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: carranza2 who wrote (72324)	9/21/2004 1:03:23 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793834

I generally am slow to give rise to this kind of stuff, but there is something otherworldly about the whole thing, and it doesn't make sense to me I have to agree with you there. And a fraud is the simplest explanation. Yet knowing people's infinite capacity for self-deception, I am not sure...

To: carranza2 who wrote (72324)	9/21/2004 1:07:03 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793834

>>Dan Rather knew the documents were fakes. I'm willing to accept that Rather didn't know and didn't really care. But I agree with your larger point, that someone with decision making authority in that newsroom, HAD to know the docs are fake and Burkett is a loon, or else is so addled that it's hard to believe they remain in that position. This seems to be what Zell Miller is angry about, the lunatics are running what used to be the Democrat party anymore.

To: carranza2 who wrote (72324)	9/21/2004 2:14:12 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793834

It takes about a nanosecond to determine that the documents are false. It takes about that long to determine that they are likely false, but what is the standard of proof for forgery? An expert typically will declare something authentic or say simply that he cannot authenticate it. At what point do experts certify something like this a forgery? Would they not have to have the same level of proof as they would to declare authenticity, such as the original? The apology is interesting to a lawyer... if he didn't knowingly use forgeries, he didn't need to use weasel language in the apology Would the CBS lawyers not insist on weasel language regarding forgery if there is no proof of forgery? Alleged forgery or apparent forgery or likely forgery or some such? News organizations tend to be careful to say "alleged." I remember hearing them say "alleged murders" when they were talking about the beltway killings.