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 (230103)	2/22/2002 5:28:01 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

for emphasizing the lethality of the substance There was no reason for me to repeat the substance of your post. I could have said "Ditto" if that were useful. The useful thing was to clarify the post with specific information. the fact that CNN also noted its lethality was material. Once again you are letting your mental image of how you wanted the story to turn out color the actual story. CNN did not note that the material was lethal (In any of the articles I posted). It noted that the material could be turned into something lethal. CNN didn't mention that it would be difficult, much more difficult than going back to the store and buying the rat poison they apparently intended to buy instead of the almond flavor extract that they had. It seems to me you have a bigger beef with the news outlets for dumping a laundry list of unrelated and unexplained "red suspenders" into the story than you have with me for clarifying it. Your snide reference to the "Murdoch media" and subsequent quotes were intended to say that the article was wrong, and to insinuate that it was purposely overblown. I am glad that the opinion I have of the Murdoch media is generally understood if not shared. I do have suspicions that the Murdoch media might have a tendancy to emphasise terrorist stories in a way that distracts from other stories, such as Enron for example. This also means that you understood that I thought the quote about a massacre was overblown. Instead of looking at why I correctly thought that a massacre was unlikely, you have chosen to call me a liar. intended to imply that my looking at overseas sites was bs because I was drawn to inherently unreliable sites. I may have thought you primarily read NewsCorp or related information, but now I think that you read NewsCorp first, and then filter your perception of other sources in light of what Murdoch's proxies recommend. In this case you seem to have made an impression from the start and are trying every which way from Sunday to make the actual events fit in your scenario. TP