Toltec...be reasonable

you`ve always struck me as someone with a more than reasonable amount of intelligence but recently your comments over the Guardians credibility have me confused.

"what the Guardian has to offer in respect to post presented in this thread and to be honest the periodical simply does not measure up"

When in reality no credibility exist what is it exactly that you want?
Guardian has no credibility
So what is the point of suggesting that in this particular case it does?

The UK government on Saturday denied a report that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his U.S. counterpart Colin Powell had serious doubts about the quality of intelligence they received on Iraq's weapons programmes.

The Guardian, quoting a diplomatic source, said the pair had met shortly before a crucial U.N. Security Council meeting in February and both expressed their "deep concerns about the intelligence" they were getting on Iraq.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said the report was "untrue."

To put it in other words Guardian is lying."

There have been other comments from you over "the periodical" of similiar vain but the above but the context is in place (you have also not been the only one but since you have always seemed reasonable the comments you`ve made are more disappointing)

What has been said in the Guardian is no more or no less than has been said in other news sources, yet due to some perceived "problem" with the guardian you are willing to disregard.

"
Most people who saw the interview will infer that the Waldorf Transcript does indeed exist and denial is based on an error about the date.

The interrview will do nothing to stop the hunt.This morning the media smell blood.

Here is the BBC report of the interview.

news.bbc.co.uk..."

so wheres the comment when the beeb reports something the Guardian does?

Your reticence over one source does you know you no credit.

If John or Dom had posted this from the BBC website I doubt very much the same reaction would have been given.

Apologies if you take offence at this but for one so seemingly intelligent there is a blind spot in your thinking. You should be able to tell the difference between a papers politics and its reporting.

[Edited on 2-6-2003 by cassini]

I'm seriously concerned for his well-being. I decided to contact him via u2u as i considered the discussion about the guardians credability to be worthy a seperate thread and believed it to be a diversion in the 'waldorf transcript' thread. After some exchanges and after verifying one of the stories from the guardian he just sent me three virtually identical u2u's in the space of an hour.

If anyone would like me to post our conversations and if toltec has no objections i'd be more than happy to do so.

It was all rather unintelligible and i might have taken offense to some of it if i didn't know better and if i wasn't concerned for toltec.

L J I`ve sent you a u2u about this let me know if you don`t recieve it.

This is all just the classic extremist viewpoint which says "This news source says something that I find disturbing, so it must be LIES".

I think all sides are guilty of it to some degree, but I really do think it's unfair to rubbish the Guardian in particular. If you compare it to FOX you'll find a hell of a lot more responsible reporting in the Guardian. And just to prove that I'm not picking on the right-wing press, the Guardian is also more trustworthy than The Mirror, who are a left-wing tabloid in this country.

Ultimately everyone here is going to believe what they want to believe, but I see no reason whatsoever to stop trusting the Guardian. When people have questioned the reports, some of us have dug out the original links quoted in the story, which just confirm that the Guardian is reporting valid information.

So, in future I'd like to see Toltec provide a valid counter-argument, not just the "The Guardian is rubbish" argument.