"If you accept that this was my intent, you must also accept that the New York Times deliberately threatened Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney with violence by revealing the locations of their vacation homes..."
This is highly disinegnuous and circular reasoning. Of course, why would you publish the information on the Times photographer unless you though that the Times did threaten the two officials. So it must have been your intent. But then you were calling for the photographer to be attacked. But since you claim you weren't, then you must not believe that it was the Times' intent in the original article.
Can you explain your reasoning, please?
Have fun with your irrelevant site, you clown. It's been a gas, really, it has.
Rocco,
I must tell you that I am shocked and displeased that you removed the Spiller post.
Somethought,
Rocco's post and the NYTimes article are barely comparable. Rocco didn't include photos of Ms. Spiller's home security system.
You think you Reichwing thugs got the attention of the New York Times? All you did is make Americans seem stupid and violent.
Two thumbs up. No wonder you screwed up Iraq.
Hey look its Murdermode Danny!
Bwhahahaha!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Still haven't changed your handle I see. Maybe you should ask your girlfr- oops, sorry, low blow.
This Blog needs cleaned up as bad as the Superdome after Katrina.
Those lefties destroy all they touch.
"I must tell you that I am shocked and displeased that you removed the Spiller post. . . Rocco's post and the NYTimes article are barely comparable. Rocco didn't include photos of Ms. Spiller's home security system." - mr. beamish
I don't if my last post on the other thread got through, so here goes again:
Linda Spillers was the frakking PHOTOGRAPHER for the story. She didn't write the story that hinted at the location of Cheney's and Rumsfeld's homes. She probably didn't know what was going to be written. She probably took on the assignment for what it was, a story in the travel section of a newspaper. She had two other photos in the article, of Talbot Street and Big Al's Market.
Spillers isn't even an employee of the New York Times. She's a free lance photographer who specializes in "food, dining, travel and house and home photography" after previously being a hockey photographer. mr. beamish, what is the point of posting her address? And Rocco, while it is good that you removed the post with her address, you owe Ms. Spillers an apology. Or a better explanation of why you put the address of the free lance PHOTOGRAPHER for the story on the site in the first place.
"Rocco's post and the NYTimes article are barely comparable. Rocco didn't include photos of Ms. Spiller's home security system."
Mr. Beamish,
That was not my point. I was asking him to explain how the reasoning worked in his original post, not say that the two were directly comparable as you suggest.
Improve the world today abort Marxist
vermin. Do note how the Marxist swine pretend they speak for the world but the world votes with their feet and run away from areas governed by Marxists.
The rest of the world has 100,000,000 testemonials to the wonders of Marx.
Newsmax outed the location of Cheney's house on 9/5/2005:
Monday, Sept. 5, 2005 5:13 p.m. EDT
Cheneys Head to Maryland Shore
Vice President Cheney is buying a house in posh St. Michaels, Maryland - he is, that is, if you believe the rumors swirling around this Eastern Shore community on the shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay.
Then again he and his wife may not be in the process of buying a luxurious $2.9 million mansion thought to have been built by one of Thomas Edison's daughters back in 1930.
...
Cheney's potential neighbor, Donald Rumsfeld, bought a weekend house in St. Michaels two years ago for a reported $1.5 million.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/.../5/
171908.shtml
Are you aware that that the name, city and employer of anyone who has ever made a political donation is available on the FEC website? Recorded deeds and mortgages are public records? County tax records available on-line?
Um - all this info was way public long ago. What universe are you living in?
And since when do you think you have a right to privacy? It's not in the Constitution, you know. It's called "strict constructionism."
It was as if the gates of hell sprang open, and this thoughtful Blog was accosted by hideous gargoyles that chose to fly here instead of slowly flying around a crypt.
Be gone evil, stupid ones, be gone back to hell whence you came.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/
Re...20gargoyles.jpg
Leftist agitators are greivously wounded when Rocco does something about the NY Times personal attack on our country's leaders.
He did nothing more than what they did to Cheney and Rumsfeld. If you condemn him, you should condemn the NY Times.
