I see that Medialens are accusing Peter of "more smears"
for expressing his doubts on
this board over their version of events. That's not a smear.
A "smear" is when you accuse anti-war volunteer activists
of "actively aiding and abetting in war crimes"
with zero evidence. That's a smear.
I'm surprised Medialens didn't quote my comment rather than Peter's,
as it was much more outspoken and direct than Peter's polite expression
of his doubts. Maybe they were uncomfortable with its implications:
Apparently momo's post was the first that Medialens heard of
Herold's correction to their ZNet article. That post was made
at 1.32pm. The Medialens editors reply (saying that they'd be
posting a response early in the week) was made at 1.39pm.
That means that from a position of complete ignorance on the
matter, it took them just 7 minutes to notice and read
momo's post, to read and digest the Media Hell post it linked
to, to check that post's link to the ZNet article, to decide
what their response would be (possibly involving discussion
between Edwards and Cromwell - they signed their post "Eds")
and to write and post their reply.
I think they are telling porkies.
It's actually a rather trivial matter - a little "white
lie" on their part, I think, made on the spur of the moment
- which makes me wonder why they are getting so defensive about