[Peace-discuss] covert political positions

[C. G. Estabrook]

Perhaps the suggestion that that paragraph be removed would have been 
discussed with me, as the Public i was required to do by the conditions 
under which the article was submitted.  But I don't think that was Bob's 
plan.  "Factual support" could have been provided. --CGE


Bob Illyes wrote:
> Wow, this is good. I'll have to keep an eye out for these covert
> political operators. There's nothing covert about my differences
> with Carl- on Obama, for example. We've had plenty of open
> disagreements, mostly about effective political methods and the
> hazards of over-simplifying issues, to such an extent that I suspect
> some folks would like us to just cool it.
> 
> Carl's article is a completely different matter. All I care about
> as an editor is that he presents his case as well as possible given
> our space constraints. It's his name on the article, not mine, after all.
> I don't think this qualifies as a "covert political position".
> 
> Folks who are bothered by consensus-based editing should avoid
> submitting articles to the Public i, because they will find us very
> annoying. Here is my comment on Carl's article sent that I sent to
> the Print list (the subject was whether or not to publish the article):
> 
>  "I'm willing to go with the article as is with the one paragraph
>  about Clinton removed for lack of factual support. He presents
>  important material, and argues it well.
> 
>  Any other opinions?"
> 
> Note that this is a part of a conversation looking for consensus, and
> that absolutely nowhere did I say I thought we should do this without
> clearing it with Carl. The notion that I should be sued for having an
> opinion is preposterous.
> 
> Bob
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss