That’s already been established. Read my article as I submitted it, and compare it to the article WND published. My article was clearly intended to lay this thing to rest. As written, it made a cohesive argument that the object in question remained in sight far too long to be a missile. WND knew my opinion on this from my submission as well as our phone conversations.
On the other hand, by their edits and additions, WND turned my work into an argument in favor of the missile conspiracy theory. They misrepresented my work.
If they wanted to publish another story propping up their failed missile conspiracy theory, they had every right to do so.
They did not have the right to cherry pick and re-write my article and turn it into part of their body of missile conspiracy theory rhetoric, and then put my name on it.
They should not have put my name on something that does not in any way represent that which I submitted to them.
That is grossly unethical on their part.
They have harmed my good name and reputation by publishing this fabricated report under my name.
What is your real grudge against a Christian conservative zionist news site?
Doctor, you are “Kopping out” on me.
“Read my article as I submitted it, and compare it to the article WND published. My article was clearly intended to lay this thing to rest.”
Intentions are not what your headline is based on. Your headline was “Fabricates”. Either there is a fabrication, or you slandered WND.
“As written, it made a cohesive argument that the object in question remained in sight far too long to be a missile. WND knew my opinion on this from my submission as well as our phone conversations.”
So ignoring your opinion is a fabrication? No, Doctor. You are not God.
“On the other hand, by their edits and additions, WND turned my work into an argument in favor of the missile conspiracy theory. They misrepresented my work.”
They quoted doubts. So once again, perhaps you should rephrase your claim that they are “fabricating a tale”. I can understand if you ranted in the heat of the moment. I think we all can.
“They have harmed my good name and reputation by publishing this fabricated report under my name.”
Where did they misquote you? Where did they change what you wrote other than to cut out some lines? All editors cut out lines. If they had rewritten your words as concluding it was a missile, then yes — you would be correct — fabrication and destruction of reputation. I didn’t find that.
That’s not ‘fabrication’. How long have you been speaking English?
What’s the headline?
“Mysterious missile launch baffles even eyewitnesses”
What’s the hoax in that headline?
What’s the closing sentence?
“The video he captured of the contrail was subsequently edited before being aired, and less than two minutes of the 10 minutes of video has been seen by these experts.”
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=238189
Sounds like a final note of skepiticism to me. You approached them pretending to have an open mind. You wrote that yourself. Who’s the phony here? Did you think could be a worm in their belly to eat them from the inside and somehow gain fame from it? Was that the plan?