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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (13929)	10/26/2003 3:01:18 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793698

We don't know a lot about this case with absolute certainty. I asked what do you think is the most probable explanation? Lots of things could have happened, including the guy completely making the entire story up, but what do you think? I still can't answer the question. Not without doing a lot of research, which would require a lot of effort and is pointless when I can just wait for the answer. I have not more than quickly glanced at the discussion here about how the article came to be published and read none of what was published elsewhere about that aspect of it. I know that the behavior of the author and the publishers is a big deal in the discussion, but it's not a big deal to me since I don't have the same issues with the media that so many here do. I have never read the guy's stuff so far as I know nor do I read the LA Times so I don't have an preconceived notions about either of them. I just haven't followed that part of the story enough to have any opinion at all, let alone certainty. I would want to know where he got the lead. I think that's the most important thing. And how he got the pictures, that would be next. After that, I could probably conjure up a tentative opinion. Best I can say is that it's unlikely he made it up. I know that reporters do that every once in a while, but the likelihood is negligible given that he would have to know he would get caught. When the Post ran that made up story about the ghetto kid, the author was Janet something, she wouldn't have expected to be caught because part of the gimmick was that he was just a kid and she wasn't releasing his name. In the Boykin case, there is nowhere to hide. Plus editors are warier about such things than they once were, haven't been conspicuously burned a few times lately. I'm sorry. I'm not one to jump to conclusions nor am I one to think ill of anyone without enough evidence to at least make my nose twitch and as long as reasonable explanations come to mind. It's just not in my nature to do otherwise. I promise I'll give you my opinion once we get some data. The best I can do right now is to say this: if I were aware of such goings on, I would have reported them, either to his upchain or to the press. Do you think you would be just as motivated to denigrate the general if his beliefs aligned with Wiccan ones and he had said the same things but with a wiccan spiritual element to it? I was on the general's case solely because he undercut his President's policy dangerously in time of war. I have not denigrated him generally. I told you that I took my oath seriously and I expect the general to. I don't care who or what he is. Public officials, whether Wiccan, Christian, or whatever, have standards of behavior. Sometimes those standards seem stupid and actually are stupid, and often they are painful, but we take an oath. As a practical matter, it would be hard to imagine a Wiccan getting into any trouble on this. After all, the jihadis see this as a war between Islam and Christianity. So there's nothing there to arouse a Wiccan to call upon his--I started to say "deity" but I guess that wouldn't work, but you know what I mean... <g>