Republicans altered Benghazi emails.

reply to post by Kali74

Hi "Kali74",

Damn it! You have finally done it, and I couldn't be happier... You have absolutely won my respect! plus a star!

I have always felt that sincerity, honesty, and integrity run "hand in hand". Your post couldn't have been more sincere! About half of the people on my friends list were added because of discussions (?) like ours. Everyone has earned their place on that list, one way, or another. That's why I think of it as, as corny as it may sound, My List of the Honorable. I'd be proud to add you if you're willing to accept. If not, I can truly understand why.

Your response also has another quality that is totally absent in the rest of your posts, in this thread. Don't feel bad though, it's also totally missing from the vast majority of posts that I've read on ATS. That particular quality is the key to opening doors, while on the search for truth, in the physical world. It's called objectivity.

And, moving on:

In all my time here on ATS and being ideologically opposed to the majority here

I can relate to that! Because I don't subscribe to any particular ideology, I sometimes feel as if I'm taking on the world. I'm sure you do too. I feel one HUGE difference between us is that I am too damn independent to do myself good. Often times, I only earn someone's animosity. Does that ring any bells for you? LOL

I hope you'll forgive me, but I've been awake for more than 48 hrs., and I'm having a great deal of trouble concentrating at the moment. Sometime tomorrow, I will pick up where I left off.

With all due sincerity,
Milt

reply to post by Kali74

Hi "Kali74",

Shall we continue:

I've never once been accused of dishonesty... being wrong, sure but never once of intentional misrepresentation.

I can identify two reasons for that:

1) In all probability, you have never encountered someone that has had "objectivity" burned as deeply into their being, as it has been into mine. Because of that, I have always had a great deal of trouble dealing with subjects that actually require subjectivity. That's probably why I'm not very tactful.

2) I'm sure that many on ATS assume that you are a lady, and most males tend to give ladies preferential treatment. I too, am guilty the same assumption. Unfortunately, I tend to view "equality" much too objectively.

I would still contend that you misrepresented a number things intentionally, but I truly believe that you didn't do so knowingly.

Here's the one that really burned my ass:

You are absolutely alluding to that ABC lied. Either that or you're delusional.

Can you honestly, and objectively, justify those comments? If so, I would surely love to see you do so. Until such time: I WILL CONTINUE to view the aforementioned "comments", as two, mighty fine, examples of "intentional misrepresentation". BUT, and at the same time, I am no longer offended, nor do I feel that it's an issue.

I've not once accused you of being dishonest

Perhaps not, but you've certainly "alluded" to that affect. And, you have done so, on more than a couple of occasions. I love that word! It's one that I haven't thought of in many years. Thank you...

we disagree that's all

I don't believe that in the least little bit! Here's what I believe:
I tend to view "things" far too objectively, and you tend to view "things" far too subjectively. However, and as the Roo Riders say, "It's all good, mate!"

I've tried better to understand wtf

See there! I pushed you into a good "thing"! You were stubborn though... LOL That's what being objective IS all about. We'd have a much stronger nation, if the schools in the US would teach that.

Now, go back to my first post, and do the same thing. Then, let me know if you feel that the "altered" quotes TRULY MEAN anything other than what the accurate quotes mean.

I remain sure that you're not being dishonest

That's because you were being objective. Both your consideration, and your compliment, mean a great deal to me. Thank you very much!

I wish I could be sure that you weren't conducting yourself with malice as well

That sentence makes me VERY, VERY, PROUD OF YOU!!! Now, THAT, is a MIGHTY, MIGHTY, FINE EXAMPLE OF OBJECTIVITY!!!

I can ASSURE you, that I meant no malice, and I can certainly understand your concern:
When one of my very sensitive "buttons" gets "pushed", rather intentionally, or not, this "Old Troll" tends to start, and do so with great delight, "pushing buttons" himself. I'm pretty damn good it! Ain't I?

How the Hell else would an "Old Troll" truly learn about some "thing", or some "one", unless one did a little poking and prodding, and pushing and pulling? Curious old souls, are we mean "Old Trolls"... (I'm sorry... but I couldn't help it.)

I can't seem to will myself to do so though.

