's spelled with an "e"? sheesh. take a peek at the first appearance of the "e" above, please ...

It doesn't look red on my screen, so I didn't see it.

[Mithras]

Anway here's a little roundup of stories mentioning it:
CNN: Bush campaign to recut doctored ad photo

"There was no need to do that," said Mark McKinnon, head of Bush's advertising team who shouldered the blame. "Everyone technically works for me so I accept the responsibility."

Democrats said it is fitting that Bush would fabricate an advertising image.

Reuters: Bush Campaign Acknowledges Ad Was Doctored

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's campaign acknowledged on Thursday that a television ad depicting soldiers listening to Bush speak had been doctored so that some of the faces of the soldiers appear more than once.

Released five days before Election Day, the ad was called, "Whatever It Takes" and had been touted by Bush advisers as a personal message from the president talking about the war on terror.

Washington Post: A Final Volley Of Commercials

John F. Kerry released his closing television appeal yesterday, adding stem cell research to his short list of priorities, as President Bush launched one last attack ad against his Democratic challenger.

Meanwhile, the Bush campaign acknowledged using computer editing to produce a better shot of a military crowd shown in what was to be the president's closing ad Wednesday. The admission came after the liberal blog Daily Kos reported that some faces in the crowd appeared several times.

hee hee.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by effgee:

• 
  Madison, WI; pop.: 250,000, # of folks attending
  Kerry's "I'm toast event": approx. 90,000

Being that Springsteen regularly sells out 65,000-75,000 person stadiums with ticket prices ranging from $80-$125, and the fact that this was a free event... I wonder how many people would have shown up had Springsteen not been there.

[jojo gunne]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
The ONLY point greenamp has, AFAICS, is that CNN featured this thing as a newsworthy event.

Since that decision has nothing to do with anybody on MacNN, everything else is all in his head - including his interesting fantasies on how the advertising business works.

My 2¢€

if it were kerry's ad it would be fodder on fox and drudge for days

[effgee]

See, normally this argument wouldn't be worth the electricity it takes to power either of our computers. But since you chose to strut in here, thinking you can mouth off in the usual republican-caravan-rubbish manner and then weasel your way out of being called on your bullshit by making stuff up, methinks we should keep talking about this for another minute or two ...

Originally posted by greenamp:
LMAO. Ermmmm, last I checked, you started this thread captain, not me. I said nothing more than making a statement that the doctored ad was no big deal really, ...

See? You're doing it again, Buster - the typical weasel & eel tactic. Funny thing is that you're not half as slick & slippery as you think you are.

Of course I did start this thread - with the words "... it's nothing but a minor fsck-up by some poor schmuck of a graphic designer in some ad agency. ...". You obviously either never read that or you just felt the urge to vent your anger about the "left" in general in your subsequent posts.

Originally posted by greenamp:
... and explained why. ...

You're cute when you lie - did you know that? Here's what you said, along with my responses ...

• ... I don't see where the big deal is here.
• did anyone say that it's a big deal? it's worth a giggle, nothing more, nothing less.
• If it wasn't being made into a big deal, why did I just see a rather somber looking CNN anchor interviewing someone about it on TV? The left is really showing it's desperation in these last few days.
  ...

So this is how you "explained" the entire story - by stating "how desperate the left" must be (not that you would ever resort to "bunch anyone who disagrees with you into some mythical group of bad guys" - recognize your own quote, Buster?)? Or maybe you were just a tad bit pissed off about the story itself that you thought it necessary to unzip your pants and start pissing in the wind? Have you noticed that you were the first one in this thread to even mention "CNN"? Probably not.

Originally posted by greenamp:
... Then you went on this crazy rant about ad contracts, how I was not qualified to make judgments about ad contracts (LOL), ...

I went on a crazy rant, huh? You're getting cuter by the minute. Here's what I said, along with your response:

• ... he's their boss, fer crying out loud. A simple statement like "a small mistake was made, the agency wasn't properly supervised" and nobody would have given a shit. Do you people ever take responsibility for anything - or is pointing fingers at the weakest link while claiming your innocence all you do? Cowards.

