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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (227419)	4/17/2007 1:24:26 PM
From: lazarre	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I'll only, due to time constraints ( but will p.u. at another time if, indeed, it's proven that Davis DID NOT say what he said per the reportage within my post---when it is so proven I have no problem in apologizing for utilizing inaccurate information...this has yet to be done by you or by anyone else here...just conjecture and bias and a predilection, shared by all, to zero in on sources that underscore a POV, as usual ). "How you get from there to my thinking I have a monopoly on truth I've no idea." Because you simply ignore the possibility that Davis said what he said and, by impliction, that a threat was ever made.... threats like these are commonplace and should be taken seriously; recent history has proven that. And if you think that they should not, please witness the moslem to moslem slaughter that's taken place in Morocco, Algeria, and cairo these last few days...all in the name of a fundamentalism that most Moslems fear and, secretly ( and bravo to those with courage who object not so secretly ) loathe. Moreover, you also erred by saying the reporter, in his report, either repeated Davis's words or paraphrased them. I reminded you of that but, as it , unremarkably turned out, you did not acknowledge that at all. And BTW, I also wish you'd stop telling me what my own predilections are when it comes to information. I consider Fox totally biased and, sometimes, offensive in their sensationalism and do not watch nor access their websites. I did focus on them, once, and knew them for what they were during the Clinton years.