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

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

a)  I already apologized for the mistake.

b)  You are deliberately being dense.  I suspect you are not insensitive
or stupid, but are acting that way just to make things hard.

c)  This is what I mean by being dense.  It is relatively easy to test
the quality of the water in any city by taking a sample and having it
tested.  I don't live in one of those cities, so it would not be easy
for me to do this except for the one where I live.  It would be very hard
for someone to prove the existance of poison gas in Iraq, comparatively.
So I am asking for something to be done which is easy, you reply by
requiring something to be done which is near impossible, and try to
claim you are using the same standard of proof.

d)  The usatoday article you posted actually says there is no doubt
these are chemical weapons.  So, you don't know if the cyclosarin is
usable when you posted an article saying it is?

I think the press has an agenda.  I am less and less inclined to
agree with anything published.  Previously, I have been of the opinion
that the mainstream press simply used selective reporting to further
it's agenda, but after Rathergate, it looks like they cannot be trusted
to report only the truth that suits them, but now have to invent things.

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