If that is a crazy rant - would you mind explaining what your cheap shot about "how desperate the left must be" would qualify as? Remember your follow-up post?

• Bush owns an advertising agency now? LMAO. Im sure they previewed the ad, but not being trained in multimedia design I'm sure they just didn't even notice. ...

Funny, isn't it? Especially since nobody had so much as eluded to the possiblity that Bush might own an ad agency. On top of that, your statement "... they just didn't even notice ..." reeks of ignorance and the typical standard excuse used when Bush produces yet another fsck-up ... "it's not his fault, someone else did it". Hence my remark "he's their boss" (because someone on his staff hired 'em) and that's why anything they produce is ultimately his responsibility.

Originally posted by greenamp:
... and semantics. ...

Well, if it weren't for the last sentence in your post, this would have been your best lie. I argued semantics? Nice try, Buster. Let's see ... for the mentally challenged your post in blue and mine in green ...

• ... I suppose next [bait]your gonna[/bait] correct my grammar.
• ... And sheesh how am I to correct your grammer? I'm happy as long as I can keep my own (somewhat) in check.

Not only did you not get my joke (alright, it wasn't that funny), you also didn't notice my remark that I don't care about your grammar or your spelling (that's why I had put that "e" in "grammar" in the first place).
So how exactly did I start arguing semantics with you? You were the one stating what an idiot I would be if I corrected your grammar and then, in your next post, made fun of my (intentional) spelling error. Kinda makes you the idiot now, doesn't it?

Originally posted by greenamp:
I really have no clue which issue you're arguing at the moment. Regardless, I stand by my original statement that the doctored ad is no big deal.

**drum-roll** Ta-Daaaa ... finally ... the end of the line. From

• picking a fight for no other reason than to boost your pathetic ego ("The left is really showing it's desperation in these last few days.")
• to putting your ignorance on public display by stating you were knowledgeable about a topic you don't know the first thing about ("..., yes I do know how contractual agreements gowith ad agencies and their customers, do you?")
• to lying as soon as your posing as the expert made you look like an idiot ("So now that you have absolutely nothing more to say, you decide to dive head first into the murky waters of arguing over semantics.")
• to attempting to weasel your way out of taking responsibility for anything you said ("You then attempted to derail what i said, stating that I didn't know anything ...")

to the completion of the archetypical republican-short-bus debate tactics - innocence and surprise. Ooooh, you poor thing - I'm terribly sorry I harped on you for no good reason - that was not nice of me, especially since you don't know what I'm talking about.

Funny thing is ... two posts above, you did remember. What's up Buster - good 'ole memory not what it used to be? You folks are so predictable - the same story every single time - insult, lies, weaseling and pretending to be the victim if nothing else works - it's pathetic.

[Spheric Harlot]

smack- and tie-down.™

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Being that Springsteen regularly sells out 65,000-75,000 person stadiums with ticket prices ranging from $80-$125, and the fact that this was a free event... I wonder how many people would have shown up had Springsteen not been there.

Would you go if it was a rally for Kerry?

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

So long as we're posting conspiracy images...


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...lge/index.html

[greenamp]

Originally posted by effgee:
See, normally this argument wouldn't be worth the electricity it takes to power either of our computers. But since you chose to strut in here, thinking you can mouth off in the usual republican-caravan-rubbish manner and then weasel your way out of being called on your bullshit by making stuff up, methinks we should keep talking about this for another minute or two ...



See? You're doing it again, Buster - the typical weasel & eel tactic. Funny thing is that you're not half as slick & slippery as you think you are.

Of course I did start this thread - with the words "... it's nothing but a minor fsck-up by some poor schmuck of a graphic designer in some ad agency. ...". You obviously either never read that or you just felt the urge to vent your anger about the "left" in general in your subsequent posts.


You're cute when you lie - did you know that? Here's what you said, along with my responses ...

