Anyone here typed the words "miserable failure" into "I'm feeling lucky" on Google?

Try it. I did. I liked it.

Wayne wrote:
> Try it. I did. I liked it.

Welcome to 2003-2004.

Wayne wrote:
> Try it. I did. I liked it.


try "moron". and click feeling lucky.

"Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167256366.803577.195560@73g2000cwn.googlegro ups.com...
> Try it. I did. I liked it.

i'm no Bush fan but i have to say you're a couple of years late to the
party.

>

<flounder>"This is so cool!"</flounder>

On 27 Dec 2006 13:52:46 -0800, "Wayne" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Try it. I did. I liked it.

Then don't try "Bandaid purple heart".

On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> > Try it. I did. I liked it.
>
>
> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.

Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Wayne wrote:
> Try it. I did. I liked it.
Old and pathetic. Bush is one of the most successful guys alive. He´s
just succeeeded with everything he put his hand to. He beat Al Gore,
John Kerry - and now Saddam is gonna be hanged. What more do you want -
you pathetic failure of a man? L

LeGar wrote:
Bush is one of the most successful guys alive. He´s
> just succeeeded with everything he put his hand to. He beat Al Gore,
> John Kerry - and now Saddam is gonna be hanged. What more do you want -

We've got proof that a moronic white man can inherit the presidency of
the most powerful nation on earth.

What more do I want? Nothing. That really tops it for me.

Just like Carter and Clinton.

"drew" <drew@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:1167320209.832702.283990@73g2000cwn.googlegro ups.com...

LeGar wrote:
Bush is one of the most successful guys alive. He´s
> just succeeeded with everything he put his hand to. He beat Al Gore,
> John Kerry - and now Saddam is gonna be hanged. What more do you want -

We've got proof that a moronic white man can inherit the presidency of
the most powerful nation on earth.

What more do I want? Nothing. That really tops it for me.

Wayne wrote:
> Try it. I did. I liked it.

Hello and welcome to yesterday!

--
ML

LeGar wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
> > Try it. I did. I liked it.
> Old and pathetic. Bush is one of the most successful guys alive. He´s
> just succeeeded with everything he put his hand to. He beat Al Gore,
> John Kerry - and now Saddam is gonna be hanged. What more do you want -
> you pathetic failure of a man? L

Good one. Too bad Americans don't understand satire and will believe
you are being earnest.

bill-o wrote:
> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > Try it. I did. I liked it.
> >
> >
> > try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
>
> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
>

dunno: I never read Time...

Noons wrote:
> bill-o wrote:
>> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>> Try it. I did. I liked it.
>>>
>>>
>>> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
>>
>> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
>>
>
> dunno: I never read Time...

You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections of Time.
.. In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965 it was General
Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini. Bono got it in 2005.
These people are nuts. Not once did they pick Tom Brady; but they picked
Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990, 2000, 2004). I say the fix is
in......

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:58:15 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:

>
>You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections of Time.
>. In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965 it was General
>Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini. Bono got it in 2005.
>These people are nuts. Not once did they pick Tom Brady; but they picked
>Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990, 2000, 2004). I say the fix is
>in......

While Hitler and Stalin might not be Tom Brady - they did have major
impacts on the world.

On 28 Dec 2006 07:36:49 -0800, "drew" <drew@technologist.com> wrote:

>
>We've got proof that a moronic white man can inherit the presidency of
>the most powerful nation on earth.

By beating out other elite white men who didn't know how to get rural
votes.

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:58:15 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>
> While Hitler and Stalin might not be Tom Brady - they did have major
> impacts on the world.


But could Hitler hit a WR at 40 yards on a crossing pattern?

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 28 Dec 2006 07:36:49 -0800, "drew" <drew@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> We've got proof that a moronic white man can inherit the presidency
>> of the most powerful nation on earth.
>
> By beating out other elite white men who didn't know how to get rural
> votes.

And having a brother who hooked him up with some chad scam.

Head Shot wrote:
> Noons wrote:
> > bill-o wrote:
> >> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Try it. I did. I liked it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
> >>
> >> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
> >>
> >
> > dunno: I never read Time...
>
> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections of Time.
> . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965 it was General
> Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini. Bono got it in 2005.
> These people are nuts. Not once did they pick Tom Brady; but they picked
> Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990, 2000, 2004). I say the fix is
> in......


