Shirley Sherrod: An interesting Timeline of events (wow its not fox new's fault)

[edthecynic]

then he is a liar because other DID tell him it wasnt authentic BEFORE he went on the air

he chose to ignore it and ran with it anyway
hes after the fact claim he didnt know is a LIE

Where is YOUR proof?

Let me remind you what you said earlier in this very thread:

oh man
ok
if you dont actually remember the facts i'll look, but its a dead issue that went away over 6 years ago

from the wiki page

Killian documents controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the broadcast, Rather stated Marcel Matley "analyzed the documents for CBS News. He believes they are real," and broadcast additional excerpts from Matley's September 6 interview showing Matley's agreement that the signatures appeared to be from the same source. Rather did not report that Matley had referred to them as "poor material", that he had only opined about the signatures, or that he had specifically not authenticated the documents.

rather knew they were not authetic

Not quite, clearly no one came out and said the docs were forgeries. Again you are mind-reading!

From your same wiki link:

Response of the document examiners

Prior to airing, all four of the examiners responded to Mapes' request for document analysis, though only two to Mapes directly:[44]

Emily Will noted discrepancies in the signatures on the memos, and had questions about the letterhead, the proportional spacing of the font, the superscripted "th" and the improper formatting of the date. Will requested other documents to use for comparison.[45]

Linda James was "unable to reach a conclusion about the signature" and noted that the superscripted "th" was not in common use at the time the memos were allegedly written; she later recalled telling CBS, "the two memos she looked at 'had problems,'"[45]

James Pierce concluded that both of the documents were written by the same person and that the signature matched Killian's from the official Bush records. Only one of the two documents provided to Pierce had a signature. James Pierce wrote, "the balance of the Jerry B. Killian signatures appearing on the photocopied questioned documents are consistent and in basic agreement," and stated that based on what he knew, "the documents in question are authentic."[46] However, Pierce also told Mapes he could not be sure if the documents had been altered because he was reviewing copies, not original documents.[47]

Marcel Matley's review was initially limited to Killian's signature on one of the Burkett documents, which he compared to signatures from the official Bush records. Matley "seemed fairly confident" that the signature was Killian's. On September 6, Matley was interviewed by Rather and Mapes and was provided with the other four documents obtained from CBS (he would prove to be the only reviewer to see these documents prior to the segment). Matley told Rather "he could not authenticate the documents due to the fact that they were poor quality copies."[48] In the interview, Matley told Rather that with respect to the signatures, they were relying on "poor material" and that there were inconsistencies in the signatures, but also replied "Yes," when asked if it would be safe to say the documents were written by the person who signed them.[49]

 

[DiveCon]

Where is YOUR proof?

Let me remind you what you said earlier in this very thread:

oh man
ok
if you dont actually remember the facts i'll look, but its a dead issue that went away over 6 years ago

from the wiki page

Killian documents controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


rather knew they were not authetic

Not quite, clearly no one came out and said the docs were forgeries. Again you are mind-reading!

From your same wiki link:

Response of the document examiners

Prior to airing, all four of the examiners responded to Mapes' request for document analysis, though only two to Mapes directly:[44]

Emily Will noted discrepancies in the signatures on the memos, and had questions about the letterhead, the proportional spacing of the font, the superscripted "th" and the improper formatting of the date. Will requested other documents to use for comparison.[45]

Linda James was "unable to reach a conclusion about the signature" and noted that the superscripted "th" was not in common use at the time the memos were allegedly written; she later recalled telling CBS, "the two memos she looked at 'had problems,'"[45]

James Pierce concluded that both of the documents were written by the same person and that the signature matched Killian's from the official Bush records. Only one of the two documents provided to Pierce had a signature. James Pierce wrote, "the balance of the Jerry B. Killian signatures appearing on the photocopied questioned documents are consistent and in basic agreement," and stated that based on what he knew, "the documents in question are authentic."[46] However, Pierce also told Mapes he could not be sure if the documents had been altered because he was reviewing copies, not original documents.[47]

