679
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 407:
Line 407: + + + +
→McCarthy edits
:The telegram I'm trying to retrieve right now; yes & no refers to your comment "certainly considered important at the time" which I assume refers to public perceptions based upon an uninformed media, etc., and is largely irrelevenat cause EVERYBODY was in the dark. Then we have the Rosenbergs; is this to recycle arguements that they were not guilty? Strictly speaking it don't mean diddly-squat that the docs were determined ''ex post facto'' of little importance, his actions demonstrate he was a security risk. And the Army is not the final arbiter here anyway. This is moot. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:The telegram I'm trying to retrieve right now; yes & no refers to your comment "certainly considered important at the time" which I assume refers to public perceptions based upon an uninformed media, etc., and is largely irrelevenat cause EVERYBODY was in the dark. Then we have the Rosenbergs; is this to recycle arguements that they were not guilty? Strictly speaking it don't mean diddly-squat that the docs were determined ''ex post facto'' of little importance, his actions demonstrate he was a security risk. And the Army is not the final arbiter here anyway. This is moot. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I look forward to seeing that cite about the telegram. And the media were quite well informed about McCarthy's behavior given that much of it took place before TV cameras. Nobody was "in the dark" about McCarthy's tendency to exaggerate, and I've posted cites illustrating that tendency, as in the differences between what the Lee List actually said and what he claimed it said, the difference between why a witness had broken down and why McCarthy claimed he'd broken down, etc. And yes, the importance of the documents does mean much more than "diddly squat" when you are conducting an investigation and publicly claiming that the breach of security is on par with a case that ultimatley resulted in two executions. You seem to consider an awful lot of undisputed facts "moot." Sorry, but they're not.
Now, I have reviewed the conservapedia commandments, and I cannot find any that would be broken by my posting the account of McCarthy's inconsistent claims about the number of names on the list. It is true and verifiable. It is not copied from Wikipedia or some other non-public domain source. I have cites on the ready. I do not post things that aren't "family-friendly" or contain "gossip or foul language." And it is not a matter of my personal opinion that McCarthy first gave the number on the list as 205, then as 57, then as 81. It's a matter of public record. If reposting that information violates a rule here, please cite that rule. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)