XPost: uk.politics.misc, uk.media, uk.local.hertfordshire   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order   
   From: No_4@dsl.pipex.com   
      
   banana wrote:   
   >   
   > The 'objectivity' pose gets right up my nose...   
   >   
   > 2) 'ACCIDENT'?   
   >   
   > Has any *evidence* actually been published, to support the idea that the   
   > explosions (heard as far away as France and the Netherlands!) resulted   
   > from an 'accident'?   
      
       Since *you* are going on about objectivity, I'm not sure what the size   
   of the explosions has to do with their cause (you wouldn't be trying to put   
   some subjective tone in here would you?).   
      
       As for objectivity, all I can see is   
      
   > The police issued a statement saying that they are treating the incident as   
   an   
    > accident as opposed to a terrorist attack.   
      
   which means they have no evidence of what caused it, so are treating it as   
   an accident.  Strikes me as reporting objectively.   
      
      
      
   --   
                 Just because I've written it doesn't mean that   
                      either you or I have to believe it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)