Marcel Matley's review was initially limited to Killian's signature on one of the Burkett documents, which he compared to signatures from the official Bush records. Matley "seemed fairly confident" that the signature was Killian's. On September 6, Matley was interviewed by Rather and Mapes and was provided with the other four documents obtained from CBS (he would prove to be the only reviewer to see these documents prior to the segment). Matley told Rather "he could not authenticate the documents due to the fact that they were poor quality copies."[48] In the interview, Matley told Rather that with respect to the signatures, they were relying on "poor material" and that there were inconsistencies in the signatures, but also replied "Yes," when asked if it would be safe to say the documents were written by the person who signed them.[49]

and all of that still says NOT AUTHENTIC
what part of that are you missing

 

[Coyote]

Just pointing out Fitz's mistake.

Which mistake? that Coyote denies it?

You said no one denied that Sherrod said what she did...but Coyote did.

Umh. No. But nice try.

You quoted: Fox shows a heavily edited tape made to seem as if the woman in it is racist.

What is being denied?

 

[Coyote]

Which mistake? that Coyote denies it?

You said no one denied that Sherrod said what she did...but Coyote did.

okay, yep. that's what I thought you meant.

You can subtantiate that claim?

I don't have to. You just have to go back to the huge scandal reporting done on Memogate/Rathergate and read for yourself. Of course I know you'll cherrypick that to back your point, but I don't really care to spoon feed you on this. I've better things to do.

You made the claim, it's up to you to support it or admit it's bogus.

I'll help you out.

Your claim: Burkett, Mapes, Rather and others were all in a conspiracy to publish a lie to remove a sitting president out of whole cloth. This is not the same as an 'unfair' or misleading edit that is quickly discovered by viewing the raw footage. That's the major point. As far as I'm concerned Rather may as well have typed the memo himself for all his involvement and willful conspiracy in that event.

One source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy#Findings

 

[daveman]

Which mistake? that Coyote denies it?

You said no one denied that Sherrod said what she did...but Coyote did.

Umh. No. But nice try.

You quoted: Fox shows a heavily edited tape made to seem as if the woman in it is racist.

What is being denied?

If the tape was edited to seem as if she is racist, then naturally, the unedited tape would show she is not. Correct?

So you're denying she's racist.

 

[Coyote]

You said no one denied that Sherrod said what she did...but Coyote did.

Umh. No. But nice try.

You quoted: Fox shows a heavily edited tape made to seem as if the woman in it is racist.

What is being denied?

If the tape was edited to seem as if she is racist, then naturally, the unedited tape would show she is not. Correct?

So you're denying she's racist.

I've said that all along.

 

[edthecynic]

oh man
ok
if you dont actually remember the facts i'll look, but its a dead issue that went away over 6 years ago

from the wiki page

Killian documents controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


rather knew they were not authetic

Not quite, clearly no one came out and said the docs were forgeries. Again you are mind-reading!

From your same wiki link:

Response of the document examiners

Prior to airing, all four of the examiners responded to Mapes' request for document analysis, though only two to Mapes directly:[44]

Emily Will noted discrepancies in the signatures on the memos, and had questions about the letterhead, the proportional spacing of the font, the superscripted "th" and the improper formatting of the date. Will requested other documents to use for comparison.[45]

Linda James was "unable to reach a conclusion about the signature" and noted that the superscripted "th" was not in common use at the time the memos were allegedly written; she later recalled telling CBS, "the two memos she looked at 'had problems,'"[45]

James Pierce concluded that both of the documents were written by the same person and that the signature matched Killian's from the official Bush records. Only one of the two documents provided to Pierce had a signature. James Pierce wrote, "the balance of the Jerry B. Killian signatures appearing on the photocopied questioned documents are consistent and in basic agreement," and stated that based on what he knew, "the documents in question are authentic."[46] However, Pierce also told Mapes he could not be sure if the documents had been altered because he was reviewing copies, not original documents.[47]

