The first was for something I had quoted from an article someone else had posted that Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981. Instead, several others pointed out that there was a US State Department Travel Advisory for Pakistan in 1981, No. 81-33A, not a ban.
Thanks again.
You’re not to blame. People have hypotheses or beliefs, and they present them as facts. Someone reads it, and assumes it IS a fact and then they go on to post it as if it’s a fact.. I see people posting that Obama isn’t an NBC - but we don’t have that proof. We have LOADS of reasons to believe something’s not right, that he may not be an NBC, but we don’t KNOW. Or the stuff about the amount of money being spent for attorneys. Now, I don’t believe the story that his lawyers are working probono (I think lawyers only do that for poor people, they do it for their brownie points, why would they get brownie points for doing free work for a rich man???), so I believe that he is paying attorneys to deal with these cases. But we don’t know how much! It started out as thousands, then tens of thousands, then the number 800,000 became really popular, and now it’s over a million. We don’t have facts for any of this - but people state it as if we do. It gets frustrating. I’m very interested in these threads, but I want to read facts. I also want to read people’s hypotheses, but I’d like them presented as such - otherwise the (alert) reader has to do a mental search to see if they’ve missed something, ie, was there some documentation about a new costs for attorneys and I missed it being posted? etc