Posted on 11/10/2005 5:34:54 AM PST by shhrubbery!
I think Mary Mapes is great! Neato! Nifty!
(see, we don't all think alike. Nee!)
Everyone knows the memos CBS News showed as evidence are complete fakes (it doesn't match ANYTHING we know about how military memos were done at the time), and her comments are essentially major sour grapes.
BTTT. Good one.
Similarly, it didn't take a genius to realize that Buckhead was on to something. (And, while I knew nothing about typewriters, it wasn't that hard to tell that the document looked like it came from MS Word).
Why do I get the feeling this is going to show up somewhere else soon?
Believe me,CBS and Dan Rather knew what Mapes was all along. And they were just fine with that because it fit their ideology and agenda. Until she got caught - then they slashed her up into chum and threw her overboard to draw the sharks away from them.
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
GO PAJAMA BRIGADE!!!!!!!!
| Posted by TaxRelief to kjnspc On News/Activism 09/10/2004 9:57:26 PM EDT · 119 of 159 Dittos! The Internet is becoming an acceptable alternative for up-to-date information for more people every year. Perhaps I'm wrong, but one of the main reasons so many people are turning from the "Media Wing of the Democratic Party", to news sources like FR, is because the process of discussion ultimately leads to greater ACCURACY. I am an engineer. I was raised by an engineer. The scientific process does require challenging the hypotheses put forth by others. If these memos were put out there by a local weekly paper it would not be worth the effort, but discrediting the big guys is the best way to get people thinking about and questioning what they hear, rather than blindly accepting everything they are told. That being said, discrediting the memos with bogus "facts" rather than good information, questions the credibility of FR. Under normal circumstances, the process of discussion on FR is what makes it one of the most accurate sources of news. However, when the whole group gets caught up in the excitement of "bash CBS" or "snag the DNC", it becomes more like a witch hunt or an emotion fest and less like a discussion amongst intelligent people. For instance, many have argued that the Guard could not have afforded the machine that could do this. It's a weak argument at best. I call it the "far-fetched" argument. The "far-fetched" argument looks at the probability of an occurrence rather than the logical possibility of an occurrence. Probabilites are useful for determining which theory to test, but they are useless for ruling out 'modus operandi'. The typist could have used the machine anywhere. It could have been in his brother's business or the office of the guy who prints the newsletter. (You may notice that most liberal "expert" witnesses rely heavily on the "farfetched" argument.) In another example of emotional v. logical argument, many have argued that the font did not exist. Another weak argument. It is much easier to prove something exists than something does not exist. This font did exist. I have posted the specs and the precise measurements of each letter from a 1968 technical internal IBM document. The true Scientific Approach would be to determine the authenticity of the original documents through chemical and paper analysis. Handwriting analysis, while moderately subjective, is also helpful. Finding the colonel's fingerprints would be very damning indeed. Accurately, rather than emotionally proving forgery, in this case would benefit the entire country. It is critical that the American people know if CBS or the rats are lying through their teeth, even if it does put "the burden of proof" on FR. Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| CBS KILLIAN MEMOS: DFU EXCLUSIVE FREEPER INTERVIEW with the expert - Dr. Philip Bouffard |
||||||
| Posted by TaxRelief to Stentor; Helms; All On News/Activism 09/10/2004 9:42:52 PM EDT · 81 of 104 Where your argument fails is that if you require proof that this ... is untrue, then any vomit, produced by anyone, must be proven to be untrue. Looking for proof of falsity is fundamental to the process of "discrediting". CBS, CNN, ABC, AP and NBC are like gods to a good portion of the American population. That being said, discrediting the memos with bogus "facts" rather than good information, questions the credibility of FR. Under normal circumstances, the process of discussion on FR is what makes it one of the most accurate sources of news. However, when the whole group gets caught up in the excitement of "bash CBS" or "snag the DNC", it becomes more like a witch hunt or an emotion fest and less like a discussion amongst intelligent people. For instance, many have argued that the Guard could not have afforded the machine that could do this. It's a weak argument at best. I call it the "far-fetched" argument. The "far-fetched" argument looks at the probability of an occurrence rather than the logical possibility of an occurrence. Probabilites are useful for determining which theory to test, but they are useless for ruling out 'modus operandi'. The typist could have used the machine anywhere. It could have been in his brother's business or the office of the guy who prints the newsletter. (You may notice that most liberal "expert" witnesses rely heavily on the "farfetched" argument.) The Scientific Approach would be to determine the authenticity of the original documents through chemical and paper analysis. Handwriting analysis, while moderately subjective, is also helpful. Finding the colonel's fingerprints would be very damning indeed. Accurately, rather than emotionally proving forgery, in this case would benefit the entire country. It is critical that the American people know if CBS or the rats are lying through their teeth, even if it does put "the burden of proof" on FR. |
||||||
Freepers often see the glee the 60 Minutes crew has on their wrinkled little faces when they take someone down. And strangely, for reasons unknown, they never "take down" a liberal. Ever wonder about that? My guess is "no". You don't seem like a person who wonders about much, but you do seem mean. You wanted to lie about a duly elected President of the United States because you hated him. Not because you had a hard truth on him. Not for any reason other than hate. You wanted to trump the right of the people to a fair vote. You wanted to run your hit piece so there wouldn't be time for an answer. You're such a jerk.
Here's something else for you to think about Mapes, back when Bush was young, democrats ran Texas, and BushSr., had as much pull in that state as you have with Freepers. None. Nada. Zip.
Your hate even overwhelmed what little logic is required to do the entertainment type show you worked for... You hate us. And you accuse us of not liking you? Well, you're right about one thing. This Freeper doesn't like you.
{s on} Thank You! Mary Mapes {/s off}
The definition of ugly! No wonder she is a feminist!
shark bump
What a baby. She should just suck it up and admit her mistakes.
Helpless, pitiful, unarmed CBS?? Unarmed??? Hey, FReepers, it's another Victim Class -- unarmed MSM. Maybe they need a bailout.
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.
If that were true you wouldn't feel the need to dispute it so vehemently.