SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!!

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bill who wrote (104220)5/16/2005 4:25:46 PM
From: E  Read Replies (3) of 108807
 
It occurs to me that they sent it to two DOD people who challenged a but not b, c or d, because they were eating tuna salad sandwiches when they got the proposed Newsweek article to review and what the hell, pass the mayo.

I think the notion that Marc Whitaker WANTED not to get the story right is a bit dubious. He wasn't cautious enough, clearly.

I don't think the other publications that have run the same charges WANTED to get the story wrong, either.

And we don't know if they were wrong about what happened. We don't yet know if the Quran was toileted or not (edit: brilliant tactic, if it was, I must say; you have any problems with it, or do you feel the same about that as you do about Abu Ghraib?), we only know about the DOD not challenging the charge when given the opportunity by an international publication (possibly because they were lunching), and that the original source now says he isn't positive which document he read it in. Not that he didn't read it, but that he isn't positive which document he read it was in. Maybe the other sources that have publicized this toilet-quran charge w/o much attention being paid can clear that up.

If it's a true story -- turns out to be -- should it be kept secret? Stopped? Continued, only secretly?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext