I see P.J. identifying she held back commenting on what FM provided because
there was no source. Then she mentioned the source that could be trusted
provided the document and it contradicted what FM provided.
outlined a couple possibilities why FM might have outlined what he did. Raised
the specter of what else might be incorrect - but can not be
Identified how difficult it was just to keep up with all the
misinformation and that when you're discussing Legal matters accuracy was
Finally advised that readers should take what they're reading
with a grain of salt unless they can verify the information from an actual
reliable source - like the Court itself on Court rulings.
That's what I
read in the article.
Perhaps you read too much into the tone of the
authoring. Or perhaps you can point to specific words indicating why you see
the current article as being a bit shrill - or perhaps this article doesn't fit
the definition and you were just posting your suggestion here.
another opinion as a reader: Sorry, I just don't see the shrillness in either
the words or tone of the article you seem to see. I don't see any difference in
this article from the ones that pointed out where Enderle and Co. had gone wrong
and the advice that one should look to the actual Court filings.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]