494:
lasers were not part of the electronic printer technology (my way of expressing this is āI was working with laser printers before they had lasersā, which is only a mild stretch of the truth). We published a paper about our work (graphics, printer hardware, printer software, and typesetting) in one of the important professional journals of the time (D.R. Reddy, W. Broadley, L.D. Erman, R. Johnsson, J. Newcomer, G. Robertson, and J. Wright, "XCRIBL: A Hardcopy Scan Line
Graphics System for Document Generation," Information Processing Letters (1972, pp.246-251)). I have been involved in many aspects of computer typography, including computer music typesetting (1987-1990). I have personally created computer fonts, and helped create programs that created computer fonts. At one time in my life, I was a certified Adobe PostScript developer, and could make laser printers practically stand up and tap dance. I have written about Microsoft Windows font technology in a book I co-authored, and taught courses in it. I therefore assert that I am a qualified expert in computer typography.
1010:
all deficient in that respect. In this context, the title "Killian memos" will be clear to the reader as meaning memos attributed to
Killian. The very first sentence said "allegedly". The second sentence stated that many experts disagreed, and the third sentence reported the CBS climbdown. The whole article gave more attention to the pro-hoax position than to the pro-authenticity position. (I have no reason to think this was bias. My impression is that the article, as it stood yesterday, fairly reflected the overall discussion.) I'll hold off voting to see whether anyone suggests a title that's an improvement on
219:, and I say without fear of contradiction that it's far more impressive in this sphere than is Hailey's. That said, I was not intending to use Hailey's inexperience in this field as a reason to exclude this from the article, I was taking issue with your comparison of his credibility (and hence also qualifications) as compared to bloggers, when in reality the comparison is between Hailey and people like Newcomer. However, if you want to take issue with the qualifications of some of the bloggers involved in the story,
768:"Rathergate" is an utterly absurd title for this article. It is pure POV. The main article should mention the term but put it in context, as a term used by some to express the POV that CBS and specifically Rather committed an impropriety. Of course the particular phrase "Killian memos" doesn't get a lot of hits. Most of the websites or blogs discussing the subject would refer variously to "the CBS memos" or "the memos from Jerry Killian" or "the memos allegedly written by Bush's superior" or "the
38:
679:"Rathergate" may be in common usage in the right-wing blogosphere, but I've never seen that term used outside of Knowledge (XXG) and I doubt it's in common usage in the real world. As an occasional comedic nickname, perhaps, like Monicagate or Shrub or whatever, but like those things hardly appropriate for an article title. This reminds me of the anon who keeps adding a paragraph about "Queen of the Space Unicorns" to the
405:
goes back 40 years, I can readily pick out that this is the IBM Executive's serif font, which was a variation of
Century Schoolbook, which is much different from Times Roman or Times New Roman. I could go on about the letterforms (Cent SB is very rounded) but for the lazy typographer, just look at the number "9" on the referenced document. Now go into your copy of MS Word and type a "9" in Times New Roman. Easy one. --
1017:
Meanwhile, what to do in the interim? I don't want to get into a revert war but I don't see any basis for saying that an edit that many of us object to has to remain in place while it's discussed and polled. How about we put things back to where they were yesterday, subject to subsequent revision?
