Assassination and Bolton's UN!!!

[gordontravels]

On Friday, Condoleezza Rice backed by President Bush called on the U.N. Security Council to act on the report of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri that took place back in February of this year.

The report's hard copy, prepared by German Prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, went to the Security Council and didn't include names but a private electronic report did:

Those names included Maher Assad, brother of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and their brother-in-law Asef Shawkat, the chief of military intelligence, who is thought to be the most powerful man in the country of Syria after the president himself.

Syria's ambassador, Fayssal Mekdad is dismissing the report as politically motivated and says it is not credible. He has claimed Damascus had fully cooperated.

John Bolton said Mekadad's statements were "ridiculous," and "diplospeak for obstruction of justice." He also said, "The report concludes there is probable cause to believe that high-level Syrian officials were involved in the Hariri assassination, that there's clear evidence of obstruction of justice on the part of the Syrians (and) failure to cooperate. That is what the Security Council needs to take up in a serious way."

This is the first test in what reform may mean to the U.N. under President Bush and his ambassador, John Bolton. I look forward to our media supporting the efforts to reform the U.N. and let justice prevail within the organization as that organization seeks to press justice upon member states such as the U.S. and Syria. Who's side will our media take this time?

With the corruption shown to be widespread throughout the U.N. from money to politics to appointments such as the Sudan on the Human Rights Commission, it's time for a John Bolton; not so "Mr. Nice Guy". :duel

 

[Binary_Digit]

Link please? You didn't even specify what the report actually says...

 

[gordontravels]

Link please? You didn't even specify what the report actually says...

Link link link. Go to the U.N. but I don't think they have released the report. I got my information from this morning'g New York Times. Please don't ask for links when the U.N. is cited; do your own 10 seconds. You can subscribe to the NYT's online free. Sign up and read.

In all fairness I should have mentioned the Times. :duel

 

[scottyz]

Link link link. Go to the U.N. but I don't think they have released the report. I got my information from this morning'g New York Times. Please don't ask for links when the U.N. is cited; do your own 10 seconds. You can subscribe to the NYT's online free. Sign up and read.

In all fairness I should have mentioned the Times. :duel

So give us a link to the story on the NYtimes website... if it's only 10 seconds of work. You've seen the story and know better what search terms to use to find it on the web.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

.....snip..... I look forward to our media supporting the efforts to reform the U.N. and let justice prevail within the organization as that organization seeks to press justice upon member states such as the U.S. and Syria. Who's side will our media take this time?

With the corruption shown to be widespread throughout the U.N. from money to politics to appointments such as the Sudan on the Human Rights Commission, it's time for a John Bolton; not so "Mr. Nice Guy". :duel

No offense, but sometimes I think that you might be better suited to a dictatorship. The media should side with the facts. Thats it. The media should not have a bias for reform or against it.

Look at the reporting from outlets like the BBC and NPR, that is the gold standard that all media outlets should try to adhere to.

 

[cnredd]

No offense, but sometimes I think that you might be better suited to a dictatorship. The media should side with the facts. Thats it. The media should not have a bias for reform or against it.

Look at the reporting from outlets like the BBC and NPR, that is the gold standard that all media outlets should try to adhere to.

Gold standard...:rofl

BBC chairman resigns after Hutton criticism
( 2004-01-29 15:12) (Agencies)

The chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) resigned Wednesday and the broadcaster apologized for some of its reporting on the buildup to the war in Iraq after it was lambasted in an inquiry by a senior judge.


BBC chairman Gavyn Davies is to resign over the David Kelly affair. [AFP/File]
The inquiry by Lord Hutton criticized journalist Andrew Gilligan, the BBC's management and its supervisory board of governors, for a radio report saying the government "sexed up" intelligence in a dossier on Iraqi weapons.

Hutton said the BBC report was unfounded.

He said the BBC's editorial system was "defective" in allowing Gilligan's report to air and the governors should have investigated it in the aftermath, during which weapons expert David Kelly was unmasked as Gilligan's source and committed suicide.

