Menu

Home » Disproportionate Coverage»

Mike Stone posts these two photos on his “hate page” and boldly states, “They are two TOTALLY different pictures and both have been shown without ANY misrepresentation, especially by CNN.” Really? Photoshop expert, Rob Nelson proves otherwise. Compare the same tree in both photographs. Hidden in plain sight are obvious alterations to the tree. Again, these two photos are taken from Stone’s Monsterpig.com web site. Please stand up, Mr. Stone and explain to the world these Photoshop alterations?

My grandmother always said that when you sleep with pigs…well, you know the rest.

In this case, my “sleeping with pigs” took the form of my research on this Monster Pig fraud. I had hoped to ignore Mike Stone’s MonsterPig.com rant, for many reasons including the fact that I feel sorry for the guy and his son. We at iMediaEthics primarily blame the media for this fiasco. However, Mike Stone must be held accountable for his misrepresentations.

 

The hoax was bound to fail. Look at the obvious photoshop alterations. Compare the same tree in both photos. Discovered by expert, Rob Nelson, one of these two photographs is from Mike Stone’s own web site “hate page” against the author of this report.

 

SPECIAL REPORT

Exclusive: Follow the Bacon: Part II
12 year old faces possible Grand Jury charges for animal cruelty.

Hog Washed!: Part I
Stinky Journalism investigation debunks AP and FOX News: “Giant Hog with Small Boy” Photo

   [RELATED]

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) ethics code cites that journalists need to be sensitive to inexperienced or young subjects. My first contact with the Stones was an email. Read my email. I explained exactly who I was and even provided a web address that explains what our not-for-profit, education-based group, Art Science Research Laboratory (ASRL) is and does. I tried to frame my questions in such a way that would let them know clearly I knew what was up, and yet, simultaneously inform them I would be open- minded to–and kind upon–a confession. I still feel this way.

Our goal here at the ASRL is to leverage errors in the media for a greater good. That includes investigating dubious or wrong cases of reportage in the media. When warranted, we ask for corrections and advocate for better corrections policies at the media outlets. Most of all, we promote the media’s use of scientific method and fact checking with experts–before publication.

Errors are inevitable. Hey we’re all human, right? However, in the case of Monster Pig reportage, neither AP nor Fox News whose coverage whipped a media tornado around the world ever bothered to fact check with experts before propagating an obvious hoax. How is it that only the bloggersphere clearly articulated doubt about the photo? iMediaEthics  was the first to ask an expert to do an analysis. These small dust-ups are opportunities for the practice of critical thinking, analysis and discussions among media and the public.

 

I have yet to receive any sort of complaint from Mike Stone

I have yet to receive any sort of complaint from Mike Stone, either in writing or by phone. Yet, he has publicly, and libelously, accused me of “stalking him,” as well as misrepresenting myself, on his website. It would not be appropriate to contact him directly. Stone has not been in touch with me (nor I him) since we last spoke as he was on his way to New York City, Monday, May 28th. He gave me his cell phone number (asking me to keep it confidential, and I have). I asked him to call me when and if he has time.

In our conversation, I offered to show him the ASRLab on Greene Street, a place chock-a-block with art and antiques that young people especially seem to love. I suggested he could meet the interns here and learn more about what we do. The invitation is still open. I explained that I started ASRL with the late Harvard scientist, Stephen Jay Gould.

I told him that I bet my fiancee, FDNY Chief Ron Spadafora (who I met at Ground Zero while volunteering there) would be glad to take Jamison to the nearby firehouse to show him big trucks. I had already done a one-hour phone interview. Stone remarked that many people had called to ask him about how far back Jamison was standing. To answer this question, Brandt, the scientist who did the study in my report, asked for a measurement of the boy’s head. Stone’s last words to me were, “when we get together, you can measure Jamison’s head.”

Sadly, Stone’s declaration about the facts regarding our interactions and exchanges on MonsterPig.com is one more example of his miscarriage in use of the word “truth” that, I believe, will come back to haunt him like Jacob Marley’s ghost.