Damn it! Now you're being, ENTIRELY too subjective again! STOP that chit!

When you're capable of discussion without accusing and assuming, I'll be happy to continue.

Well... Does that apply to you, too? I'm game, if you're game! What do you think?

Very honestly, I'm quite happy to have "met" you!

Sincerely,
Milt

reply to post by Indigo5

Hello there, "Wile E. Coyote",

I've been looking forward to responding to your current post, so I skipped a couple of your previous one's:
You know... I'm currently blind in what used to be my "good" eye, and having to rely on an eye that I haven't been able to use for over 42 yrs. My current vision truly does SUCK! BUT, even I had absolutely NO trouble, AT ALL, noticing the difference in the appearance of the ALTERED COPY, of a post in which you "ALLUDED" (Thanks: "Kali74" ) that I was the rightful owner, and the ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, which is, in fact, MINE!

Let's see... What do we have here:

Exhibit 1:
One image of the original document:

One image of the falsified document:

Now take a close look at the innermost "registration bar" on the ALTERED DOCUMENT. That particular "bar" indicates that the cited content belongs to an "Off Site" source! And, it's an obvious fake! One doesn't need many "marbles in their bag" to know that action is defined within: "Knowingly using or distributing a fake document", AKA: "Falsifying Documents".

Damned, Wile E.... You need to be much, much, more careful! That "chit" looks pretty damn serious to me. Hell, I'll even bet that's a freaking "Banning Offence", here at ATS! I'd sure as "chit" hate to see you get caught... I'm going to use this post as the new example for the "WARNING" that's so boldly displayed in my "Signature", at the bottom of this page. Even worse: Your imagined, and most likely intended, defense of "I was only paraphrasing a quote" that you probably wanted to try, wouldn't stand a "snowball's chance in hell" of convincing, even a moron like me, to believe that. I reckon we'll see though... I might be surprised...

MEEP! MEEEEP!
"The Road Runner" (AKA: Milt)

PS:
I couldn't help but noticing that you haven't responded to my last reply to you, yet. What's the matter? "Has a cat got your tongue?"

I'll respond to your other posts when I get a chance.

reply to post by Indigo5

The emails weren't "para-phrased" to the reporters in question.

I never said the emails were "para-phrased"! I only said the QUOTES were paraphrased! And, at least I have a verification of that assertion! You can't even come up with anything more than a highly subjective opinion, based on nothing more than hearsay, to support your argument!

Each reporter was read the precise same language....thus multiple news outlets having the same edited "email leaks"

So what? That tends to confirm that there was only one leak! Can you confirm there was more than one leak? Please provide something much more accurate that the two extremely biased opinion pieces that you linked to in this post.

Opinion piece number 1

Opinion piece number 2

The bottom line is:
You don't have a viable argument until you can verify more than one leak!

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by Indigo5

You seem confused

Nope! Not in the least!

Page four of the release shows the first email from CIA on talking points

You're way behind the curve! I've been working from an accurate quote of the first talking point from the "get go"! Hell, I even quoted it in a long past reply to you! I seems you're the "confused" one.

Damn dude! Did you really need FactChecker.org to interpret one simple little sentence for you:

the talking points always said that the attack grew out of a spontaneous demonstration in response to the Cairo protests.

FactChecker.org got it wrong! The REAL "Talking Points" never said that! Their interpretation is only someone's biased opinion of what the original sentence said. And that opinion doesn't even mean the same thing as the original sentence does:

We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghaze were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US imbassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently it's annex.

I'm sure you knew that though, and you were probably going to claim that it was a paraphrased quote. That argument won't "hold water" in this instance. The interpretation gave a new meaning to the original sentence.

Because you're not capable of simplifying the original sentence into terms that you might understand, I'll do that for you:

The attacks in Benghazi were inspired by the protests in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently it's annex.

This is what that would look like as a legitimate paraphrase:

"The attacks in Benghazi were inspired by the protests in Cairo, and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate, and subsequently it's annex."

How about that? The damn paraphrase means the same damn thing as the original sentence! Go figure...

