A short post for the conspiracy naysayers.

[PCIntern]

40. I've read them...

and btw, if I say that it's Gospel, then that's what it IS if someone adheres to the doctrine. It's not derision...I'm invoking the Holy word because those who question it, and those who question the WC are heretics...and as far as OV 1.0, well, that's what it was, until it was changed by subsequent committee(s). That's a fact, not derision.

When you say that the naysayers are better informed in re: the facts, those are the facts which many, such as you, have chosen to believe. Thus they are facts. I for one don't see many of them as facts: some are reasonable conclusions which I question, others are outright jokes/lies. but that's OK...it's America. It's how things work here.

Ruby was unstable because he was defined post facto as that, because it made everything work. When he wanted to tell more of the story, he was denied permission. That, I believe, is irrefutable because it was part of a transcript. The definition of instability varies considerably.

But again, it's OK with me. As the kids say, "Whatever." I simply posted the OP to say that if this is what you wnat to believe, then fine. I just didn't get the anger part...turning the tables on my way of thinking by saying that we are the angry ones is not really terribly fair given the nature of the majority of the posts. Really...