Replies

It wasn’t a ‘crash’........................

"It wasn’t a ‘crash’....."

Well, sure it was - after it was blown out of the air the remnants crashed to the ground....

Yeah, seeing "Crash" as if it was caused by a bird or flying elephant or something is pretty strange. Other than that, this is an example of a "beatings will continue until moral improves" opinion piece (in this case, until you submit and agree) claiming the motives and plans they ascribe to others are irrefutable facts when they're far from it.

Do, for example, they ascribe vicious, bloodthirsty, savage, Satanic, religious beliefs to those Mooze Lames who openly admit to them? No, that's not part of the party line. In this case, oh, they can't possibly be wrong, Anne writes a biweekly column for them. Would they every even by chance employ someone who can't divine the intentions and motives of others by laying her hands on their photo? Of course not.

I didn't see any new facts in it or even new or slightly modified spin. Let the beatings continue . . . etc.

I would be amazed to see the Washington Post say anything that differs in substance from the King Barry the 1st line. Maybe you can point out cases of their being off the reservation, though, I sure don't recall any.

Now, if they had limited themselves to saying, "a Civil War triggered by the Russian military takeover of Crimea" they'd be on the right track.

My own and all other opinions, though, were put into proper perspective for me back in boot camp. They're like particular orifice, everyone has one.