Replies

I completely understand your frustration with the attempt to push Christianity under the rug. I am typically outraged by the most ridiculous exampes we see daily. I've argued that the extreme Atheists are a serious threat to society and their zealouness in attempting to eradicate any evidence of Christianity is evidence that they themselves are practicing an extreme religion themselves - one that is simply more dangerous because it is so heavily focused on destroying those things that do no harm, even to non-believers or thos of a different faith. The elimination of a manger scene on government property at Christmastime is the classic example.

I think in this case though, people were taken aback because they found that the "Terror Threat News" was from a questionable source - an email from a guy they know nothing about. You had mentioned various pieces of more credible sources that were cited in the email. It is typically suggested that those sources should then be posted, not the interpretation found in the email.

The reason for this is that I can write my own email and cite stories or facts from credible sources in that email. I could also twist the information obtained and provide a ridiculous conclusion. That isn't news.

Had this email been referenced in the discussion of a real news release, it may not have been questioned. I think the headline put people on edge, then the source caused them to be somewhat relieved, followed by anger because they felt a bit conned.

Fascinating explanation and I have no reason to consider it less than plausible.

Given that:

Associated Press; WorldNetDaily.com, by Paul Sperry, Washington Bureau Chief, 11/24/03

Was early in the document--and I HAD TRIED to put that whole bit in the SOURCE slot--but it kept deleting major portions of it and I gave up other than getting the Bureau Chief's name in there with Francis'

But given that line--clearly listing a Washington Bureau Chief of the Assoc Press as a source for a key part . . . what on earth happened in brain synapses to flush that so wholesale REGARDLESS of the rest of the document?

Have people in this country forgotten how to spit out the bones at all?????????????????????????!

And it wasn't even bones, the rest of it--but from their perpsective, if they considered it bones, spit them out and hold on to the Assoc Press part.

WHAT WAS SO IRRATIONALLY DIFFICULT ABOUT THAT????

SHEESH.

Thanks much for your patient explanation. But it presents a mystifying picture of very strange thought processes, to me . . . no layman in terms of knowledge about thought processes.