Hell! While I'm at it, I'll go ahead and paraphrase the interpretation, so we can more easily see what it means:

"The attack grew out of a demonstration in response to the Cairo protests."

Nope! The meanings of the two paraphrases don't even come close to matching! And once again: Go figure...

Hi ho, and a hey, hey... "The Old Troll"... got your goat... once again... today!

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


reply to post by BenReclused


reply to post by BenReclused


reply to post by BenReclused


Interesting posts to say the least !!

It seems we are dealing with some deep seeded psychological tactics for sure.

As for "Factcheck.org", they are a known commie outlet hell bent on doing just the opposite of their name in many cases.

They have professional manipulators that cleverly omit selective "facts" in order to present fiction as fact I think.

We see much of the same tactics in forums.

here's some opinions about that outfit....

While touting itself as a 'nonpartisan' source for information verification, Factcheck.org is actually anything but factual. The organization is a front-group for Leftwing causes and has ties to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and his political protege Barack Obama.

In 2008 prior to the Presidential election, writer Stanley Kurtz uncovered troubling information concerning Factcheck, Bill Ayers, and Barack Obama:

Factcheck.org--anything but factual

The “Truthfulness” website called FactCheck.org is itself decidedly BIASED toward the LEFT as the discussion that follows points out.

The ANNENBERG Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania is the organization behind the FactCheck.org website that is being consulted OFTEN by voters and media personalities alike to help them form opinions on the “truthfulness” of the claims being made by the McCain and Obama political ads as well as statements made on the Campaign Trail and in Presidential and Vice Presidential debates.

FactCheck.org is Sponsored by Decidedly LEFTIST Organization: ANNENBERG Public Policy Foundation

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

If you wanted to use a devious method to deceive people who are trying to differentiate between truth and lies on the Internet how would you do it? If you were extremely devious and had no conscience, you might set up a Web site with some official and unbiased sounding name that claims to be the encyclopedia of truth to be used as a tool for anyone who has the same biased view and wants to make believe to "back it up" with what they would like you to think is "indisputable fact."

That is exactly what Web sites like factcheck.org are. They are biased, politically motivated propaganda Web sites, manned and funded by biased political organizations who set up the sites for the sole purpose of deviously "backing up" the political arguments of those who hold the same views that they do. It's kind of like you have a friend who is in on your lie, and you use him to back up your story and don't tell anyone else he is your friend.

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Hello there, "Wile E. Coyote",

I've been looking forward to responding to your current post, so I skipped a couple of your previous one's:
You know... I'm currently blind in what used to be my "good" eye, and having to rely on an eye that I haven't been able to use for over 42 yrs. My current vision truly does SUCK! BUT, even I had absolutely NO trouble, AT ALL, noticing the difference in the appearance of the ALTERED COPY, of a post in which you "ALLUDED" (Thanks: "Kali74"

) that I was the rightful owner, and the ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, which is, in fact, MINE!

Let's see... What do we have here:

Exhibit 1:

I have no idea what your whacked out rambling means? Are you accusing me of something? I did not falsify anything. If you are alluding to the fact that I included an excerpt of an article...fully qouting/unaltered portions of it...vs..qouting the entire article, that is what T&C demands. They do not permit fully pasting entire articles.

aside from that...WTF are you rambling about?

Originally posted by BenReclused


Damn dude! Did you really need FactChecker.org to interpret one simple little sentence for you:

the talking points always said that the attack grew out of a spontaneous demonstration in response to the Cairo protests.

FactChecker.org got it wrong! The REAL "Talking Points" never said that! Their interpretation is only someone's biased opinion of what the original sentence said. And that opinion doesn't even mean the same thing as the original sentence does:

We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghaze were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US imbassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently it's annex.

I can't help you. You do realize that the link you provide proves exactly what I and every rational mind understands? Page 4 of your link, the first email from CIA says the it was a result of the protests in Cairo...

Crazy posts...to be frank with you. You are screaming the sky is not blue while pointing at a blue sky as evidence of your claim.

You people defending the republican party are disgusting. These people are the same people who have proven time and time again that if you don't fit their scheme, they will do anything to discredit you and do away with you.

