I give what I get. Is that what you're whining about now?
I've shown that the article falsely accuses him of collaboration and you are going to keep using it?
No you didn't. You just stated that the author was not credible based on the title of another book he wrote.
Oh, now I can tell how grown up and principled you are!
We already saw how you measure up.
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?
I think you are going to have to sort out your own internal hypocrisies.
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.
Fine. Move on. I'll let others do what they want with my links and your BS.
"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.
And no big mess in my back yard. lol
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?
Who can say what his motives were? I didn't speculate on it. Why won't he let his service record be made public?
The War Secrets Sen. John McCain Hides"For example, all the Pentagon debriefings of the prisoners who returned from Vietnam are now classified and closed to the public under a statute enacted in the 1990s with McCain's backing. He says this is to protect the privacy of former POWs and gives it as his reason for not making public his own debriefing. But the law allows a returned prisoner to view his own file or to designate another person to view it. APBnews.com has repeatedly asked the senator for an interview for this article and for permission to view his debriefing documents. He has not responded."
Oh my...describing you as a member of the suicide squad really got under your skin didn't it?
No you didn't. You just stated that the author was not credible based on the title of another book he wrote.
Uh-huh. OK, imagine that you once left the scene of an accident, but did so because you were rushing a passenger to the hospital and they would never survive if you waited around for a cop. Later, you become famous and write about the incident in your best-selling memoir. Now, imagine that later in life, someone writes an article called "TigersEye left the scene of an accident," never mentions your passenger (even quoting the account you wrote, but omitting any mention of the real reason you left) and cites a bunch of unnamed sources saying you were drunk, and a guy who says he took photos of you drunk at the wheel but unfortunately he can't produce the photos.
Do you feel like that would be an honorable thing for them to do? Would they be a good reporter? Would their article be a good source? Would someone be wise to put any stock in it or describe it as part of your "record?" And even if your account wasn't true (I don't doubt McCain's, because of Bud Day and other witnesses) wouldn't they still be liars or incompetents?
Tap dance all you want, but one of my business professors kept a giant "B.S." stamp on his desk just for students who approached sourcing like you do.