894:
I agree that "Rathergate" is, for now, still inappropriate, but also agree that current title is too obscure. I suggest this alternative, which excludes the word "forgery" from the title, but includes the word "scandal", which is quite accurate. The word "affair" could be replace "scandal" if someone
404:
Notwithstanding that the Lemur is beating a very dead horse, we are noting (if the document is 1971) that a
Brigadier General had an Executive Typewriter. Ever hear the term RHIP? However, it goes further to cast doubt on the Killian Memos rather than affirming them. As a typographer whose experience
1004:
As far as I know, CBS has not conceded that the documents were forged, and I think another thesis advanced was that CBS's source had indeed created them in 2004 but had done so by re-creating documents he had seen 30 years earlier. Regardless of what you think of these arguments, I don't think that
558:
was, for example). The intended "similarity" could be that all of these were scandals blamed on perceivedly "liberal" media which the Bush camp would be happy to point at, but I should assume good faith here. Anyway I think that it is hard to make such a list NPOV, so instead of trying to balance it
384:
acknowledged that the are fakes, but only that their source misled them. They explicitly avoided stating these were fake. This is not about whether we should keep speculation going, speculation is going on anyway. It is not our job to worry about influencing whatever debate remains, but to report
303:
It is fairly well acknowledged the memos are fakes. Of what use is it for
Knowledge (XXG) to keep alive speculations based on doubtful suppositions. Yeah, I know the guy is a PhD, but that doesn't make his reasoning good. It's quite a stretch logically to assume that the living world came into being
114:
The "Reproduction using modern technology" section clearly indicates that many find the reproductions via
Microsoft Word to be convincingly exact beyond reasonable doubt. That being the case, it is silly to have a sentence in the very next section which states almost the opposite. The article should
772:
memos" or "the documents used by CBS News" or any of a number of other terms. No one of those terms is so obviously right that it should be the article title. We had to settle on one. That no one of the generic terms gets as many hits as the POV term doesn't mean we have to use the POV term. As
442:. Incidentally, looking at Newcomer's CV, I see many elements which would have been peer-reviewed in any case, being as they are in the software development side, in which other developers usually undertake their own form of peer review. Also, to be declared a Microsoft MVP is nothing to sneeze at.
287:
I suspect one can find problems with just about any study. To flip around your argument, it's meaningless to argue that the document could have been produced by a MS Word-fax-photocopy combination, if in fact it was actually produced by a typewriter. To me, this report clearly should be included.
1009:
doesn't have those words in the title.) The title should be neutral. The article should of course give a full report of all the reasons that have been advanced for considering the documents to be forged. I don't think anyone can reasonably contend that the article, as it stood yesterday, was at
249:
Neither of those CV's has anything at all on them about typewriters (that I noticed). Nor does the "far more impressive" resume include any peer-reviewed publications (that I noticed). But, whatever, Hailey is not a typewriter expert either. I think his report should be included. If anyone can
493:
I am one of the pioneers of electronic typesetting. I was doing work with computer typesetting technology in 1972 (it actually started in late 1969), and I personally created one of the earliest typesetting programs for what later became laser printers, but in 1970 when this work was first done,
477:
No, it doesn't violate NPOV. What is the "scare quote"? I used exactly the quote listed by anon above "an expert in computer-based typesetting", is that scary to you? And further, I would be absolutely thrilled to have the expertise of every 'expert' cited. We have no competence in assessing
627:
But
Rathergate (minor variation: "Memogate") is what these have become known as. It reflects the fact that the story had shifted from what the "memos" alleged to what the memos were: forgeries put forward by a major news organization. In fact, keeping the name "Killian memos" is not longer even
1025:
That CBS is trying to salvage a tiny bit of its dignity is a nullity. They've gone about as far as they can without simply saying "yeah, it's an apparent forgery, and we fell for it, accepting them as true from a known Bush-hater and characterizing him as an 'unimpeachable source.'Ā " As to the
269:
The problem with the Hailey report is that it can't see the forest for the trees. He looks at the minutae of deterioration of letterforms but this is meaningless if the original document was not produced in the way supposed. One of the most basic principles of a hypothesis is that if the basic
159:
The Hailey report clearly belongs. He is director of an academic lab which among other things investigates "authentication problems". Now he may or may not be a good academic, but that's not for us to judge. He clearly meets objective standards for credibility, much more so than a bunch of
118:
My opinion is that nothing from the "Reproduction using modern technology" section needs to be reiterated in the "Reproduction using contemporary technology" section, but since someone insists on having the issues rehashed there, I have added a reiteration, contrasting the two very different
171:
The ones who finally did disprove the memos were not "a bunch of bloggers", but rather acknowledged experts in their own fields. The bloggers just broke the story and kept covering it, the real analysis was not theirs. Unlike those who proved the Memos were fake, Hailey is NOT an expert in
195:
Two things (a) if someone has criticized his report, it would be fair to note that; but that's no reason to censor a report by a director of an academic media lab. (b) do you have links to the cv's of experts on the other side? i'm curious what the standards for expertise are -- research
469:
No, FOX doesn't always get it right. But until there's evidence to the contrary, they're entitled to the same presumption of accuracy as other major news organizations. Unless you're prepared to include similar attribution and scare quotes on a consistent basis, your edit violates NPOV.
