I do hope you've been holding your breath.
Goodness. I don't wish you any harm. None whatsoever.
Why do you wish me harm?
Both topics you mention have been discussed in detail with plenty of links provided as a source of information.
Actually, they haven't. No answers to my challenges have been provided, nor "plenty" of links posted. On the other hand, a few links have been offered containing the same, undocumented, citation-less assertion.
Most importantly, though - where you are concerned, and as you can plainly see, these two posts are currently unanswered, which is indicated by there not having been any replies to them. See for yourself:
Message 20267132
Message 19177234
So. Got anything, yet?
You've been participating on this board for a very long time, and in a very active manner, yet your demands for information would suggest you don't bother reading anything you didn't write yourself.
How are you asserting I could challenge the many undocumented assertions on this thread without reading the posts?
Put another way: do you think, for a moment, that I haven't already verified that no credible supporting information exists before I undertake making an utter, risible fool out of you, Sidney Reilly, or any of the other conspiracy theorists frequenting this thread?
I'll give you an example. Go to Yahoo and type in "cipro anthrax attacks [B]ush", then hit enter. These are the results you will get from that search string:
search.yahoo.com.
You can then skim the results, sort them by source, apply whatever criteria you care to employ in obtaining a credibility level you deem reasonable, etc.
That is an excellent, instructive example. Let's begin, shall we?
When running that search string, the first three links that come up are as follows:
1. A link from June 10, 2002 from a site entitled "La Voz de Aztlan." In the article, the only relevant line is, "La Voz de Aztlan learned yesterday that the White House Staff including President George Bush went on a regiment of the anti-biotic "Cipro" that is use to ward off anthrax
infections on September 11, 2001."
No other information is given. No links are provided, nor sources cited.
Does that meet your criteria for credible reporting, Don Earl?
2. An item dated Jun 7, 2002, posted on JudicialWatch.org. This contains one quote: "In October 2001, press reports revealed that White House staff had been on a regimen of
the powerful antibiotic Cipro since the September 11th terrorist attacks."
Here too, the source is completely uncited. Who published these mysterious "press reports"? Where? And what, specifically, did they report?
Does this meet your criteria for credible reporting, Don Earl?
3. This item comes with no discernable date, from the website entitled "unansweredquestions.net." It's not a website, but instead a reader's question: "Is it true that the Bush Cabinet began taking Cipro the morning of 9/11?"
Does that meet your criteria for credible reporting, Don Earl? For you, does that even constitute "reporting"?
I'll continue down the list, if you'd like. I will be happy to - just let me know.
There is truly no need for you to pine away hoping someone will take you off their idiot list to answer your demands for information. Who knows, maybe if you did some of your own research, and posted the results, you would be on fewer idiot lists.
Oh, no! You've got it completely wrong.
Where this thread is concerned, I relish being on Ignore lists. It shows palpable emotion on the part of the 'Ignorer' and, in particular, rings quite vindicatingly when my inclusion in said lists comes on the heels of my discrediting various undocumented assertions and faulty logic underscoring the plentiful, local conspiracy theories.
Review:
Message 19332039
:-)
LPS5 |
