- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,046
- 8,756
- 136
Here is "the original Rather reference:Because it was obvious what he meant by the original Rather reference...
To me, it "means" Dan Rather doctored a doc file to falsely accuse dubya. That is simply not the case. He stated an untruth to further his political argument, which is reprehensible. What do you think he "meant" by his untruth, such that you evince zero condemnation or concern that he stated it?Or Dan Rather doctoring a doc file to falsely accuse dubya.
My intent in correcting that factually untrue statement was to correct the record and bring us all into the same factual reality. Without such a correction, no honest exchange is possible...and the “policing” of truth is blatantly obvious in its intent.
What, other than that, was my "blatantly obvious" intent to you?
Your lack of concern for factual fidelity is, to use a term, "blatantly obvious." The smell of scurrilous bullshit does indeed invoke in me a "typical abundance of concern." I wish to wipe it away with, yes, the truth. It it telling that you repeatedly post in a way that indicates you don't give a damn.The rest, just the typical abundance of concern.