803:
But just before I got his message, I began to notice that there are dozens of pages each giving a slightly different spin to the same incident. At some point, it would be nice to consolidate all these and/or come up with an accurate and unbiased way of introducing it.
180:. It's generally not a good idea to leave traces of forgery on your website when trying to do something like this... Also, he created his comparison on a word processor, so it doesn't quite count as using a 1972-era typewriter to prove the memos being genuine...
223:
the CV of sorts of
Charles Johnson of LittleGreenFootballs. My only intention by writing what I did here was to point out the problems with Hailey's analysis. If it is wished that mention of his report be added to the article, these flaws need to be remembered.
1067:
I'd rather err on the side of NOT being forceful enough than take a chance of ruining my near-pristine record as a fair-minded admin. I've managed to tick off more
Wikipedians in the last 2 days than in the last few months, so I'm just gonna chill out . . .
833:
OK, I guess it's time to consolidate the arguments. As worked well in other controversies, we have only three choices here, so we can determine sentiment on the current titles. We can then determine sentiment after we've established that basic point.
508:
Great, so he's described as an expert by a major news organization in the text and the included link describes his own claims about his expertise in the first paragraph. Seems like pretty fair & NPOV coverage of his expertise to me.
127:
I've been following the evolution of this page for a few months now, and I'd like to commend the person or persons who reorganized and cleaned it up recently (no time to analyze the
History). IMHO, it has achieved near perfection. Kudos.
702:"The right-wing blogosphere" LOL!!! Your point about the "Protocols" and "Hitler Diaries" is well-taken but inapplicable. That is what they are called, just as this has come to be called "Rathergate." Google: "Killian-memos"
980:
I'm agreeing that Rathergate is too aggressive if there are better alternatives, but "Killian memos" doesn't do it. Any of the above titles or some other can be more descriptive without being unnecessarily POV. --
478:
expertise, so of course objective credentials or opinions by news organizations should be cited attesting to that expertise. If you like, we can strike also strike the word 'experts' from the section title.
1055:
On second thought, with all the tension over the upcoming election, I don't think I can muster the necessary objectivity that an admin ought to have. So, please ask another admin to move the article back to
1046:
Regarding retitleing, the title should refer to the affair, not the documents, and "Killian documents" or "Killian memos" is too obscure; nobody is using this terminology. I'm for "CBS Documents Scandal".
106:
The term "right-wing" is used a couple times in the "initial scepticism" section. Since that term may habe negative connotations, should we replace it with a less loaded term like "conservative"?
612:
I concur. Lots of things have had -gate attached to them (Monicagate, etc.) and we don't use those names for article titles regardless of how many google hits it gets.
176:). Incidentally, the Boston Globe even backed off of Hailey, as it seems he may have modified the docs using Photoshop in order to create his "analysis". See
88:
83:
78:
66:
659:
811:
the "Killian memos" gives the impression that they are authentic - which goes counter to the non-Wikipedian consensus out there in the real world.
489:
Did you read his initial analysis? That's the one that contains his credentials on computer typesetting. It's in the following paragraph:
150:
Believes the documents were genuine based on wear marks consistent with a typewriter and not a digital document, amongst other things.
54:
17:
172:
typography, fonts, word processing, typewriters etc, though he is unsurprisingly the holder of a BA in creative writing (see his CV
1079:
Any decision on this would be post-election anyway, more than likely. I think we can come up with a better title than either. --
160:
bloggers. Even if these were written in 1972, it won't make much difference after the CBS admission of gross negligence.
