John,

No I really don't care about copyright issues. You could have gotten permission to reprint had you put in the effort. That would have required you to post proper reprint citation. You will post proper citation from the Chicago Manual of Style only if it suits your agenda. In this case, it did not since declaring the text to be an opinion/editorial piece would have given it less credibility. You knew exactly what you were doing and were consistent. I am concerned about plagerism and deliberate misrepresentation, things college professors should be concerned about as well.

When pressed you declared:

"It's an NYT editorial (today's issue) based on an EPA report...the EPA is some sort of lefty propaganda machine? Huh? The report source, the EPA, is communist? You wish."

Your source is an opinion/editorial. Any information about the EPA being a lefty propoganda machine or communist is not relevant to your source since your source is not the EPA or the EPA report. A misrepresentation by accident or an effort to give more credibility than deserved?

"Phenix, the NYT is wholly credible. The editorial writer is a very respected journalist, not some young buck trying to make a name for himself."

The New York Times is a credible newspaper, correct. The opinion/editoral writer is not a journalist for the New York Times, he is a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton. Opinion/editorials and letters to the editor generally carry disclaimers to state that the opinions are solely that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publication. The credibility of the New York Times is not relevant since your source is an opinion/editorial. A misrepresentation by accident or an effort to give more credibility than deserved?

"it is the Bush people who are using a tragedy for their own purposes, not this article. This article exposes how Bush was about rhetoric re: 11 Sept., not genuinely helping victims."

This was not an article that exposed anything. It was an opinion/editorial in the New York Times stating one person' opinion. This was not a New York Times article that was created and verified by the new York Times' reporters. A misrepresentation by accident or an effort to give more credibility than deserved?

Next time, try posting something like this: "Hey guys, I found this opinion/editorial in the New York Times written by some professor. Give it a read and see what you think of it."

You have oversold this editorial as being much more than it is because it matched your agenda. If you wish to advance your agenda by utilizing the victims of the 9-11-01 terrorist attack, go right ahead. Read the EPA report, write your opinion, and defend it. Put in the effort. I already know where to find Professor Krugman's opinion.

Misworded: respected editorialist, not journalist. He writes many editorials. But I suspect you are just harrassing me.

I think the EPA report reports pretty much what the editorial said. Thus I am comfortable saying that the EPA report indicts the president. There is an inference there, one I am comfortable making. Anyone reading the report will draw the inference if not blinded by Bushworship.

Please let me know, by the way, if you find a piece of reporting on political matters that the opposing side (the side criticized by the piece, explicit or implied) doesn't write off as 'opinion piece.' Seems pretty redundant to announce it, as you suggest.

John

John,

"if you find a piece of reporting on political matters that the opposing side (the side criticized by the piece, explicit or implied) doesn't write off as 'opinion piece.' "

Your source is not a piece of reporting on political matters. You have already acknowledged that it is an opinion piece. A misrepresentation by accident or an effort to give more credibility than deserved?

Have you actually put in the effort to read the EPA report yet or are you still sticking to Professor Krugman's executive summary? You've cited that the "reality behind the boring words is pretty mean and bleak" and that there is an "inference" to be made to indict the president. I take it then that the actual inked words on the 165 page report don't quite get the job done in conveying your point by themselves, or is that Professor Krugman's point.

Over half (6 of 11 paragraphs) of Professor Krugman's opinion/editoral is on the topic of $20 billion in funding for New York. None of this comes from the EPA report. This has nothing to do with the EPA report. Nevertheless, you have decided that the report matches what the editoral said. Put in the effort and read the report.

HockeyDad, YOU ARE THE MAN!

Hockeydad - couldn't have said it better myself. The article makes a claim, then does nothing to back it up. If fact, the writer contradicts himself more than once.

Jdrabinski - your take on this article nicely pulls out the stuff you want to see and not so nicely leaves out one thing.....PROOF. In writing, particularly op-ed or editoral writing, the biggest thing is backing your claim. People don't respond to random thoughts, unless they follow closely in line with their own. I gave your opinion a chance (Bush not helping victims of 9/11), but I'm not buying it. And all you've done since posting this article is blow smoke. I'm having a hard time seeing the fire. Read the EPA report, re-read the editorial piece and come back with something other than a political spin on a very unpolitical subject (9/11). Make your claims, post your articles, and state your opinions - I don't mind the reading.......But you can do a little better than this.

