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.
Then I have no idea what your point is. You've been throwing medical articles up to bolster your contention that reeve was in no condition to make the call. Wasn't that your point?
And I meant "whether" not "when" that's why I wrote "whether".
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.
Did I say it was? You claim that you base your opinions on what you read yet you can't correctly grasp what I've written. You completely misread my posts about tinfoil and still are.
You've based your opinions on things that a reporter says Kerry said without any quotation marks about what Kerry actually said and then fail to address the omission. Without quotes you don't know exactly what Kerry said. That's not speculation that's Journalism 101.
I agree. That is not being a tin foiler. Concluding that Kerry is lieing based on what little we KNOW or even worse running to the media with such assertions would be tinfoil. It puts us in the same league with the Deniacs saying that Bush knew about the WTC attack in advance or that Bush actually was in on the conspiracy with his Saudi business partners.