And YOU people who defend the democrats and this president are just as disgusting. Defending an administration that has had so many situations pop up about corruption for it not to be true.

Why the hell do you people continue to play their game of choosing sides and splitting the country? Why do you continue to be led by liars and thieves?

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
You people defending the republican party are disgusting. These people are the same people who have proven time and time again that if you don't fit their scheme, they will do anything to discredit you and do away with you.

And YOU people who defend the democrats and this president are just as disgusting. Defending an administration that has had so many situations pop up about corruption for it not to be true.

Why the hell do you people continue to play their game of choosing sides and splitting the country? Why do you continue to be led by liars and thieves?

ahh well uhm but ...

what and who would be better ?

certainly there must be at least one.

which single-only no-choice political party would be best ?

The Soviet Union tried all that as I remember.

reply to post by xuenchen


Er...good point. Let me clarify. We need an overhaul here. Push the democraps and republican'ts out. It won't always be peachy when it comes to politicians, but we need new blood. I'm getting tired of the same old garbage and yearn for real change. If we continue to let yourself be divided over political ideals, we will forever be distracted and those with the power can do as they please.

I know what I want is impossible. People who believe so differently could never come to a compromise on how things should be. Human corruption is also an unbeatable factor. I''m just dreaming of a united America. Something that is more and more impossible every passing day.

U.S. efforts consisted of three phases.

Phase I entailed an effort to rapidly survey, secure and disable loose MANPADS across the country.

“To accomplish this, we immediately deployed our Quick Reaction Force, which are teams made up of civilian technical specialists,” he said.

Phase 2 efforts were to help aid the Libyan government to integrate militias and veterans of the fighting, including consolidating weapons into secure facilities and assisting in the destruction of items that the Libyans deemed in excess of their security requirements.

Such actions were likely not supported by the jihadist rebels.

The third phase would have seen the U.S. helping to ensure the Libyan met modern standards, including updating storage facilities, improving security and implementing safety management practices.

The U.S. efforts clearly failed.

Last month, the United Nations released a report revealing that weapons from Libya to extremists were proliferating at an “alarming rate,” fueling conflicts in Mali, Syria, Gaza and elsewhere

Read more at www.wnd.com...

So did anyone catch this the other day from the Washington Post?:

The White House claim of ‘doctored e-mails... to smear the president’

The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Despite Pfeiffer’s claim of political skullduggery, we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists.

reply to post by Indigo5

Damn, dude! You couldn't even hold your "story" together for three sentences! First, you start with a "Plea of Ignorance":

I have no idea what your whacked out rambling means?

Then, in the third sentence, you CONFIRMED that you KNEW EXACTLY what my "whacked out rambling" meant:

I did not falsify anything.

Considering your above quoted comments, and your previous actions, I find it extremely absurd that you would insist that anyone should accept your words as being the truth.

Are you accusing me of something?

Nope! I didn't "accuse" you of a damn thing in that post! With that post:
I demonstrated, BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT, that you did indeed, change the "content tags" within my quoted post. You then published that document, and presented it as a true and factual representation of the original document.

You are, indeed, GUILTY of:
FALSIFICATION of a PUBLICLY VIEWED and PRIVATELY OWNED DOCUMENT.

AND, you did so with MALICIOUS INTENT:
Your intent was to discredit me by making it appear as though I didn't know what I was talking about, when someone might read my accurately represented comments.

That's why your only comment on that post was:

Apologies...I mistakenly assumed you were educated about the things that you were BSing about

However, I have always enjoyed a good irony:
You, being one of the loudest GOP bashers, getting caught doing the very same damn thing that you've been bitshing, and screaming about is quite laughable.

Better yet though, I have posted a Hell of a lot more irrefutable evidence against you, than anyone has been able to provide against the Republicans.

If you are alluding to the fact that I included an excerpt of an article...fully qouting/unaltered portions of it...vs..qouting the entire article, that is what T&C demands. They do not permit fully pasting entire articles.

I'm happy to see you "pick up" on the word "allude". It's a word that has very vague and malicious implications. I'm sure that it will serve you well!

