Reply #132: You choose a poor example, IMO to make your point. Try something actually

[Garbo 2004]

substantive like when RS claimed that articles in the NYT and NY Daily News (IIRC) "confirmed" their reports that Hannah and Wurmser had turned state's evidence. The articles cited did no such thing as one could see since RS had linked to them.

I thought it was rather egregious to claim confirmation of their "scoops" by other media when there was no such confirmation. When RS posted a thread and asked for specific examples of inaccurate reporting, I mentioned that. As I recall I got no response and the article with its claim of "confirmation" was not corrected. Here's the post/thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5229763&mesg_id=5231662

I think that issue was substantive and egregious. In contrast, arguing whether or not a C&D may be regarded as a "threat," either implied or explicit, is IMO a bit silly by comparison. Clearly YMMV.