On 7/6/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/07/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's convenient that they could find another source without having to link to the WR thread, but it also seems that the thread is a better source, in spite of the snarky commentary within it.
It can't possibly be a "better source", as none of it is reliable.
Not even the almost blow-by-blow transcript from Brandt of his communications with the various parties?
No, because it's an attack site, and hence per se unreliable...
No, because it's a message board with no editorial oversight, run and contributed to by various anonymous individuals. Even worse, it is filled with fantastic tales of conspiracies and intrigues, 90% of them without any factual basis whatsoever, and the other 10% extremely slanted views with typically only a vague connection with reality.
And by the way, James, your straw man arguments must come to an end at some point; can we agree that this will be the last one?