| You know what you did. It is precisely as I have described. You deliberately omitted material that would have denied you the opportunity to score a point off of me and my source. No, you endlessly obfuscate, trying to claim the high ground. If CNN made a mistake in its comments on lethality, you could point that out. However, you should have mentioned the comments, since it would have demonstrated that you had no case against me or my source. Similarly, even if the final determination were that it was potassium ferrocyanide (and, in the article, that was not asserted), if you had noticed that the police were the source of the assertion that it was potassium cyanide, or that there was a lingering confusion, again, you would have had no point to make against me or my source. In sum, you constructed, by selective quotation, that is, false representation, a slam against me and my source. That is the problem. If you wanted to make a case against the likelihood of a massacre, that would be a wholly seperate issue. It is not the issue. You are trying to make it the issue. The issue is misrepresenting the state of information to slam my source, and me for using it.... |
