Posted on 10/12/2004 5:55:51 AM PDT by conservativecorner
Not quite. In one case I told one freeper he was posting too much tinfoil when he theorized that the New York Times was nefariously behind the spiking of the (mistaken) Thursday coma story because they've endorsed John Kerry and own WHO. Yah that's tinfoil because I'd already linked to the Google search showing that there are hundreds of other sources for the Saturday coma story and the NYT doesn't own but a few of them. In the second case I made a generalized statement that "there are a few of us willing to resist the impulse to look like a tinfoiler but we seem to be outnumbered on this thread" in response to this comment by Dave S:
"Also, Kerry said he heard the message on Saturday. That doesnt mean the call was left Saturday. You got to believe that someone like Kerry receives a lot of calls and that he doesnt always return them immediately. Dont run off to the media and be looked at as a conspiracy kook."
Dave's advice is good and you should follow it. This story is not nailed as much as you want it to be. You and others should "resist the impulse to look like a tinfoiler" and get this story bulletproof before running off to the media with it. If you haven't run off to the media then you have managed to resist the impulse.
"You are the one speculating on what the articles 'could really mean'. Now how is it that you accuse the majority on this thread of being "tinfoilers" and you're not?"
Hopefully the clarification above is sufficient but on the chance its not let me get my two-by-four. I have reached no firm conclusion as to whether Kerry did or didn't get a voice mail from Reeve and whether he did or didn't lie about it. The jury is still out. There is insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion. That's not speculation, that's incontrovertible. All conclusions are right now speculative, such as the one you keep advocating.
Get inside Reeve's house or hospital with a first-hand account of his condition or get Kerry's or Reeve's phone records where you might have something to confirm your speculation and I'll concede the point in a heartbest.
Exactly my point. (except for the item in bold which I assume you meant to read "when") But I am commenting on what I have read, not speculating on what I think it might mean.
And to clarify my contention, I don't think it is being a tinfoiler to examine and discuss these articles, or even to go so far as trying to ascertain if Kerry is lying again.
Then I have no idea what your point is. You've been throwing medical articles up to bolster your contention that reeve was in no condition to make the call. Wasn't that your point?
And I meant "whether" not "when" that's why I wrote "whether".
And to clarify my contention, I don't think it is being a tinfoiler to examine and discuss these articles, or even to go so far as trying to ascertain if Kerry is lying again.
Did I say it was? You claim that you base your opinions on what you read yet you can't correctly grasp what I've written. You completely misread my posts about tinfoil and still are.
You've based your opinions on things that a reporter says Kerry said without any quotation marks about what Kerry actually said and then fail to address the omission. Without quotes you don't know exactly what Kerry said. That's not speculation that's Journalism 101.
I agree. That is not being a tin foiler. Concluding that Kerry is lieing based on what little we KNOW or even worse running to the media with such assertions would be tinfoil. It puts us in the same league with the Deniacs saying that Bush knew about the WTC attack in advance or that Bush actually was in on the conspiracy with his Saudi business partners.
"The message was sent earlier but the Senator didn't listen to his messages until Saturday." Something along those lines.
Exactly right.
Thank you Dave!
No kidding. Get some solid proof and kick Kerry's ass.
Right now you don't have it, just a bunch of hunches.
So the notion that anyone posting on this thread is, as you say, "a tinfoiler" is ludicrous on on your part.
Tell you what, go quote me and show why you think what I've said about tinfoil is ludicrous. Your case against me is weaker than your case against Kerry, because with him at least you have room for doubt. Find my quotes and I will leave you with none.
Good Lord.
This is the first I've read about this!
Even conceding the possibility that Reeve went into a coma on Saturday and not Thursday, the key issue is whether or not the content of the message mentioned the debate or not, something we will never know.
If Reeve thanked him for bringing up stem cell research during the debate--which the USA Today story says he did--then it's extremely likely this is yet another Kerry fabrication, given, as so many of us have said, the gravity of Reeve's condition, the time frame between the debate and his death, and Kerry's propensity to lie.
As cc pointed out, the only way to know the truth is for Kerry to explain it or for Mrs. Reeve to say something--highly unlikely.
In any case, I think we can all agree that this story is likely to get about as much traction in the MSM as Kerry's pulling a paper out of his pocket in the first debate, etc.
