On 7/6/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/07/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/5/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/5/07, The Mangoe
<the.mangoe(a)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?