152
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 40:
Line 40: + + +
→"Kerry's fellow soldiers"
:::So you're basically argueing the defunct WP:Verifiabilty policy -- so long as a lie originates, or is repeated in a "reliable" source, it's a valid inclusion, nevermind the fact it can be proven false, invalid, obsolete, or irrelevent. And I think the claim that the "official account (the one that went largely unchallenged these 35+ years)" can also be proven to be without foundation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So you're basically argueing the defunct WP:Verifiabilty policy -- so long as a lie originates, or is repeated in a "reliable" source, it's a valid inclusion, nevermind the fact it can be proven false, invalid, obsolete, or irrelevent. And I think the claim that the "official account (the one that went largely unchallenged these 35+ years)" can also be proven to be without foundation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::...I'm sorry, apparently I think I'm saying one thing and you're managing to hear it coming out as the exact opposite. I'm arguing that, since the bulk of the claims by the SBVT have been challeneged publically and rebuffed by many on both sides of the political arena, that treating their evaluation as empirical proof and making statements as fact whose truth is depentant on the veracity of those SBVT claims, is ridiculous. In this way I'm trying to argue the exact opposite of that same defunct WP policy, and that the Swifties claims should not be treated as inherently valid for myriad reasons, not least of which is that they go against the official record. They are the ones making the remarkable claims that go against current perceptions. The onus is on them to provide proof, and in their book, by and large, they provide none, but rather a great deal of conspiracy-theory speculation (Kerry wrote his own commendation, got them to be accepted as fact, was awarded purple hearts for razor burns, etc). They have, in what I would hope is any professional's view, a long way to go to have their claims be taken seriously, and to repeat their unfounded claims as though it were a matter of undisputed record is reckless and irresponsible.
::And of course its the official account, otherwise Kerry wouldn't have gotten the medals, and of course it hadn't been challenged before or more hay would've been made of it.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 18:24, 20 April 2007 (EDT)