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/...idArticle=4596
&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.

"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/...idArticle=4596
&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."

Gandalf Grey wrote:

"Kameron Spesial" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2004 02:12:45 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



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."

CBS said they submitted the documents to extensive examination by
experts before 'running' with the story, but nothing will convince the
conspiracy types.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article ,
longwave wrote:

Gandalf Grey wrote:

"Kameron Spesial" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2004 02:12:45 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



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."

CBS said they submitted the documents to extensive examination by
experts before 'running' with the story, but nothing will convince the
conspiracy types.

They are full of it. They also said if any information to the contrary
was available they would show it and they have not.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

longwave wrote:
CBS said they submitted the documents to extensive examination by
experts before 'running' with the story, but nothing will convince the
conspiracy types.

They've changed that story already. Now it's that they had people familiar
with the documents' content, and they checked with a handwriting expert.

--
"The Democrats are all over this. Democratic strategists feel John Kerry's
war record means he can beat Bush. They say when it comes down to it, voters
will always vote for a war hero over someone who tried to get out of the war.
I'll be sure to mention that to Bob Dole when I see him." -- Jay Leno