• ... I don't see where the big deal is here.
• did anyone say that it's a big deal? it's worth a giggle, nothing more, nothing less.
• If it wasn't being made into a big deal, why did I just see a rather somber looking CNN anchor interviewing someone about it on TV? The left is really showing it's desperation in these last few days.
  ...

So this is how you "explained" the entire story - by stating "how desperate the left" must be (not that you would ever resort to "bunch anyone who disagrees with you into some mythical group of bad guys" - recognize your own quote, Buster?)? Or maybe you were just a tad bit pissed off about the story itself that you thought it necessary to unzip your pants and start pissing in the wind? Have you noticed that you were the first one in this thread to even mention "CNN"? Probably not.




I went on a crazy rant, huh? You're getting cuter by the minute. Here's what I said, along with your response:

• ... he's their boss, fer crying out loud. A simple statement like "a small mistake was made, the agency wasn't properly supervised" and nobody would have given a shit. Do you people ever take responsibility for anything - or is pointing fingers at the weakest link while claiming your innocence all you do? Cowards.

If that is a crazy rant - would you mind explaining what your cheap shot about "how desperate the left must be" would qualify as? Remember your follow-up post?

• Bush owns an advertising agency now? LMAO. Im sure they previewed the ad, but not being trained in multimedia design I'm sure they just didn't even notice. ...

Funny, isn't it? Especially since nobody had so much as eluded to the possiblity that Bush might own an ad agency. On top of that, your statement "... they just didn't even notice ..." reeks of ignorance and the typical standard excuse used when Bush produces yet another fsck-up ... "it's not his fault, someone else did it". Hence my remark "he's their boss" (because someone on his staff hired 'em) and that's why anything they produce is ultimately his responsibility.




Well, if it weren't for the last sentence in your post, this would have been your best lie. I argued semantics? Nice try, Buster. Let's see ... for the mentally challenged your post in blue and mine in green ...

• ... I suppose next [bait]your gonna[/bait] correct my grammar.
• ... And sheesh how am I to correct your grammer? I'm happy as long as I can keep my own (somewhat) in check.

Not only did you not get my joke (alright, it wasn't that funny), you also didn't notice my remark that I don't care about your grammar or your spelling (that's why I had put that "e" in "grammar" in the first place).
So how exactly did I start arguing semantics with you? You were the one stating what an idiot I would be if I corrected your grammar and then, in your next post, made fun of my (intentional) spelling error. Kinda makes you the idiot now, doesn't it?




**drum-roll** Ta-Daaaa ... finally ... the end of the line. From

• picking a fight for no other reason than to boost your pathetic ego ("The left is really showing it's desperation in these last few days.")
• to putting your ignorance on public display by stating you were knowledgeable about a topic you don't know the first thing about ("..., yes I do know how contractual agreements gowith ad agencies and their customers, do you?")
• to lying as soon as your posing as the expert made you look like an idiot ("So now that you have absolutely nothing more to say, you decide to dive head first into the murky waters of arguing over semantics.")
• to attempting to weasel your way out of taking responsibility for anything you said ("You then attempted to derail what i said, stating that I didn't know anything ...")

to the completion of the archetypical republican-short-bus debate tactics - innocence and surprise. Ooooh, you poor thing - I'm terribly sorry I harped on you for no good reason - that was not nice of me, especially since you don't know what I'm talking about.

Funny thing is ... two posts above, you did remember. What's up Buster - good 'ole memory not what it used to be? You folks are so predictable - the same story every single time - insult, lies, weaseling and pretending to be the victim if nothing else works - it's pathetic.

wtf are you rambling on about now man? I'm not sure how I could be any more clear, but I'll repeat myself to you yet again.

1)the original photo had Bush behind a podium
2)they chopped bush out, and added the troop images WHERE BUSH WAS
3)there is no conspiracy
4)this is NOT A BIG DEAL

Now "grammer-boy," you can stop archiving my posts before you have an anurism. I'm sure there are far more important things for you to do today. At least I hope so.

[effgee]

Originally posted by greenamp:
wtf are you rambling on about now man? I'm not sure how I could be any more clear, but I'll repeat myself to you yet again.