LOL This is from the article that you posted at the top of this thread:
"Update: WHO Des Moines appears to be the only one reporting he went into a coma on Thursday. ABC, CNN, and others are reporting that he had a heart attack at his Pound Ridge, New York, home on Saturday during treatment for an infected bedsore wound. He fell into a coma and never regained consciousness."
Thursday was out of play right from the start.
There are only two ways to positively prove that Kerry is more full of shit than a Christmas Turkey: 1. Reeve's wife says the call never happened or 2. Kerry releases his cell phone records.
No kidding. LOL I wish I had thought of that.
I'm going to chalk this one up as another horseshit story that the poodle staged once again.
That may be but since you lack the evidence you've conceded you need this story is too weak to go further.
I have nothing beyond this to add, except to say that your "tinfoil" remarks belittle a discussion that the MSM originally started.
You're mischaracterizing my remarks. You still haven't quoted anything I've posted to support this contention. My two remarks about tinfoil were about speculation by a poster that the New York Times got WHO to change the Thursday coma story because they're endorsing Kerry (yes that's tinfoil), and Freepers who didn't seem to want to "resist the impulse to look like a tinfoiler" and get this story bulletproof before running off to the media with it.
If you go to any media types with this story in its current state then you will look like a tinfoiler. If you don't then you won't.m I've said nothing to belittle the conversation I did research that added to it.
The Saturday coma is a lock certainty. There is no source for Thursday but WHO and they've corrected the error. There are hundreds of sources for Saturday. This was established days ago.
You are right that we may never know the truth about the phone call. The key point, if you've been reading this thread, is that we don't currently have a strong case that the call wasn't made but some are having trouble with that.
If Reeve thanked him for bringing up stem cell research during the debate--which the USA Today story says he did--then it's extremely likely this is yet another Kerry fabrication,
If Reeve thanked him the story is true.
As cc pointed out, the only way to know the truth is for Kerry to explain it or for Mrs. Reeve to say something--highly unlikely.
Likely or not this is what I have been saying for a hundred posts against the resistance of others who think they have this case nailed. They don't and what they are left with, however well-informed they think they are, is nothing but speculations and suspicions.
I haven't "thrown up" any medical articles. For someone who says I've failed journalism 101, you prove here that you haven't passed forum posting 101. Since you are such a stickler for details, such as insisting that the Kerry statement must have quotes, it's interesting you assigned medical articles to me without even checking. You're not doing too well with forum accuracy.
And let me get this straight. According to your instructions:
1. Don't believe Kerry said it because there are no quotes.
2. Don't believe Kerry received the call on Saturday, read more into it than it says
3. Don't even believe yet that Kerry got a call from Reeve, even though there are articles that say he did.
Now that sounds tinfoil to me. No thanks.
I stand corrected. I saw your link to medicalnews.com at #271 and incorrectly connected that post to the medical articles posted by others.
You're the poster insisting that you know what Kerry said and meant based on numerous links that don't quote him.
And let me get this straight.
I will but you won't.
According to your instructions:
1. Don't believe Kerry said it because there are no quotes.
Wrong, I don't know exactly what Kerry said, and neither do you, because we don't yet have a precise quote regarding the phone message from Reeve..
2. Don't believe Kerry received the call on Saturday, read more into it than it says
Wrong, I have no idea what Kerry said about the call, and neither do you, because we don't have a quote that says what he said. We have a writer's paraphrasing of Kerry's remarks. Do you trust journalists to paraphrase accurately?
3. Don't even believe yet that Kerry got a call from Reeve, even though there are articles that say he did.
Isn't that the point of this whole thread? Whether or not Kerry actually received the call and the evidence one way or the other? I've said repeatedly that the evidence is inconclusive that he didn't. I also have allowed for the posibility that Kerry is indeed lying since he has lied before. I've said that the jury is still out. That's not only my belief, it's a fact.
Now that sounds tinfoil to me. No thanks.
LOL Failing to jump to a conclusion is tinfoil? Next!
Hey, are these guys special or what?! John Kerry has a magic pipeline to Christopher Reeve; John Kerry will make the lame walk; Elizabeth Edwards seems to know what Lynne Cheney is feeling about her daughter, Mary; and John Edwards can channel dead fetuses! Wow! X-Men, step aside! (</sarcasm>)
I looked at the article in your link, but saw no reference of Thursday as being the day Reeve's went into a coma.
Please provide link to article confirming Thursday.
Kerry will just say that the message came from someone close to Reeves, who expressed Reeves gratitude on his behalf. Solves the timing and ability problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.