tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793847675654579199.post7548928885294609332..comments2023-12-18T20:54:32.058-05:00Comments on QuizMasterChris' Pub Quiz Blog & Infoporium: The New York Times is still lying on behalf of Gore/Lieberman '00Chris Randolphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14708787725894726540noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793847675654579199.post-44191871739902785872011-08-05T12:15:39.962-04:002011-08-05T12:15:39.962-04:00Hi PR -
Thanks for the comment.
Those were quote...Hi PR -<br /><br />Thanks for the comment.<br /><br />Those were quotes indicating a disagreement with the meme, not a claim that I was quoting the article verbatim. I wouldn't quote one word out of an article and throw reference quotes around it, I'd quote an entire phrase if I were doing that.<br /><br />Similarly if writing about the Korean War as a "police action" I throw quotes around the phrase "police action" as I think this is a general abuse of language.<br /><br />I can see how this would be confusing lacking context. You must also admit that I provided a link to the original article so that a person might read it for themselves.<br /><br />I regard the notion that one candidate running "costs" another candidate any election to be an inaccurate one; in this case I find it especially insulting to suggest that all Nader voters "owe" their votes to Al Gore.Chris Randolphhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14708787725894726540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793847675654579199.post-76868854714226373342011-08-05T10:12:46.340-04:002011-08-05T10:12:46.340-04:00I'm a Nader fan, too, voted for him in 1996 an...I'm a Nader fan, too, voted for him in 1996 and 2000.<br /><br />Funny thing, though. You put "cost" in quotes, as though the NYT writer had used it. But that word doesn't appear in the article. Admittedly, that opening paragraph is weasel-worded so that it can be read either as agreement or disagreement with the idea that Nader cost Gore the election. But it doesn't say so: it refers coyly to his "role" in the election, then tells any Thanksralphers to "boil somewhere else" because the writer likes and admires Nader.<br /><br />Agreed, the Times is primarily a ruling-class propaganda rag. But this column didn't say what you say it said.Duncan Mitchelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05304723745550906958noreply@blogger.com