he knew back on Nov. 9 that Paul had contacted the JTA and his claim that the Paul campaign "won't return phone calls from Jews" was untrue. Yet the story stayed up as is, on both your site and his, until the 13th - long enough to be picked up by The New Republic, American Thinker, et al, and spread around the blogosphere without that rather important correction of fact attached. It was still being repeated, as fact, as late as last month.

Actually, Sieradski did not post his story "two weeks before" the Paul campaign got in touch with the JTA, but less than a week before. He posted his story on Nov. 1, as you say, while the Paul campaign released an exclusive statement to the JTA on Nov. 7, which was published by the JTA on Nov. 8 - the day before you first "poached" Sieradski's "won't take calls from Jews" story. Had you checked that with the JTA, at the time, you would have discovered that it was incorrect.

but I hope you're not under the impression that this viral inaccuracy is the sole reason why an otherwise intelligent and reasonable person would not take Paul's candidacy seriously.

about many things to do with Paul's campaign, which have to be rationally addressed. (That is, if we're still allowed into the debate. 8)  That's one reason I've been writing on the subject.

In this case, I was researching an article on the "won't take calls from Jews" story today, which is how I stumbled across this comments field. It does, though, give me a chance to indulge in some shameless self-promotion by advertising the resulting article:

Kirchick, Paul, and Anti-Semitism

http://www.nolanchart.com/article2564.html

It isn't the last word that needs to be said about Ron Paul, by any means. But I hope it's the last word on this particular story. Of course, I'd appreciate anyone fact-checking my work in return.