Stone asks us to believe in his rant that within seconds everyone posing maintained almost exact positions while a third unknown person ran in and removed the gun? Did two different cameras take these pictures, seconds apart as Stone claims?

 

Stone swore they never “posed” or contrived any snapshot

Stone has told me (and I assume many others he said who called the authenticity of the photos into question) that he had no more photos than those that were posted on his website. He “threw them away” and they “lost” a second camera. They never “posed” or contrived any snapshot. They were “too tired from 3 hours” of chasing the pig.

Now, however, he claims in his rant that a second camera did, indeed, capture a different view of people standing with the pig. “Two of us standing beside each other took pictures within seconds of each other with two different cameras,” he wrote. “The gun was taken out of the picture because it seemed a distraction from the photo.”

Think about that for a second. We are meant to believe that within seconds everyone maintained almost exact positions while a third unknown person ran in and removed the gun? You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to recognize that the evidence, and his words, reveal that the gun was not removed as the picture was being taken, but after the fact–in Photoshop. Mike Stone’s Freudian slip also shows up on his own site: “The gun was taken out of the picture because it seemed a distraction from the photo.”

That, my friend, says it all.

Submit a tip / Report a problem

Mike Stone, Unturned

Share this article:

32 Responses

  1. jason says:

    I’m just wondering when this self proclaimed Christian is going to finally confess to altering the pictures. I find it ironic that Mr. Stone stated on his website that “I am not trying to raise another child I am trying to raise a Champion. I guess I wanted to see if I was on the right track.” I guess Mr. Stone believes that he can raise a champion by showing his son that it is acceptable to continually lie and deceive people. I think it is time for Mr. Stone to finally set a good example for his son, and confess that some of the pictures were altered. Ultimately Mr. Stone is having more of a negative impact on his son than any of the negative e-mails they have received or any of the news articles that have called his honesty into question.PS They removed the section on the website that stated that Rhonda Shearer was trying to start her own hoax.

  2. Al says:

    No matter if the pics were doctored or not.. .they weren’t doctored to misrepresent the size of the hog. It really was as big as they said it was.Or do you still disagree?

  3. Vince Brewster says:

    If I can tell that two different photos were taken, why can’t the so-called experts? The boy’s head is tilted in slightly different ways in the two photos, and its position relative to the forearm of the man standing behind him is different in the two photos.Is it a hoax? To the extent that perspective photography has been used, yes. I noticed that immediately in the most publicised photo.And, as we all know by now, the pig had a name, Fred.

  4. April says:

    So…did either Jamison or his father ever actually answer the questions you asked in your email?Also, in his rant, I noticed that Mr. Stone sidestepped the fact that their appearance in NY was cancelled. He talks about flying there, then staying there, then shifts to “…upon returning from NY…”. Never admits to having been nixed from the Today Show. What a tool.

  5. luke says:

    I think the only thing stinky about this is your “coverage.” Your petty obsession is astounding and, frankly, pretty unhealthy. I hope you find something better to do some day than this silly crusade or you’ll sit back at the end of it all and regret how shallow your life was.

  6. April says:

    I think it’s hilarious when Mike Stone uttered the following freudian slip:””pre·tense (prē’tĕns’, prĭ-tĕns’) n.The act of pretending; a false appearance or action intended to deceive. A false or studied show; an affectation: a pretense of nonchalance. A professed but feigned reason or excuse; a pretext: under false pretenses. Something imagined or pretended.Mere show without reality; outward appearance.A right asserted with or without foundation; a claim. LOL!

  7. ted says:

    This scam was revealed by Anniston reporter Brian Strickland who interviewed the orginal owners, the Blissitts.http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3236356&page=2Here is a segment “As the Blissitts recounted the events of the last two days, they told stories and made many references to the gentleness of their former “pet.” From his treats of canned sweet potatoes to how their grandchildren would play with him, their stories painted the picture of a gentle giant. They even talked about how their small Chihuahua would get in the pen with him and come out unscathed”Blissitt stated that he was getting rid of Fred because they were GETTING RID OF ALL THEIR PIGS.They backed up their story with photos!Now that they have been criticized for dumping a pet in a canned hunting facility, their story is changing, and the AP is sending out their REVISED version. In other words, the lies and coverup.In the AP later version, Blissitt is now claiming the pig was a “nuisance.”The AP has censored ALL earlier statements from the Blissitts.Shame on the AP for not only being foolish enough to fall for this scam, but now colluding with these people to cover up the truth.AP deserves a swift kick in the pants for this whole thing.

  8. Iz says:

    There are other photos that look much more drastically altered. There is one where the kid looks as though he’s standing behind the pig and his head and shoulders barely show over the pigs back. But as you can see if he stood behind the pig it wouldn’t even reach his waist. Also, in the above mentioned photo, the gun looks tiny when compaed to the image above where the gun actually looks to be rather large. Theres no question in my opinion that a lot of these photos were altered.

  9. Gary says:

    **** Associated Press 6/1/07 – Farmers: ‘Monster Pig’ Not a Wild Hog, But Was Their Pet Pig ‘Fred’Phil Blissitt said he became irritated when they learned about all the doubters who said photos of Fred were doctored. ****Look at the name at the top of this web page. This begs the question, “How in the world can something named blah blah…Ethics blah blah…Art Science Research Laboratory be so bitterly, stupidly wrong about anything, much less about a picture of a pig?”I see that Mr. Stone has unlinked this fountain-of-truth website from his own. You may just decide to let this one go, lest it eat you up from the inside out.

  10. Mike says:

    The negative comments all reflect an unreal view of reality. 1) The Pig is really that big. Why does Ms. Shearer refuse to acknowlege that Mr. Jamieson was actually right. Talk about supposed doctoring of photos, blah blah. What about the farmer she cited with the pig that smaller but heavier than this one? 2) Its pretty clear that Ms. Shearer has a bias in this issue. Since she couldn’t prove him wrong about the size of the hog, now its he lied about how the hog was hunted. Quite honestly we all know how the press operates, its quite ironic that as a site about stinky journalism that she would use the very tactics she would most likely claim to be against: lies and obfuscation. Ms. Shearer get out of Manhatten sometime. Quit wearing black all the time and see what life is like in the real America.

  11. Bled says:

    What, Hogzilla’s a scam? Next they’ll tell us that Nessie is a myth. But seriously, even a friendly pet like Fred could become a nuisance, especially if it weighs near a thousand pounds..

  12. Henry says:

    Lady, who cares about why a tree may be altered? Can’t you find anything more worthwile to make such a huge deal about? Really, I don’t care about who killed what, but your the one bringing more attention to the whole deal. Believe me, THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WILL SIDE WITH THE BOY. Sorry, but that’s the way it goes when a full grown woman picks a fight with an 11 year old.

  13. Josh says:

    Regardless if the pig is real or not, the photos have been altered. Anyone with fundamental photoshop skills should be able to point these things out. It was some really sloppy photoshoping. I work in the computer graphics industry and these sorts of things stand out to me like a sore thumb. Me and a few co-workers even had a good chuckle over how bad it was as we pointed out the mistakes made. I’ve yet to meet a person that was in doubt over the fact that they were altered in some form or another. It really comes down to that point, there are photos up on their site (monsterpig.com) that show clear computer manipulation.Like I said though, very sloppy work, you wouldn’t catch a professional photoshop artist making those kinds of mistakes.

  14. The Editrix says:

    American child-rearing at its finest!

  15. Wilbur says:

    I have several questions for Mike Stone. There is no doubt that he reads this site and all its comments pretty obsessively, since he posted a huge rant this about very website just yesterday. So we all know he is reading this. Anyway, Mike, here are my questions, would you please answer them?1) What is your explanation for the tree bark/markings discrepancies on photos that you insist were never digitally altered in any way?2) Your original website proudly heralded a sponsorship from Smith and Wesson, but that info was suddenly deleted from your website on June 2, 2007. Why?3) Your original website had a banner for your own company which is http://www.stoneauctioneers.com Why did you delete the link to that from the website? 4) Your original website stated that Jamison had landed a part on the upcoming Hogzilla movie. That info was deleted during the late afternoon of June 3rd, 2007. Why? 5) Why has the website for the lostcreekplantation.com been taken down (the place you did the canned hunt)?Mr. Stone, the internet has a long memory. Nothing is deleted. Employers/colleges do background checks ( a “google search” on a person’s name is included). For the sake of your son’s reputation, you owe it to him to come clean.