Being named Man of the Year or Person of the Year doesn't mean they
like you. It means they consider you the most influential, for good or
for bad.

John B. wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> Noons wrote:
>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Try it. I did. I liked it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
>>>>
>>>
>>> dunno: I never read Time...
>>
>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>
>
> Being named Man of the Year or Person of the Year doesn't mean they
> like you. It means they consider you the most influential, for good or
> for bad.


Sure; that's the position they are taking now. I personally won't read a
magazine that takes people who commit crimes against humanity and gives them
a front page. But, nothing says others cannot.

senna@winning.com wrote:
> LeGar wrote:
> > Wayne wrote:
> > > Try it. I did. I liked it.
> > Old and pathetic. Bush is one of the most successful guys alive. He´s
> > just succeeeded with everything he put his hand to. He beat Al Gore,
> > John Kerry - and now Saddam is gonna be hanged. What more do you want -
> > you pathetic failure of a man? L
>
> Good one. Too bad Americans don't understand satire and will believe
> you are being earnest.


I think he WAS being earnest.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:28:35 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:

>John B. wrote:
>> Head Shot wrote:
>>> Noons wrote:
>>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>>> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try it. I did. I liked it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> dunno: I never read Time...
>>>
>>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
>>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
>>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
>>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
>>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>>
>>
>> Being named Man of the Year or Person of the Year doesn't mean they
>> like you. It means they consider you the most influential, for good or
>> for bad.
>
>
>Sure; that's the position they are taking now.

That's the position they've always taken, pretty much.

If a national magazine can't or chooses not to present a distinction between
infamous and famous then there is something rotten somewhere.

"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
news:Ta_kh.14101$AY1.12148@bignews5.bellsouth.net. ..
> John B. wrote:
>> Head Shot wrote:
>>> Noons wrote:
>>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>>> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try it. I did. I liked it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> dunno: I never read Time...
>>>
>>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
>>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
>>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
>>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
>>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>>
>>
>> Being named Man of the Year or Person of the Year doesn't mean they
>> like you. It means they consider you the most influential, for good or
>> for bad.
>
>
> Sure; that's the position they are taking now. I personally won't read
> a magazine that takes people who commit crimes against humanity and gives
> them a front page. But, nothing says others cannot.
>
>

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:07:30 -0800, "AKA gray asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:

>If a national magazine can't or chooses not to present a distinction between
>infamous and famous then there is something rotten somewhere.

Did you read the issues you are referring to?

Maybe the rotten part is in users who are willing to make such values
without doing the research.

"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
newsCYkh.16155$_X.1530@bigfe9...
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:58:15 -0500, "Head Shot"
>> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
>>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
>>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
>>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
>>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>>
>> While Hitler and Stalin might not be Tom Brady - they did have major
>> impacts on the world.
>
>
> But could Hitler hit a WR at 40 yards on a crossing pattern?


No, but neither could you. And you're TIME's Person of the Year this year.

As am I. And I couldn't do it either.

Randy

"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
news:Ta_kh.14101$AY1.12148@bignews5.bellsouth.net. ..
> John B. wrote:
>> Head Shot wrote:
>>> Noons wrote:
>>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>>> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try it. I did. I liked it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> dunno: I never read Time...
>>>
>>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
>>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
>>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
>>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
>>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>>
>>
>> Being named Man of the Year or Person of the Year doesn't mean they
>> like you. It means they consider you the most influential, for good or
>> for bad.
>
>
> Sure; that's the position they are taking now. I personally won't read
> a magazine that takes people who commit crimes against humanity and gives
> them a front page. But, nothing says others cannot.

What's wrong with drawing attention to someone who has had the largest
impact on the happenings of the world? Good or bad.

Randy

Only if dolts who read it can't tell the difference.

