Quote:
Originally posted by Torone@Jul 19 2004, 08:46 AM
"on condition of anonymity" is where the problem comes in. Whether you agree or disagree with what was said, that phrase means that there is basically no source. If you cannot research the statement, you are expected to take it on faith. I don't do that. After all, who IS the anonymous source? Some low-level janitor? Hell, I could be the source!
|
I actually kind of agree with you here ... when "names ain't named", you have to take a lot of things into consideration.
[Edit - my cat thought I was done.]
First thing I do when somebody posts a link to an article on the web is check out the main page of the site (not just when Peaches posts a link
). I was underwhelmingly impressed with worldnetdaily.com.
My personal favorite article on the main page was the one about the Senate candidate promising to campaign to pull the U.S. out of the U.N. That said everything I needed to know about the website in question ...
The United States is hardly in a position to impose democracy at the point of a gun in Iran, for a whole lot of reasons. I understand WHY the barrage of attempts to link Iran to 9/11 took place this weekend, and I'm greatful that at least no one has (yet) tried to link the Iranians to the grave threats confronting both our national security AND the "threat to marriage" ... but it is pretty pathetic.