`certainly surprising. wasn't it your nutty assertion above that the jerusalem post failed as a reliable source because it's part of conrad black's zionist media conspiracy? i think you did. in fact anyone can see that you did right up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah#NPOV_in_light_of_the_Karsenty_verdict   i guess the rule is that op-eds are worthless sources when they don't work for chrisO's narrative; compelling 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. and everything which contradicts chrisO's weltanschauung is a rightwing conspiracy.   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.  `