[Sandy]

There is no mention of an information desk or anyone at or from an information desk in the article. But you just keep making things up if it floats your boat.

I'm not making things up. Evidently, you don't comprehend my replies any more then you comprehend the original article. To repeat what I already said in reply #80: That's because it's a poorly written article. If you follow the link in the article and read Dubord's piece, it makes more sense.

And just in case that sentence is still incomprehensible, here's the link from the article to Dubord's piece: http://www.lacconline.org/supremecourt.asp.

[TigersEye]

It wasn't in the article posted here or in the WND article yet now, after numerous verbose and provably incorrect postings by you, you finally share your source from which you have been quoting. You have the gall to start out by calling me confused when you are not only incredibly confused you have intentionally created more confusion.

I do thank you for the link though. The article there lays out a much more damning indictment of the SC guides and information specialists and does so very clearly as opposed to the "poorly written" article leading this thread. I encourage everyone who reads this far to check it out.

10 Commandments Changed to 10 Amendments at U.S. Supreme Court