  16. Sister Hannah says:

    Why is the father STILL showing the obviously fakey photo of the kid on his site? If he’d simply shown the one of the kid with his arm draped over the pig (accurately showing size of pig), AND admitted that they’d photoshopped the father out, then none of this would even be an issue. What idiots.

  17. Steve Johnson says:

    Update:All mention of fatboy Jamison and his gut-shooting/ agonizing death of the poor pet pig has now been deleted from the “Legend of Hogzilla” website. He is no longer welcome there.Thumbs up to them for shutting down the little spoiled-brat fatboy redneck’s pathetic attempt to capitalize on his 3-hour torture of poor Fred.

  18. Jan says:

    I’m not convinced it is supposed to be, but I find this quite hilarious. As an accomplished Photoshop faker myself, it is quite obvious that the pictures were doctored, so any claims towards size are, imho, doubtful at best. Even if the hog wasn’t the biggest, it must be the cleanest, since it was washed so thoroughly.And as far as altering the photos goes, I think I might have done a better job ;-)))Keep up the good work. As for me, I think I may have just found a picture that proves I had dinner with bigfoot.

  19. Geoman says:

    To those who cry foul at Ms Shearers critique of doctored photos and say that the pig is ‘still’ just as big as it looks. No it isn’t….that the whole point. The huge pig is an illusion created by this ‘Christian’ and no-doubt conservative Republican father. A father trying to instill typical Christian, conservative Republican values to his still innocent son. In this case doctor the photos and lie about it. As to those that say ‘enough already’ —- oh, please— your types chased the Clintons through years of Whitewater and didn’t prove a damn thing and tried to impeach then President Clinton for out of marriage sex in the White House – something past Presidents did on a regular basis. Conservative ‘Christian’s’ Republicans can certainly dish out criticism but pee their pants and cry for ‘mommy’ when it’s directed at them.

  20. George says:

    To the supporters of the scammers who keep banging on about “who cares if some tree bark is different”: Listen carefully and repeat this to yourself until you understand it: NO ONE IS SAYING IT WASN’T A LARGE, 1000 LB PIG. Got it now? The problem is that the pair of lying fatties used trick photography and sloppy photoshopping TO TRY AND MAKE THE PIG LOOK TWICE AS LARGE AS IT REALLY WAS. That is DISHONEST. The PROOF that the photos were doctored is the tree bark evidence. And even that wouldn’t be a big deal if MIKE STONE HADN’T INSISTED THAT NONE OF THE PHOTOS WAS ALTERED IN ANY WAY. Understand now?

  21. John says:

    What’s wrong with this country has nothing to do with 11 year old country boys hunting, but everything to do with politicians, lawyers and reporters. All these scum bags bring nothing to society and are the most disgusting and vile people. And Ms Rhonda Shearer illustrate this perfectly.Now, I dare you to post my comment…

  22. jon says:

    What a Liar the father is!!!!! He should be ashamed!!!http://66.226.75.96/pig/http://66.226.75.96/pig/http://66.226.75.96/pig/

  23. George says:

    your link to “Rob Nelson proves otherwise” at the top of pagehttp://www.astrobio.net/stinkyjournalism/newsdetail.php?id=52which is great and impirtant to the story is broken.http://66.226.75.96/pig/

  24. Tim says:

    Anyone who thinks the photos were not altered in any way to misrepresent the size of the hog, is an idiot. Not only the tree bark part, but if you compare the size of the boy’s head in the first photo ( the original photo on the site with him “leaning” on the hog ) and the second photo ( with the boy sitting Indian Style behind the hog ) the relative difference in size between the two subjects is obvious. The difference in distance between the boy and the camera, relative to the hog, would not have changed any more than a few inches ( subject to camera ), yet, the childs head is nearly three times bigger in the “indian style” photo when the hog is the exact same size. I overlayed the images and that’s what I got:[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v111/timmyh911/fakeshotoverlays.gif[/IMG]FAKE