Marcel Matley's review was initially limited to Killian's signature on one of the Burkett documents, which he compared to signatures from the official Bush records. Matley "seemed fairly confident" that the signature was Killian's. On September 6, Matley was interviewed by Rather and Mapes and was provided with the other four documents obtained from CBS (he would prove to be the only reviewer to see these documents prior to the segment). Matley told Rather "he could not authenticate the documents due to the fact that they were poor quality copies."[48] In the interview, Matley told Rather that with respect to the signatures, they were relying on "poor material" and that there were inconsistencies in the signatures, but also replied "Yes," when asked if it would be safe to say the documents were written by the person who signed them.[49]

and all of that still says NOT AUTHENTIC
what part of that are you missing

All in all that says the quality was too poor for most of the experts to say the docs were not authentic and the originals were needed. That's a bid difference from saying they were not authentic. And one did say they were authentic but could not say they weren't altered because they were copies.

And here from your Wiki source is what you misrepresented as being said when Rather first aired the story, which was actually said well after the story was first aired.

Dan Rather continues to stand by the story, and in subsequent interviews has articulated that he believes that the documents have never conclusively been proven to be forgeries — and that even if the documents are false, that the underlying story is true.[113]

 

[DiveCon]

Not quite, clearly no one came out and said the docs were forgeries. Again you are mind-reading!

From your same wiki link:

and all of that still says NOT AUTHENTIC
what part of that are you missing

All in all that says the quality was too poor for most of the experts to say the docs were not authentic and the originals were needed. That's a bid difference from saying they were not authentic. And one did say they were authentic but could not say they weren't altered because they were copies.

And here from your Wiki source is what you misrepresented as being said when Rather first aired the story, which was actually said well after the story was first aired.

Dan Rather continues to stand by the story, and in subsequent interviews has articulated that he believes that the documents have never conclusively been proven to be forgeries — and that even if the documents are false, that the underlying story is true.[113]

which supports my claim

that rather didnt care about their authenticity because he believed the content to be true

 

[daveman]

Umh. No. But nice try.

You quoted: Fox shows a heavily edited tape made to seem as if the woman in it is racist.

What is being denied?

If the tape was edited to seem as if she is racist, then naturally, the unedited tape would show she is not. Correct?

So you're denying she's racist.

I've said that all along.

So I was right in my correction of Fitz.

 

[Coyote]

If the tape was edited to seem as if she is racist, then naturally, the unedited tape would show she is not. Correct?

So you're denying she's racist.

I've said that all along.

So I was right in my correction of Fitz.

You'd need to provide some verification before commencing on to the self-congratualatory phase.

I am denying she is a racist based on the entire tape.

Your move.

 

[edthecynic]

and all of that still says NOT AUTHENTIC
what part of that are you missing

All in all that says the quality was too poor for most of the experts to say the docs were not authentic and the originals were needed. That's a bid difference from saying they were not authentic. And one did say they were authentic but could not say they weren't altered because they were copies.

And here from your Wiki source is what you misrepresented as being said when Rather first aired the story, which was actually said well after the story was first aired.

Dan Rather continues to stand by the story, and in subsequent interviews has articulated that he believes that the documents have never conclusively been proven to be forgeries — and that even if the documents are false, that the underlying story is true.[113]

which supports my claim

that rather didnt care about their authenticity because he believed the content to be true

Except that's not what you said.

Originally Posted by DiveCon

rather knew they were not authetic

Originally Posted by DiveCon

he had admitted it was pointed out to him that it wasn't authentic
he still ran with it using the claim, "fake, but accurate"

 

[daveman]

I've said that all along.

So I was right in my correction of Fitz.

You'd need to provide some verification before commencing on to the self-congratualatory phase.

I am denying she is a racist based on the entire tape.

Your move.

Ummm...you realize you're making my argument for me, right?

 

[DiveCon]

All in all that says the quality was too poor for most of the experts to say the docs were not authentic and the originals were needed. That's a bid difference from saying they were not authentic. And one did say they were authentic but could not say they weren't altered because they were copies.

And here from your Wiki source is what you misrepresented as being said when Rather first aired the story, which was actually said well after the story was first aired.

which supports my claim

that rather didnt care about their authenticity because he believed the content to be true

Except that's not what you said.