554:- I doubt that these scandals were of a similar nature, as neither of them was about forged official documents (as the
815:
142:
Claims the White House has just released genuine proportionally spaced documents made on a TANG typewriter in 1971
136:
Are these articles worth mentioning? I don't know enough about the issue to be able to evaluate their credibility:
98:
45:
439:
683:
article claiming it is a common nickname for Rather after a couple right-wing blogs started calling him that.
658:
and the Learned Elders of Zion (if there ever was anyone who actually called themselves that) didn't write the
773:
for "Morongate", I think we should reserve that as the new title for our article about the invasion of Iraq.
628:
appropriate as an article title (as opposed to a redirect) because the memos weren't written by Killian. --
520:
471:
589:
I'll wait an hour for discussion before doing any more REDIRECTS. No point in working at cross-purposes.
724:
Listen, I think Dan Rather is a moron, but I think calling it "Rathergate" is inaccurate and loaded. -
1026:"reflects a recreation of a (not present) 30-year-old document" thesis, that is being put forward by
438:
Pretty complete, and as Wolfman asked, here's an analysis dealing specifically with the typewriter:
917:
807:
And I agree that Rathergate might not be the best title for the article. I just think that calling
654:
Whether or not Killian actually wrote the memos is irrelevant. After all, Hitler didn't write the
560:
1084:
1035:
986:
972:
739:
715:
633:
571:
Not sure why someone wants to undo my page move. Google has tens of thousands MORE page hits for
555:
410:
309:
278:
23:
1111:
1100:
1072:
1057:
954:
854:
848:
822:
593:
583:
153:
143:
891:
869:
728:
606:
462:. There is no evidence of that on on his CV. But, I'll note that FOX News calls him that.
429:
1019:
898:
774:
533:
1030:
of the principals. It is an attempt by partisans to rescue something from this mess. --
1006:
655:
546:
220:
1104:
1080:
1061:
1031:
1011:
982:
968:
860:
735:
711:
684:
629:
613:
576:
459:
453:
406:
305:
274:
602:
Because "Rathergate" is a baited term intended to shape the opinion of the reader. -
1108:
1069:
951:
819:
590:
580:
537:
510:
479:
463:
386:
289:
270:
premise is wrong, everything that follows is useless, no matter how well argued. --
251:
197:
161:
173:
866:
725:
603:
426:
344:
53:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
895:
insists. UPDATE: To reiterate, I'd be quite happy with "CBS Documents Affair".
797:
680:
572:
519:
Wolfman, please explain your "npov" claim justifying your revert of my edit.
177:
967:
is that this is probably one of the lesser known titles as time goes on. --
496:
443:
225:
181:
139:
1064:
or whatever; and feel free to ignore my vote when determining consensus.
452:
FOX News identified Newcomer as "an expert in computer-based typesetting"
147:
857:
23:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) (with a redirect from Rathergate, of course)
422:
216:
304:
by a series of accidents, but do we give honor to Creationism? --
541:
32:
250:
link to a debunking of his analysis, that would be fine too.
385:
on that debate neutrally. Is that not the essence of NPOV?
196:
publications, or what? who gets to decide who's an expert?
421:
Newcomer specifically addresses Hailey in a new writeup.
961:
This is observably the most common usage at this time.
1099:A Google search shows significantly more hits for
942:George W. Bush National Guard forged service memos
946:2004 U.S. election forged memos controversy, etc.
930:Posibilities: CBS-National Guard memo controversy
559:I have removed it altogether. Comments? regards,
800:and pages that link to it, for the time being.
796:At Joseph's request, I'm going to stop editing
1005:"hoax" or "forge" belong in the title. (Even
215:Well, one of the primary debunkers' resume is
8:
660:The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
110:Reproduction using contemporary technology
734:Point taken. How about "Morongate"? --
339:I rather suspect that Knowledge (XXG)
51:Do not edit the contents of this page.
925:Some other title than the above three
7:
905:I'd probably prefer "affair" though.