Randy

"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
news:5Z4lh.48392$Zb5.25809@newsfe13.phx...
>
> If a national magazine can't or chooses not to present a distinction
> between infamous and famous then there is something rotten somewhere.
>
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> news:Ta_kh.14101$AY1.12148@bignews5.bellsouth.net. ..
>> John B. wrote:
>>> Head Shot wrote:
>>>> Noons wrote:
>>>>> bill-o wrote:
>>>>>> On 27-Dec-2006, "Noons" <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try it. I did. I liked it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> try "moron". and click feeling lucky.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't Time do that to get there "Person of the year?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> dunno: I never read Time...
>>>>
>>>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>>>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
>>>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
>>>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
>>>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
>>>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>>>
>>>
>>> Being named Man of the Year or Person of the Year doesn't mean they
>>> like you. It means they consider you the most influential, for good or
>>> for bad.
>>
>>
>> Sure; that's the position they are taking now. I personally won't read
>> a magazine that takes people who commit crimes against humanity and gives
>> them a front page. But, nothing says others cannot.
>>
>>
>
>

James Farrar wrote:
> That's the position they've always taken, pretty much.

Nope. When they put up the "man of the year" you really have to dig into
the articles throughout the magazine to find out that they were given the
distinction due to being a dirtball. But on the magazine rack; all you
see is "man of the year" and a photo of the guy in sharp dress. That's
what I have an issue with.

"R&B" wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> newsCYkh.16155$_X.1530@bigfe9...
>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:58:15 -0500, "Head Shot"
>>> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
>>>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In
>>>> 1965 it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah
>>>> Khomeini. Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once
>>>> did they pick Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three
>>>> times (1990, 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
>>>
>>> While Hitler and Stalin might not be Tom Brady - they did have major
>>> impacts on the world.
>>
>>
>> But could Hitler hit a WR at 40 yards on a crossing pattern?
>
>
> No, but neither could you. And you're TIME's Person of the Year this
> year.
> As am I. And I couldn't do it either.

I can with Madden 2007. I played on easy mode the other day and the
Falcons beat the Saints 226 to nothing. Vick threw for a dozen passes and
ran for a dozen more. Even Rossum returned about 6 punts for TD's.

"R&B" wrote:
> What's wrong with drawing attention to someone who has had the largest
> impact on the happenings of the world? Good or bad.

Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way. You have to
read the articles in that issue to know if Time is positioning him as a good
guy or a bad guy. It's misleading.

"R&B" wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> newsCYkh.16155$_X.1530@bigfe9...
> > Howard Brazee wrote:
> >> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:58:15 -0500, "Head Shot"
> >> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> You would be shocked with some of the "man of the year" selections
> >>> of Time. . In 1938 it was Hitler. In 1939 it was Stalin. In 1965
> >>> it was General Westmoreland. In 1979 it was Ayatullah Khomeini.
> >>> Bono got it in 2005. These people are nuts. Not once did they pick
> >>> Tom Brady; but they picked Blowhound Bushtard three times (1990,
> >>> 2000, 2004). I say the fix is in......
> >>
> >> While Hitler and Stalin might not be Tom Brady - they did have major
> >> impacts on the world.
> >
> >
> > But could Hitler hit a WR at 40 yards on a crossing pattern?
>
>
> No, but neither could you. And you're TIME's Person of the Year this year.
>
> As am I. And I couldn't do it either.
>
> Randy

I don't know what Time's rationale was for designating "You" as Person
of the Year, but if it had anything to do with the November elections,
then maybe it wasn't a bad choice.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:22:28 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:

>Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way. You have to
>read the articles in that issue to know if Time is positioning him as a good
>guy or a bad guy. It's misleading.

Which example are you referring to:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16...390102,00.html ?

It wasn't at all misleading to Americans in 1939.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:19:48 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:

>> That's the position they've always taken, pretty much.
>
>Nope. When they put up the "man of the year" you really have to dig into
>the articles throughout the magazine to find out that they were given the
>distinction due to being a dirtball. But on the magazine rack; all you
>see is "man of the year" and a photo of the guy in sharp dress. That's
>what I have an issue with.

This year, all we saw was a shiny cover.

But do you think the cases that are given as examples of their most
egregious were cases where people said "Oh, Hitler must be a nice
guy"? In 1939, we didn't need to read the small print:

1939: Joseph Stalin
Paved the way for Hitler's war by signing secret pact with old enemy

1938: Adolf Hitler
His figure strode over Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror.

The cover had Hitler playing a hymn of hate.

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:22:28 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>> Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way. You
>> have to read the articles in that issue to know if Time is
>> positioning him as a good guy or a bad guy. It's misleading.
>
> Which example are you referring to:
>
> http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16...390102,00.html ?
>
> It wasn't at all misleading to Americans in 1939.

