Clintons sons picture

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

http://www.stormfront.org/truth_at_last/archives/danny.htm

-- me (aaa@aaa.com), January 07, 1999

Answers

And this is on a Y2K board because............?

-- Why? (dearlord@fedup.com), January 07, 1999.

Because we need to be continuously aware of the context in which things are playing out, as treh CONTEXT is almost more important than the precipitating event.

Ex: If the event takes place in a context of many people openly preparing and being openly encouraged by gov't and other entities, the results will be of one sort.

If the event takes place in a context of minimal encouraged preparation, minimal responsible entity support of preparation or even awareness, the results will be very different.

cr

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 07, 1999.


Has it been proven that he is Clinton's son? I wouldn't want the boy to have a complex about who his father is.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), January 07, 1999.

Clearly this thread's subject is a non-Y2k political attack on Clinton.
Clearly there are other forums for non-Y2k political discussion.
Clearly this thread is not relevant to this TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) Forum.

>Ex: If the event takes place in a context of many people openly preparing and being openly encouraged by gov't and other entities, the results will be of one sort.

Similarly, if this Y2k forum limits its threads to Y2k-related subjects, the results will be of one sort.

>If the event takes place in a context of minimal encouraged preparation, minimal responsible entity support of preparation or even awareness, the results will be very different.

But if this Y2k forum is allowed to expand to include political/religious/whatever attacks in addition to Y2k-related subjects, its results will be very different.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), January 07, 1999.


You"re stalking an innocent child aaa.

-- A.R. (buriedetc.WE@tv.net), January 07, 1999.


Drudge seems to have already lost interest in the report. Looks like the DNA test didn't pan out after all. A retraction would have been kinda polite though.

-- a (a@a.a), January 07, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