"-=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/...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.

(who would
have thought to?).

People who are regularly sued such as CBS.

In any event, I would be willing to bet that in the
future, if they are handed "the document of their dreams" similar to the
case at hand, it *will* get a typographical appraisal!


-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)