|
CE9
Apr 5, 2005 13:17:48 GMT -5
Post by Galactus on Apr 5, 2005 13:17:48 GMT -5
Ok, then what's the big deal about Kojo?
|
|
|
CE9
Apr 5, 2005 13:20:36 GMT -5
Post by chrisfan on Apr 5, 2005 13:20:36 GMT -5
To be honest, I do not know. I would guess that it's just a juicy scandal part of the story, so it's garnered more attention. And, I think there is some suspicion that Kojo was being used to filter money back directly to Kofi.
|
|
|
CE9
Apr 5, 2005 13:28:38 GMT -5
Post by Galactus on Apr 5, 2005 13:28:38 GMT -5
Ok, I just saw an article it was describing the situation as being very similar to many things that Halliburton(the article wasn't comparing the two, I just thought what they were accusing Kojo and Jofi of were very similar) has been accused of for quite awhile. I was just wondering if anyone could explain the difference...since depending on who you ask one is big deal and the other is not.
|
|
|
CE9
Apr 5, 2005 16:13:12 GMT -5
Post by chrisfan on Apr 5, 2005 16:13:12 GMT -5
It's rather difficult to explain any differences without knowing what article you're basing your comments on.
|
|
|
CE9
Apr 5, 2005 17:15:51 GMT -5
Post by Galactus on Apr 5, 2005 17:15:51 GMT -5
Why would you need to know what article it was? I told you it didn't mention Haliburton...so that's not what the article about, it just got me thinking about it. If you don't know what the deal with Kojo is then would pretty hard to explain the diffences anyway. All it basicly said was that Kofi had been cleared on charges that he knew about and possibly helped his son's company get these contracts...though his crediblity's still shot.
|
|
|
CE9
Apr 5, 2005 17:35:54 GMT -5
Post by ken on Apr 5, 2005 17:35:54 GMT -5
there probably is no difference, DED, other than the party in power.
|
|
|
CE9
Apr 5, 2005 17:41:14 GMT -5
Post by Galactus on Apr 5, 2005 17:41:14 GMT -5
there probably is no difference, DED, other than the party in power. Well that obviously is my assumption, I've done some research and so far the only difference I can find is the one went to court and the other is being quietly ignored...
|
|
|
CE9
Apr 5, 2005 18:01:21 GMT -5
Post by ken on Apr 5, 2005 18:01:21 GMT -5
Personally, I blame it on the death merchants.
|
|
|
CE9
Apr 5, 2005 18:05:43 GMT -5
Post by ken on Apr 5, 2005 18:05:43 GMT -5
...and the culture of death.
|
|
|
CE9
Apr 5, 2005 19:04:22 GMT -5
Post by Galactus on Apr 5, 2005 19:04:22 GMT -5
Aye, when looking to blame someone the Death Merchants' is always a store worth stopping in.
|
|
|
CE9
Apr 5, 2005 19:50:51 GMT -5
Post by maarts on Apr 5, 2005 19:50:51 GMT -5
On the subject of how you'd like to be buried....this one takes some beating!
Hunter: out with a bang April 6, 2005 - 9:00AM Hunter S Thompson's ashes will be blasted from a cannon mounted inside a 16-metre-high sculpture of the journalist's "gonzo fist" emblem, his wife said.
The cannon shot, planned sometime in August on the grounds of his Aspen-area home, will fulfil the writer's long-cherished wish.
"It's expensive, but worth every penny," Anita Thompson said. "I'd like to have several explosions. He loved explosions."
Thompson, 67, shot himself in the head on February 20 after a long and flamboyant career that produced such new journalism classics as Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and cast his image as a hard-charging, drug-crazed daredevil.
The cannon shot will be part of a larger public celebration of Thompson's life. Some details remain to be worked out, including the exact date, what kind of cannon will be used and the specifics of the gonzo fist, Anita Thompson said.
She said the gonzo fist will be mounted on a 30-metre pillar, making the monument 46 metre high. It will resemble Thompson's personal symbol, a fist on an upthrust forearm, sometimes with "Gonzo" emblazoned across it.
Anita Thompson has said the monument will be a permanent fixture on the writer's 40-hectare property.
