Here's a story from the BBC.

A Washington Times story cites a UPI source.

I have no doubt that the Palestinian Authority actually issued this news release. That really isn't the issue. In that sense, in the original thread where this kind of thing came up, all else being equal, it is more useful to discuss the credibility of Victor Ostrovsky than it is to discuss the credibility of "Freemasonry Watch." This is probably the point Splinx was trying to make.

The point the rest of us were trying to make: The reason that controversial material that is linked on sites like Freemasonry Watch is considered more suspect at the outset is that such sites tend to be less critical (to say the least) about what they print than more reliable news sources. That is not to say that UPI and the New York Times don't screw up once in a while...they just have a better overall record of checking up on things than the tinfoil-hat sites do.