ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in
message ...(to Tim Hanke):
How right you are about the need to attributer your source.
Did you know tat the NYT actually called me a "black leader" in 1963?
(Chuckle, chuckle, half a yuck.)

Dear Mr Bibuld,

If you had been living in pro-apartheid South Africa, then would you not have
been perceived under the South African apartheid laws as 'white' and hence
have legally favoured and protected status in about every aspect of life?

Notwithstanding the clear evidence of your photograph elsewhere (as far as I
can tell, you do not *appear* to be an African American), I have to say that I
must conclude that what the illustrious "New York Times" (the United States's
"newspaper of record") has reported about you *must* be true.

I have reached that natural, inevitable conclusion, of course, because of
Benjamin Jordan's vehement endorsement(s) of the "New York Times" as a beacon
of factual accuracy and unquestioned journalistic integrity. As Mr Jordan
seems so fond of reiterating, the "New York Times" must be always *accountable*.
Accordingly, *if* the "New York Times" were ever to print anything that was
*not* factually accurate in any way (such as characterising Jerome Bibuld as
a 'black leader'), then *surely* the "New York Times" would promptly print
a retraction of its factual error(s), if not offer an apology for them.

So when did the "New York Times" print its retraction of its evident
factual error in (mis)characterising Jerome Bibuld as a 'black leader'?

By the way, Benjamin Jordan, who's evidently (based on his posts) another
'flag-waving' American nationalist, has just evidently concluded (in the
RGCM thread, "Should we get out?") with his characteristically 'brilliant'
(sarcasm intended) insight about me personally that naturally I *must*
be a 'flag-waving' British nationalist. For some reason (such as that
Benjamin Jordan's ignorant presumption about me is absurdly false) none
of my friends in the United Kingdom has ever perceived me as any particular
kind of nationalist at all, let alone a 'flag-waving' British nationalist,
let alone a jingoistic British imperialist. (I can hear much laughter now,
some of it with an Irish lilt, among my friends.) Could Benjamin Jordan
have confused my English prose style (on Usenet) with Rudyard Kipling's? :-)

Although this point may be quite hard or even painful for most 'flag-waving'
American nationalists to grasp, my identity and values as a human being are
not fundamentally determined by which passport(s) that I (or other members
of my family) may hold at one time or another.

On a more serious note, it seems widely known among academic specialists on
the Middle East (I have discussed this point with several of them, who are
Arabs, Israelis, and others.) that what the "New York Times" prints about the
Middle East has many serious factual distortions or simply false statements,
which it usually never retracts, which usually happen to be useful in serving
its vehemently pro-Israeli editorial positions. As I recall, Noam Chomsky and
some other critics have spent some time in tracking down the 'crimes in print'
of the "New York Times", but the "New York Times" evidently tends to ignore
their criticisms and not tolerate much of that criticism on its Op-Ed pages.
I lack the time, the space, and the inclination to reiterate what they already
have criticised about the "New York Times"'s evident lack of journalistic
integrity on some issues, so please read those criticisms on your own.

I heard the late Israel Shahak (he was a survivor of the Belsen concentration
camp), a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the chairman of
the Israeli League of Human and Civil Rights, say that he would like to write
an article for the "New York Times", which would be carefully corroborated
using sources in Israel's Hebrew-language press, about Israel's routine torture
(sometimes to death) of Palestinian prisoners. But Israel Shahak went on to
say that he realistically knew that he was considered 'persona non grata' by
the "New York Times", which would not print anything that he wrote, even just
a letter to the editor about the newspaper's serious factual errors on Israel.

I heard Joel Beinin, a professor of Middle East history at Stanford University
(he was recently the president of the Middle East Studies Association of
North America), strongly criticise the 'mainstream' United States media,
particularly the "New York Times", for its consistently strong pro-Israeli
bias, which includes propagating many serious factual distortions or simply
false statements. By the way, Joel Beinin is Jewish; he was brought up as
a Zionist; and he has lived and worked in Israel.

Of course, what I may hear from diverse academic specialists on the Middle
East tends not to be presented on, for instance, "CNN Headline News", which
reports all the 'facts' about the Middle East that an ordinary American may
be complacently presumed 'to need to know'.

If the "New York Times" (like Santa Claus) were based at the North Pole
and regularly delivered by flying reindeer, then perhaps Benjamin Jordan's
apparently simple faith in its perfectly impartial goodness would be richly
rewarded. As someone who has been around some editors and journalists, all
that I shall say is they often are men and women who seem to be about as full
of prejudices, if not self-serving political agendas, as any other people.

For further reading:
"Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media"
by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman.

