What I said: "Not enough info in the article to determine what provoked the harsh response. I don't know why you guys are willing to pass judgement with so little info on hand. Perhaps you are "in the know" about National Review editorials enough to know that they never spin. "

Repeat: NOT ENOUGH INFO

I never claimed any single word in the article was not fact.

To expand on what I meant: The only words that the author quotes are the rude ones. What the offended persons words were, leading up to the regrettable exchange could be pertenant, don't you think? The actual conference name and actual content could be pertenant don't you think?

All we have in the article is a right-wing comentator's interpretation of facts that he does not trouble to provide us with (with the exception of the rude one, which -again- I do not dispute, and am so so terribly sorry for). If that's all you need to make your decision, that's your choice entirely. I prefer facts and evidence, to other people's assertions.

It's funny, because you have made this same point to James and Lindy et. al. It shouldn't be an alien concept in this context.