What evidence is there for Government Interference in McCann Press coverage?

[jassi]

I really don't care one way or the other, but the link you provide shows up as post 6 on my and presumably other's computers. Perhaps a mod could adjudicate.

[Aiofe]

I really don't care one way or the other, but the link you provide shows up as post 6 on my and presumably other's computers. Perhaps a mod could adjudicate.

The main point is that the quote about Super Injunctions and the question about D Notices were in different posts, not conflated as was claimed. As I siad, if people had not been so adversarial, they would not have dug themselves a hole.

I suspect a post has been deleted by Admin, shifting the numbering and others are referencing their cache rather than the latest version.

For clarity..
Reply #6 on: November 06, 2013, 02:03:35 PM
 Reply #7 on: November 06, 2013, 02:04:15 PM

[Aiofe]

I really don't care one way or the other, but the link you provide shows up as post 6 on my and presumably other's computers. Perhaps a mod could adjudicate.

I care because the adversarial approach used accused me of lying about something, rather than considering for one moment that there might be another reason for their error!

[Aiofe]

Well the Tag Team seems to have gone very quiet. But I shall not hold my breath for an apology.

[Cariad]

Re: What evidence is there for Government Interference in McCann Press coverage?
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2013, 02:04:15 PM »
Quote
Any comment on D notices?

It's post six on my PC. Also on many others.

[Aiofe]

Re: What evidence is there for Government Interference in McCann Press coverage?
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2013, 02:04:15 PM »
Quote
Any comment on D notices?

It's post six on my PC. Also on many others.

The two main points are

Their argument rested on my post 6 and 7 being one post as I was accused of referring to D notices when the quote was about Super Injunction. They were two distinct posts.

I have provided the URLs, time stamps and the entire thread copied onto this page. No-one else claiming something different has done this- why not!

[Aiofe]

Aiofe you have once again mislead readers of this thread due to your inability to read and understand what was written by the committee !

They stated "as far as the committee is aware only two known super-injunctions have been granted to protect information said to be private or confidential.

You claimed that "there have only been two in three years".
I would suggest in future that you read what is written NOT what you want to read.

Yawn!

[Aiofe]

Very telling and mature response !

I yawned because you are continuing the failed argument.

I was quoting an article in the public domain. What I said reflected what the article said.


You are doing exactly what led to your downfall over post 6/post 7- it is more important for you to feel justified than to learn the truth.

Yawn!

[Aiofe]

I wasn't arguing, I was pointing out your inability to read an article and correctly quote from it !
As I said previously you need to learn to read what is written NOT what you want to be written.

Yawn!