"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 03:13:25p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:
"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri 10 Sep 2004 10:40:21p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:
"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Fri 10 Sep 2004 09:33:32p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:
"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Thu 09 Sep 2004 11:28:21p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:
"Kameron Spesial" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2004 02:12:45 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:
On Thu 09 Sep 2004 08:56:46p, "llortamai"
wrote in message
:
"Retarded Death Row Inmates 4 Bush"
wrote in message
om...
dream on.
You wish you could dream it was false, but the articles
keep coming. Here's another one.
http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/...r_preview.asp?
idArticle=
459
6 &R=9FCD2F192
Is It a Hoax?
Experts weigh in on the 60 Minutes documents. Says one:
"I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but . . . I'm 99% sure that
these documents were not produced in the early 1970s."
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/09/2004 7:20:00 PM
{snippage}
I wouldn't be surprised to find that 60 Minutes cast some
lines about, offering to pay for similar information and by
doing so, set themselves
up
for getting "werked"!
If they turn out to be forged, it would be a further
indication that 60 minutes was willing to take the info and
run without validating it.
Here's a suggested topic for a 60 Minutes expose on their own
stafers: Blinded by Bias!
-=jd=-
And you're certainly not biased JD.
It's pretty unlikely that 60 Minutes "ran" with the story
without a fairly strenuous attempt to validate the documents.
They might have been wrong and it might turn out that the docs
are plants, but 60 Minutes is regularly challenged by all
quarters and I've got a feeling that they go out of their way
to vet anything they present as "evidence."
From what I heard on the Radio (NPR), they asked the usual line
of questions, but didn't run the document past any typographers
then they lied.
/sarcasm on
My bad - Who are we to question the integrity of (ahem) "unbiased"
NPR or 60-Minutes reporters?
/sarcasm off
I don't care if they're CBS or CNN or FOX or NPR. If they lied they
lied. CBS Stated that the documents had been reviewed by independent
document authorities. Go to cbsnews.com.
Now I'm used to lies and near lies from FOX but I've got to hold CBS
to a higher standard because it is supposed to be actual News. 60
Minutes is even advertised as a New program. So if they didn't get
those documents reviewed by bona fide experts, then they LIED.
Then I agree with you as I also don't find it hard to believe that the
staff of 60-Minutes distorted, exaggerated, manipulated, slanted or
otherwise lied about the information they present.
I didn't say that. What I said was that if they lied there's a very
specific sense in which they lied. When you say you've had documents
examined by experts, and you didn't....you LIED. Britt Hume on FOX ran
a little experiment with someone else in the studio which he said made
the docs look fishy. That's fine. If FOX then turned around and said
they had "experts" examine the docs, referring to Hume's experiment, it
would be a knowing, direct LIE.
That's what I'm saying. Now CBS is on record as stating that the docs
were examined by experts. That's a falsifiable claim. They either did
or they didn't.
If that's what you mena, then opinions will certainly vary, and I'm
willing to bet that the majority of opinions will not be in favor of the
"60-minutes" staffers.
1. I don't care about the opinions.
2. It's not a matter of opinions. CBS either used experts or they didn't.
If they used them, a paper trail will exist.
I can imagine that CBS will, with all due righteous indignation, refuse to
admit any error in due-diligence or thoroughness simply by re-defining
terms. Their definition of an "expert forensic document examiner" may be:
"Joe Dude" who works in the CBS IT department and is certified to fix
laser-printers...
I haven't heard that yet and neither have you.
If Hume wants to define his experiment as "expert analysis", then he has
as much of a credibility problem as the staff of "60-minutes".
Exactly the point. The question is "what is an expert." When you say you
used "experts in the authentification of documents" that's a real thing.
Sothby's and Christie's uses such experts. Such experts have certifications
and qualifications. It's not a matter of opinion. If, say, you use a
handwriting analyst to authenticate the typing in a document, you're lying
when you say you've authenticated the document. If you say you've used an
expert on MS Word to authenticate a typed document, you've lied.
-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:
(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)