[B5JMS] And So It Begins...

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Robert Perkins <rob_perkins at hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 05:22:24 GMT
Lines: 37

On 24 May 2003 23:48:44 GMT, jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:

>You didn't say that they hired them and then found *out* that they were those
>things...that it "hires" them knowing those facts and with the intent of
>putting out false stories (and you use the plural form to indicate that this is
>an ongoing and consistent situation).

Clearly the Times doesn't do that. Their editors play fast and loose
with biased headlines and a viscious and one-sided staff of editors
and columnists, but they don't tolerate makin' stuff up if they know
about it. And their huge retraction bears witness of an editorial
staff clearly embarrassed and chagrined by the whole thing. They know
their reputation rides on it, and are clearly now aware that their
policies and bureacracy failed in this case. And this liar will never
work in the news industry again. 

Some of the blame *does* go to the infrastructure which nurtured the
plaigarizer and the liar for a too-long time. But most of it, the
massive lion's share, belongs with the liar, and not the liar's
employer. And I'm sure that the Times will see to it that policies get
put in place so their reputation won't be soiled again anytime soon.

But it does beg the question, just a little bit: What else have they
missed if they didn't catch this guy sooner than they did? What does
it say about the last number of years of Times' reporting, which even
in the face of that retraction is now more dubious to those who
already thought it was dubious. 

>Care to back that one up, binky?
>So what'll it be, sport?

Namecalling is so unbecoming, in my opinion, especially in a case like
this one, where the facts can speak for themselves. 

Rob



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 26 May 2003 03:07:43 GMT
Lines: 30

>>Care to back that one up, binky?
>>So what'll it be, sport?
>
>Namecalling is so unbecoming, in my opinion, especially in a case like
>this one, where the facts can speak for themselves. 

So post a few and let 'em speak for themselves, 'cause so far you have failed
to do so. You made a claim that you had to now back off on a bit, that they
ddn't knowingly hire plagiarists, then went on to make some more wild claims.

How can the facts you defer to so greatly be appreciated for all their glory
when you seem incabable of posting them in respond to a direct request?  

Seems odd, one might almost think you didn't *have* any such facts.

Which would be silly, wouldn't it?

Binky.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)