"Red Cloud©" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:36:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
rthlink.net...


How would YOU know the difference between the truth, and an axe to
grind.
Would knowing a general's name tell you this?


Perhaps.

OK. Name one or two whose comments you'd find questionable.


General Colin Powell has publically admitted he told some major
doozies to the U.N. when he was trying to sell the war to them.

rusty redcloud



OK...but remember that NOYB is talking about "unnamed" generals. Presumably,
an anonymous person is less likely to have received prompting from his boss.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...


How would YOU know the difference between the truth, and an axe to
grind. Would knowing a general's name tell you this?


Perhaps.

OK. Name one or two whose comments you'd find questionable.



And I'm not choosing who to trust. I'm just choosing to trust people
who go "on the record" vs. those who don't.

There's no logical reason for the truth of a statement to be based on
whether a person gives his name or not.

Maybe not. But it doesn't allow for cross-examination of the accuser.
If a general made a claim that may or may not be true, he ought to be
able to (and required to) support that claim under close examination by
the public.

Exactly how would you determine whether a specific general's remarks were
accurate. Remember that he's in Iraq and you're in Florida.

*Who* is in Iraq? You haven't given me any names yet.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...


How would YOU know the difference between the truth, and an axe to
grind. Would knowing a general's name tell you this?


Perhaps.

OK. Name one or two whose comments you'd find questionable.



And I'm not choosing who to trust. I'm just choosing to trust people
who go "on the record" vs. those who don't.

There's no logical reason for the truth of a statement to be based on
whether a person gives his name or not.

Maybe not. But it doesn't allow for cross-examination of the accuser.
If a general made a claim that may or may not be true, he ought to be
able to (and required to) support that claim under close examination by
the public.

Exactly how would you determine whether a specific general's remarks were
accurate. Remember that he's in Iraq and you're in Florida.

*Who* is in Iraq? You haven't given me any names yet.

As I said, the last report I listened to was about a month ago. The radio
story gave the name of the man in Fallujah, but sadly, I failed to take
notes just for you. But, it doesn't matter. You have no way of finding out
who's got an axe to grind. You're just being silly.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
Unnamed sources, eh Doug?

???

The Army and the CIA are 'unnamed sources'?

I just talked to an Army guy and he said that it sucks in Iraq. There are no
titty bars and it difficult to get a good bottle of booze on the open
market.

Unless you have the name of a real live person and what capacity they are
providing the informaiton from, you don't have a source.

Anonymous sources have become fictions of "reporters" imaginations lately.

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Terry Spragg wrote:



Canada has 1/3 of the world's reserves, hardly scratched. Tar sand is
profitable at 35$ / bbl, but no one can be bothered to invest in
refineries or new wells, YET!

You figure it out.

Terry K


Keep that quiet...if George B finds out, he'll be invading us.

We alreay own you bitch, and that is what ****es you off so much.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


Anonymous sources have become fictions of "reporters" imaginations lately.


Right. Every single anonymous source is fictitious. All of them. No
exceptions, ever. Period.

Bert Robbins wrote:


We alreay own you bitch, and that is what ****es you off so much.



You own me?? That would be your worse nightmare! You think you drink
now..!!