The ONLY source from the Bosqueville church (membership 44 with average attendance in the low 30s)sited is an anonymous (man).
What are the "other sources" you say that are claiming it legit even when the named sources say it's a lie. I haven't seen any and I've done all the reading on it I could find.
Why would you still think it's true when all the named sources says it's not? Could it be that you WANT it to be true?"
Could it be that Mr October here is manufacturing rather than reporting the news?
Could it be that this is the kind of fakery that gives Conservative journalists (the *real* ones) a bad name and brings on charges of "Fake News?"
Could it be that the pimp-ish blogger wants to break a big story so bad that he's fanning the flames of an "iffy" one?
(See how easy it is to ascribe motives and infer things?)
So let me get this straight. I provide a source in the news section here. A writer from The Daily Caller, which is linked to very often here as a legitimate source of news/information.
Then, I do an interview asking if people HAD HEARD that story - and 3 out of 4 had. Asking them their thoughts on it and what they would do if it happened in their church. And I’m “fanning the flames of an ‘iffy’ one”?
How so? Were the other people who posted stories by that Daily Caller writer (who has written a ton for The Daily Caller) also “fanning the flames of an iffy story?” Will the same standard be applied to anyone who posts a story from a regularly used source just because someone else thinks another source that says it’s not true is more credible?
The Daily Caller reported information suggesting that Donald Trump would win whereas other places like Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and others said that it wasn’t likely. So does that mean that those other sources are “iffy”?