Replies

>>>"but most people have been talking, on these threads, as if it were a fact that there were 7,000 people on site. Just another little point about waiting for real facts to emerge"<<<

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/5363716.html

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hU4ax39rFCnqHnipVp5TCGP6TKqgD8TESGQO1

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1926872007

http://www.denverpost.com/money/ci_7679696

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-12-11T011025Z_01_N09332256_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SHOOTING-COLORADO-COL.XML&archived=False

BohDa, you might want to reconsider your post. I did a search on Google, using only "7,000 people". I used no mention of anything else in my search box.

The result was 4,367 articles. All the ones I posted above stated 7,000 people were in the church at the time. (In fact, the last one, the Reuters article is only one hour old!)

If 4,367 have published news articles today stating there were 7,000 people in the church at the time of the shootings, how much longer do you expect us to wait for the "REAL FACTS TO EMERGE"?

May I suggest you don't read any posts here until the news is three days old?

Of course there were not 7000 there. Some were in the cafe eating hamburgers:’)

I just heard the pastor himself, live on the air, on LKL, say exactly what I said. 4367 articles saying what someone erroneously said to some reporter earlier and/or mis-reported don’t change that. Makes my point exactly.

foflmao!