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: Neeka who wrote (114274)	5/17/2005 2:04:48 PM
From: ig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

"Why did Newsweak originally run with it?" Obviously, it was just a cheap potshot.

To: Neeka who wrote (114274)	5/17/2005 2:09:57 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793917

Thought this would be interesting to this thread. Message 21332314

To: Neeka who wrote (114274)	5/17/2005 2:50:14 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793917

But you didn't answer the original question. No one asked me any original question. <g> I know yours would be a guess, but I bet you could give it a good try. I don't know. I have no reason to disbelieve Newsweek's story. It seems plausible enough to me and I can't think of anything any more likely or even as likely. In my little part of the world, you accept people's explanations if they are plausible and you don't call them liars unless you have pretty solid grounds. I imagine that Isikoff would have thought he had a simple heads-up from a reliable source on some features of the forthcoming report and cavalierly didn't challenge them.