--Nick

"Nick" unilaterally attacked in message:
om...

snip
Notwithstanding the clear evidence of your photograph elsewhere (as far as
I
can tell, you do not *appear* to be an African American), I have to say
that I
must conclude that what the illustrious "New York Times" (the United
States's
"newspaper of record") has reported about you *must* be true.

I have reached that natural, inevitable conclusion, of course, because of
Benjamin Jordan's vehement endorsement(s) of the "New York Times" as a
beacon
of factual accuracy and unquestioned journalistic integrity. As Mr Jordan
seems so fond of reiterating, the "New York Times" must be always
*accountable*.
Accordingly, *if* the "New York Times" were ever to print anything that
was
*not* factually accurate in any way (such as characterising Jerome Bibuld
as
a 'black leader'), then *surely* the "New York Times" would promptly print
a retraction of its factual error(s), if not offer an apology for them.


Don't twist my words again Nick. You have a real problem with reading
comprehension. I did not say I endorse, or even *read* the NYT. Remember
this?

On 4 Apr 2004 18:10:18 -0700, (Nick) wrote:
Bill Brock has written that he's 5 feet 3 inches (160 cm.) tall.
I happen to be taller than Bill Brock. Presumably, Mike Murray (or another
troll) might conclude that I must be 'boasting' of being exactly 5 feet
3 1/2 inches tall. So would any of 'my' devoted trolls care to wager a
very large amount of money on that personal conclusion about me? :-)

First of all, you must posses extrordinary arrogance to call other ng
contributers "your" trolls. *You* suddenly dragged me into this thread with
no precedent, so based on that, I will now assume that you are one of *my*
trolls. A deeply dishonest, inveterate one I might add. Second of all,
this analogy is a good one to explain my mention of the NYT. I wrote:

And I offer the "New York Times" as a useful supplement for the general
reader who's thoughtful enough not to accept uncritically whatever
www.robert-fisk.com and http://www.web-light.nl prints about the Middle
East.

So, if robert-fisk.com is 5'3", and I said that the NYT is taller than
robert-fisk.com, then I must be boasting that the NYT is 7'8"? How much do
you want to wager on whether or not I have a subscription to the NYT? It
must be embarassing to get busted by your own analogy. You are not only
dishonest, but you are surely the most hypocritical of my trolls.


So when did the "New York Times" print its retraction of its evident
factual error in (mis)characterising Jerome Bibuld as a 'black leader'?


I cannot comment on the NYT article until I see various documentation
including the article where the NYT made the claim, proof that they were
notified of the error, and proof that a retraction was not printed within a
reasonable time from the notification. Also, it may have escaped you that
the phrase "black leader" could mean either "a leader who is black," or "a
leader of blacks." Mostly though, I don't care because I never made any of
the claims you ascribe to me.


By the way, Benjamin Jordan, who's evidently (based on his posts) another
'flag-waving' American nationalist, has just evidently concluded (in the
RGCM thread, "Should we get out?") with his characteristically 'brilliant'
(sarcasm intended) insight about me personally that naturally I *must*
be a 'flag-waving' British nationalist. For some reason (such as that

I concluded that? In what post did I call you a "'flag-waving' British
nationalist"? Maybe I hurt your feelings when I pointed out your hypocracy
in posting 'at length' about the atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers, but
failed to mention the similar crimes of the British. Your e-mail is UK, you
generally post links from UK domains, and you blab British trivia. Is it
such a leap to think that you are in some way British? As such, you many
not be a "flag-waving nationalist," but your ommision of the British war
crimes while carrying on at length about the U.S. is quite conspicuous.

Benjamin Jordan's ignorant presumption about me is absurdly false) none
of my friends in the United Kingdom has ever perceived me as any
particular
kind of nationalist at all, let alone a 'flag-waving' British nationalist,
let alone a jingoistic British imperialist. (I can hear much laughter
now,
some of it with an Irish lilt, among my friends.) Could Benjamin Jordan
have confused my English prose style (on Usenet) with Rudyard Kipling's?
:-)


Although this point may be quite hard or even painful for most
'flag-waving'
American nationalists to grasp, my identity and values as a human being
are
not fundamentally determined by which passport(s) that I (or other members
of my family) may hold at one time or another.


Thank you E. Rushmore Coglan!.

