Letters to the Editor
-
your psuedo analysis of my views is worthless, william
you still haven't addressed what I said at the URL I gave, which in fact is a copy of what i had already said, here:
http://tinyurl.com/5jronm
post away, I shan't respond again.
-
Agreeing to disagree
Yes, Rowan, I read your twice-cited post. I found it to be of a piece with the rest of your comments on this subject, which is to say that it seems to me to strain to assign meaning where there manifestly isn't any. No doubt there's some sort of complex intention at work in the minds of right-wing Zionist trolls, but it's as likely to be a certifiable derangement as the sophisticated reverse psychological jiu-jitsu which you suggest.
You're right about one thing, though. You will have your way here, whether I stand in it or not. Call it a caprice on my part to continue the engagement, despite your assurances that there won't be any response.
-
Just like when the Grey Lady sang the WMD song
Yeah, the Old Broadsheet paper sure does uphold those standards and fact-check powers.
A tradition going a long way back.
Just a few years ago- how accurate they were on the lead up to the War for freedom and all things good and godly.
Weapons inspectors? PPPFFFFt! Judith Miller knew better, huh?
Good old NYT, Good ol' Krystol, Good old Friedman! BULLY!
Sir William now has 4 strikes against him?
Someone is handicapping his balanced-ness. Any new Lib would have been sorely deep-sixed by now. But then, Krystol brought a marketable readership with him! Rush would have been a flusher choice, but you know the Times! Status based on appearance and intent are everything- even if that intent is ill-informed and massaged.
Paper Newspapers have it tough these days- sustainable print or no. Eyeballs just gravitate to the tubes and screens- a sad, headachey fact of life.
They all know W.K. from his TV glamour and they all love familiar Friedman because of his cosponsor, Charlie Rose.
I bet those two are half of many differing foursomes on the tees of this land with all manner of CEO twins and military might pairs. The globalizing neocon-con bullhorns of the tubes and screens- lately in heavy print rotation in your local NYT export editions.
Kristoil was supposed to GIVE them credibility?
Gail, or somebody on that page- please put a fact checker on those roving mouthpieces! We've had enough occupation and human loss based upon your Paper's myopia and bottom line obsession.
Hey, NYT- you are not T.V. YOU are the one who has to get the story right- those retractions accumulate in the credibility factor fast during election years!
Krystol is gone within 9 months!
Find a readable neocon, will you?
-
Side comment on deleting posts
Though I am a lurker most of the time here and just an occasional poster, I would like weigh in on the discussion about deleting comments.
I agree with Glenn on deleting certain comments for the reasons he brought up.
It would be even more fair, though, to be able to see that a certain comment has been deleted.
Not that it should be motivated every time, but it's not hard, technically speaking, to replace the original text by "comment deleted" and still see by whom and when the offending message was posted.
I remember a discussion between Susanne Berner - a german children's book illustrator - and an American publisher, who wanted a part of a drawing erased. The illustrator would only agree if the offending part of the drawing was visibly covered by a black bar and not invisibly deleted.
"Readers should know when something had been deleted," she argued.
(The publisher, by the way, did not agree and the book never got published in the States.)
-
re: Side comment on deleting posts
... I agree with Glenn on deleting certain comments for the reasons he brought up. It would be even more fair, though, to be able to see that a certain comment has been deleted. -- Tigerr
I agree. What benefit, really, is all the work of removing it if the offending poster does not know it happened? At least a note to all saying that so-and-so had a post deleted today.
I also agree with a poster up-thread who wanted the posters who post volumes of unrelated material each day stopped. Then there are the ones who cut and pasted vast bandwidth wasting articles when a link would do.
I think that it is high time to delete every post that is off-topic; even if "off-topic" is very loosely defined. Otherwise it will always be a chat-room as one poster pointed out.
-
I must be a Jew
It's not a case of Jewish sensitivity, a blithe and if I may say so, offensive assumption on your part. It's become, in fact, the means by which I'm given to understand all such tragedies, including those in progress in places like Iraq, or Darfur, or Gaza, and more particularly, to understand that such things threaten all of us no matter who we are, or how remote they may seem to be from us. As such, it doesn't seem such a bad thing to venerate, even if it wasn't unique, and even if some Jews use it as the basis for a shamefully self-serving justification of a similar bloodthirstiness among their own people.
-- William Timberman
I don't like genocide any more than William does, and he's not even Jewish. German/Scot, like me.
Rowan,
I'm not really sure what it is you are suggesting but we all agree there are dangers posed by any "-ism". Even some strains of Zionism, which is a form of nationalism mixed with some religious nonsense.
I'm no less concerned with China's incursion into Tibet than Totallyblase is but his/her desire to make an issue out of what is the "politically correct" reason for boycotting the Olympics just astonishes me.
-
where is the press on this one?
"...In the early 1950s the South Korean dictatorial regime, under tutelage of the U.S., killed over 100,000 of its own people because they were suspected of being somewhat on the political left or otherwise not assumed loyal to the U.S. instantiated regime.
Just like German SS Einsatzgruppen killed 'undesirable people' of their own blood in the 1940s - hundred-thousands of them - the South Korean a few years later did just the same. Unlike the Germans, the South Koreans were under U.S. control and the 'incidents' happened in attendence of U.S. officers.
Several U.S. government institutions exchanged memos about this. Officers of the U.S. military and clandestine services attended mass shootings and photographed the outcome - see above. All this was kept secret for over 50 years. ..."
much more at:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/05/us-supported-ma.html#more
It is by the famous "b", of course.