Gavyn Davies, chairman of the BBC board of governors, tendered his resignation after the publication of the report, with immediate effect.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2004-01/29/content_301465.htm

Leftists Howl Over NPR's Bias
By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid | April 16, 2002

National Public Radio, a notorious outlet for liberal opinion, has been accused of bias against liberals. The misnamed Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting group, known as FAIR, complains that the radio network has engaged in a debate over bias in the media that is "one-sided." National Public Radio's Morning Edition devoted two segments, March 20th and March 21st, to allegations of media bias.

Introducing the segment, Morning Edition host Bob Edwards said "one of the most common complaints about major news media, including NPR, is that they're not objective – that they either lean too far to the right or too far to the left." A poll was cited showing that while many people see a bias in the media toward one side or another, more see a left-wing slant. Forty six percent found a liberal bias, while 36 percent see a rightward slant. FAIR is angry that those complaining of a liberal media bias got the attention from NPR.

NPR senior correspondent Juan Williams, in the first segment, interviewed conservative authors Bernard Goldberg and William McGowan, who argue that media have a liberal bias. Goldberg's book, "Bias," has become a best seller. McGowan's book is titled "Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism." FAIR's gripe is that the second part of the series, rather than featuring so-called "progressive media critics," interviewed two journalists - former Time magazine editor and columnist Jack White and former CBS News producer and executive Ed Fouhy.

In the NPR story, Goldberg offered examples of media bias, noting that the media label conservatives more often than liberals. Fouhy seemed to accept Goldberg's complaint, noting that he remembered a staffer at CBS News who referred to gun owners as "right-wing nuts." At the same time, Fouhy claimed that he didn't remember any manifestations of liberal bias on such issues as abortion.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A740_0_2_0_C/

From NPRs own website...

Many journalists (including some at NPR) feel that their role is to defend the underdog. The implication is that the top dog can look after itself. Sympathy for the underdog is not necessarily evidence of bias -- although it can be. It may simply be a good way to report complex issues using the plight of individuals to explain them.

Journalists agree that there are simply too many checks and balances in the editorial process to allow for open partisanship. But news organizations everywhere engage in "group-think" about stories. Does NPR make sure that other perspectives are given enough consideration when editorial decisions are made? I think NPR needs to do a better job at making sure those ideas are heard.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4717847

I could continue, seeing how I put "NPR bias" into infoseek's search and ONLY came up with 46,100...:roll:

Gold Standard is only applied to those who believe in fool's gold...

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Golden....the NYT?! :rofl Theres not enough space on the web to tally the number of times the NYT admitted to printing a false report and apologized. If the report with names was private how did the NYT get a copy? If it hasn't been released to the public how did the NYT get a copy? Who is their source?

 

[gordontravels]

So give us a link to the story on the NYtimes website... if it's only 10 seconds of work. You've seen the story and know better what search terms to use to find it on the web.

The link is the New York Times and the 10 seconds is Google and you typing it. Don't ask again because I'll ignore your lazy request and you can assume this post is my answer. Finding the New York Times is easy. :duel

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

The link is the New York Times and the 10 seconds is Google and you typing it. Don't ask again because I'll ignore your lazy request and you can assume this post is my answer. Finding the New York Times is easy. :duel

Finding a truthful and reliable story in the NYT is not so easy :lol:

 

[scottyz]

The link is the New York Times and the 10 seconds is Google and you typing it. Don't ask again because I'll ignore your lazy request and you can assume this post is my answer. Finding the New York Times is easy. :duel

You posted this "story" but you're either too lazy or too stupid to even dig up a link for it? :applaud

 

[debate_junkie]

The link is the New York Times and the 10 seconds is Google and you typing it. Don't ask again because I'll ignore your lazy request and you can assume this post is my answer. Finding the New York Times is easy. :duel

Call me naive.. but isn't one of the rules of the sight to provide sourcing to materials, or is that only when one posts copyrighted material?

 

[Deegan]

I think it's ridiculous to continue to insist on links, it's all well known, and the question he is asking can not yet be linked, which is...."What side will our media land, on the issue of Syria, and their continued disruption of another nation" As a skilled debater, you should already be armed with these simple facts, it's not the opponents job to supply you with the necessary facts, it's your job to find those. I will concede that this should probably be in "media bias" but it is also, current news, someone else will make that call I assume.