I was thinking more of Khomeini. I wasn't alive in 39. But my point
remains.

"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
news:myglh.12636$U12.5244@bignews1.bellsouth.net.. .
> "R&B" wrote:
>> What's wrong with drawing attention to someone who has had the largest
>> impact on the happenings of the world? Good or bad.
>
> Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way. You have to
> read the articles in that issue to know if Time is positioning him as a
> good guy or a bad guy. It's misleading.

That's just ridiculous. It's like saying Lee Harvey Oswald's picture didn't
belong on the front page of every newspaper after he was captured for
killing JFK.

News is news. Not all of it is good news.

Randy

"R&B" wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> news:myglh.12636$U12.5244@bignews1.bellsouth.net.. .
>> "R&B" wrote:
>>> What's wrong with drawing attention to someone who has had the
>>> largest impact on the happenings of the world? Good or bad.
>>
>> Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way. You
>> have to read the articles in that issue to know if Time is
>> positioning him as a good guy or a bad guy. It's misleading.
>
> That's just ridiculous. It's like saying Lee Harvey Oswald's picture
> didn't belong on the front page of every newspaper after he was
> captured for killing JFK.

OK, I'll bite. Which newspapers posted the Oswald Photo and said "MAN OF
THE YEAR" next to the front page photo? You just get right back to me when
you come up with that link.

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:m5cap21ouo13vmmsc3t09idirre65anlgl@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:07:30 -0800, "AKA gray asphalt"
> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>If a national magazine can't or chooses not to present a distinction
>>between
>>infamous and famous then there is something rotten somewhere.
>
> Did you read the issues you are referring to?
>
> Maybe the rotten part is in users who are willing to make such values
> without doing the research.

Making someone famous and calling him/her "Person of the Year" is silly to
me. Publicity to despots is a problem. I didn't say that the article was
biased towards an evil person, just that the title "Person of the Year"
isn't appropriate for people like Hitler. Should computer users and Mother
Theresa share the same category as Hitler?

"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
news:Uxllh.12740$U12.3222@bignews1.bellsouth.net.. .
> "R&B" wrote:
>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
>> news:myglh.12636$U12.5244@bignews1.bellsouth.net.. .
>>> "R&B" wrote:
>>>> What's wrong with drawing attention to someone who has had the
>>>> largest impact on the happenings of the world? Good or bad.
>>>
>>> Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way. You
>>> have to read the articles in that issue to know if Time is
>>> positioning him as a good guy or a bad guy. It's misleading.
>>
>> That's just ridiculous. It's like saying Lee Harvey Oswald's picture
>> didn't belong on the front page of every newspaper after he was
>> captured for killing JFK.
>
> OK, I'll bite. Which newspapers posted the Oswald Photo and said "MAN OF
> THE YEAR" next to the front page photo? You just get right back to me
> when you come up with that link.


But that's not what you said you were objecting to.

Your words: "Giving a dirtball front page coverage validates him in a way."

I simply pointed out in mentioning Lee Harvey Oswald that dirtballs are
given front page coverage all the time. It's the nature of the news
business. Not all news is happy-slappy. Putting their picture on the front
page doesn't validate what they did. It merely shines a light on it.

Furthermore, TIME Magazine has never, ever, stated that their "Person of the
Year" was intended to be a recognition of the "Good Guy of the Year" or
"Hero of the Year" or anything like that. But it seems, based upon your
objections, that's what you wish it would be. It's simply not. Deal with
it. TIME has always said that their "Person of the Year" was chosen based
upon how much influence they had on the newsworthy events of that given
year.

You want a news magazine that celebrates only the achievements of someone
each year who is a POSITIVE influence on the news and names them their
"Person of the Year?" Then you should launch your own magazine. I'm sure
there are lots of people who would buy it.

But honestly, I wonder if you've ever actually read the articles in TIME
about these so-called "Persons of the Year." The way you have reacted to it
here, it makes me wonder whether you think TIME has written *favorable*
articles about these people. Clearly, that's not true in all cases.
Whenever the "Person of the Year" has been a tyrant, dictator, or some other
kind of troublemaker, TIME has chronicled it. It's not like they singled
out Adolf Hitler as their Person of the Year and wrote a puff piece about
him.

The simple truth is, sometimes the year's biggest newsmakers are not good
guys.

Randy