NCclimber 0 #51 December 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI'm aware that the NYT wrote about this issue. What I'm calling bullshit on is your assertion that they were blocked by the NSC. I thought this would have been obvious from my post QuoteIt only took them five days to report on it. That's what I call jumping. Even though they are reporting on this, I missed where they, the New York Times, were blocked by the NSC. How about a link??? So? Got a link and a quote to back up your claim? Or is this gonna be another game of semantics dodgeball? Then again, you could just admit you were wrong. Just because YOU can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Before calling bullshit on people, do your own homework. If you always want others to do your homework for you, you'll never get any better at finding information. It's there, you just have to look. There are none so blind as those that will not see. Sematics dodgeball it is. How unsurprising. It goes to character. From New York Times, 12/19/2006 Among the publications approved, he said, was a 32-page paper published two weeks ago by the Century Foundation, “Dealing With Teheran,” urging a new diplomatic approach to Iran. After its publication, Mr. Leverett said, he spoke with Op-Ed editors of The Times about writing with his wife a short article based on the longer document. The Op-Ed editor, David J. Shipley, confirmed that he had planned to publish the article last Thursday and that he still hoped to publish it. The Publications Review Board reviewed the longer paper on its own, but this time the C.I.A. passed the shorter article to the National Security Council for review. Council reviewers informed the agency on Wednesday that they had found classified information in the article, and the publication was blocked. EXACTLY what I wrote in the post you have been calling BS. QuoteI did look it up and found nothing about the NYT being blocked by the NSC. That's why I asked for a link. In other words, I'm calling bullshit on your claim of the NYT being blocked by the NSC. See bold above. I asked you three times about a specific claim you made. The excerpt you provided does not support that claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #52 December 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI'm aware that the NYT wrote about this issue. What I'm calling bullshit on is your assertion that they were blocked by the NSC. I thought this would have been obvious from my post QuoteIt only took them five days to report on it. That's what I call jumping. Even though they are reporting on this, I missed where they, the New York Times, were blocked by the NSC. How about a link??? So? Got a link and a quote to back up your claim? Or is this gonna be another game of semantics dodgeball? Then again, you could just admit you were wrong. Just because YOU can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Before calling bullshit on people, do your own homework. If you always want others to do your homework for you, you'll never get any better at finding information. It's there, you just have to look. There are none so blind as those that will not see. Sematics dodgeball it is. How unsurprising. It goes to character. From New York Times, 12/19/2006 Among the publications approved, he said, was a 32-page paper published two weeks ago by the Century Foundation, “Dealing With Teheran,” urging a new diplomatic approach to Iran. After its publication, Mr. Leverett said, he spoke with Op-Ed editors of The Times about writing with his wife a short article based on the longer document. The Op-Ed editor, David J. Shipley, confirmed that he had planned to publish the article last Thursday and that he still hoped to publish it. The Publications Review Board reviewed the longer paper on its own, but this time the C.I.A. passed the shorter article to the National Security Council for review. Council reviewers informed the agency on Wednesday that they had found classified information in the article, and the publication was blocked. EXACTLY what I wrote in the post you have been calling BS. QuoteI did look it up and found nothing about the NYT being blocked by the NSC. That's why I asked for a link. In other words, I'm calling bullshit on your claim of the NYT being blocked by the NSC. See bold above. I asked you three times about a specific claim you made. The excerpt you provided does not support that claim. Ha ha, very funny.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #53 December 20, 2006 In which post was it claimed that the NYT was blocked from printing the op-ed? What I understood was the author was blocked from offering the op-ed up for publication. That was verified. Just trying to help a brother keep it real.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #54 December 20, 2006 QuoteIn which post was it claimed that the NYT was blocked from printing the op-ed? What I understood was the author was blocked from offering the op-ed up for publication. That was verified. Just trying to help a brother keep it real. Here QuoteApparently the NYT IS jumping at the chance. It was going to publish it on the op-ed page on 12/14, but was blocked from doing so by the NSC.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #55 December 20, 2006 Here it is. QuoteApparently the NYT IS jumping at the chance. It was going to publish it on the op-ed page on 12/14, but was blocked from doing so by the NSC. And the follow up: QuoteI missed where they, the New York Times, were blocked by the NSC. How about a link??? Reply: QuoteI'm sure you can look it up for yourself, just like I did. Asked again: QuoteI did look it up and found nothing about the NYT being blocked by the NSC. That's why I asked for a link. In other words, I'm calling bullshit on your claim of the NYT being blocked by the NSC. Reply: QuoteIt was in the NYT, yesterday. First thing that came up in a Google search! And you "found nothing"! Bwahahahah. What did you look for, "Pot of gold at the end of the rainbow"? I ask yet again: QuoteSo? Got a link and a quote to back up your claim? Or is this gonna be another game of semantics dodgeball? Kallend - again: QuoteJust because YOU can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Before calling bullshit on people, do your own homework. If you always want others to do your homework for you, you'll never get any better at finding information. It's there, you just have to look. There are none so blind as those that will not see. Please note my second reply above. My next reply QuoteSematics dodgeball it is. How unsurprising Kallend: Quote EXACTLY what I wrote in the post you have been calling BS. Not exactly hard to find, was it. This did not show proof that the NYT was blocked from doing so by the NSC., WHICH WAS WHAT I ASKED ABOUT, INITIALLY!