Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
ctembreull,
To be honest, I expected a more logical argument from you.
|
I think you didn't read far enough into my reply, then. The point to my replies to your questions regarding Georgy's press release was intended to convey:
why does it matter? Is there somehow some mitigating circumstance for the crowd's behavior based upon the was Ms. Russell came to be in that place at that time? Most of your questions, save the last two, were completely and totally irrelevant to the point at hand, which I detailed near the end of my post. The summary:
"While the LA Times may have released their article at a questionable juncture, it was in no way, shape, or form on the eve of the election. Fact is, they spent seven weeks (between Arnold's candidacy announcement and the release) researching and writing the story. And it shows - the story is well-sourced and corroborated, and names ten of its fifteen accusers. The Davis attack story, by contrast, uses two anonymous sources,
one of which the writer didn't even talk to. The story I posted was only marginally better-sourced than the Davis story - a first-person account with lots of details missing and only a sketchy email as a partial corroboration. The goal was to see just how what your standards were for uncorroborated stories and anonymous or little-known sources.
And now I'm even more curious than ever to find out, as I note that you apparently either a) didn't read that portion of my reply, or b) had no response.
I'm damned curious.