By the way, if one reviews the original VNN thread about Ed Steele, one will see that I became a skeptic about Steele's "Mission Impossible" story long before Donald E. Pauly. Pauly persisted for a long time in trying to argue that it was credible.
It took me a very short time to realize that the story was not credible, and at this point the whole thing is so boring. I can't understand why anybody doesn't get it at this point.
Who the hell still finds this worth arguing? It's Pauly on the one hand and three or four diehard believers on the other, still posting on this thread, about minutiae. I think almost everybody else at least has a glimmer of understanding that Steele was making things up.
If there is any issue for me here at this point, it's not Steele. It's the question of what kinds of people can still claim to believe that story.
Last edited by Hadding; September 25th, 2011 at 12:55 PM.