Replies

Newbie? Isn't that just a little juvenile?

I posted the article, in its entirety, here, which as you can tell from the timestamp was 08:56pm last night.

Note that I posted the complete article, not some edited version omitting facts that I don't want other people to see.

As we can see from the above post, you are lying when you say you posted the entire story, and you are lying when you say that the sentence I highlighted was not included in the story.

So you're a liar. I've just proven it. Not bad for a newbie.

Your link took me to the "Register" page for the New York Times. I'm not about to register there to see what you may or may not have posted, because you've just shot your own foot off as far as I'm concerned. 8:56 was a considerable time after the article first appeared on the FOX website. I omitted nothing, and terilyn omitted nothing, particularly nothing about residue being found on the vehicle's occupants, because THAT info wasn't added until later. You can see that more than one person thought that was odd. Why would we eliminate a point to keep people from seeing it, and then talk about its absence, as more than one person did? Didn't you READ the comments?

You have accused me of altering a published article, which is a pretty serious charge, and you have given no proof. Since Terilyn posted the article before that info was added, you are also accusing HER of altering a published article. You've also called me a liar. Pretty stupid, even for a newbie.

I am pinging everyone on this thread who posted before I did last night; perhaps you'll call all of them liars too. You're just that rude and arrogant.

You posted an article from the NY Times. I posted the article, AS IT WAS WRITTEN AT THE TIME from Fox News. Fox News was breaking this story live and had it up on the website immediately. I posted it exactly the way it was written. It shouldn't come to a shock to you that as more details emerged the story on the website was edited and more information was added as it became available.

I did NOT edit ANYTHING while posting the article.

Nice way to make an entry on to FR. Jump in and start calling people liars? Go figure...

It in fact did state that last night.

It did NOT, in fact, state that at 7:09 ET Monday night or for an as-yet-undetermined length of time after that, and that is all I was referring to, no matter what you chose to read into my comments.

To put the shoe on the other foot, I could justifiably continue to chastise you for your implied claim that that you copied and pasted the article HERE when you really posted it elsewhere(see your #200). But I'm not as petty as you, and I have decided to chalk most of this up to poor reading comprehension (yours, to be specific).

The clear implication of your statements here is that Carl Cameron changed the story once the other "FBI-dud" story came out

That is an assumption on your part, because I never said or even implied any such thing. You're very fond of time-stamps but don't bother to read them on other people's posts. If you did, you'd be "apologizing" again.

and that is simply false.

I know it is. Here, I've been saving this for you. Found this Tuesday afternoon. It's a duplicate thread of the same story, posted at 10:22 p.m. ET Monday: Police Seize Rental Truck With Traces of TNT.

You will note that the part about the dogs sniffing the men is included. Also note that the truck, first identified as a Ryder, is now a Budget truck. So that was another error. One that must have pissed off the folks at Ryder, whose trucks are now associated with terrorism whether it is their truck or another company's.

But... I have the story saved on my hard disk at 8:22PM EST, that's approximately an hour after you claim to have accessed it. Despite your obvious need to dismiss Mr. Cameron's credentials as a journalist I suppose it's possible the story changed in that hour.

It is not only possible, it happens all the time. A bunch of us sat here back in November and watched a breaking Reuters story change three times in LESS than an hour. And it didn't only change in the details, such as whether the dogs sniffed the truck and its occupants or just the truck, or whether the truck was from Ryder or Budget. The entire premise of the Reuters story changed, from "Blame America" to "spin real hard to pin some of the blame on America" to "well, for once it doesn't seem to be America's fault". And if we hadn't had the text posted on the thread prior to each change, no one would have been the wiser.

As for my having an "obvious need to dismiss Mr. Cameron's credentials as a journalist", I can only say that you display a rather obvious need to protect him even from people who aren't attacking him (again, it's that reading problem of yours. I haven't attacked Carl Cameron in any of my posts. You must be confusing me with some of the other posters).

You president of Carl's fan club or something? He's just a journalist, you know, and they all screw up. All of them.

Now, as for the laughable contents of your last posts, especially the one to terilyn:

#233 (to terilyn) I never accused you of editing the story. I didn't even know you had posted the story earlier.

HELLOOOOOOO? You obviously didn't read the thread at all, and yet feel justified in hurling accusations around. Go back to the beginning of the thread and try to REALLY understand what a fool you're making of yourself. The text of the article in terilyn's post is IDENTICAL to the text in mine, and she posted it first. The only difference is that mine is italicized. Once you accused me of wilfully editing someone else's article, you cannot claim with a straight face that you were not also accusing terilyn. The text of the article is the same in both cases.

And in any case, you weren't the one who was essentially calling Carl Cameron a liar, now were you?

If I was calling him anything at all, it was 'careless'. I never called him a liar.

"corebreech have deep feelings for Carl Cameron. hellinahandcart not impressed..."

#234Let's see if hellinahandcart is big enough to admit the same about his comments that Carl Cameron edited the story in reply to the later story about the FBI.

Gotcha! I first commented on the altered text in #167, and again to wheezer in #172. The "Case of Whidbey Island 'terrorists' is a dud" story wasn't posted here until #178, and my only comment to that article was about why the guys were able to rent a truck with so little ID. Note the time stamps.

You, on the other hand, first showed up at #194 and proceeded to jerk both knees into the air at once. Have you recovered from your injuries yet? If so, perhaps you can point us all toward any post of mine that suggested in any way that Carl Cameron altered his story only after the other one came out--since you're so certain that's what I said... I'll wait. I know you can copy and paste, you told us so.

Now, try to squirm your way out of this one. Don't forget those time-stamps. Handy things, they are.