Its a pity in light of the fact that Rocco didnt reveal the security present at the NY TImes reporters' residences, while Rumsfeld's security was clearly mocked and exposed by partisan reporters.
A consistent theme among Leftists is that whats good for them is no good for anyone else.
Check your arrogance you leftwing fascists
...
Whats good for Leftists isnt good for anyone else, isnt it?
I love the hypocrisy of the Left. At least it is consistent
...
Somethought,
Explain why the NYT revealed details on the location and security system of Rumsfeld's and Cheney's houses (which are NOT a part of any other story on the same houses in any other source) belong in a "travel" section article. You further need to explain how posting Linda Spiller's publicly available mailing address is different from publishing the same of Rumsfeld or Cheney.
And also, if publishing Spiller's publicly available information is the same as making a threat, what do you call publishing information about Rumsfeld and Cheney's homes that isn't publicly available?
Dan R.,
Still trying to argue by illiterate spelling lesson? Why don't you go back to wherever this army of idiot leftists (forgive the redundancy) is spawned and put in for a transfer away from front line duty?
"Its a pity in light of the fact that Rocco didnt reveal the security present at the NY TImes reporters' residences, while Rumsfeld's security was clearly mocked and exposed by partisan reporters." - Freedom Now
"You further need to explain how posting Linda Spiller's publicly available mailing address is different from publishing the same of Rumsfeld or Cheney." - mr. beamish
One more time: Linda Spillers was not the REPORTER on the story. The reporter who wrote about the locations of Cheney's and Rumsfeld's homes was Peter Kilborn. Spillers was the PHOTOGRAPHER for the story. She is not even a permanent employee of the New York Times. Based on my experience with freelance photographers, she probably didn't even know what Kilborn was going to write. So what was the point of publishing HER address? I'm still hoping that Rocco will issue an apology to her for doing that.
"update: 7/3/2006 12:25 AM To our regular readers: Due to the endless and overwhelmingly mindless leftist attacks on this site, comments will be moderated until further notice. Sorry for the inconvenience"
It is for the best, you must take these parenting failures threats serious.
http://www.retrojunction.com/sho...oz-tin-
sign.jpg
Mr. DiPippio- Sure flushed the game from the scrub! amazing how narrow and nit-picky they are. Quail at least are good eating, leftistas on the other hand need to be soaked in permanganate and scrubbed with brass bristle brushes. Not only that, but they lack any redeeming flavor to make them worth the effort!
R.M.- You just insulted Quasimoto! For shame, he was a gentle, loving soul, unlike the recent invaders!
Mr. Pres-elect-Why did you expect better spelling?
Good morning and G*D bless!
tmw
my, my, my - two days away and look what happens.
dick cheney knows where i live and is invited over any time. one rule, no eyeballing the wildlife and he must leave his gun with the children for safety!
in the famous words of farmer john, "nanny nanny noo noo"!
there are no foul lines on a leftist playing field.
“Sweet dreams are made of these
Who am I to disagree?
Travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for something”...
...So this guy with a distraught woebegone look on his face, walks into a pet store. He feels that maybe, just maybe, the animals will take his mind off his troubled soul for a bit.
He is moseying about when he hears, “ARRRRRRRRRRRAK!”--A whistle, and the words, “Damn dude who pissed in your well!”
He turns and to his amazement there he sees a big, beautiful, colorful parrot. However, as he looks more closely, the parrot has no legs and he is holding himself erect on the perch by wrapping his “pillypecker” around the perch.
“Yeah, yeah, I’ve seen that look before, and as you can plainly see, we all have our cross to bare,” says the bird. “But let’s talk about that sad look on your puss, he adds. "Come on, speak up, get it off your chest, it will do you good.—I’m listening.”
Ah, what the hell the guy thinks to himself, and starts unburdening.
“It’s my wife; I cannot prove It, but I think she is doing the humpty-dance with strangers when I leave the house and go to work. And the thought of that is really starting to get to me.”
