Not quite. In one case I told one freeper he was posting too much tinfoil when he theorized that the New York Times was nefariously behind the spiking of the (mistaken) Thursday coma story because they've endorsed John Kerry and own WHO. Yah that's tinfoil because I'd already linked to the Google search showing that there are hundreds of other sources for the Saturday coma story and the NYT doesn't own but a few of them. In the second case I made a generalized statement that "there are a few of us willing to resist the impulse to look like a tinfoiler but we seem to be outnumbered on this thread" in response to this comment by Dave S:
"Also, Kerry said he heard the message on Saturday. That doesnt mean the call was left Saturday. You got to believe that someone like Kerry receives a lot of calls and that he doesnt always return them immediately. Dont run off to the media and be looked at as a conspiracy kook."
Dave's advice is good and you should follow it. This story is not nailed as much as you want it to be. You and others should "resist the impulse to look like a tinfoiler" and get this story bulletproof before running off to the media with it. If you haven't run off to the media then you have managed to resist the impulse.
"You are the one speculating on what the articles 'could really mean'. Now how is it that you accuse the majority on this thread of being "tinfoilers" and you're not?"
Hopefully the clarification above is sufficient but on the chance its not let me get my two-by-four. I have reached no firm conclusion as to whether Kerry did or didn't get a voice mail from Reeve and whether he did or didn't lie about it. The jury is still out. There is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion. That's not speculation, that's incontrovertible. All conclusions are right now speculative, such as the one you keep advocating.
Get inside Reeve's house or hospital with a first-hand account of his condition or get Kerry's or Reeve's phone records where you might have something to confirm your speculation and I'll concede the point in a heartbest.
Exactly my point. (except for the item in bold which I assume you meant to read "when") But I am commenting on what I have read, not speculating on what I think it might mean.
And to clarify my contention, I don't think it is being a tinfoiler to examine and discuss these articles, or even to go so far as trying to ascertain if Kerry is lying again.