Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (230015)	2/22/2002 12:02:37 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 769667

It's interesting to see how you subtly change the actual article contents in your mind to fit your world view. It's precisely the process that keeps conservatives lock step in their peculiar issues. Referring to the post again: Message 17093716 you did flatly say all of those things I said none of those things. I expressed sceptisism of a pending massacre and I quoted the identity of the found substance to support that sceptisism. because the CNN story said nothing about lethality The CNN story I posted said: ... is a cyanide derivative far less toxic than the pure form of the poison, Not very clear, still a bit alarming, but backing down from the massacre theory. the LA Times had the claim that it was potassium cyanide, What the times actually said, and I quoted was: Italian Chief Prosecutor Salvatore Vecchione said judicial police had tentatively identified the bag's contents as potassium ferrocyanide. It is true that the LA times reported that the police originilly misidentified the substance. The way it was presented : Italian officials told the U.S. Embassy that the bag apparently contained potassium cyanide, easy to buy in Italy and commonly used by farmers to kill rodents. Now this is alarming and misleading when taken out of context. Even in context it could be misunderstood. The paper is reporting in this paragraph on what the Italian authorities said, and not on the actual identity of the substance. I did not quote the misleading portion of the article, I quoted the most factual part. I should be applauded for performing a service to those with limited reading comprehension. (and the sidebar link said whatever it is is very lethal), The sidebar is I presume the link which you posted in response: Message 17093819 Very alarming indeed, sensational, and quite inaccurate as to the actual nature of the threat. Again I should be applauded for not having spread sensational rumours and stuck more closely to the facts. Nowhere did I say the arrests were unnecesary or even imply that there was some lack of intent to do harm in the situation. I merely displayed evidence that the prospect of a massacre was overblown. the Times story pointed out that the gas was lethal, which you didn't mention. I clarified this in post: Message 17095459 I can only guess that this was mentioned in the story so as to not make the Italian Police look bad for taking the issue seriously. . So, you mentioned only those things you thought would discredit my source, and therefore me, which amounts to a deliberate intent to mislead No, It's true I scoffed at your source. Why? because I thought you were being a pompous windbag to toss in a foriegn language post: Message 17093378 and then a translation: siliconinvestor.com You seemed to imply that it was breaking news. The gist was alarming: Several days of tailing the suspects were necessary. The 4 men were arrested when the authorities were sure that the suspected terrorists were in possession of 4 kilos of a product with a cyanide base. The Moroccans had plans for Rome. The site of the American Embassy was underlined in one; the other reproduced in detail the network through which water is distributed. The 4 kilos could have caused a massacre, according to the Italian press. The news was day old and I had read the updates earlier. Did I intend to mislead? No! I included the most up to date pertinent facts and de-emphasised the most misleading reports even while including them for reference. Did I intend to discredit your "broad influence" claim of post: - . Message 17092675 Of course.I was wrong to make a blanket unsubstansiated statement about your reading lists, but I thought it within bounds to identify where your broad net was picking up empty shells. Little did I realize that the ensuing bruhaha would illustrate even more the perils of looking for information when your mind is already made up. I think it can represent a consistent theme in conservative reasoning. TP