 

[gordontravels]

You posted this "story" but you're either too lazy or too stupid to even dig up a link for it? :applaud

There are few here that I don't pay attention to. I am not stupid. The story ran yesterday and I'm done with it. I am also open to one more response to you but if you persist in characterizing me as a stupid person which I would not under any circumstances do to you, I will skip your posts as I do only 2 others here. There is no call for insult in this forum. I suggest you consider if we sat across the table discussing what we do here over coffee. Neither one of us would stoop to the insult I have received from you.

I leave it up to you. :duel

 

[gordontravels]

Call me naive.. but isn't one of the rules of the sight to provide sourcing to materials, or is that only when one posts copyrighted material?

I have read your posts here and you are far from naive. I have not posted links because I subscribe and you don't. I therefore post my source, the day it ran and tell you to subscribe if it is free. That's what I have done and will continue to do.

I have heard that this site wants us to post links but that is a broad rule which is only asked for on this site. The moderators here have posted that individuals should provide this link or that but I have little respect for the Moderators when they ignore the simple rules of decency that all forums follow and allow insult to continue or even take it lightly in their own posts.

Posting links or identifying a source as well known as the New York Times with the date of the articles publication is the same to me. I subscribe and have suggested to those who are interested to simply subscribe on line and read for themselves. It is a simple single page with headlines so it isn't hard to find. I also subscribe to NewsMax, Media Research Center and MoveOn.org among others. I won't post links to any site I subscribe to since subscription is just that. I will however always give my source unless it is pure opinion based on another posters words.

The Moderators don't seem to have a problem with this but then that depends on the Moderator. At least I think it does. :duel

 

[scottyz]

There is no call for insult in this forum. I suggest you consider if we sat across the table discussing what we do here over coffee. Neither one of us would stoop to the insult I have received from you.

I leave it up to you. :duel

Yet you're the one that started by calling me lazy for not wanting to do your work for you. :roll:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Gold standard...:rofl

BBC chairman resigns after Hutton criticism
( 2004-01-29 15:12) (Agencies)

The chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) resigned Wednesday and the broadcaster apologized for some of its reporting on the buildup to the war in Iraq after it was lambasted in an inquiry by a senior judge.


BBC chairman Gavyn Davies is to resign over the David Kelly affair. [AFP/File]
The inquiry by Lord Hutton criticized journalist Andrew Gilligan, the BBC's management and its supervisory board of governors, for a radio report saying the government "sexed up" intelligence in a dossier on Iraqi weapons.

Hutton said the BBC report was unfounded.

He said the BBC's editorial system was "defective" in allowing Gilligan's report to air and the governors should have investigated it in the aftermath, during which weapons expert David Kelly was unmasked as Gilligan's source and committed suicide.

Gavyn Davies, chairman of the BBC board of governors, tendered his resignation after the publication of the report, with immediate effect.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2004-01/29/content_301465.htm

Leftists Howl Over NPR's Bias
By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid | April 16, 2002

National Public Radio, a notorious outlet for liberal opinion, has been accused of bias against liberals. The misnamed Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting group, known as FAIR, complains that the radio network has engaged in a debate over bias in the media that is "one-sided." National Public Radio's Morning Edition devoted two segments, March 20th and March 21st, to allegations of media bias.

Introducing the segment, Morning Edition host Bob Edwards said "one of the most common complaints about major news media, including NPR, is that they're not objective – that they either lean too far to the right or too far to the left." A poll was cited showing that while many people see a bias in the media toward one side or another, more see a left-wing slant. Forty six percent found a liberal bias, while 36 percent see a rightward slant. FAIR is angry that those complaining of a liberal media bias got the attention from NPR.

NPR senior correspondent Juan Williams, in the first segment, interviewed conservative authors Bernard Goldberg and William McGowan, who argue that media have a liberal bias. Goldberg's book, "Bias," has become a best seller. McGowan's book is titled "Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism." FAIR's gripe is that the second part of the series, rather than featuring so-called "progressive media critics," interviewed two journalists - former Time magazine editor and columnist Jack White and former CBS News producer and executive Ed Fouhy.

