"-=jd=-" wrote:

There might be no need. Dan Rather
himself has now begun to disaccociate
authenticty from the docs. (snip)


Of course he has. For the reasons already stated, it is going to be almost
impossible to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, the authenticty of the
documents.


Now we also have the purported author's
secretary chiming in with a high degree of
confidence that the docs are "fakes" that
*she* (at least) never typed. (snip)


This is a clear example of where a little common sense should apply. There
is no possible way for this secretary, who likely typed thousands of
documents in her career, to remember what she did or did not type thirty
years ago.


(snip) Then we have rank-amateurs who
have illustrated over and over that the
documents can be reproduced (snip)


Again, that simply tells me that "rank-amateurs" can reproduced documents
on a computer today. It certainly doesn't prove these particular documents
are fake.


Still, I guess if one has aligned himself
against Bush, then having these docs
turn out to be forged is not very good
news. (snip)


And, I guess if one has aligned himself with Bush, the idea the documents
might be fake is very good news. Of course, that is probably exactly why you
are working so hard to spread that very idea.

Stewart