FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually you seem to misunderstand. The link I provided is to wikiquote not wikipedia. Wikiquote is simply a collection of quotations by or attributed to people. You are correct. I mistakenly wrote "pedia", but all the other comments are still valid. quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen I told you that previously. When he said it doesn't change anything. Sherman - and other atheists - have had 20 years to get a second source. They haven't. quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen You are kidding right? Atheists never get positive coverage in the main stream press. Think how no one in the media called any of the various blatherers after 9/11 with there "no atheists in foxholes" crap. Poor little put upon atheists! How about all the main stream press blather about the "religious right" and "religious fundies" and - gasp - Christo-terrorists! Back up and look at the facts. Any decent reporter will tell you that you should have at least two sources. Especially for something controversial. Why? To prevent BS like this. quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmKY Another problem is that the link you give ... is a blind link. The site (http://www.positiveatheism.org) doesn't have a home page. At least not when I tried it several times. The site is registered to Positive Atheism Magazine in Portland OR. I hope that's not your name the whois provides as the registering individual (even though it's public information, I'll not provide it here). So ... how'd you get a blind link to an article on a defunct site that starts out with exactly the stuff you are trying to peddle? It's the link provided as source on the wikiquote page. Pretty obvious I thought. Want to retract a few accusations now? Retract the fact that it's a blind link to a dead site, and apparently the sole reason for it's existence is to give a "source" so that the "quote" can be used in a Wiki? No. It's true. Except that the Wiki no longer has the quotes. I deleted them, and gave my reasoning in the discussion page. Wonder how long it'll take for someone to put it back in? quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmKY Truthfully, sounds like a smear job, and only people who are blinded in the atheistic hatred for Bush give it any creditability. Of course, my opinion is subject to change, if you can actually provide anything at least approaching an actual reliable source. How about the various letters from White House counsel not denying the statement was made? If Bush had said "I didn't say that" don't you think his dirty tricks outfit would have hammered the atheists as an attempt to make the dems and liberals look bad? ... Actually I have strong doubts that Bush would have had his White House Counsel, not an assistant but the actual counsel, send out the letter if he didn't say it and have a suspicion that a recording of him saying it existed. Note how the counsel makes the effort to say that the POTUS would not interfere with the legal rights of atheists. Now if the POTUS had not less than a year earlier declared that he didn't view atheists as citizens why make that statement. Yes, a counter argument that this was a shut up and go away letter meant to end the controversy is possible. However if that was the case why not something more along the lines of a psuedo apology without admiting anything? or with a denial thrown in? As it stands I don't buy the argument. Yeah ... I get it ... and if he had denied it and given you a "pseudo" apology, you would be saying that he must have said it ... otherwise why the pseudo apology and denial? False reasoning. Perhaps even .... (back to on topic) ... a double standard? What you are saying is absence of proof proves he said it. How about his attorney understood that it is people like you, who gasp at straws in order to try to further their agenda will twist and justify anything at all? So, just reassure them that you have no plans except to honor the law? Which is all he did. And which you take as some sort of admission. Just as you would take any comment as an admission. From my earlier post: So ... let me sum it up .... no other media outlet reported the story. There is no video or audio tapes of the event, no other reporter will verify the story (despite there being a lot of high powered reporters), and three other major stories came out of the event, so it should have been a memorable time. But nobody but the lonely crusading reporter from the American Atheist Magazine heard the slur on atheists. [pause] How convenient. FirmKY
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|