tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post7864023219122692418..comments2022-05-03T11:56:26.611+02:00Comments on The Daily Sketch: Kamm the Scamm and the Nuclear Trigger HoaxDavid Sketchleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00838032163864170821noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-21298825529490768832010-01-07T14:42:36.722+01:002010-01-07T14:42:36.722+01:00Oh yes, and what Kamm fails to mention is that wha...Oh yes, and what Kamm fails to mention is that what I posted to the Media Lens Message Board was Raimondo's article from Antiwar.com. The reason? Because Raimondo called Kamm a 'liar', a term Kamm himself has used against Chomsky.David Sketchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00838032163864170821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-7804570924269442242010-01-07T14:38:11.459+01:002010-01-07T14:38:11.459+01:00Here is Kamm's pathetic reply, as usual it nev...Here is Kamm's pathetic reply, as usual it never touches on any of the relevant points at all:<br /><br />""Sketchley" is David Sketchley, a periodic correspondent who alternately denies the Srebrenica massacre and threatens me with libel action (though despite having the details of my libel lawyer, which I provided to him, Sketchley has disappointingly never followed through on this). I note merely that he is unable to distinguish the concepts of a transcript and a forgery. His libels are so casual that even Media Lens deletes them when he tries to post them to its message board."<br /><br />Of course the Times has never stated that what they published was a 'transcript', and that the 'transcript' was only of "the relevant parts of that original document" meaning that the Times claim that what they published was the "full document" is false and misleading, a direct contravention of clause 1 of the PCC Editors' Code of Practice':<br /><br />"1 Accuracy<br /><br />i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures."<br />http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html<br /><br />For this reason I have made an official complaint to the PCC.David Sketchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00838032163864170821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30473460.post-11428463196281358672010-01-04T13:18:59.949+01:002010-01-04T13:18:59.949+01:00My comment sent to Kamm's blog:
"George ...My comment sent to Kamm's blog:<br /><br />"George Maschke, the whole of your comment is undermined by your mistake in assuming that the document that you read online was the document in its original form. It was in fact a retyped version of the relevant parts of that original document. The original document contained a lot of classified information. The Times did not publish the original document, because of the danger that it would alert the Iranian authorities to the source of the leak. The full version of the document is in the hands of the IAEA."<br /><br /><br />This is hilarious.<br /><br />The Times links quite clearly to the Farsi document with these words: "Iran's nuclear trigger: document in full".<br /><br />And to the translation: "Iran's secret nuclear trigger document: full translation."<br />http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6955351.ece<br /><br />So the question is, why does the Times claim the document published is the 'document in full' and the translation provided the 'full translation' when according to Kamm it's "a retyped version of the relevant parts of that original document"?<br /><br />Someone hasn't got their story straight.David Sketchleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00838032163864170821noreply@blogger.com