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: JohnM who wrote (63923)	12/31/2002 3:11:54 PM
From: William B. Kohn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

John, a few years ago, before Fox and Rush it was the LEFT who was suppressing dissent. Even today, you see suppossedly credible news organizations tell the stories they report with such an incredible bias as to make their entire publications unbelieveable. I'm not talking about the Green Bay Eagle, but news organizations that used to be considered invaluable sources with names like AP, Reuters, New York Times, and the Washington Post. It amazes me that these professors are outraged at attempts to curb things in colleges by citing some 'right wing' conspiracy theory. If they have the freedom to say what they do, then Dr. Pipes has the freedom to express his thoughts, or do these Professors from Yale and Columbia represent the new thought police of the 21st century??

To: JohnM who wrote (63923)	12/31/2002 3:36:03 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

You continue to miss the point. Of course, just to reply, it's not morally acceptable to so advocate, unless specific settlers are killing you and you are acting in self defense. But that's specific. It's certainly not morally acceptable in the abstract form you put it. Thank you, I get the point just fine -- I'm still on Prof. Sternhell's tactical advice to attack the settlers. If it is not morally acceptable to advocate killing the settlers, then one can, I suppose, criticize someone who does so without "supressing dissent". You agree? Bringing Pipes the boogeyman in as a defense, now that is changing the subject. But neither is it morally acceptable to attempt to suppress dissent the way Pipes and his compatriots do; nor the way some on the right do these days. See the op ed piece from the LA Times I just posted. As a judge would say, "You want to sue? Show me the damages!" I see professors unused to any outside feedback whinging about censorship when they have merely been criticized. Have they been censored? Have they been blacklisted? where? from what?