1)the original photo had Bush behind a podium
2)they chopped bush out, and added the troop images WHERE BUSH WAS
3)there is no conspiracy
4)this is NOT A BIG DEAL

Now "grammer-boy," you can stop archiving my posts before you have an anurism. I'm sure there are far more important things for you to do today. At least I hope so.

Archiving your posts?

• 

Oh my buster - are we on the vanity trip this fine morning? I'm afraid the concept of a BBS might be somewhat los ... uhm, nevermind ... probably too complicated. And please - no need to try the old "in-case-you-didn't-understand-what-I-was-saying-all-along" routine - just like the insults, the lying and the weaseling that don't fly here either.

I did like the "anurism" part, though - gives your post that certain rustic touch - is that derived from "anus"?

[greenamp]

Originally posted by effgee:
Archiving your posts?

• [img]

Oh my buster - are we on the vanity trip this fine morning? I'm afraid the concept of a BBS might be somewhat los ... uhm, nevermind ... probably too complicated. And please - no need to try the old "in-case-you-didn't-understand-what-I-was-saying-all-along" routine - just like the insults, the lying and the weaseling that don't fly here either.

I did like the "anurism" part, though - gives your post that certain rustic touch - is that derived from "anus"?

Lying and the weaseling? Are you right in the head man? Do I have to keep explaining myself to you over and over and over and over and... ? I would explain to you what I meant by "archiving my posts," and I might even explain how you were baited into correcting my spelling yet again (to prove a silly point I already mentioned), but I'm afraid such attempts would still fly over your head.

I really couldn't care less about your rambling novels regarding post ethics, contractual agreements, sentence structure, "grammer," spelling, or your vast right wing conspiracy theories. I just want to tell you one last time, that the doctored ad is no big deal. You can sleep well tonight knowing the vast right wing conspirators in your head will be busy with other "ghoulish trickeries."

[icruise]

Give it a rest, both of you.

[effgee]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Lying and the weaseling? Are you right in the head man?

Not quite - remember me telling you about my therapist? But not to worry - we're working on it. Lying and weaseling? Yeah, you seem to do that a lot when posting in this thread.

Originally posted by greenamp:
Do I have to keep explaining myself to you over and over and over and over and...?

Uhm, no ... you don't. You're really not that complicated of a character - nothing that special about your average "I-insult-whoever-I-want-but-can't-you-see-that-I'm-the-victim-here" whiner ... er "debater", I meant to say.

Originally posted by greenamp:
I would explain to you what I meant by "archiving my posts," and I might even explain how you were baited into correcting my spelling yet again (to prove a silly point I already mentioned), but I'm afraid such attempts would still fly over your head.

Ooooh ... you tricksy hobbit you. I would have never guessed that you were trying to "bait" me - let me know in advance next time, will you?

• 

Originally posted by greenamp:
I really couldn't care less about your rambling novels regarding post ethics, contractual agreements, sentence structure, "grammer," spelling, ...

Oh - new one! "posing as the expert", "turning tables", "I am the victim", "you don't understand what I was saying all along" and now (nobody would have ever expected that one) ... "I don't care anyway" ... sweetness! And well done, Buster. Absolutely unpredictable and therefore priceless.

Originally posted by greenamp:
... or your vast right wing conspiracy theories. I just want to tell you one last time, that the doctored ad is no big deal. You can sleep well tonight knowing the vast right wing conspirators in your head will be busy with other "ghoulish trickeries."

Yeeee - Haaaaw, Buster you did it! Best one  e v e r!

• 

Remember yourself saying: "The left is really showing it's desperation in these last few days." - at the very beginning of this thread, when you strutted in here to pick a fight and generally just be your obnoxious self? No? Didn't think so.

But yes - I am the one with the tin foil hat.

Buster, you just won yourself a "good-as-new" dishwasher - hardly used and just a tiny bit rusty. Found it yesterday mowing my lawn - you ever find anything mowing yours? A car, for example?