>Dave Reitzes wrote:

>> >From: AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com>

>> >And what is the point? Only red baiting? Nothing more? At least you
>> >confirm the existence of the tabloid, which some people were claiming was
>> >non-existent. Are you also confirming the publication of that article? If
>> >not, then what is the relevance of information you listed about this
>> >tabloid if it never published the article? And if it was this tabloid
>> >which published the article linking the CIA to Permindex, why wouldn't you
>> >expect it to be coming from this type of newspaper? Would you have
>> >expected such an article to come from one of the CIA subsidized newspapers
>> >or one of the Mafia controlled magazines?

>> *Paese Sera* is, I believe, the only news organ that linked Permindex/CMC
>> to the CIA. (All other sources I'm aware of for this allegation cite
>> *Paese Sera.*) The paper never, as far as anyone has shown, produced any
>> evidence for this assertion.

>> I may be wrong, but it sounds like you're taking the same stance as one or
>> two others around these parts have, which might be summed up as, "If we
>> can't disprove the article, it's only fair to assume it to be true."

>> I can't help but think that it is the burden of the accuser to produce
>> such evidence.

>> Dave

>No, I am not the accuser. I am asking questions of the debunkers. I am
>asking them to get their stories straight. Are they trying to claim that
>such a newspaper never existed? Are they trying to claim that it never
>wrote the article? Have they ever read the article themselves? If not, how
>can they be sure how the claim was phrased and what documentation was
>offered, if any? I see nothing wrong with debunking phony stories, but
>when people do so I hope they can stick to the facts.

>It makes me a little suspicious when I ask people some standard questions
>about their debunking efforts and they are unable or unwilling to answer
>them directly and honestly.

>Remember that I did not debunk Posner's book until I had read it
>thoroughly. Remember that I did not debunk Fetzer's book until I had read
>it thoroughly. Remember that I did not criticize Russo's book until I had
>read it thoroughly. On the other hand, we have some people here who seem
>to be part of an organized campaign, following CIA guidelines for
>discrediting WC critics, to criticize anything which hints at a
>conspiracy, without bothering to read it for themselves. So, has anyone
>here actually read the Paese Sera article?