Replies

Actually, you misread what I wrote. My "information" is not "information." It is a source that negates the rumor, period.

I am not a source for information, nor do I claim or want to be. I am stating, rather affirmatively, that I am satisfied, based on my source, that this information is inaccurate. (I sure hope my source is correct. Time will tell, although I am not sure any information ever released re: bin Laden will satisfy some, but we will see. Remember, As far as I can tell, I am the ONLY one here willing to put my money on the OBL story. That $500.00 offer still stands, upon proof that we captured him on January 20, 2004.)

Like I said, believe what you want to be real. That's fine with me.

Nothing personal so don't take offense. I do clearly recall several posts you made way back when that were, IMHO, condescending in tone. They were aimed at posts by others who claimed to have info from sources that you took issue with.

I do not think I misread your post. To state your source gave you information that satisfies you is fine and understandable, but it does not diminish the fact that it is information, and that you are now our "source" for that information. The other posters you criticized, because you were not satisfied with their "information", were stating information from their sources.

I tend to think that there is some hair-splitting going on. Bottom line is I don't criticize anyone personally for passing information on, even though I might disagree with it, or even find it to be ludicrous. I would expect you would feel the same way.