I was, indeed, alluding to something in that post, but you haven't come any where close to guessing what that was. Keep trying! Let me know if you figure it out. Honestly though, I felt that "it" was pretty damn obvious.

WTF are you rambling about?

Don't worry about it! The concept of being objective is so far beyond your grasp that you'll never understand it.

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by BenReclused


AND, you did so with MALICIOUS INTENT:
Your intent was to discredit me by making it appear as though I didn't know what I was talking about, when someone might read my accurately represented comments.

That's why your only comment on that post was:

Apologies...I mistakenly assumed you were educated about the things that you were BSing about

Wow...that there is some freaky thinking. I "changed" BOTH yours and mine exact posts from "qoute" to the "ex" tag so they would be visible in the qoute within a quote...which would otherwise not show up.

So aside from changing the format to appear as "excerpt" vs. "qoute" so they actually appeared...I didn't alter a single word of your insane, fully false and debunked claim.

Best wishes in crazy town...

reply to post by Indigo5


Ladies and gentlemen, we have on our hands one fantastic debate boxer.

You don't know what a debate boxer is? Well, of course not. I just made that up. See, you're a "debate boxer" because you have bobbed and weaved, danced around, and dodged every verbal punch thrown by BenRecluse. Your "crazy" defense is not as effective as you think either.

This isn't about R v D. This is about you standing your ground against your opponent. Trust me, you have not done too well and if this were an actual boxing match, it would resemble Rocky vs. Clubber Lang in their first fight. Or Apollo Creed vs. Ivan Drego.

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Ladies and gentlemen, we have on our hands one fantastic debate boxer.

You don't know what a debate boxer is? Well, of course not. I just made that up. See, you're a "debate boxer" because you have bobbed and weaved, danced around, and dodged every verbal punch thrown by BenRecluse. Your "crazy" defense is not as effective as you think either.

This isn't about R v D. This is about you standing your ground against your opponent. Trust me, you have not done too well and if this were an actual boxing match, it would resemble Rocky vs. Clubber Lang in their first fight. Or Apollo Creed vs. Ivan Drego.

Seriously...read what you just posted...It said nothing about the OP topic and nothing specific about anything relevant to the thread, benghazi, the emails, Ben recluse's strange and contradictory claims...zip..

you talked about your invented term "debate boxer" and "rocky"...This is the problem with actually trying to discuss substance or fact...Relevant information and the actual topic seems to be unimportant to many posters....or more to the point...not to thier advantage to discuss.

Originally posted by BenReclused

I demonstrated, BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT, that you did indeed, change the "content tags" within my quoted post. You then published that document, and presented it as a true and factual representation of the original document.

You are, indeed, GUILTY of:
FALSIFICATION of a PUBLICLY VIEWED and PRIVATELY OWNED DOCUMENT.

Using the "ex-text" tag to make sure your post was included for context changes nothing...here I'll post in a different format....notice how it still shows you as utterly wrong on all counts?

This is what I posted...bold added

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by sprtpilot
Why did Obama order rescue operations to stand down and allow four Americans to be butchered?? THAT is all that matters.

That's hillarious...you know that has all been answered? Never happened. The four Spec Ops who only had 9mm side-arms...that were told to stay where they were...protecting the OTHER Libyan embassy...were told by African Command to stay put so we wouldn't have further deaths..and two fully equipped Spec Ops teams were already en route..and the plane they wanted to take to abandon the Tripoli Embassy Personel was due and didn't arrive in Benghazi for several hours...after the event.

Command made the right call not to leave the Tripoli Personel unprotected while embassies in Libya appeared to be going south...

This was your response

Originally posted by BenReclused

Yeah. "Nice try"! By not posting any sources, it looks like you posted a bunch of "made up" comments.

The GOP just got busted making sh*& up again.

Guess who I feel is "making sh*& up again"! I'd sure like to see your sources, but I'll bet you won't post them.

See ya,
Milt

So...I provided sources...

Originally posted by Indigo5

just four Special Operations soldiers [Tripoli]

the team was reviewing security at U.S. embassies throughout the Middle East and was not prepared for a combat assault mission, being armed with only 9mm sidearms.

flight did not arrive in time for their presence to have had an impact in the fighting.

