Comments on: That Newsweek thing

By: Kang

Kang — Fri, 20 May 2005 07:22:00 +0000

The Newsweek story is old news. Today brings us the US military declaring war on Britain’s most beloved tabloid, the Sun (prop. Rupert Murdoch). Fingers crossed that Rebekha Wade and Trevor Kavanagh, at least, end up wearing orange jump-suits in a detention camp somewhere, being tortured until they name their sources.

By: Tim Worstall

Tim Worstall — Thu, 19 May 2005 11:27:00 +0000

Matthew,
Four actually, but only two active.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Thu, 19 May 2005 11:19:00 +0000

Everything in my blog is true. Especially the wrong bits.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 19 May 2005 10:35:00 +0000

Do you have two blogs?

By: Tim Worstall

Tim Worstall — Thu, 19 May 2005 08:36:00 +0000

'It's in a blog, so it must be true'.

Perfectly fair argument. Justifies the existence of my blog, certainly.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 19 May 2005 05:56:00 +0000

"I think Natalie’s point was that the British newspapers frequently print pro-Tory lies, and therefore if one were to accept "printed in British newspaper = true", then that would involve us (as lefties) conceding a lot of things we really wouldn’t want to concede. "

Yes, that’s true. Imagine if someone said, ‘It’s in a blog, so it must be true’.

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Thu, 19 May 2005 04:24:00 +0000

> I saw you ignoring torture and murder.

The great thing about these online arguments is being able to go back and check what people said when a silly accusation like that is made. I've just double-checked what Natalie wrote. I'd be simply fascinated to know at what point she ignore torture and murder. You probably have to be dead clever to spot it.

YAAT.

By: dave heasman

dave heasman — Wed, 18 May 2005 12:53:00 +0000

"if a Koran has been flushed down the toilet on this or any other occasion I count it as abusive behavior on the part of the guards that should be punished, but not torture. A significant part of its badness is in its predictable effect of inflaming riots."

Then we agree. So what's the beef? That it isn't true? But it is true. There's too much confirmation (see the references), plus it's the sort of thing they do.

"You didn't hear me condoning torture and murder"

I saw you ignoring torture and murder. They torture and murder. They flush the Koran down the lavatory. Why not? They're torturers and murderers after all. Their consciences aren't going to get in the way, are they?

By: john b

john b — Wed, 18 May 2005 12:17:00 +0000

I think Natalie’s point was that the British newspapers frequently print pro-Tory lies, and therefore if one were to accept "printed in British newspaper = true", then that would involve us (as lefties) conceding a lot of things we really wouldn’t want to concede.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 18 May 2005 12:14:00 +0000

"Are you willing to accept the general rule that "Reported and not denied in the British press = true"?
If so, I hope it's OK if I bear it in mind and quote it back to you for years in other contexts. Same goes for "what former British Guatanamo detainees say = true", although that one might be less entertainingly pro-Tory."

Why is this pro-Tory? Are you a Tory?