My point is that Woodward listed several people who were not the source and specifically did not list Cheney. And to point out to Sam that quoting an unnamed source is not empirical evidence.
On 11/18/05, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > to be fair I said that Cheney had not denied it. While Sam doesn't > quite manage to refute that, "a person familiar with the > investigation" according to AP is probably either the special > prosecutor or more likely someone on that staff. Despite where it is > it is an AP story. So perhaps it is not Cheney. > > Dana > > On 11/18/05, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/18/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Not Cheney > > > http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051118/D8DUQ7AO7.html > > > > > > Speculation and spin. No proof. > > > > Why do unnamed sources have credibility when they support your position, > but > > none when they disagree with it? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:183221 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
