Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (13077)	12/7/2001 1:14:01 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Here's another famously partisan left-wing hatchet man who might be inferred to have some contempt for Ashcroft, or at least certain dubious policies Ashcroft is pushing. nytimes.com

To: greenspirit who wrote (13077)	12/7/2001 1:27:59 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Interesting indeed. Especially to see one of the first complainers of bias on this thread, to not recognize his own so profoundly. Apparently Cummings doesn't realize that addressing people in the third person is often considered profoundly annoying ( and his message was pretty pejorative too). --fl

To: greenspirit who wrote (13077)	12/7/2001 2:42:29 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

Interesting indeed. Especially to see one of the first complainers of bias on this thread, to not recognize his own so profoundly Whoops, we're changing topics are we. Okay. I'm not complaining about bias in this case. Hunt's column is an op-ed piece. It's supposed to state a position and try to get readers to agree. It's not reporting with the attendant "bias" problems that entails. It's quite frankly his views, with arguments for them. As for whether it's too personal or not, I can't tell. Ashcroft has been such an offensive moralist that I am insenstive to criticisms of him being too personal. However, Hunt did not accuse him of any personal improprieties. That column strikes me, on rereading, as a perfectly respectable attack on a set of policies. End. Stop. No more. As for Human Events, you did, as you said you did, noted that you thought it was less "personal" than Hunt. I'm struck by the irony, however, and the painful irony of the decline of political discourse. That's all. I'm also a bit struck by the intensity of your responses. When I post as I do, I'm certainly not asking you to agree with me. It seems possible to disagree by way of opening a conversation rather than by way of denouncing an opposition point of view. John (who doesn't have to run; just got back from "running")