When an author presents an article to the public, the burden of truthfulness lies with the writer not the reader, Coleus. Your willingness to act as an apologist for the author is queer.
Dangus took your indefensible defense a ridiculous step further, suggesting "....malicious intent....." on my part, because I took exception to the "Santa Clara" listing.
Dangus then argues in the absurd telling one and all the author meant to include the word County after named locations on the list. How does Dangus know this? Dangus decided to withhold that bit of his/her revelation. My complaint focused on the lack of correct information assembled by the author, who in turn failed to verify her source - presenting the same as legitimate to her readers. She wrongly accepted as fact the list compiled by Life Site.
I'm willing to bet this author was at the top of her government school journalism class, where fact and fiction are used to support the spin.
>> Dangus took your indefensible defense a ridiculous step further, suggesting "....malicious intent....." on my part, because I took exception to the "Santa Clara" listing. <<
I did no such thing, and be assured that I do not believe you have malicious intent. What I said was that "you presume mailicious intent." Meaning that you seem to think that the poster and maybe some others have bad intentions.
>> Dangus then argues in the absurd telling one and all the author meant to include the word County after named locations on the list. How does Dangus know this? Dangus decided to withhold that bit of his/her revelation.<<
I said "Mea culpa." In English, "My fault." Meaning that *I* had mistakenly confused the tiny Santa Clara town for the huge Santa Clara county. I have no knowledge of whether Lifesite news made a similar error, and did not suggest that they did.