Difference between revisions of "User talk:Paul"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
you wrote: | 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. | :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. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 19: | ||
--[[User:David|David]] 22:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | --[[User:David|David]] 22:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thanks Paul.Yes we are using a number of differing indices including books, google, mainstream press and academic citations which will give a variety of lists and enable us to say something about why some 'experts' are in the press and not anywhere else and why some are cited and not in the press etc. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:David|David]] 11:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:36, 25 December 2007
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)
Paul, Did Mendelsohn sack Abrahams from LFI or from LLM or both? can you clarify?
Thanks --David 07:25, 28 November 2007 (GMT)
Hi Paul,
I should have mentioned that Tom Mills and Dave Thomson are working on a terror expert project and we will be posting a large number of tables based on variious searches. this will all come together....
--David 22:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Paul.Yes we are using a number of differing indices including books, google, mainstream press and academic citations which will give a variety of lists and enable us to say something about why some 'experts' are in the press and not anywhere else and why some are cited and not in the press etc.
--David 11:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
