`op-eds are worthless sources when they don't work for chrisO's narrative; must-reads which establish the fact of the matter when they do work for chrisO's narrative. court-appointed forensic ballistics experts are ``fringe kooks`` also.     side note, i actually added text which stated discretly that the libel conviction had been overturned by a higher court, but that was rv'd. such a statement of fact is a little too stark for the article campers' tastes. such things have to be insulated and obscured by intricately-parsed verbosity which in the end gives the impression that nothing was decided in the court case at all. the operative definition here for npov violation, after all, is ``not chrisO's pov.  `