Difference between revisions of "User talk:Paul"
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
--[[User:David|David]] 12:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | --[[User:David|David]] 12:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| − | Paul, | + | Paul, do you have a recording of that awful Newsnight segment last night? We should get it online. I will see if I can find one. Kohlman and Weisburd are incredible. Have a look at the meterial on wikipedia about irhabi 007. This is an old story. Not sure why it was on last night except by way of spook spin. |
| − | + | --[[User:David|David]] 08:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | --[[User:David|David]] | ||
Revision as of 08:23, 17 January 2008
you wrote:
- About Greenslade: you eliminated entirely valid comments. The Thatcher govt via Maxwell used the Mirror (Greenslade editor) to smear the miners in general, and its leadership in particular. It is a SORDID affair, because of the character assassination involved -- I hope you read Seumas Milne's account of this. Furthermore, IT IS NOT appropriate for Greenslade to review a book (Pilger's) which is critical of him... So, on both accounts, i think your edits are not valid.
I cut the comment that it was unacceptable for him to review the book. I have read Seumas's excellent book and you are right about the affair, but I have not touched anything on that. The question of whether it is inappropriate seems to me questionable. Greenslade admits to the fact that it criticises him, so he is not trying to hide that and snipe at the book. He admits it and praises the book. I think that there is a lot more that can be said about Greenslade than an alleged impropriety over a book review?
On Geldof: all of the evaluative statements need some kind of referencing including 1. 'factual' referencing (eg blair's lap) and quotes showing what he has said. and 2. supporting evidence for the evaluation - eg his affiliations and comments and what is wrong with them - rather than give your views (with which I agree), we should have analysis, supporting views and evidence. No?
--David 11:18, 13 November 2007 (GMT)
hi Paul, yes the use of the term terrorologist is the problem isn't it. I think we might need a more neutral category to denote people who are regarded as 'experts' or 'authoritative' on issues to do with terror as Ahmad was... bear with us...
--David 12:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Paul, do you have a recording of that awful Newsnight segment last night? We should get it online. I will see if I can find one. Kohlman and Weisburd are incredible. Have a look at the meterial on wikipedia about irhabi 007. This is an old story. Not sure why it was on last night except by way of spook spin. --David 08:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