Originally Posted by DiveCon

rather knew they were not authetic

Originally Posted by DiveCon

he had admitted it was pointed out to him that it wasn't authentic
he still ran with it using the claim, "fake, but accurate"

actually, it does
to someone not so hyper partisan like you

 

[Big Fitz]

You made the claim, it's up to you to support it or admit it's bogus.

I'll help you out.

Your claim: Burkett, Mapes, Rather and others were all in a conspiracy to publish a lie to remove a sitting president out of whole cloth. This is not the same as an 'unfair' or misleading edit that is quickly discovered by viewing the raw footage. That's the major point. As far as I'm concerned Rather may as well have typed the memo himself for all his involvement and willful conspiracy in that event.

One source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian...versy#Findings

Translation, I have lost the argument on Sherrod... again... and must try and find some way to regain my lost manhood.... such as it is.

History bears out that Rather, Mapes and Burkett conspired to create and pass off on the populace a fraud. He was fired for it, even his colleagues admit he did wrong, and any honest vendor (wiki is not valid for recent politics) will point that out clearly. But if you want to sit there and scream about false conspiracies, maybe we can also include Bush v. Gore? I know you haven't gotten over that still.

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh and the
"I didn't say that!"
"Yes you did, I just heard you!'
"You're delusional!"
...argument is going over oh so well. I've seen louder libberish spouted, but not often better.

 

[edthecynic]

which supports my claim

that rather didnt care about their authenticity because he believed the content to be true

Except that's not what you said.

Originally Posted by DiveCon

he had admitted it was pointed out to him that it wasn't authentic
he still ran with it using the claim, "fake, but accurate"

actually, it does
to someone not so hyper partisan like you

And what party would that be?
I'm a lifelong registered Independent who is one of the less than 2% that votes 3rd Party or write in.

 

[DiveCon]

Except that's not what you said.

actually, it does
to someone not so hyper partisan like you

And what party would that be?
I'm a lifelong registered Independent who is one of the less than 2% that votes 3rd Party or write in.

being a registered independent doesn't make you less of a partisan

it shows in your constant attacks against conservatives in general
being partisan doesnt actually require you be a member of a party

 

[Big Fitz]

actually, it does
to someone not so hyper partisan like you

And what party would that be?
I'm a lifelong registered Independent who is one of the less than 2% that votes 3rd Party or write in.

being a registered independent doesn't make you less of a partisan

it shows in your constant attacks against conservatives in general
being partisan doesnt actually require you be a member of a party

I wonder who the last CONSERVATIVE he voted for was? John Kerry?

 

[edthecynic]

actually, it does
to someone not so hyper partisan like you

And what party would that be?
I'm a lifelong registered Independent who is one of the less than 2% that votes 3rd Party or write in.

being a registered independent doesn't make you less of a partisan

it shows in your constant attacks against conservatives in general
being partisan doesnt actually require you be a member of a party

There is no CON$ervative Party, but if there was I'd be against it. I'm against CON$ no matter what Party they infest. CON$ervatism is a hate religion.

Being a partisan means I support a Party. What Party do I support?
I am anti-CON$ervatism, but not pro GOP or Democratic Parties. Both are way to CON$ervative for me.

Since you like Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_(political)

In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a party.
In multi-party systems, the term is widely understood to carry a negative connotation - referring to those who wholly support their party's policies and are perhaps even reluctant to acknowledge correctness on the part of their political opponents in almost any situation.
Partisanship can be affected by many factors including current events, figure-heads (presidents), decisions, and even location.

In the United States, the meaning of the term has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. Before the American National Election Study (described in Angus Campbell, et al., in The American Voter) began in 1952, an individual's partisan tendencies were typically determined from their voting behavior. Since then, "partisan" has come to refer to an individual with a psychological identification with one or the other of the major parties.

 

[DiveCon]

ed, a better source

Partisan - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

and i have never said i like Wiki, but on something old and out of date, wiki usually has some good resources

you DO understand that it was LIMITED to political party's in that wiki page, right?