  25. Genuine Hunter says:

    It sickens me as someone who has spent hundreds of hours peacefully walking through woods, both during hunting season and not, to see something like this. I hunt primarily for the wild game, never for a trophy, and to keep populations in check since natural predators have been eradicated by competition with subsidized domestic pets, like cats and wild dogs.This man had his child, or his friends, or anyone with a gun shoot this domesticated animal more that twenty times before it died. Now they are teaching the child that sadism alone is insufficient, and that you have to make a profit doing it. If there is anything that turns the non hunting, non gun owner population against hunting its fake stories like this one. That man should be ashamed.

  26. Joe says:

    Here are my comments on the big pig pictures.

    1. Are the pictures fake? I think the better word would be unrealistic. The picture of the kid kneeling behind the pig is unrealistic. The picture of the strung up pig with the boy and his father “standing next” to the pig is unrealistic. What we have here is what is called “forced perspective” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_perspective). The picture of the kid next to the pig’s head with the gun on the pig’s ear is realistic. One “forced perspective” picture could be inadvertent (the kid did not want to get close to the pig-bad smell?), but two “forced perspective” pictures tells me that the indent of the two pictures was to deceive. The father created the two unrealistic pictures to deceive people.

    2. Why did the father include the realistic picture? I believe he did it to muddy the waters. If someone said something about the two unrealistic pictures he would tell them to look at the realistic picture. The person would be confused (i.e. muddy the waters).

    3. How can I be sure that the father took the pictures to deceive people? Please go to this site-http://www.monsterpig.com/talk_about_stinky_journalism.htm. If you read what the father says about the picture of the kid standing behind the pig and the one of the kid next to the pig’s head with the gun on the pig’s ear one would have to conclude that he believes that the kid is the same distance from the pig in each of the two pictures. Because of the forced perspective picture-which I believe was done to deceive-one can only think that the father is either not telling the truth or is blind. If the father had not said that the kid was the same distance in each picture one could say that the unrealistic picture(s) was (were) inadvertent. His “same distance” statement(s) shows him for what he is-a deceiver.

    4. When he said that the pig was 9’-4” long and weighed 1050 pounds was he telling the truth? Yes, he was, but he was also mudding the waters. Please go to these sites: http://www.gon.com/article.php?id=1017, http://www.hoax-slayer.com/giant-feral-pig.html, http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.shooting-hunting-hogs.html, http://www.feral.org.au/content/species/pig.cfm. If one goes to these sites and others one learns that “true” feral pigs can weigh as much as 400 pounds and may weigh as much as 660 pounds. It is doubtful that a “true” feral pig can weigh over 660 pounds. The kid shot a farmed raised animal that was very big- 9’-4” and 1050 pounds.

    5. How can I be sure that the pig was as big as Stone said it was? I took some measurements. The following is how I did it: I made a hard copy of the picture of the kid behind the pig and made a hard copy of the picture of the kid next to the pig’s head and the gun on the pig’s ear. When I measured the distance from the pig’s snout to his rump for the ‘behind” picture I get 10 inches and when I do the same for the “head/gun” picture I get 8 and 10/32”. Let us work on the “behind” picture first. Please be advised that “PM” stands for picture measurement and “LM” stands for life measurement. The PM for the distance between the eyes of the kid is 5/32” and the LM is 2 and1/2”. With the 10” for the PM length the pig we come up with a LM of 13.33 feet for the pig. Remember this is the forced perspective picture. Here are my calculations on how I got the 13.33’.
    10” x 32=320
    320/5= 64 Note: 5 is for 5/32
    64 x 2.5”=160”
    160”/12”=13.33 feet.
    If we do the same calculations for the “width of the face” (PM is 7/16” and LM is 7.5”) we get 14.3 feet. If the gun barrel is 10.5” for its LM (based on information on the Smith and Wesson web site for the Model 500) and 9/16” for its PM we get 15.6 feet. If the PM is 1/2” we get 17.5 feet. The reason for the two PM measurements for the barrel is because it is hard to know were the barrel starts and ends. Because of the “forced perspective” in the picture we get 13.33 feet, 14.3 feet, 15.6 feet and 17.5 feet. As you can see we do not get 9’-4”.

