In short, the version of the transcripts recording Warman's "confession" that you are likely to have come across on the websites of the usual suspects have been subtly altered in a manner that leads the reader towards a "guilty" conclusion. Seen in their restored form, they hardly seem as compelling.
But click on the link and let Buckets do his thing.
Or is it Bouquets?
2 comments:
Goodness, is that what that was all about? I had checked the original transcripts long ago to make sure there hadn't been any context excised within the graphic of the information presented at FreeDominion.
That's why I agree with the libel suit, and why Warman should win, although I wouldn't be surprised to see more "evidence" come to light. I'm really hoping someone gets so desperate he or she starts fabricating it.
If Neville Chamberlain were alive today he'd be saying to Mark Fournier, "Seriously dude, thanks for making me look a bit less gullible."
Post a Comment