Brice,

You may have apologized for missing the OT: (which I didn't see before
posting my response, sorry), but you didn't answer my question.  Why did
you feel the need to change the topic of this thread?

I'm not asking for any burden of proof from anyone.  You are.  However,
you seem to be rather selective in applying this standard.

BTW, requesting the Post to test the water completely misses the point
of the article.  Let me summarize:
1.  The EPA's own tests reveal that many water districts have unsafe
levels of lead (unsafe by the EPA's own standards).
2.  There exists some evidence that the EPA did nothing to correct this
situation.
3.  There exists some evidence that the EPA may have "gamed" the
sampling in some districts to under-report the incidence of unsafe
levels of lead.

The point is that the EPA is falling down on their job.  Why would the
Post would need to test the water?  If the EPA's data looked good, then
it's completely reasonable to demand the Post publish their own tests.
But the EPA's data didn't look good, they were supposed to act, and they
didn't.

Go ahead and debate the quality of this "evidence" in the Post article.
 That's fine.  Go ahead and debate whether or not the EPA has a sensible
"unsafe" level of lead.  I'm open to all arguments.  But once again, I
repeat, you have (so far) offered NOTHING FACTUAL to support your casual
dismissal of this article.

On the other topic, please tell me where the AP story says the
cyclosarin is usable.  I've read it a few times, and I don't see it.
Based on this article (and the one on "Free Republic") I must say that I
don't know.  If you do, please cite your evidence.

I agree that the press has an agenda.  That includes the NY Times, the
Washington Post, Fox News, and websites like "Free Republic".
Nevertheless, I try not to completely dismiss anything without having
some informed reason for doing so.

Art

>>> Brice Yokem <[log in to unmask]> 10/6/2004 12:36:58 PM >>>

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 *