They also noted that the situation at Benghazi remained unclear and there were concerns the Embassy in Tripoli also could become a target.

A Libyan C-130 transport plane that would’ve carried the second group of U.S. Special Forces operatives from Tripoli to Benghazi ultimately left Tripoli for Benghazi between 6 and 6:30 a.m., after Doherty and Woods were dead.

Two separate U.S. Special Forces teams from elsewhere in Europe were ultimately authorized to respond to the attacks,

U.S. military officials confirmed late Monday that a four-man Special Operations Forces team was denied permission to leave the US Embassy in Tripoli following reports that the consulate in Benghazi had been attacked.

LINK

Also here..

•The Special Forces team was not prepared for a combat mission; they were on a fact-finding tour of US embassies in the Middle East, gathering information on security, and they were armed only with handguns.
•At that point, the situation was still unclear and officials were worried that the embassy in Tripoli might also become a target.


U.S. military officials confirmed late Monday that a four-man Special Operations Forces team was denied permission to leave the US Embassy in Tripoli following reports that the consulate in Benghazi had been attacked.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the team was reviewing security at U.S. embassies throughout the Middle East and was not prepared for a combat assault mission, being armed with only 9mm sidearms.

They also noted that the situation at Benghazi remained unclear and there were concerns the Embassy in Tripoli also could become a target.

openchannel.nbcnews.com...

Care to discuss???

reply to post by Indigo5

Wow...that there is some freaky thinking.

I'm not surprised that you feel that way! You have deluded yourself into feeling that "thinking" and opining are one and the same. They ARE NOT! As it is: You don't think at all! You only opine!

The ADMISSION:

I "changed" BOTH yours and mine exact posts from "qoute" to the "ex" tag

You didn't change "BOTH yours and mine exact posts". You only changed my "exact post"! And, you only WANTED to change your "exact post". Fortunately the edit time had expired on your "exact post". Had it not done so, I have no doubt that you would have also added your source links. I KNOW how YOU ARE! Therefore:
I am VERY surprised by your EXTREMELY RARE attempt at honesty.

This is the PERFECT TIME to address what I said in this comment:

I was, indeed, alluding to something in that post, but you haven't come any where close to guessing what that was. Keep trying! Let me know if you figure it out. Honestly though, I felt that "it" was pretty damn obvious.

I was "alluding" that, like "Wile E. Coyote", you are the only one in this old World that truly feels that you are extremely clever.

You don't have the capacity to be clever, but YOU ARE PRETTY DAMN GOOD AT BEING DISHONEST:

so they would be visible in the qoute within a quote...which would otherwise not show up.

So aside from changing the format to appear as "excerpt" vs. "qoute" so they actually appeared

What? Oh... I see... It's a load of chit!

You know damn good and well that you don't need to change content tags to make "the qoute within a quote" appear in the published post. You only did that to change the overall appearance of the post (MINE) that you quoted.

I didn't alter a single word of your insane, fully false and debunked claim.

Now you're alluding that you know what you're talking about. Unfortunately, you don't have a clue. I never accused you of altering "a single word" of my "insane, fully false and debunked claim", so I reckon you are only showing your true "colors" again. Furthermore, I never made a claim in that "insane, fully false and debunked claim". I only ALLUDED to your propensity to "push" bullchit! Instead of DEBUNKING what I had ALLUDED to, you have very persistently, and consistently, shown that I have been, indeed, CORRECT.

Because you are VERY confused about the proper use of many words, I took the liberty of linking them to their proper definitions.

I sincerely hope that you can appreciate my effort to "DENY IGNORANCE". BUT:
In your case, I'm not foolish enough to feel that you will.

Best wishes in crazy town...

Thank you, but you ARE mistaken. I live in a little community called "Trollsville". As the Mayor, this "Old Troll" takes GREAT pleasure in running little Wanabe Trolls, such as yourself, out of town.

MEEP MEEEP,
Milt

Dear anybody,

I would like to get into this thread, but I can no longer tell what it's about. Perhaps I should ask again when the shooting dies down? Or, maybe, the shooting is what it's about.

With respect,
Charles1952