Posted by The Editors
on November 1, 2009, 1:01 pm, in reply to "Re: sorry, one more on David"
: Perhaps you might answer a question I put to
: you a couple of times earlier on, but which
: you failed to respond to. Why does it not
: "jar" with you that I failed to
: mention UK third world development policy in
: the article? Its an important subject, with
: a real human cost attached. It jars with me
: that I didn't include it, so why not with
: you?
The answer is provided by the email from the Newspeak reader posted above:
"Its no exaggeration to say that what you speak of is THE issue of our
society, if only because every other issue depends upon it."
Eds
:
: Could it be that you, when you reflect on
: it, understand very well that one has to
: choose which important points to include and
: which to exclude when writing an article of
: finite length and with a specific purpose?
:
: To bemoan the lack of dissident voices in
: the msm, and then to urge dissident voices
: to reject opportunities to appear in the
: msm when they arise is an entirely
: contradictory and self-defeating postion.
:
Responses: