Why was it impossible for O’Reilly but possible for Robin Lloyd of NBC?
O’Reilly is clearly saying now that he was never actually in the Falklands. The most charitable interpretation of his statement would be that he meant something like “during the Falkland War” rather than “in the Falklands”, and he was referring to things he experienced and saw in Buenos Aires during and immediately after the Falkland War.
Do you have a larger point, or are you just idly nitpicking? O’Reilly himself, as you see, now claims he wasn’t there.
I guess I’d like to understand why it would be impossible for O’Reilly and yet clearly possible for Lloyd. It’s now clear that he wasn’t there based on his own admission. But prior to that admission the rules being applied to O’Reilly seemed … restrictive, let’s say.
In looking into this question, what have you discovered? I’d be interested in hearing the results of your research.
Edit: hold up. You’re talking about how Lloyd, the reporter who was in the Falklands weeks before the war began, managed to evade the British forces who weren’t there yet? That Lloyd?
That’s the one.
So the question would be: why did we know that O’Reilly was not ALSO in the Falklands before the war began?
I haven’t done any research. I was reading the evidence offered up by the people that were making claims. I wasn’t making any claims. If you make a claim, you have the burden of offering evidence for your claim. Your claim doesn’t obligate me to dive into research.
We don’t. We also don’t know that he was cast as Sam Spade before Bogart was chosen for the role, and we also don’t know that he secretly told Steve Jobs how to design the iPad, and we also don’t know that he’s invented a recipe for chocolate chip cookies taht can cure cancer. All of these things we don’t know are like the thing about him being in the Falklands before the war began in one salient detail: O’Reilly never claimed they were true.
You keep coming up with stranger and stranger questions about this situation that don’t match the facts, asking me to prove that these things didn’t happen. The situation is very simple: he claimed to be in the Falklands in a war zone, and he wasn’t. WHy you want to complicate this situation with irrelevancies is beyond me. Is it just taht you don’t want to concede that your doubts were unfounded?
Please take all further discussion of Bill O’Reilly and the Falklands War to this thread, Bill O'Reilly and his Falklands War experience - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board, and let’s get back to Brian Williams. Thanks!
You’re a moderator now? I didn’t see the announcement. Congratulations!!!
I certainly now agree he wasn’t in the Falklands during the war.
But I’m continuing to press the point because I believe your process for confidently stating that he wasn’t was flawed.
I suppose you can simply rest on the results: you were right. But if you were right about my credit card not working, I think it’s fair to ask if your belief that my eelskin wallet demagnetized the card was correct, or if I was simply over my credit limit for that card. In other words, I’m questioning your process, not your conclusion.
Just trying to end a hijack. Thanks!
Thanks, I will. In this case, I think my process was also excellent, since it didn’t rely on increasingly strained speculation about how he might possibly telling the truth, and also didn’t rely on misunderstanding the timeline. If you’d really like to discuss my process further, I invite you to take it up either in the new thread started by EH, or if you have a serious enough problem with it, in the appropriate forum.