To: xzins
Then what was their reason?
"Our decision was based entirely on the films innacuracies rather than the controvesry surrounding it." *spin*
7 posted on
11/04/2003 8:37:34 AM PST by
smith288
((( ‹(•¿•)› )))
To: smith288
"Our decision was based entirely on the films innacuracies rather than the controvesry surrounding it." *spin* In that case, I'm sure CBS is grateful to us for calling the inaccuracies to their attention.
To: smith288
Sounds like pretty good spin. (Maybe you've got a career as a CBS apologist...:>)
"Yes, Dan, we were on top of those inaccuracies from the get go. In fact, Dan, it was CBS who started the outcry after BABs held us down and threatened to stuff her schnoz in our ear."
And that's the way it was....
11 posted on
11/04/2003 8:42:04 AM PST by
xzins
(Proud to be Army!)
To: smith288
"Our decision was based entirely on the films innacuracies rather than the controvesry surrounding it." *spin*
But the controversy was caused by the inaccuracies, so what's their point? It's like the Mariners saying, "We didn't bench Jeff Cirillo because of the fans' complaints, but because he was struggling."
17 posted on
11/04/2003 8:44:56 AM PST by
Steve_Seattle
("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
To: smith288
"Our decision was based entirely on the films innacuracies"We were lying."
18 posted on
11/04/2003 8:44:58 AM PST by
StriperSniper
(All this, of course, is simply pious fudge. - H. L. Mencken)
To: smith288
I don't doubt it. This thing sounded like a real dog -- on top of the inaccuracies. But without the controversy, they would have run it with little promotion.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson