(Sorry the formatting of my previous post was confusing, so here's a new version)

TO: Cocktailhag,

I wrote: “Glenn Greenwald does not have proof that ‘…these are all of the “questions”…’ King asked McCain in that interview on that day. Glenn’s critique of the piece was based on two things: 1. The quality of the questions, 2. The absence of better questions. Glenn provided evidence on point 1 but not point 2.”

In response, Cocktailhag wrote: “Although you were far too busy to read the comment thread, what with depositing your wingnut welfare checks, it was amply discussed and irrefutably concluded that the only valid judgement of any published work is based on what was actually published. What King really needs, besides a conscience transplant, is better toadies. You won't do.

REPLY: I read Glenn’s articles and was responding to them, and I want him to update his article on the point I raised. The comments were irrelevant. Your assertion that my criticism was refuted is simply false. Since you say it without proof and with such irrational invective, I further claim that it is a deliberate lie on your part. Regarding your wingnut welfare comment: I am a writing student writing a non-wingnut book on creating worldwide happiness and I am receiving only $265 per week from the leftwing Labor Government in Australia, so your assertion that I am receiving wingnut welfare checks is pure fantasy, and could be interpreted as a bizarre projection of a sick mind.

TO: Associative Individualist,

In response to Cocktailhag’s post, Associative Individualist wrote: “Extremely accurate and well-written observations throughout this post, cocktailhag. It's an aesthetic delight positively vibrating with truth value.

REPLY: Given what I wrote above, can you now see that you might be prejudiced in your assessment of what Cocktailhag wrote?

TO: Glenn Greenwald, Cocktailhag, and Associative Individualist,

Are any of you willing to specifically address the point I made? Or is this simply a reactionary left-wing blog, and therefore not progressive? My guess is that you will not specifically address my point because it’s true and it goes against your goals, which deviate from the issue of truth.

Martin Gifford.

The rates are very much higher if you take his figures. I had heard that they were not counting any injury as a combat injury unless the person was on a combat mission, so that people involved in supply that hit roadside bombs weren't qualifying for things, the discrepancy, if there isn't another kind of big explanation for it, might indicate a similar parsing, that was why I was asking. The 16:1 would give a wounded figure at close to 50,000 instead of the 20,000 figure issued by the Pentagon. Comorbidity would cause problems in any war, but it's hard to see how it would affect the number of injured in the right direction.

Love is bigger than herpes:

http://www.pozgroup.com/blogs/blog_messages?blog_id=6260

Mr. King became quite irate at being exposed as the fluff salesman he is, and I imagine many of these self deluded MSM rockstar (in their own mind) types, would have similar reactions to being exposed to reality. They, like our Little Decider and Company, have been insulated and surrounded by yes men for so long, they come unhinged at the slightest hint of an honest critique. (Uuuhhh,...you have no clothes on, Dude.)

The fact he's never heard of either Salon or Glenn, simply proves the point that he's not only seriously uninformed for a "big time" MSM reporter, but scarily out of touch with modern day American life.

He probably lets his agent tell him how swell he is for hours on end, and accepts that as a report card of his talents.(You'd think they would have taught him spelling skills at that fancy college he attended.)

Glenn could have done the Lee Marvin/Dirty Dozen bit in response to the e-mail.

I owe you an apology, John. I always thought you were a

cold, unimaginative, tight-lipped reporter. But you're really quite emotional,.....aren't you???

Too fucking funny.....

It's tragic that you are failing students who use a perfectly serviceable reference such a the wikipedia... http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html

or here:

Wikipedia survives research test

John Seigenthaler Sr, AP

John Seigenthaler criticised Wikipedia's reliability

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

It's called the "wisdom of the crowds"; something that you are experiencing here.

It's too bad people here spent so much time trying to find out if you are "real". I could care less. Professor or prole, you are a pretentious twit; your own words and lack of cogent arguments are good proof of that.

If a dog tells me 2+2=4. I don't say, "What do you know? You are just a dog!" I check his math.

Call him out, Glenn, I love it!

Perhaps then, he'll understand his role!

Most CNN content is of limited value and Mr. King demonstrates why that will not change soon.

When appointing King to the position of Chief National Correspondent, a network spokesman praised him as a “Brilliant Journalist”.

Inarguably, King is a journalist. After reading his response to Glenn Greenwald’s gotcha, I think the adjective brilliant in also inarguable – but, for a different reason.

From the "perfesser" to Anonymous

Another thing that I teach my students is that I will fail anyone who uses Wikipedia as a resource for something more important than from which direction the sun rises.

If you had a clue, which you obviously do not, you'd teach them how to use that reference source. Who knows? If a few of them started to edit and contribute to the process, it would not only improve the product, they might learn something. You, on the other hand, already know everything, right? How pathetic. How tragic for your poor students.

I am not sure of the relevance of the Craig Wright/Andy Douglas episode, which happened after I left the court. Just for the record, I am a life-long Democrat and worked for rock-ribbed Republican Wright without a qualm.

So was Joe Lieberman, (until recently) and George Wallace and a whole host of other morons currently in our party. What is your point?

We agreed on every substantive issue that came his way to write and we had an agreement that I wouldn't have to write any opinion that I opposed philosophically (which never happened). Again, I'm puzzled by the relevance, but I want the record to be clear.

He sounds like a jerk politically and in his personal life. You'd know more about how that affected his short career on the court. Maybe the relevance is in this statement: "I am a life-long Democrat and worked for rock-ribbed Republican Wright without a qualm." There are damn few Republicans, if any, left today that a decent person has no qualms about.

Speaking of keeping a clear record, I also very much favor Barrett v. Rosenthal and its brethren that grew out of the Communications Decency Act. It is what allows Salon.com to post letters from anonymous fruitloops with impunity, which is a good thing, especially for a First Amendment groupie like me.

Like those "anonymous fruitloops" who wrote various important and historic documents before, during and after the revolution? Perhaps you have heard of some of them? Do the Federalist Papers ring a bell? I'm sure there are other examples you can name, being a college perfesser, of other men who were present at the founding of this nation posing as "anonymous fruitloops".

Again, for the record, I never said Glenn Greenwald couldn't criticize John King. I just wondered whether he was qualified. There's a difference. I'm not formally trained as a chef, but I know food I don't like and, when I encounter it, I don't return to the restaurant. But I wouldn't presume to pass myself off as a food critic without some training and/or education in the field so that I could base my opinions on something other than contemplating my navel.

Are you formally trained in TV News production? And by that I mean, have you been involved in the production of one of John King's packages for CNN? Local market TV newsroom production doesn't count and neither does your department at kent State.

John King has the final say what got on the air. Deal with it. All of you. I'll bet it's in his contract. Let's get a look at that.