Interesting. Me thinks, ultimately, he made my point (again.) He didn’t actually read the document, and thus drew erroneous conclusions.

Ah well, and so it goes…

As for comments on your blog: they are moderated and I know that comments have been submitted and yet none ever show up. Why? If you do not want to allow comments simply disable them, if you are truly moderating then why are none ever allowed to show up? It seems that you are simply wanting to read what people might comment and never actually engage in discourse by sharing them with the world.

Once again, someone snarkily asserts that I didn’t read the article I referred to. Aside from the insult, Steve Brady’s personal interpretation of the word “flood” has nothing to do with the accuracy of my postings. And, in calling me “stupid”, he threw the first punch.

I have never deliberately hidden comments. Steven Brady’s either actually a liberal making a veiled attempt at making conservatives look like liars, or….

That being said, in this comment and in the one on the post dated 4/29 you assert that he does not post “facts” and encourage the students to seek out the information themselves. Yet you have not responded to his clear demonstration that YOU had the facts wrong regarding desertion rates (apparently because you did not check the sources you cite).

Now, you say, “Furthermore, if someone wants to malign the credibility of a globally-respected news source like the Guardian, the onus is upon HIM to prove them wrong. Did the poster bother to check that out with the Guardian?”

The point is that the Guardian (which is no more universally respected than the LA Times or the Washington Times, take your pick) did not cite their own sources. THEY as the reporting agency have the obligation to get their sources right. No news agency is infallible, as the NYTimes has shown repeatedly lately (and the LATimes, WashTimes, etc. lest you think i am biased). I regularly read the NYT, WashPost, BBC, etc. When one gets a truly global perspective one begins to realize how parochial and narrow the NYTimes oped really is (including, of course, David Brooks).

The point here is really this: absolutely we are to check our sources and encourage our students to do so. But you received a poke because you did NOT do that, or did so and then misrepresented the data. I do not care which. And please, do not write this off as one brother protecting another; he doesn’t need my protection. The Prof will attest to my even handed back hand. He gets it now and then too.

In this instance the Prof was right and you need to do your homework.

Your “professor” is happy to wax superior about his “clean language” but neglects to point out how incredibly insulting, haughty and superior his own words were, and how they could potentially be much more offensive to someone than cursing.

Furthermore, if someone wants to malign the credibility of a globally-respected news source like the Guardian, the onus is upon HIM to prove them wrong. Did the poster bother to check that out with the Guardian?

Students, watch the words of your professor closely; he may show you convincing-sounding things in class, but he is lying to you.

Don’t take my word (or his) for it; read the stories of Pulitzer-prizewinning authors like Seymour Hersch or Paul Krugman at the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, or the “Top Censored Stories”. Your eyes will be opened.

Why did this man choose to use some obscure blogger to prove his points to you? That should strike a warning in your minds.

Read MANY sources and logically deduce where the truth lies. I promise you’ll quickly discover it’s not with the words of your “professor”.

BTW, I wonder where the Guardian came up with their figures? I noticed there was no source for them. I’m sure the prof would agree that any well written paper would source such important numbers so they could be verified.

Note a couple things: first, his use of profanity is typical of many students who, when their “work” is criticized for the weak attempt that it is, resort to ad hominems, and second, while he seems to feel it necessary to stifle free speech, I have allowed his comment to not only be posted, but to remain.

One quick question for him: If a “flood is a flood” why were the military having a GUSHER of desertions then under Clinton in 2000?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032806I.shtml

I would so kick your holier-than-thou ass if you acted like such a smug little bastard to my face.

lol…