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #56 December 20, 2006 Lame attempt to cover yourself, and everyone can see it, including you, but if you prefer this rewording: Bush's NSC has blocked publication of this article, critical of the Bush administration, in the New York Times, and everywhere else too, on a bogus claim of confidentiality, despite all of its contents having been previously published openly in another journal.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #57 December 20, 2006 oooohhhh! ooohhh! a semantics argument! Will you two get to the meaning of "is" next? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #58 December 20, 2006 QuoteWill you two get to the meaning of "is" next? they might, it depends ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #59 December 20, 2006 Quoteoooohhhh! ooohhh! a semantics argument! Will you two get to the meaning of "is" next? Well, logically, blocking an article from being published anywhere includes blocking it from being published in the NYT, but when dealing with the right you can't use normal logic. I suppose I could have drawn a Venn diagram... Wait, no, people who call a record deficit "small and short term" are unlikely to understand sets either.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #60 December 20, 2006 Quote Lame attempt to cover yourself, and everyone can see it, including you, but if you prefer this rewording: Bush's NSC has blocked publication of this article, critical of the Bush administration, in the New York Times, and everywhere else too, on a bogus claim of confidentiality, despite all of its contents having been previously published openly in another journal. You can dress it up all you want. I didn't expect you to own up. Just to be clear here, you claimed the NSC blocked the New York Times from publishing the column. This is untrue... or at least unproven. Nothing has been written about the NSC telling the NYT they can't publish it. What is known is that the NSC told a former CIA (and NSC) employee, who is obligated to permit the government to review writings for publication, that his article was not approved for publication. There's a huge difference between difference between the government exercising it's right to restrict what former employees say publicly and the government blocking a major press organization from exercising its first amendment rights. Huge Difference! I'm still waiting to see proof that "the right" claimed hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost if Florida raised the minimum wage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #61 December 20, 2006 Kallend is right in terms of what happened. The CIA prevented the article's publication. You are right in terms of semantics. The CIA prevented Leverett from publishing the article; they have that right because of an agreement he had from his previous employment. They did not stop the NYT from publishing the article unless you consider Leverett to be part of the NYT (which he technically is; he writes for them.) Sorry for the interjection. You may now return to bashing each other over the head. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #62 December 20, 2006 QuoteKallend is right in terms of what happened. The CIA prevented the article's publication. You are right in terms of semantics. The CIA prevented Leverett from publishing the article; they have that right because of an agreement he had from his previous employment. They did not stop the NYT from publishing the article unless you consider Leverett to be part of the NYT (which he technically is; he writes for them.) Sorry for the interjection. You may now return to bashing each other over the head. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #63 December 20, 2006 QuoteKallend is right in terms of what happened. The CIA prevented the article's publication. True. But they blocked the author, not the New York Times. This was my point, that I have questioned all along. QuoteYou are right in terms of semantics. I guess I consider the matter of who was blocked (a contractually obligated former employee vs. a national paper) as something more than semantics. QuoteThe CIA prevented Leverett from publishing the article; they have that right because of an agreement he had from his previous employment. Exactly. QuoteThey did not stop the NYT from publishing the articleExactly! Quoteunless you consider Leverett to be part of the NYT (which he technically is; he writes for them.) I thought he was more of an independent contract, who shops his pieces around. Toodles Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #64 December 20, 2006 I think it is pretty clear to everybody else, you just seem to be unwilling to see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #65 December 20, 2006 QuoteI think it is pretty clear to everybody else, you just seem to be unwilling to see. Its the right wing rose colored glasses that prevent seeing things as they are.. rather than how they WANT things to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #66 December 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteKallend is right in terms of what happened... They did not stop the NYT from publishing the article Quote That clears things up. Here ya go! This should make it clear.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #67 December 20, 2006 Cool, can you do it in an Affinity Diagram instead? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,647 #68 December 20, 2006 QuoteCool, can you do it in an Affinity Diagram instead? EVEN BETTER - Here's a [001] centered stereographic projection.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rehmwa 2 #67 December 20, 2006 Cool, can you do it in an Affinity Diagram instead? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #68 December 20, 2006 QuoteCool, can you do it in an Affinity Diagram instead? EVEN BETTER - Here's a [001] centered stereographic projection.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
