Brice,

(a)  Why did you feel the need to change the topic of this thread?
BTW, you forgot the "OT:"

(b)  M-W online dictionary defines "obtuse" as: "lacking sharpness or
quickness of sensibility or intellect : INSENSITIVE, STUPID."  I'm not
sure why you need to start insulting me.  Did I insult you?

(c)  w.r.t. the Post's article on lead in our water:  I have asked,
numerous times, for any evidence you may have to doubt the findings in
the Post article.  You have not provided any.  You have provided vague
claims of "junk science" and "they want to sell papers."  I, too, can
make unsubstantiated claims: "these Polish soldiers would like to make
their difficult sacrifices in Iraq a little less meaningless, and
finding any WMDs, no matter how old and useless, is in their best
interest."  HOWEVER, I AM NOT MAKING ANY SUCH RIDICULOUS CLAIMS.  If you
have any evidence to support your position, ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL, I would
love to see it.

(d)  re: the quote that I have included from the AP article.  I feel
that it is information that was excluded from the article you referred
to in the "Free Republic".  That is all.  Take from it what you would
like.  If you want to extrapolate that he's just talking about the
"delivery vehicle," that's fine.  IMO he's not giving us as much
information as you're reading into it.  Is the cyclosarin still usable?
I DON'T KNOW.  Do you?  Cite your evidence, which is lacking in both of
these articles.

The point of my previous posting is that you, Brice, appear to be
pretty strict on reporters when you disagree with them politically, but
pretty easy on the ones that you agree with.  Why bother reading
anything if your mind is already made up?

I'm all for "raising the bar" on our news media.  But I feel that that
crosses the political spectrum.

Art

>>> Brice Yokem <[log in to unmask]> 10/6/2004 10:50:08 AM >>>
I'm not trying to belittle or dismiss these findings.  Just trying to
put all the facts out there, which is difficult in this highly
politically-charged atmosphere.

-----------------

Arthur -

You are trying to be obtuse, and it is obvious on it's face you are
trying
to be obtuse.

It is a simple matter to take a water sample from the city water
supply,
even from the connection a home has to the city water, before it makes
it into the home plumbing, and have it tested.

Testing chemical weapons like cyclosarin, is not simple, but highly
dangerous.  I have no reason to believe the Polish forces have dummied
up some kind of phony chemical weapon, but I do have reason to believe
the Post wants to sell papers and would be willing to fan the spark
of a small problem into a large fire, if it can.

----------------

"'Some of them are very corroded. They are probably not usable, but
are
dangerous to the local environment,' Szmajdzinski said."

As you pointed out, omissions are a way to lie, without lying.

----------------

I am not sure what you mean here.  Are you saying the cyclosarin found
here
is useless as a chemical weapon?  Are you saying it cannot be
repackaged
into some sort of chemical delivery weapon?  The fact is, the
chemicals
exist and were not supposed to.  I am saying the fact that the
cyclosarin
exists is enough to say chemical weapons existed in Iraq.  It is
unimportant if the weapons are too old to be usable.  If the
cyclosarin
had broken down into some harmless substance, then I would say it was
not
a chemical weapon, but what has happened is the delivery vehicle was
broken, which should not be relevant.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *