Difference between revisions of "Talk:World Media Association"
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
re UPI, again, see 1st para; you need to have shown us the precise relationship between UPI and WMA | re UPI, again, see 1st para; you need to have shown us the precise relationship between UPI and WMA | ||
| − | Re connections to Insight, what are these precisely? | + | Re Moon's connections to Insight, what are these precisely? |
| + | |||
| + | One such publication would be The Terrorism Industry -- | ||
| + | |||
| + | reader has to work hard to understand what you are implying by "one such publication"--presume one that the Moonie guys don't like as it's the sort that protects people from unwelcome truths? | ||
| + | |||
| + | typified by Walter Laqueur, Michael Ledeen, Edward Luttwak -- | ||
| + | |||
| + | libel issue here; is it The Terrorism Industry that names these guys, or you? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Or the writing of Robert Parry,-- | ||
| + | This "or" has lost its grammatical link, which is too far back for ADD readers--spell out--"another example would be" | ||
| + | |||
| + | The quote from Parry is v interesting. But is there any kind of conclusion we can draw about possible links between these ops and Moon? I am not suggesting that we say more than can be justified with evidence, but without any kind of comment linking the stuff from Parry to WMA/Moon, we are left rather in limbo. I think you can make a very tentative suggestion about a possible link that deserves further investigation, or some such conclusion. | ||
Revision as of 17:38, 28 September 2008
Para The World Media Association (WMA)...--
replace "flunkies" with a more precise term. What is the precise role of each of these people in the organisation? As a general observation, regardless of the (dis)respect in which we hold this org, we need as far as poss to make the facts speak for themselves. When we've shown the reader thru evidence what the org is like, and he is ready to make his judgment, then we can come in with one of our own.
Amb. Phillip Sanchez-- what is Amb.?
On the WMA website Phillip Sanchez, on the quotes from one of Moon's advertisements:--
confusing grammar; rewrite
That actually gets more crazier, because you see--
omit--what follows is quite crazy enough for us to get the point. It's a matter of show, don't tell. "Buddha's cousin": joke? it confuses.
Like all the WMA functionaries -- "fuctionaries" too vague.
as the former publisher of the New York City Tribune -- is this a WMA publication? if so, say so. similarly re Tiempos del Mundo.
and spoke with O'Sullivan back in the WMA gig in Seoul 2002 -- "spoke with": does this mean he was a featured speaker at a WMA conference? avoid "gig" as not precise. is it a conference?
Johnn -- surely John?
in the capacity of Executive Editor, UPI - Moon has connections to Insight magazine --
re UPI, again, see 1st para; you need to have shown us the precise relationship between UPI and WMA
Re Moon's connections to Insight, what are these precisely?
One such publication would be The Terrorism Industry --
reader has to work hard to understand what you are implying by "one such publication"--presume one that the Moonie guys don't like as it's the sort that protects people from unwelcome truths?
typified by Walter Laqueur, Michael Ledeen, Edward Luttwak --
libel issue here; is it The Terrorism Industry that names these guys, or you?
Or the writing of Robert Parry,-- This "or" has lost its grammatical link, which is too far back for ADD readers--spell out--"another example would be"
The quote from Parry is v interesting. But is there any kind of conclusion we can draw about possible links between these ops and Moon? I am not suggesting that we say more than can be justified with evidence, but without any kind of comment linking the stuff from Parry to WMA/Moon, we are left rather in limbo. I think you can make a very tentative suggestion about a possible link that deserves further investigation, or some such conclusion.