460:Talk:FOX_News#Journalistic_Standards
380:think the memos are fakes. CBS has
938:Dan Rather forged memos controversy
934:60 Minutes forged memos controversy
423:http://www.flounder.com/bush2b.htm
31:
18:Talk:Killian documents controversy
1107:- so I'm going to move the page.
816:National Guard memo hoax of 2004
36:
24:Talk:Killian documents/Archive2
877:Rathergate (current retitling)
1:
458:And FOX always get it right?
959:Withrdaw vote for Rathergate
843:Killian memos (former title)
550:scandals of a similar nature
1128:
1050:
1114:15:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
1075:21:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
851:22:21, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
825:19:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
731:18:12, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
721:17:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
596:15:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
586:15:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
563:15:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
523:07:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
1090:22:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
1041:22:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
1022:20:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
992:22:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
920:06:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
872:23:06, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)
863:21:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
777:18:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
745:18:31, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
687:16:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
639:16:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
616:15:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
609:15:36, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
513:02:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
466:15:15, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
432:11:11, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
413:14:17, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
281:15:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
102:up to September 22, 2004
1094:
499:23:12, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
482:16:55, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
446:18:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
389:16:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
312:16:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
292:16:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
254:01:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
228:18:08, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
200:16:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
184:15:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
164:15:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
115:not contradict itself.
999:Comments/argumentation
886:CBS Documents Scandal
49:of past discussions.
912:CBS Document Forgery
706:hits. "Rathergate"
556:Yellowcake Forgery
440:Selectric analysis
1101:Killian documents
1058:Killian documents
963:The problem with
376:Let's be clear.
148:David Hailey, PhD
94:
93:
61:
60:
55:current talk page
22:(Redirected from
1119:
902:
892:User:M. E. Smith
75:
63:
62:
40:
39:
33:
27:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1097:
1095:No, I'm back in
1086:explains it all
1053:
1037:explains it all
1001:
988:explains it all
974:explains it all
927:
914:
900:
888:
879:
845:
831:
794:
741:explains it all
717:explains it all
635:explains it all
569:
534:Andrew Gilligan
529:
521:216.160.111.242
472:216.160.111.242
419:
402:
134:
125:
112:
71:
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1125:
1123:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1052:
1051:I'm bowing out
1049:
1048:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1023:
1007:Hitler Diaries
1000:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
957:
926:
923:
922:
921:
918:216.153.214.94
913:
910:
909:
908:
906:
896:
887:
884:
883:
882:
878:
875:
874:
873:
864:
858:
852:
844:
841:
830:
827:
793:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
656:Hitler Diaries
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
620:
619:
618:
617:
610:
568:
565:
561:High on a tree
