On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:02:10 -0800, Mark Fox wrote:

The Chief Instigator wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> writes:

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:59:53 -0600, The Chief Instigator wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> writes:

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:11:28 -0800, Mark Fox wrote:

Gosh, do you think that Chris Mathews can keep his head pulled out of
his own ass long enough to realize that it's also "President Bush" and
not "Mr. Bush"??

Why is Bush different? Should we call him "his excellency" or something?

Are you a complete moron?  didn't I just say he should be called
"President Bush".

Are you stupid?

Can't you read?

Did your mother drop you on your head when you were born?

Someone go find an intelligent adult to post here.  All these silly
young boys such as Chief  pretending they have a clue and a brain with
their mouths flipping and flapping are just making me laugh.

Your snipping is dishonest. My point remains that "mister" has been used
in broadcasting as an honorific for the President for decades now. You
seem to want things changed just for Bush.

It's not at all uncommon in broadcasting (or print for that matter) for
the first reference to be "President X" but the remaining references in
the broadcast or article to be "Mister X." Been done for years. It was
done all through the Clinton presidency by many. Did you bitch then?

-- 
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys 
on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING 
like Shakespeare!" 
- Blair Houghton