the latter is an accusatory and conspiracy-based statement: obviously x
happened and there is a conspiracy to keep it from the public. the nice
thing about conspiracies, of course, is that denials are meaningless.
obviously the chief of the MPD is part of the conspiracy just as is the
editor of the newspaper, etc. etc.
people who choose to post rumors without either identifying the
"information" as rumor or taking even minimal steps to check the veracity
of the "information" posted deserve to be called to task for poisoning the
trust necessary for communication.
dale goble
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Lori Sodorff wrote:
> So are you suggesting that if some askes if "there is anyone who has heard
> the rumor about ....... that this would curtail the mill? As there are
> some many well informed people on this list what better way to come to the
> truth? And what if something is not a rumor but is being kept under raps
> to protect certain organizations?
>
> I personaly know an officer who has been with the force for year who used
> to stop at one of the watering holes on his way home, sometime in a patrol
> care, and have more than a couple of snorts then get in his car and weave
> his way home. Now had he ever been pulled over, do you think that we
> would have heard about that? And no I am not talking about the rumor
> involving a former Latah County Sheriff.
>
> It is amazing to me how people can continue to blindly trust, just
> because they are taught to. Naivity does however make life easy.
> But to blindly accept the word of someone or something of questionable
> background or character is not naive, it is stupid.
> Peace be with you,
> Kay. Across the wall of the world,
> A River sings a beautiful song. It says,
> Come, rest here by my side.
> -- Maya Angelou
>