[snip the rest of my troll's babblings about the press, Santa Claus, and yet
*more* of his "recommended reading"]

NoMoreChess said it best:
"Right now, Nick has the impression that you are not falling in line with
his
opinions regarding the war in Iraq, because you have dared to question the
reliability of one source of opinion which is in agreement with his own.
Note
that he doesn't NEED any substantiation of your actual political position on
Iraq -- oh, no! It is "crime" enough that you have dared to question
anything
he wrote"

"Benjamin Jordan" wrote in message ...
"Nick" unilaterally attacked in message:
om...

snip
Notwithstanding the clear evidence of your photograph elsewhere (as far as
I
can tell, you do not *appear* to be an African American), I have to say
that I
must conclude that what the illustrious "New York Times" (the United
States's
"newspaper of record") has reported about you *must* be true.

I have reached that natural, inevitable conclusion, of course, because of
Benjamin Jordan's vehement endorsement(s) of the "New York Times" as a
beacon
of factual accuracy and unquestioned journalistic integrity. As Mr Jordan
seems so fond of reiterating, the "New York Times" must be always
*accountable*.
Accordingly, *if* the "New York Times" were ever to print anything that
was
*not* factually accurate in any way (such as characterising Jerome Bibuld
as
a 'black leader'), then *surely* the "New York Times" would promptly print
a retraction of its factual error(s), if not offer an apology for them.


Don't twist my words again Nick. You have a real problem with reading
comprehension. I did not say I endorse, or even *read* the NYT. Remember
this?

On 4 Apr 2004 18:10:18 -0700, (Nick) wrote:
Bill Brock has written that he's 5 feet 3 inches (160 cm.) tall.
I happen to be taller than Bill Brock. Presumably, Mike Murray (or another
troll) might conclude that I must be 'boasting' of being exactly 5 feet
3 1/2 inches tall. So would any of 'my' devoted trolls care to wager a
very large amount of money on that personal conclusion about me? :-)


**much snipped**

In the interests of accuracy: I am closer to 5' 3 1/2" (~ 161 cm.)
than I am to 5' 3" (~ 160 cm.)

"Bill Brock" wrote in message
om...
"Benjamin Jordan" wrote in message
...
"Nick" unilaterally attacked in message:
om...

snip
Notwithstanding the clear evidence of your photograph elsewhere (as
far as
I
can tell, you do not *appear* to be an African American), I have to
say
that I
must conclude that what the illustrious "New York Times" (the United
States's
"newspaper of record") has reported about you *must* be true.

I have reached that natural, inevitable conclusion, of course, because
of
Benjamin Jordan's vehement endorsement(s) of the "New York Times" as a
beacon
of factual accuracy and unquestioned journalistic integrity. As Mr
Jordan
seems so fond of reiterating, the "New York Times" must be always
*accountable*.
Accordingly, *if* the "New York Times" were ever to print anything
that
was
*not* factually accurate in any way (such as characterising Jerome
Bibuld
as
a 'black leader'), then *surely* the "New York Times" would promptly
print
a retraction of its factual error(s), if not offer an apology for
them.


Don't twist my words again Nick. You have a real problem with reading
comprehension. I did not say I endorse, or even *read* the NYT.
Remember
this?

On 4 Apr 2004 18:10:18 -0700, (Nick) wrote:
Bill Brock has written that he's 5 feet 3 inches (160 cm.) tall.
I happen to be taller than Bill Brock. Presumably, Mike Murray (or
another
troll) might conclude that I must be 'boasting' of being exactly 5 feet
3 1/2 inches tall. So would any of 'my' devoted trolls care to wager a
very large amount of money on that personal conclusion about me? :-)


**much snipped**

In the interests of accuracy: I am closer to 5' 3 1/2" (~ 161 cm.)
than I am to 5' 3" (~ 160 cm.)



So you're not only short on brains.......but just plain SHORT across the
board!

JMR

..
In the interests of accuracy: I am closer to 5' 3 1/2" (~ 161 cm.)
than I am to 5' 3" (~ 160 cm.)



So you're not only short on brains.......but just plain SHORT across the
board!


Hmm. This suggests a strategy where you may ignore his passed pawns, since he
likely can't reach the Queening squares. Also, if losing badly, try to force
him to corner your King on your own side, which he may have trouble reaching.
Avoid attacking his King, as he will have no trouble defending (reaching) his
side of the board. Try to steer for positions where he will have the
long-range pieces (Queen, Rook, Bishop), as he will have great difficulty
utilizing their full range.

And try to find an extra-tall table on which to play, and give him the shorter
chair. Face him so that the sun is in his eyes, and feed him well before the
game begins. That should about do it. Now you're ready to play on level
terms, having considering the fact that short people have better developed
brains, to compensate for their lack of stature.
While the big bully relies mainly upon brute force to get what he wants, the
short, wimpy guy goes through life having to rely upon his mental prowess,
which of course, grows as a muscle does -- with exercise.


-- Robert Waldow