In the NPR story, Goldberg offered examples of media bias, noting that the media label conservatives more often than liberals. Fouhy seemed to accept Goldberg's complaint, noting that he remembered a staffer at CBS News who referred to gun owners as "right-wing nuts." At the same time, Fouhy claimed that he didn't remember any manifestations of liberal bias on such issues as abortion.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A740_0_2_0_C/

From NPRs own website...

Many journalists (including some at NPR) feel that their role is to defend the underdog. The implication is that the top dog can look after itself. Sympathy for the underdog is not necessarily evidence of bias -- although it can be. It may simply be a good way to report complex issues using the plight of individuals to explain them.

Journalists agree that there are simply too many checks and balances in the editorial process to allow for open partisanship. But news organizations everywhere engage in "group-think" about stories. Does NPR make sure that other perspectives are given enough consideration when editorial decisions are made? I think NPR needs to do a better job at making sure those ideas are heard.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4717847

I could continue, seeing how I put "NPR bias" into infoseek's search and ONLY came up with 46,100...:roll:

Gold Standard is only applied to those who believe in fool's gold...

Google “Fox News bias” and you will get over 2 million results.

Anyone who objectively listens to NPR knows that NPR goes to more lengths to be balanced and objective than any other major news outlet in the nation. Which is probably why their reporting is so dull much of the time.

The BBC has one scandal and you call them biased. Compare either of those outlets with Fox News or CBS News, that’s why I call them the gold standard.

 

[cnredd]

Call me naive.. but isn't one of the rules of the sight to provide sourcing to materials, or is that only when one posts copyrighted material?

I understand what you are alluding to, and it is only copyrighted material...

You can allude to an article all you want...It's when you present the actual article without providing a source that becomes the legal issue...

If I started a post with this...

Some Newspaper
Some Reporter
10/22/05 5:00PM EST

A study shows that some people are morons...etc...(continuance of article).

...then the poster MUST provide a link...That article is was taken from a site that is paying for it somehow(links, pop-ups, subscriptions), so without providing a source, you are, in effect, stealing information from them without giving them the opportunity to recoup the expenses paid for creating said information...

Now that's the LEGAL issue...The DEBATE issue is somewhat different...

If you say "I saw a report from Some Newspaper that said a study shows that some people are morons.", they are YOUR WORDS...thus, the legal issue is not there...

But from a debate standpoint...

Since you are using YOUR WORDS, it would be wise to show how you arrived at YOUR WORDS...without showing how you came to the conclusion that you saw the report, common sense would dictate that you actually show the report(when possible)...Anyone can easily claim that the report doesn't exist, and it should be the responsibility of the original poster to provide the proof of the report...not for others to go find it...

So from a legal standpoint, gordontravels is in good standing because he did not quote the article in his original post...

From a debate standpoint, his credibility gets somewhat diminished when he tells others to find sources that he himself should provide...

 

[gordontravels]

Yet you're the one that started by calling me lazy for not wanting to do your work for you. :roll:

And you have my apology. :duel

 

[cnredd]

I have heard that this site wants us to post links but that is a broad rule which is only asked for on this site. The moderators here have posted that individuals should provide this link or that but I have little respect for the Moderators when they ignore the simple rules of decency that all forums follow and allow insult to continue or even take it lightly in their own posts.:duel

The problem with this opinion is the term "simple rules of decency"...

It would be nice if all of the forum members had the forum rules memorized, but I will focus on the parts that have to deal with the issue at hand...

15. Disciplinary Actions - Users that break any rules may be issued a warning, either in the thread where the offense took place in or via private message (PM)- sometimes both. Repeated violations of the rules can result in a permanent or temporary revocation of posting privileges. Temporary suspension of posting privileges might range in duration from 24 hours to 2 weeks or more. If the conduct is severely detrimental to the board, the account will be banned and posting privileges revoked permanently. This is at the sole discretion of the moderator. You may submit an appeal using the "contact us" link at the bottom of every page.

Not all disciplinary actions will be public. Furthermore, moderators are not obligated to notify general membership of whether a particular member has received a warning. Nor are moderators obligated to discuss any disciplinary actions taken against a member with any other member.

What one person considers the "simple rules of decency" is/may be different from another...That is where the word "discretion" comes into play...

One person may have no problem when someone says "That is the stupidest thing you've ever written!"...Another person may scream bloody murder...Most of the time, the Moderators will sit back and see if this escalates into a full-fledged flame war, or if it just hovers around "simmering"...Sometimes, the source is also considered...Does that person continually insult multiple members of the forum or do they just have a "thing" for one individual?...Just how personal has the issue become?...

There are many things to consider when a warning is given...but here's the main one...

Is it prohibiting the free flow of debate?...That is the main reason for this forum, and over-Moderation can become more of a hindrance than a help...

Once again, it all comes down to discretion...

The Moderator's object, of course, can't be to please everyone all of the time...If we were to conduct a strict interpretation of "simple rules of decency", many members would be put off due to this over-Moderation...

You, personally seem to have an issue...I can refer you another that does not...

I am part of the TFP staff (Tilted Forum Project), More of a community than a Forum in many respects. Excellent people, constantly Evolving, and quite a bit of fun as well. Gotta say , I very much enjoy the atmosphere in here , just enough edge to make it interesting. And Kuddos the the Mod staff , Politics is by far the hardest thing to keep civil.

Thanx for this place.....and great Job!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=100636&postcount=5

You can see our intentions clearly with the words of our fearless leader...

My take is that in order to understand the other position, communication must be open and free flowing. Hopefully, the quality members here help to create that insightful and meaningful discourse. It litterally gives me goose bumps when I see a thread with liberals, socialists, libertarians, and conservatives pounding on each other in well spirited (and often) educational civil debate. Some other admins believe that it isn't possible to maintain this without folks losing limbs. So far, we have been successful with only a few scrapes and bruises.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=78243&postcount=2

 

[gordontravels]

So from a legal standpoint, gordontravels is in good standing because he did not quote the article in his original post...

From a debate standpoint, his credibility gets somewhat diminished when he tells others to find sources that he himself should provide...

You want to discuss the level of my credibility? You, a member of a moderator team that lets a forum delve into insult and simply stands by? So be it. I am in good standing but dimished in credibility and quite happy that I may consider the source for that assessment.

My credibility is intact since I am a subscriber to any site I reference and may only use partial quotes from those sites. I do provide the name of the site which is easily accessible and also the day that site provided the information I base my opinion pieces or information for debate on. If something was hidden in a particular article I would also point that out and where to find it.

It is not my position nor is it my responsibility to provide links to subscriber sites that I have taken time to subscribe to. I think you will find that any of these sites offer free subscription services to one and all. They want you to subscribe and not have me simply send you to one article or another. Sometimes I only take the headline for the tilt of that media site itself.

Credibility? Credibility is doing your job and I have done mine as a member of this forum. How about you? :duel

 

[gordontravels]

The problem with this opinion is the term "simple rules of decency"...

It would be nice if all of the forum members had the forum rules memorized, but I will focus on the parts that have to deal with the issue at hand...

15. Disciplinary Actions - Users that break any rules may be issued a warning, either in the thread where the offense took place in or via private message (PM)- sometimes both. Repeated violations of the rules can result in a permanent or temporary revocation of posting privileges. Temporary suspension of posting privileges might range in duration from 24 hours to 2 weeks or more. If the conduct is severely detrimental to the board, the account will be banned and posting privileges revoked permanently. This is at the sole discretion of the moderator. You may submit an appeal using the "contact us" link at the bottom of every page.

Not all disciplinary actions will be public. Furthermore, moderators are not obligated to notify general membership of whether a particular member has received a warning. Nor are moderators obligated to discuss any disciplinary actions taken against a member with any other member.

What one person considers the "simple rules of decency" is/may be different from another...That is where the word "discretion" comes into play...

One person may have no problem when someone says "That is the stupidest thing you've ever written!"...Another person may scream bloody murder...Most of the time, the Moderators will sit back and see if this escalates into a full-fledged flame war, or if it just hovers around "simmering"...Sometimes, the source is also considered...Does that person continually insult multiple members of the forum or do they just have a "thing" for one individual?...Just how personal has the issue become?...

