Muscatine

Hi BigB

Yup, again I'm big enough to admit it, I admitted I was wrong several times now. I reported what I said I would, and showed that the Dems were the over all scandalizers not the repubs. I said from day one, that I was going that route. Did that, and showed my sources. It proved to meanyway:::WRONG::: that the Republicans didn't rack up as many scandals. I don't see the argument. Outside of my initial comment of 3-1 repubs over dems.:::WRONG:::  that I have yet again, clearly stated wasn't correct/right/accurate/was mistaken etc. I cannot fathom how many different ways you would like it said. But I suspect you just like hearing it so here ya go:::I WAS WRONG, the dems committed or were involved in more scandals than the repubs since 1777. Now can you finally get some rest, or do we have to go over it again and again and again. Also, no matter how weak that misquote path seemed to you fellas, it's what it was. In spite of the fact that it only came up because of all our rose-colored glasses  wearing, so we can stepford ourselves into total ruin. But dad forgives me.

Lucy. 

Hi Nigel

Not really. Yeah there was an error on my part to be sure, and though I spent many many hours reading and searching and not sleeping enough. I did it after my daughter went to school, hubby went to work and I felt perky enough for the effort. I didn't find it futile nor pointless. I always heard that 3-1  falsehood and believed it and though misunderstood the points of it initially. I learned a good deal more than I thought I already knew about our political history. So by that, I feel it was a good project. Besides that, you and others said the same thing by wishing people were better informed. Why those who disagreed with it in the first place have questioned what I read of actual history, not propaganda, that proved it wrong, now makes no sense. Now I truly know the truth about the tale. I see that as a good thing. We got a little testy with one another now and then, but I'm happy to have actually done the research to :::yes:::prove, IT WAS WRONG. Even so, I have hope that people will learn to be objective and independent. Fuming over what one side is or might do, while ignoring that the other side already did or might do the same thing::: is so hypocritical and silly. That is what dredged this up in the first place.

Lucy.

Yes.....really.

The fact that you so readily dismiss my comments is indicative of the arrogance at work here, and the fact that you so easily believe such an outlandish claim as the "3 to 1" BS tells us alot about your own state of mind.  You know no more of the "truth" of the matter than you did before all your hours of supposed research.  You only have a partial list, as proven by Big Brother, of events skewed through many subjective lenses. 

Hypocritical and silly indeed.

Nigel;

I know I have made humorous slight innuendo to this bird person as davieboy; with a couple comments on it from others. And I laughed. I believe you posted once you did not see the similarities. Well, I cringe as I write this, but...

From Sunday in the 9 am hour. This is how Bird started a response thread to me:

"Hi Big D"

Now, I know typos happen...and I'm certainly guilty of that...but c'mon...Big D...with a capital "D"?  The letter "B" isn't even in the same row of the keyboard! I am more inclined to see this as one of his "freudian slips" that he was famous for that always got him burned with multiple usernames. After all, his early-on email addresses published with every signature line in his posts partially listed "Double D Big Dog" and "DD" if you recall.

Hence....Big D? Well, ok.

But then, I click on the babybird username (note BB can be assimilated for Babybird) only to find that person signed up on January 2nd, which we all know happens to be davieboy's birthday, from his own postings.

See why I am cringing now? Similarities and coincidences abounding. You can also see that this supposed neutral/independent person has made the switch to personal attacks on me now. Oh; how I remember...

Funny; No?