    For the head/gun picture (the realistic one) we get the following measurements: the PM length for the pig is 8 and 10/32” and PM measurement for the distance between the eyes is 7/32” and the calculations give us 7.9 feet for the pig. If the PM for the width of the face is 16/32” the calculations give us 10.4 feet. The average of 7.9 and 10.4 is 9.2 feet which is close to the length of the pig that Stone said it was. Based on what I have learned from sites on pigs/semi-feral pigs/feral pigs the weight of 1050 pounds is realistic.

    Based on the above calculations Stone (the father) is not telling the truth when says his kid is equal distance from the pig in the two pictures.

    6. Why did Stone the father take the deceiving pictures? I do not know for sure, but the following are some educated guesses:
    It is the kid’s birthday.
    Stone wanted to put one over on the Yankees. Make some money.
    Publicity for the Hogzilla movie.

    7. What do I think of the father’s story that the kid shot the pig? What I think is that if the kid shot the pig it was at close range and most likely it was already dead. It was a canned hunt so the kid had nothing to do except to stand by and watch his father and his buddies’ corner the pig and kill it. There is no way that kid ran after the pig for three hours in the hot, humid Southern country side.

    8. What do I think of the people who think Stone is innocent? I think they are Bushies. They probably voted for Bush twice. Voting for Bush in 2000 was bad enough, but voting for Howdy Doody in 2004 was behind the pale. If a person voted for Bush and if a person thinks Stone is innocent then they more suffer the same problem-they cannot think.

    Here are my conclusions:

    A. The “forced perspective” pictures that Stone took were meant to deceive.
    B. Stone knew that pig was a farm raised animal.
    C. Stone’s kid did not kill the pig as was told by Stone. Stone pulled this story out of his ass.
    D. The “big pig” story was meant to make the kid feel special. The only special thing about the kid is that he is a very good liar-just like his father.
    E. If Mr. Stone does not like what I have wrote he can sue me. If you do, Stone, I will eat you alive. Please leave a message on your site so we can make contact. I would love to get you in court.

  27. pig says:

    i would like to see the slabs of bacon that come off that pig. yum

  28. Gary says:

    Here are my comments on the comments of the big pig picture:
    1. Is Joe a charming guy? You bet!
    2. Is it great that the warden gives the inmates lots of time in the prison library to do internet research on topics like photographic perspective? Of course!
    3. Has America been hit again since 9/11/01 with airliner cruise missiles, a nuke or an explosives-laden Zodiac boat in the harbor? No!
    4. Is Joe sad? I think so. After all, following a Kerry election in 2004, new President Bin-Laden and new Vice President “Dick” Al-Zawahiri would have long ago, after nuking Washington D.C., flung open the prison gates of America, springing Joe and all the other trendsetters of our modern civilization.
    5. Am I a Bushie? Well, I would vote for him a third time!
    6. Is Joe pissed off? Yes!

    Here are my conclusions:
    A. Except for the stupidly lopsided trade deficit with China, the U.S. economy is doing great!
    B. Joe needs Jesus.
    C. Good luck Joe at your next parole hearing!