You love making claims, but you need to learn how to sell them.

funjohnny19

And blinded by Bushworship?? I actually had to re-read to catch that one. I guess during my first pass, I couldn't see around the Elephant!! I'm probably the least political person around - don't know why.....

It's refreshing to go through life without the blinders on. It eventually leads to an open mind, which also is a refreshing thing.

And jdrabinski....I don't know what Bush did to you, but I hope one day he says he's sorry and that you can forgive him.

What's worse....Bushworship or Bushscorn?

This post is total political Bush bashing BS. Are you from NY? Well I am. In the wake of a devestating attack to thousands of inocent people the Bush administration responded. And in doing so qwelled a countries fears. Reestablished their confidence in it's nations security and also it's ability to respond to such threats.

Whatever information was given or supressed was in the best intrest of this country at that moment in time. It appears you have forgoten the fear, the pain and the desperation of 9/11. I don't think any president could have handled it better. I was no fan of president Bush and did not vote for him. I thought he was an ignorant ass. But on 9/12 his ignorant ass was at ground zero. And I listen to a man speaking to New Yorkers amidst the rubble. It wasn't a speech. There was no political "agenda" to launch (gee let me hide all this info from the New yorkers) It was a display of support and strength and the first spit in the eye of the terrorist who were trying to scare us. Make us affraid to go to work. It said "NY is safe enough for the president to be there". "You f'ers didnt't scare us but you just pissed us off".

I have a great deal of respect for Bush and other political leaders who took charge while others fled. Where was our glorious Hillery hiding? Now those cowards would love to try to make Bush look bad. I don't think it will work, at least not in NY. Nice try.

Well Stated and Well Said Natsmoker!!!!

I wasn't in New York the next Day.. I was Busy Loading Iron!!! This Whole Country Went Locked and Loaded!!!

My Emotions through this time were like a highschool kid on Cocaine!!!

A few months later my Sister called me... she said she knew I was shipping out... but to please, do not go with Anger in my Heart, yet with Determination in my Soul!!! it was not until I heard those words from her that I actually started coming down from my adrenalin rush!!!

I know just from the atmospher around my work place my Co-workers were feeling pretty much the same way I was...

Again Great Post Natsmoker!!!!

Hog

John,
The story regarding my daughter was to show similar innocence for a subject.
She wanted me to stay home and had no idea why I had to leave and go to work.
You want lower Manhattan closed because there are trace amounts of pollutants which may or may NOT be harmful in abreviated exposure.
Furthmore, those "pollutant" levels may be similar in harmful effects as a typical smog filled day even prior to 9-11.
I did not read the EPA report. My assumptions may indeed be incorrect. But based on the information provided in this thread I thought that the concept of closing lower Manhattan was short-sighted and overly cautious. A naive suggestion to say the least.

But I've been wrong before. Heck, I even voluntarily took a philosophy course once....

Everyone likes to bash bush , but he did something our previous administration would not do , he reacted with force to the attack on our nation. he showed that we will not just sit by and let people terrorize our nation. he was our leader at a time when we realy needed one the most .

I don't bash GWB ... I'm quite pleased with the job he's done as president ... he's done a hell of a good job facing up to and dealing with the realities of our world ... such a refreshing change from the thread bare liberal fairy tale view of reality that would maybe work if more of the world would just 'make nice' and 'play well with others' instead of running with scissors ...

Author: SteveS Date: 08/28/2003 02:57 PM

"My take is that we're 'voting' on the wrong issue ... forget voting any individual off the island ... let's vote POLITICS off !!! ... if that were to happen, all that would be left is the cigars, booze, babes and other stuff we DON'T disagree so vehemently on ..."

huh? Thanks for staying neutral in order to maintain the "integrity" of the board.

Wer wrote:
"huh? Thanks for staying neutral in order to maintain the "integrity" of the board."
-------------------------------------------------------

?????

email sent

issue resolved

back to your regularly scheduled flame war