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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (19903)	3/12/2003 4:57:05 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

You have said that if the person were an agent, you would expect him to lie. You're expectation then is that the only answer you would get would be a denial. If he denies it- -which he did- -I have no means of proving otherwise. So why pursue it? If you expect only one answer, i.e., a denial, then why ask? Oh. Well. We've already stipulated that if he is, he has to be rather stupid. He had no evidence. Let's say he had no evidence that was useful under the stricter rules applied in courts. That's different from good grounds for suspicion. Prior to 911, there was no evidence any of those hijackers intended harm. Do you think it might have been a good idea to watch them closely? This thread might not exist had they been.