Don't look for any of this in the New York Times, or anyplace else in the American media.

No one who howled bloody murder around the world about the "500 dead" is taking any grief at all for being proven utterly wrong. The LAW that was first in line in trumpeting these numbers not only did not correct themselves, but as far as I can tell has not noticed the change in new information at all.

The Guardian, that printed this in April, printed this later, and pointed out righteously that they enclosed the word "massacre" in single quotes which apparently showed their honest skepticism. Oddly this skepticism didn't seem to show up elsewhere in the article.

One of the frustrating things about arguing with the real enthusiastic leftists (rare on this board, thank God) is that when they come up with some statement, you can prove them wrong, you can bury them in data proving them wrong, you can show that their statement is entirely full of horse exhaust, and rub their noses in it until they are pounding their fists on the floor in the fight to get a breath of air....

And they will get up, brush themselves off, and look you straight in the eye with that glass marble look of theirs and repeat the same goddam thing like you had never said or done anything.

The part of their brain capable of taking in new information and integrating it into some kind of abstract conclusion has completely atrophied. Rotted out. These people are parrots. Maybe educated parrots, but parrots nevertheless. Listen to them in radio or TV interviews. They say their piece, repeat their talking points, often right over the interviewer's followup questions. If interrupted, they will stutter, stall, and then back up and pick up the talking point almost exactly where they left off, like anyone who has memorized a difficult piece. I suspect this would be true even if the interviewer interrupted to point out their hair was on fire.

At least some people would try and convince you that everything positive about the Israelis must be a lie, by definition. At least they have a foothold in objectivity, by trying to negate your data. But the ones that allow the information to dribble off them like water off a duck...they make me nuts.