The Judy Stein Junkyard Dog Web Site

Judy Stein writes:

>In article <37ADBEDF.6C37@spam.block.mindspring.com>,
>Andrew Skolnick wrote:
>
>> But Lawson insists getting 7000 people together on a regular basis is
>> "implausible" for any group other than the military!
>
>No, he didn't. Andrew's lying *again*.
>
>Here's what Lawson said:
>
> the logistics and financing required to get 7,000 butt-bouncers
> together on a twice-daily, *permanent* basis isn't trivial.
>
>"Isn't *trivial*" is what Lawson said. Quite a difference from
>"is implausible."

Actually, this is what Lawson said:

"Or, you can attempt some combination of the above. Regardless, the
logistics and financing required to get 7,000 butt-bouncers together on
a twice-daily, *permanent* basis isn't trivial. Only the military
manages to get that many people together on a daily basis, and getting
the military to train 7,000 butt-bouncers doesn't seem plausible at this
point."

Given the whole context of what Lawson said about the military I think
Andrew's comment was fair, certainly the accusation that Andrew is lying
is a bit rich from someone who didn't bother to show what Lawson said in
context.

>What Lawson said was entirely reasonable, and Andrew couldn't see
>any way to mock it and turn it into an indictment of TMers.

Actually what Lawson said was wrong because other organisations do get
several thousand people together on a regular basis.

>So what does Andrew do? Why, he just makes something up that he
>*can* mock and puts it in Lawson's mouth.

Nope, Lawson said only the military can get 7000 people together on a
daily basis, implying that it is implausible that anyone else could.

>Andrew chronically, deliberately, and maliciously misquotes
>TMers. No conscience. No integrity. If the reality doesn't
>suit his agenda, he creates one that does, without even a second
>thought.

Note that while railing against Andrew, Judy didn't quote the whole of
the relevant paragraph written by Lawson.

>Andrew is an award-winning journalist, you know. Wonder how many
>of his awards were won for articles in which he deliberately and
>maliciously misquoted those he interviewed?
>
>
>> The excuses of TM apologists are so transparent. And oh soooooo
>> funny!
>
>What is oh sooooo funny--or would be if Andrew weren't such a
>pathetic fool--is the transparency of his lies.
>
>How sad to be so out of tune with the world as it is. How sad to
>feel so constantly behind the eight-ball that the only way you
>can discuss an area of disagreement is to lie to prop up your
>totally inadequate case.

Yet Andrew didn't lie, his comment was a fair reading of what Lawson
said - you know, the part you didn't quote.

-- Dene Bebbington
http://www.bebbo.demon.co.uk