  29. Joe T. says:

    Gary, here is my response to your reply. But, first, let me tell you something about me. I am a 57 year old man and an ex-Catholic atheist. I was taught by nuns in grade school and by priests in high school. I have a background in engineering, but by temperament I am a scientist. Thus, my world is ruled by logic and reason. Enough about me, Gary are you ready? I am going to tear you a new one.1. Is Joe a charming guy? You bet!Gary, I am not a charming guy. There is nothing in my comment about the big pig to make you or any one else think I am a charming guy. Now, you may think I am intelligent and know how to handle myself in a knife fight. If you think this you would be correct!2. Is it great that the warden gives the inmates lots of time in the prison to do internet research on topics like photographic perspective? Of course!Gary, I have never been in jail, prison, the big house, etc. You said in #5 below that you would vote for Bush for the third time. If you actually did this then you should be placed in the same place where they place the criminal insane. As for the “forced perspective”, I learned this from reading and not from the internet. Gary, if you would get your nose out of your gd bible you would know something about the world and forced perspective.3. Has America been hit again since 9/11/01 with airliner cruise missiles, a nuke or an explosives-laden Zodiac boat in the harbor? No!Gary, your statement is inane. You cannot prove a negative. If you would read something besides your gd bible you would know this.4. Is Joe sad? I think so. After all, following a Kerry election in 2004, new President Bin-Laden and new President “Dick” Al-Zawahiri would have long ago, after nuking Washington D.C., flung open the prison gates of America, springing Joe and all trendsetters of your modern civilization.Only a Bushie could make such an idiotic statement. 5. Am I a Bushie? Well, I would vote for him a third time!Please see #2 above. I would like to add one more thing. People have said that Bush is a dry drunk. Recently, Bush was caught drinking a beer with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The next morning Bush was unable to go out to conduct G-8 Summit business. It would not be unreasonable to think Bush was suffering from a hangover. Gary, your leader is a WET DRUNK!!!!!!!!!!!!6. Is Joe pissed off? Yes!Yes, I am pissed. As they say: A blind pig founds an acorn once awhile.After six years of the Bush Administration only an irrational person would think that the six years have been good Here are my conclusions:A. Except for the stupidly lopsided trade deficit with China, the U.S. economy is doing great!Gary, if you are young you will be paying for the war for the rest of your life. Also, you will be paying for my social security and you will not have any social security-hee, hee, hee, hee, hee, hee, hee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!B. Joe needs Jesus. I do not need for a gd Jesus freak to tell me that I need Jesus. I had all of Jesus that I could stand from the nuns in grade school and from the priests in high school. Gary, I would guess you think that Jesus is a historical person. Would you please provide proof of this. I WILL NOT REPLY TO YOUR NEXT REPLY UNLESS YOU PROVIDE PROOF THAT JESUS WAS A HISTORICAL PERSON. You cannot use the bible. It is not a history book! C.Good luck Joe at your next parole hearing!Please see #2 from above.Well, Gary, how does it feel to have a new one?Joe T.

  30. Gary says:

    But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. – Matt 6:7 (kjv) Catholic or heathen, interchangeable. Without Jesus you are on your way to hell, atheist fool. For the moment, it’s just you and me (and Jesus) in this dark, forgotten corner of a lie-filled cyber scratchpad. Jesus has paid my way out. You, sad smart man, must remain.

  31. Joe T. says:

    Gary (a.k.a. Jesus Freak), I said not to use the bible. I forgive you because you were not trying to prove the historical existence of Jesus. So, we agree that Jesus is not a historical person. Gary, you quoted the bible to me because you think I am speaking too much on heathen things. Yes, sometimes I feel that I am casting pearls before swine. Let me quote the bible: King James Version-Leaving All to Follow Christ-And great multitudes went with him. And He turned and said to them. “If anyone comes to Me and does NOT HATE his father and mother, wife and children, brother and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” Luke 14:25-26Gary, do you hate you family? I think you do because you are a “good, God fearing Christian”. Give it up, Gary. I know the bible better than you do. IF YOU KEEP QUOTING THE BIBLE I WILL EAT YOU ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  32. Joe T. says:

    Gary? Gary? Gary, where are you? Have you gone to your just reward, Gary? We can only hope. If we are lucky, he will NOT darken this site again. THIS SITE IS TOO GOOD FOR HIM. I for one will not miss his religious rantings.

Comments Terms and Conditions

  • We reserve the right to edit/delete comments which harass, libel, use coarse language and profanity.
  • We moderate comments especially when there is conflict or negativity among commenters.
  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *