The article says he was working on a doctorial dissertation which he never finished. That means to me he achieved the Masters level and was working on a PHD. So again did he get his BS and Masters at Harvard? Anyone can take a couple of classes and claim they went to Harvard.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9610.html

Harvard “educated,” which usually means “graduated,” but not in this case. Shaky, but narrowly true if he indeed didn’t “graduate.” Looks like the Mail might have mildly misled readers that Dad’s resume was more impressive than they made it appear.

Hi guy.

Here is what I am able to post of the comments you recently wished to have posted here:

you (should) know the Telegraph is a known Tory smeer rag through which Republicans float garbage like this.

“Smear” is s-m-e-a-r. I can see how someone in your position might confuse its spelling with that of “beer.”

I’m sorry the rest of your comments had to be ignored because it consisted of uncalled-for and unsupported name-calling of your humble host.

Assuming you read the post,, you should know that my position on the above UK Telly article is that “I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to believe that there is something wrong with Churcher’s story.”

The question of the post is how accurate Churcher’s story is, not the real or imagined party favoritism of the Telly.

I am of course capable of missing an evidence-supported refutation that may have been published somewhere of some or all of the facts in Churcher’s story. If I become aware of one, I would note that such partial or full refutation has occurred.

But I have yet to see one. That statement remains true, making your name-calling indefensible and inexcusable. Thus, you owe me an apology. Since you’re likely out of practice, I’ll remind you that the words of such an apology would be an unconditionally delivered “I was wrong, I am sorry.”

Given the apparent title of the post you have put up at your place responding to this post, I would ordinarily not be inclined to bother visiting to see if you actually present anything that is fact-based. But I may make an exception, put on my hazmat suit and head on over at some point. I certainly have no obligation.

In the meantime, you are welcome to attempt a name-calling-free, profanity-free response here to the points raised in the post.

That’s how it would work.

At some point in the next 72 hours because of pressing business matters, I might read your post. Given your treatment of me and the lack of a substantive apology, I am under no obligation to do that.

The need for an apology from your for unwarranted name-calling stands, regardless. You are of course still welcome to attempt to make another comment here. But as long as there’s no apology, I’m under even less obligation to post it than I am under my usual posting policy.

10:17 Update — Tim, I see that you couldn’t restrain yourself from engaging in name-calling yet again. I therefore will not be going to BI, and the qualified invitation extended to you to comment at this post is withdrawn.