547:New York Times
540:- Accounts of
528:
525:
517:
516:
515:
514:
503:
502:
501:
500:
490:
484:
483:
450:
449:
448:
447:
418:
415:
401:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
296:
295:
294:
293:
272:
271:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
206:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
188:
187:
186:
185:
166:
165:
140:The Blue Lemur
133:
130:
124:
121:
111:
108:
104:
103:
99:First Archive,
92:
91:
86:
81:
76:
69:
59:
58:
41:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1124:
1115:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1105:Killian memos
1102:
1089:
1087:
1082:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1074:
1071:
1065:
1063:
1062:Killian memos
1059:
1045:
1040:
1038:
1033:
1029:
1024:
1021:
1016:
1015:
1013:
1012:Killian memos
1008:
1003:
1002:
998:
991:
989:
984:
979:
978:
977:
975:
970:
966:
965:Killian memos
962:
958:
956:
953:
950:
949:
948:
947:
943:
939:
935:
931:
924:
919:
916:
915:
911:
907:
904:
897:
893:
890:
889:
885:
881:
880:
876:
871:
868:
865:
862:
859:
856:
853:
850:
847:
846:
842:
840:
839:
835:
828:
826:
824:
821:
817:
812:
810:
805:
801:
799:
791:
776:
771:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
744:
742:
737:
733:
732:
730:
727:
723:
722:
720:
718:
713:
709:
705:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
686:
682:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
661:
657:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
638:
636:
631:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
615:
611:
608:
605:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
595:
592:
587:
585:
582:
578:
577:Killian memos
574:
566:
564:
562:
557:
552:
551:
548:
545:
543:
539:
535:
526:
524:
522:
512:
507:
506:
505:
504:
498:
495:
491:
488:
487:
486:
485:
481:
476:
475:
474:
473:
467:
465:
461:
456:
455:
445:
441:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
431:
428:
424:
416:
414:
412:
408:
399:
388:
383:
379:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
346:
342:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
311:
307:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
291:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
280:
276:
268:
267:
253:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
227:
222:
218:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
199:
194:
193:
192:
191:
190:
189:
183:
179:
175:
170:
169:
168:
167:
163:
158:
157:
156:
155:
151:
149:
145:
144:
141:
137:
131:
129:
122:
120:
116:
109:
107:
101:
100:
96:
95:
90:
87:
85:
82:
80:
77:
74:
70:
68:
65:
64:
56:
52:
48:
47:
42:
35:
34:
25:
19:
1098:
1085:
1066:
1054:
1036:
1027:
987:
973:
964:
960:
945:
941:
937:
933:
929:
928:
899:Mel Etitis (
855:Psychobabble
849:Gzornenplatz
837:
836:
832:
813:
809:forged memos
808:
806:
802:
795:
769:
740:
716:
707:
703:
634:
588:
570:
553:
549:
538:Jayson Blair
531:
530:
518:
492:
468:
457:
451:
420:
403:
381:
377:
340:
273:
154:Psychobabble
152:
146:
138:
135:
132:New articles
126:
119:situations.
117:
113:
105:
97:
72:
50:
44:
345:Creationism
43:This is an
1112:(El Dunce)
1109:--Uncle Ed
1073:(El Dunce)
1070:--Uncle Ed
1020:JamesMLane
955:(El Dunce)
952:--Uncle Ed
901:ĪĪµĪ» ĪĻĪ·ĻĪ·Ļ
829:Title vote
823:(El Dunce)
820:--Uncle Ed
814:How about
798:Rathergate
775:JamesMLane
770:60 Minutes
681:Dan Rather
594:(El Dunce)
591:--Uncle Ed
584:(El Dunce)
581:--Uncle Ed
573:Rathergate
567:Page title
400:Blue Lemur
343:report on
1103:than for
710:hits. --
575:than for
89:ArchiveĀ 5
84:ArchiveĀ 4
79:ArchiveĀ 3
73:ArchiveĀ 2
67:ArchiveĀ 1
1081:Cecropia
1032:Cecropia
983:Cecropia
969:Cecropia
861:Gamaliel
792:Time out
736:Cecropia
712:Cecropia
685:Gamaliel
630:Cecropia
614:Gamaliel
527:See also
417:Newcomer
407:Cecropia
306:Cecropia
275:Cecropia
838:(0/1/0)
511:Wolfman
480:Wolfman
464:Wolfman
387:Wolfman
290:Wolfman
252:Wolfman
198:Wolfman
162:Wolfman
46:archive
870:(Talk)
867:Joseph
729:(Talk)
726:Joseph
708:63,700
607:(Talk)
604:Joseph
430:(Talk)
427:Joseph
221:here's
704:7,510
454:here.
123:Kudos
16:<
1028:none
544:and
497:Impi
444:Impi
411:Talk
341:does
310:Talk
279:Talk
226:Impi
217:here
182:Impi
178:here
174:here
1060:or
542:BBC
382:not
1083:|
1034:|
1014:.
985:|
971:|
944:,
940:,
936:,
932:,
818:?
738:|
714:|
632:|
579:.
536:,
532:*
409:|
308:|
277:|
1088:Ā®
1039:Ā®
990:Ā®
976:Ā®
903:)
743:Ā®
719:Ā®
662:.
637:Ā®
425:-
378:I
347:.
57:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.