If you want to concentrate on chipping away at the Time's reputation though then why stick posts in attacking me personally & not expect me not to reply back?
As I recall, you made clear in word and deed that you approve of editing post titles on a regular basis to be something completely non-descriptive to the subject at hand.
I'm just joining in the fun you started.
As for your other observation, as I've noted long before now, I think the law is a bad law. Thefore, I think the Times should fight it. I just think we should be consistent and not base enforcement on whether the group at issue is conservative or liberal.
I also think, and I've mentioned this before also, that a newspaper is the last organization that should ever be calling for someone else to be censored.
In the past, you've been willing to admit a certain level of discomfort with liberals trying to censor others. I can respect that.
Here, we have something related, in that we have a popular "liberal" newspaper seemingly bending the rules for a group they favor. I would like to think that, if you really believed in "Fair Play," you could be a mensch here and realize that the Times, or someone on their staff, probably fucked up.
Instead, you'd rather edit thread titles and engage in yet-another round of Rudy-bashing.
