On Nov 24, 2:19*pm, thunder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:52:31 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:
Your search engine must be broken. *I had no trouble finding at least
three articles in which the Times used, and discussed the emails and
their contents. *You should probably switch to Bing now, as it will
shortly be the only search engine that will link to your favorite news
source, Fox.

Show me quotes of those e-mails... I can't seem to find them, only side
crap. But of course, military secrets and information gathering methods
are well documented. And I thought you were beyond the Harry tactic of
suggesting what and where I get my news, seems I must have touched a
nerve here, do you get yours from the New York Lies and Saturday Night
live? Just asking, not accusing...

http://news.google.com/news?oe=UTF-8...york+times+cru
+emails&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

That link should bring them up. *I apologize. *I don't know where you get
your news, but, as I use Google predominately, I'm just happy I won't
have to see all those Fox links anymore. ;-)

Just joking. I only heard about the Bing/News Corp. deal today.

I see a lot of side reporting, but still none of the direct quotes of
bodily harm, coverups, and other suspicious activity that these
letters show. The New York Lies said directly the other day they would
not post quotes because "they *may have* been aquired illegally, and
they were not meant for public view". At the same time they had no
problem posting military secrets, plans, and a "manual" on how AlQueda
information was aquired so the enemy could prepare for it... Today
they posted more quotes from documents never meant for public
consumption, of course those quotes made the previousl administration
look bad... It's a pattern of selective reporting that has plagued the
Times for over a decade...