She said planning for the fist has been guided by a video of Thompson and longtime illustrator-collaborator Ralph Steadman, recorded in the late 1970s when they visited a Hollywood funeral home and began mapping out the cannon scheme.
Damn!
|
|
|
CE9
Apr 5, 2005 20:50:36 GMT -5
Post by Thorngrub on Apr 5, 2005 20:50:36 GMT -5
On the subject of how you'd like to be buried....this one takes some beating! Hunter: out with a bangApril 6, 2005 - 9:00AM Hunter S Thompson's ashes will be blasted from a cannon mounted inside a 16-metre-high sculpture of the journalist's "gonzo fist" emblem, his wife said. The cannon shot, planned sometime in August on the grounds of his Aspen-area home, will fulfil the writer's long-cherished wish. "It's expensive, but worth every penny," Anita Thompson said. "I'd like to have several explosions. He loved explosions." Thompson, 67, shot himself in the head on February 20 after a long and flamboyant career that produced such new journalism classics as Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and cast his image as a hard-charging, drug-crazed daredevil. The cannon shot will be part of a larger public celebration of Thompson's life. Some details remain to be worked out, including the exact date, what kind of cannon will be used and the specifics of the gonzo fist, Anita Thompson said. She said the gonzo fist will be mounted on a 30-metre pillar, making the monument 46 metre high. It will resemble Thompson's personal symbol, a fist on an upthrust forearm, sometimes with "Gonzo" emblazoned across it. Anita Thompson has said the monument will be a permanent fixture on the writer's 40-hectare property. She said planning for the fist has been guided by a video of Thompson and longtime illustrator-collaborator Ralph Steadman, recorded in the late 1970s when they visited a Hollywood funeral home and began mapping out the cannon scheme. Damn!...Speaking of travelling to a memorial service of a famous person . . . ...Now here's a pilgrimmage worth making, I say!
|
|
|
CE9
Apr 6, 2005 6:54:48 GMT -5
Post by Dr. Drum on Apr 6, 2005 6:54:48 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you Drum. That is certainly possible, which is why I was sure to state that my interpretation was what I BELIEVED you were doing, rather than a declaration that it defnitely was. I hesitate to even say it, because I'm afraid it'll be taken as an insult, and it's not meant that way, but perhaps the reason that I did not take your initial post as a gentle ribbing is that I'm not used to you being a source of comic relief on this board. Most of what you post here (and this board is really the only one we both post on) comes across as quite serious. Normally, i don't read humor into the posts of people who usually don't rely on humor. It'd be like looking for deep philosophical wisdowm from Amp's posts, when I know he's more likely to go for the quick quip. Fair enough, Chrisfan. I guess I’d like to think that this forum can on occasion be like any other type of conversation. When I have a political discussion with my next-door neighbour across the back fence, for example, we always talk about serious issues but it never starts out that way.
|
|
|
CE9
Apr 6, 2005 8:21:08 GMT -5
Post by chrisfan on Apr 6, 2005 8:21:08 GMT -5
Why would you need to know what article it was? I told you it didn't mention Haliburton...so that's not what the article about, it just got me thinking about it. If you don't know what the deal with Kojo is then would pretty hard to explain the diffences anyway. All it basicly said was that Kofi had been cleared on charges that he knew about and possibly helped his son's company get these contracts...though his crediblity's still shot. Silly me ... I answered the question, and you asked it again. So I figured there must be more to it, since you asked it again. Guess not. So, I'd say refer back to my original answer ... the outrage is over the oil for food scandal, not Kojo. Kojo is simply the "sexy" part of the story that makes it more exciting for the press to cover. But the press often times does not cover the real outrage in a story.
|
|
|
CE9
Apr 6, 2005 8:23:06 GMT -5
Post by chrisfan on Apr 6, 2005 8:23:06 GMT -5
Fair enough, Chrisfan. I guess I’d like to think that this forum can on occasion be like any other type of conversation. When I have a political discussion with my next-door neighbour across the back fence, for example, we always talk about serious issues but it never starts out that way. I can understand that. Guess it's just another example of the difficulty in communicating when you don't hear voice intonations.
|
|