Alright, I appreciate the source, although it's seeming... obvious... why it doesn't come up in a search of traditional databases.
For this to be some sort of damning evidence, it needs to be considered a credible source. You seem to see it as one. So I need some help understanding something.
I've read the story. I see that it seems to share wording with popularly-run AP stuff, and to be clear, your sourced story cites the AP as the author of the text, even though it differs from the actual text run in the AP.
Are you suggesting, then, that the AP did originally run the story that said, "Kenyan-born", but then realized its mistake, erased it, and the only people who didn't change the story was this East African Standard? So that's why it's credible?
Can you explain to me why I should take a source that misspells Barack Obama's name as the most credible source of his heritage?
If I presented a single source to you confirming that Don Watkins is Q, and then told you that meant Ron Watkins was definitely Q, would you be willing to give that evidence the benefit of the doubt?
Alright, I appreciate the source, although it's seeming... obvious... why it doesn't come up in a search of traditional databases.
For this to be some sort of damning evidence, it needs to be considered a credible source. You seem to see it as one. So I need some help understanding something.
I've read the story. I see that it seems to share wording with popularly-run AP stuff, and to be clear, your sourced story cites the AP as the author of the text, even though it differs from the actual text run in the AP.
Are you suggesting, then, that the AP did originally run the story that said, "Kenyan-born", but then realized its mistake, erased it, and the only people who didn't change the story was this East African Standard? So that's why it's credible?
Can you explain to me why I should take a source that misspells Barack Obama's name as the most credible source of his heritage?
If I presented a single source to you confirming that Ron Batkins is Q, and then told you that meant Ron Watkins was definitely Q, would you be willing to give that evidence the benefit of the doubt?
Alright, I appreciate the source, although it's seeming... obvious... why it doesn't come up in a search of traditional databases.
For this to be some sort of damning evidence, it needs to be considered a credible source. You seem to see it as one. So I need some help understanding something.
I've read the story. I see that it seems to share wording with popularly-run AP stuff, and to be clear, your sourced story cites the AP as the author of the text, even though it differs from the actual text run in the AP.
Are you suggesting, then, that the AP did originally run the story that said, "Kenyan-born", but then realized its mistake, erased it, and the only people who didn't change the story was this East African Standard? So that's why it's credible?
Can you explain to me why I should take a source that misspells Barack Obama's name as the most credible source of his heritage?
If I presented a single source to you confirming that Ron Batkins is Q, and then told you that meant Ron Watkins was definitely Q, would you be willing to give that evidence the benefit of the doubt anyway?