[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gun-shy but willing to wield a torch



>>> Keithjmoon70@aol.com 01/30/03 02:47PM >>>
>>I see why you may feel a bit gun-shy after that little episode.  I am
thankful however that we did get Hershey!<<

Yeah, despite that run-in I'm glad that I have my Hershey now.  However, its
not for fear of a terse e-mail from Matt that I'm arguing for caution.  It's
that this statement from Pete about the IWF exchange is not compelling
evidence of anything besides his own contact with a non-governmental, non-law
enforcement entity prior to the events of Jan. 11-13.  It no more clears him
than does "A Different Bomb."  To claim otherwise is irresponsible and is
almost clutching at straws.

If someone can write a convincing statement, in less than 50 or 100 words, as
you would to a news editor, as to how this clears Pete, then go for it.  I'd
love to read it.

>>This is a little different though.  ...  We are testifying for a man's life.
There is an injustice being done that we want to see cleared up. There is a
new weapon for us to use...<<
But logically, it is not a very good one.  It is a single straw.

>>which is evidence that Pete was indeed telling the truth in this matter.<<
In _what_ matter??  That he was or wasn't breaking the law or that he saw
something illegal and reported it to a watchdog group?  I'm sorry but the
latter isn't Pete's most pressing issue.  The disposition of the criminal
charges is more important.

Believe me folks, I'll be up front with a flaming torch when its got more than
one bit of straw to light.

Ken in MD