There are many things to consider when a warning is given...but here's the main one...

Is it prohibiting the free flow of debate?...That is the main reason for this forum, and over-Moderation can become more of a hindrance than a help...

Once again, it all comes down to discretion...

The Moderator's object, of course, can't be to please everyone all of the time...If we were to conduct a strict interpretation of "simple rules of decency", many members would be put off due to this over-Moderation...

You, personally seem to have an issue...I can refer you another that does not...


http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=100636&postcount=5

You can see our intentions clearly with the words of our fearless leader...


http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=78243&postcount=2

I'm sorry but to me it is a cop out to take the term "simple rules of decency" out of context when I was talking about direct name calling. It's one thing to step into a thread and decide not to contribute because of this confrontation but it is quite another to see it in a thread I started.

I made my complaint based on fact and you cite someone that's happy here "in general". Why not ask that individual if they mind being called or seeing fellow posters called names personally. If they don't mind then why should they mind if you curb it?

I'm sorry once again but I see you post extensively but doing little about what I think is your job. So, this is what I can expect from this forum?

 

[cnredd]

I'm sorry but to me it is a cop out to take the term "simple rules of decency" out of context when I was talking about direct name calling. It's one thing to step into a thread and decide not to contribute because of this confrontation but it is quite another to see it in a thread I started.

I see that your accusation has been made personal because it is YOUR thread, and heaven forbid such people who do not adhere to your "simple rules of decency" get their filthy hands on it...

From here on out, maybe you should advise the forum members that threads that you have created must not contain posts that happen to include petty flames or off-topic comments...maybe you should include "no light-heartedness or fun!"...

I made my complaint based on fact and you cite someone that's happy here "in general". Why not ask that individual if they mind being called or seeing fellow posters called names personally. If they don't mind then why should they mind if you curb it?

If that person I cited felt it was an issue, he would notify the Moderation team on his own accord...

I'm sorry once again but I see you post extensively but doing little about what I think is your job. So, this is what I can expect from this forum?

You can make all the expectations in the world your little heart desires...but you also fail to understand the rules...I shall provide for you again...

Not all disciplinary actions will be public. Furthermore, moderators are not obligated to notify general membership of whether a particular member has received a warning. Nor are moderators obligated to discuss any disciplinary actions taken against a member with any other member.

I know of your complaint...So what is actually happening with it?...Do you know if it is being discussed or do you just make the assumption that it has fallen on deaf ears?...I suggest you get a new crystal ball...The one you're using now is off-kilter...

Remember...I am not obligated to tell you anything...but since you come to a forum and chastise the people running it, I feel you should know a little more so the next time you don't rush to make uninformed judgements...:roll:

I have PM'd you the exact post I made in relationship to your complaint...I am waiting for others to give their opinion before I, or others, take any action...

Sorry if you decry that you are not "in the loop"...Maybe we should inform you from now on so you don't unfairly criticize the ones that run this public forum...

 

[26 X World Champs]

So give us a link to the story on the NYtimes website... if it's only 10 seconds of work. You've seen the story and know better what search terms to use to find it on the web.

It will never happen! Gordon has time and time again refused to provide any links to prove what he writes and he usually uses the same retort, namely, FIND IT YOURSELF.

For example, just the other day he wrote in another thread that Bush had 33 press conferences in 2003! I provided proof through a link that he only had 10 solo press conferences in his entire first term! His response was that he can't provide any actual proof that he's right except he knows what he read and that is all the proof he and us need!

Weak, don't you think?

Here's the link to his reply on said subject:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=120813&postcount=167

He states that MSNBC ran the story, and since their, again in his opinion, liberal his source that he cannot produce is valid. He even goes so far to state that he heard in on Scarborough County and that Joe Scarborough is "considered leaning conservative"! It is common knowledge that Scarborough is most definitely conservative but since Gordon wanted to make it seem that he was using a "liberal" source (from his memory, not from anything else) that his memory of the source is valid!

Convoluted, don't you think?

 

[gordontravels]

I think this forum and I have seen our parting of the ways. Thank you for the ride.