You're a real asshole aren't you? I posted an article I didn't accuse anyone of anything.
Great, now you've been alerted to at least two more. I look forward to you pulling them.
It's not going to happen.
Your accusation of personal assumptions means bupkis because I didn't make any.
Yes you did make assumptions.
(information the Vietnamese almost certainly already had)
That was an assumption you made personally.
..and no, you didn't make a reasonable effort, or the Kidd article would not have been there.
Baloney. Your rebuttal was inadequate. Casting unsupported aspersions on the author is insubstantial.
Grow up.
GFY
The problem with your premise is that I'd never heard of Devvy Kidd before today, and I found the Oklahoma City information just by following a link right next to the McCain article. In other words, I found all that out while doing what you should have done.
IOWs your research is more superficial than mine.
You've shown that you could care less whether any of the stuff in those links is true, but now you want me to do your job for you and evaluate them?
Don't be dishonest. (I know, a little late for that.) You have already evaluated all of them on the basis of one of them and have declared them all not credible. With pathetic logic skills like that I wouldn't hire you to scoop dog poop.
Wow...really classy, and weren't you just complaining about McCain supporters insulting you? Dude, you posted a link to an article accusing a guy of treason and then you (that's "YOU" meaning the guy who posts at FR with the screen name TigersEye) called it part of his RECORD.
It's not going to happen.
OK...let me make sure I understand you: I've shown that the article falsely accuses him of collaboration and you are going to keep using it?
That was an assumption you made personally.
I already made it clear why that wasn't an assumption, much less an unwarranted one. Why don't you go ahead and answer this question: If he was giving the Vietnamese vital info, why was he writing about it in a national magazine a few years later?
Baloney. Your rebuttal was inadequate. Casting unsupported aspersions on the author is insubstantial.
I cited a source that disproved her accusation, a source that was far more well-known and easily accessible than the one she used. Plus, the other faults I pointed out were contained in the Kidd article itself. I did not cast any unsupported aspersions.
Seriously, do you think your handling of sources here would pass muster in a Freshman business class?
GFY
Oh, now I can tell how grown up and principled you are!
IOWs your research is more superficial than mine.
First, no. My research went farther than yours because you didn't even see the problems with the article that were right there in it. Moreover, you claimed that you had checked that the stories had "substantial information from sources that could be checked" and I checked the sources. So, not even close.
Second, why do you think you get to have it both ways? You said I can't criticize you for including the Kidd article on the list because I knew more about her than you, but when you found out that I didn't know more, that was another bad thing. So, am I only allowed to comment if I know exactly as much about Devvy Kidd as you?
Don't be dishonest. (I know, a little late for that.) You have already evaluated all of them on the basis of one of them and have declared them all not credible.
No, I've just seen that your sloppy approach means it's not worth my time to pick and choose which ones are accurate and which aren't. I don't waste my time watching CBS news, either, though I'm sure Dan and Katie have gotten some right over the years.
With pathetic logic skills like that I wouldn't hire you to scoop dog poop.
Well, that's not on my list of services anyway. No loss.