Re: The Long Awaited TRUTH About Ray Haddad's "I Bombed Hanoi in 1974" Claim: 'Twas MAGIC!

On Sep 5, 5:51 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:57:56 +0200, Alan Hope
>
>
>
>
>
> <usenet.ident...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >Josh Hill goes:
>
> >>Ray's braggadocio seems mild at worst, but even if he out-Falstaffed
> >>Falstaff, his offense wouldn't hold a candle to the intentional
> >>smearing of someone who served honorably in the military by someone
> >>who most assuredly did not.
>
> >>There's something good-natured if dumb in Sylvia's smears, and I'm
> >>more likely to feel sorry for than angry at her, but on several
> >>occasions she's gone too far. Following a poster to another newsgroup
> >>is one such occasion. Telling defamatory lies about others in a
> >>situation in which they might be taken seriously is another. But the
> >>worst I think is attacking the valor of those who, unlike her, have
> >>actually had cause to demonstrate it.
>
> >Who, please?
>
> Whether you wish to describe Ray's activities as valorous is of course
> up to you, but unless you're going to deny his military service
> there's no question that he put himself in harm's way.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>Monday morning quarterbacking is one thing, but Monday morning
> >>soldiering? She can stuff it up her cloaca as far as I'm concerned.
>
> >>>Unaccountable, that is, unless someone is offended enough to
> >>>seek out and present verbatim the instances of Ray's lying.
> >>>I won't quarrel with those who think Sylvia does rather more
> >>>than that, that she allows her personal distaste and dislike to
> >>>colour the opinions she expresses. Perhaps she should simply
> >>>upload his own words periodically. That will be enough.
>
> >>It seems to me unlikely that the patently dishonest Sylvia would get
> >>upset about Ray's putative lies. She's just a bored old woman looking
> >>for something to do, to which end attacking someone over something at
> >>which she is not herself a habitual offender might be a good start, as
> >>would concision, sanity, honesty, substance, and the acquisition of a
> >>life.
>
> >She is not. She's a babe. I suspect that's what gets up the cracks of
> >****s like you and the increasingly hysterical Fundoc. I notice you've
> >joined him in attacking her womanhood, faute de mieux evidently.
>
> I beg to disagree. Fundoc seems to have entered a period of
> introspection and calm. Like he's run out of crack or something. And
> his posts have been all the more devastating for the absence of the
> Joycean rush that produces such a marvelous Shock and Awe effect in
> the initial salvo, but merely tries the patience by the second or
> third.
>
> >"Putative lies" just about sums up your position, doesn't it? You know
> >Ray's a liar, but you're too far in to back out now. That's what we
> >call "damning with faint praise".
>
> To which I'd reply that Shakespeare applied retroactively for a coat
> of arms in his Father's name, that Mozart is said to have destroyed
> his sketches to maintain the legend that he did all of his composition
> in his head, that Bach styled himself a kapellmeister when he was no
> longer such except in theory and was criticized by contem****aries for
> calling himself the Royal Saxon Court Composer and having himself
> painted in velvet, and that Beethoven pretended to be of noble birth
> until forced to recant in court, whereupon he placed his hand upon his
> heart and said "My only nobility lies here."

But I've watched Harlan Ellison. He really did type his stuff (on a
manual typewriter) straight out on virtually the first pass.
(I do beleive he claimed to run it through a polish once and re-type
it. Man <hated> the concept of "word processing.")