pudge's Journal: The Path to 9/11: A Scorecard

I am working on a "scorecard" for the ABC film to air tonight.

Feel free to send me information to include on it. I can't do this whole page on my own.

Interesting scale

[Cyberdyne]

Currently, your scale runs from "Very Likely Accurate" to "Very Likely Accurate", which isn't really much of a scale...

I don't think I'd class the Atta screening issue as inaccurate, either: as you note, the incident did take place, just at a different point in his journey: I'd class that as 'mostly accurate', since it only errs in a more minor detail (which airport was the venue). Classing that as a 5 devalues the scale: if that's a 5, where would you put an entirely imagined incident?

Re:

[pudge]

Currently, your scale runs from "Very Likely Accurate" to "Very Likely Accurate", which isn't really much of a scale...

Obviously a typo.

I don't think I'd class the Atta screening issue as inaccurate, either: as you note, the incident did take place, just at a different point in his journey: I'd class that as 'mostly accurate', since it only errs in a more minor detail (which airport was the venue).

No. The claim I am measuring is that he was screened in Boston. That claim is false.

Classing that as a 5 deva

Re:

[pudge]

I thought of an example that might help explain further what I am thinking here.

Let's say the claim was "Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapon program immediately prior to the 2003 invasion." And then I said, "while true that Hussein had an active nuclear program prior to the 1991 Gulf War, and for some time after, there is no evidence of such a program in 2002 or 2003." Should I give that claim a 3? 4? 5? I think that claim should clearly be a 5. Yes, he had an active nuclear weapons program.