>>Things that make you go hmmmm............

>>Can you imagine working at the following Company?

>>This organisation has a little over 500 employees with the following
>>statistics:

>>29 have been accused of spousal abuse
>>7 have been arrested for fraud
>>19 have been accused of writing bad checks
>>117 have bankrupted at least two businesses
>>3 have been arrested for assault
>>71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
>>14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
>>8 have been arrested for shoplifting
>>21 are current defendants in lawsuits
>>In 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving

>>Can you guess which organization this is?  Give up?

>>It's the 535 members of the United States Congress!!!!!!!

>The thing that makes me go hmmmm the most is the abundance of "accused",
>"arrested", "were stopped" and "are defendants", and the total absence
>of "were convicted" or "lost the lawsuit".  ("Accused" is especially
>cheap -- just in the past few days I've heard both George W and John
>McCain "accused" of being cheats, liars and frauds, mostly by each
>other.)  And, of course, the abject lack of names, dates and specifics.

>It sounds like a smear-and-run job to me; have you tried actually
>verifying any of these numbers?

>>On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:57:21 GMT, skelt...@home.com (Peter Skelton)
>>wrote:

>>>Things that make you go hmmmm............

>>>Can you imagine working at the following Company?

>>>This organisation has a little over 500 employees with the following
>>>statistics:

>>>Can you guess which organization this is?  Give up?

>>>It's the 535 members of the United States Congress!!!!!!!

>>The thing that makes me go hmmmm the most is the abundance of "accused",
>>"arrested", "were stopped" and "are defendants", and the total absence
>>of "were convicted" or "lost the lawsuit".  ("Accused" is especially
>>cheap -- just in the past few days I've heard both George W and John
>>McCain "accused" of being cheats, liars and frauds, mostly by each
>>other.)  And, of course, the abject lack of names, dates and specifics.

>>It sounds like a smear-and-run job to me; have you tried actually
>>verifying any of these numbers?

>>robin730pl...@bigfoot.com (Robin Mitchell) wrote:

>>>On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:57:21 GMT, skelt...@home.com (Peter Skelton)
>>>wrote:

>>>>Things that make you go hmmmm............

>>>>Can you imagine working at the following Company?

>>>>This organisation has a little over 500 employees with the following
>>>>statistics:

>[ heinous statistics snipped ]

>>>>Can you guess which organization this is?  Give up?

>>>>It's the 535 members of the United States Congress!!!!!!!

>>>The thing that makes me go hmmmm the most is the abundance of "accused",
>>>"arrested", "were stopped" and "are defendants", and the total absence
>>>of "were convicted" or "lost the lawsuit".  ("Accused" is especially
>>>cheap -- just in the past few days I've heard both George W and John
>>>McCain "accused" of being cheats, liars and frauds, mostly by each
>>>other.)  And, of course, the abject lack of names, dates and specifics.

>>>It sounds like a smear-and-run job to me; have you tried actually
>>>verifying any of these numbers?

>(I'd like to clarify the bit about the "smear-and-run job" here; I meant
>that to apply to the original text, and not to your post.  I apologize
>if that wasn't clear.)

>>Don't be f*ing silly - I labelled it as a bs forward when I posted it.

>No you didn't -- you labelled it as a forward, but you didn't express
>any opinion at all about whether or not it was BS.  Since it was posted
>under your name, it seemed appropriate to ask you if you'd actually
>tried to verify any of it.  I take it the answer is "no"...

>Life is hell for the humour-impaired

>>Peter Skelton (skelt...@home.com) said....

>>>Can you guess which organization this is?

>>Crew of a certain submarine?  :-)

>Can't be.

>'Piracy on the high seas' isn't in the list of achievements.

> > Could not those very same planes have worked
> > with the harriers to splash the Argentine
> > aerial refueling tankers?

> Very hard to arrange: you have to find a couple of aircraft in a very
large
> piece of sky.  And then  shoot them down. The Harriers are not a
factor; the
> SHARS have no IFR capability at that point.
> They did arm a couple of Nimrods for the odd chance encounter, but
actually
> intercepting a specific Argentine plane was not at all likely.

>    Didn't the british navy have landbased spys that would report
>    when the argentine aircraft would be launched?

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

>If they _are_ out to get you, are you still paranoid?