“Have you considered hiding some CCTV surveillance cameras in the house to record her possible dirty deeds?” Asks the parrot.
“Yes, I have, but they are just too expensive,” replies the man.
“Hmmm, I’ve got the answer,” the bird says. “Here is what we can do to make this a mutually advantageous deal.”
“You buy me and take me home with you. As you can see and hear for yourself, I am not a birdbrain, and I have a command for the King’s English. I’ll keep a watch on her in your home, and report the real skinny every night when you come home from work. In return, you give me a cup of seed a day, fresh water and a daily NYT to line the bottom of the cage—I just love taking a mean shit on that leftist rag every morning.”
“It’s a deal, what the hell, let’s get cracking to your new digs,” says the guy, and buys the bird and the needed supplies...
...”Sweet dreams are made of these
Who am I to disagree?
Travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for something
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused”
The next morning the guy takes the sheet off the parrots cage and tells him, “here’s your supplies and the NYT we agreed to. I’m off to work, I’ll talk to you when I return.”
“ARRRRRAK, you got it boss,” says the parrot.
That evening when the guy returns, he anxiously goes to the birdcage and asks, “well, gulp! What happened?”
“Ah boss, there was a knock on the door around 11AM. And your wife answered the door, and there was this tall dark, toothsome, hunk of a man. He looked like Rightminded, but RM is much better looking. They started mugging it right away, and taking each others cloths off as they made their way to the sofa right next to my cage.”
“He laid her down, and he took the rest of his clothes off and was about to...
And then, and then...”
“Come on bird, tell me what happened, I MUST KNOW, I MUST KNOW,” screamed the man.
“STOP SHOUTING AT ME, Please stop yelling! I do not know what happened next. My “pillypecker” got aroused,” I fell off the perch, hit the bottom of the cage lined with that damned NYT and knocked myself unconscious. When I came to, the room was empty!
…Keep your head up, movin' on
Hold your head up, movin' on
Keep your head up, movin' on
Hold your head up, movin' on
Keep your head up, movin' on
Movin' on!
"In return, you give me a cup of seed a day, fresh water and a daily NYT to line the bottom of the cage—I just love taking a mean shit on that leftist rag every morning."
OMG! I laughed so hard I cried. Thanks RM I needed that after reading some of these responses. AL
"Explain why the NYT revealed details on the location and security system of Rumsfeld's and Cheney's houses (which are NOT a part of any other story on the same houses in any other source) belong in a "travel" section article. You further need to explain how posting Linda Spiller's publicly available mailing address is different from publishing the same of Rumsfeld or Cheney.
And also, if publishing Spiller's publicly available information is the same as making a threat, what do you call publishing information about Rumsfeld and Cheney's homes that isn't publicly available?"
Mr. Beamish,
Thank you for the response.
On your first question, please see my first point below. I don't think it matters, incidentally, which section of the paper the article ran in.
Since it bears directly on your question to me, I'll repost a slightly amended answer to the question from elsewhere on the site. (Please forgive the cross posting.) I've amended each point to speculate about what evidence you'd need to adduce to convince me otherwise.
"This whole issue decomposes into three points. When you put them side by side, it's hard to make any kind of case for publishing the Times' folks' information in retaliation.
(1)Rumsfeld and Cheney are public officials, protected by security forces, and the location of their homes is easily googled. I don't think anyone denies that. Moreover, this is not the first public official so "outed." To boot, it's highly unlikely that the articles that ran in the Times were not vetted by security forces beforehand.
[On this point, you'd have to show me clear and convincing evidence that the article was not vetted by security forces before running. Bonus: if you can show me an official of any authority who has problems with the article.]
(2)The people who work for the Times are not public citizens. They are private people who do a job that they're given (yes, even the editors) and consequently are not afforded the same protections as public officals are when "off duty." Consequently, publishing their information is not the same thing as publishing the information of public officials.
[Esepcially if this is just a freelance photographer, you'd need to show me (a)that there's precedent of some kind for fair-play outing personal information for reporters like this, or (b)that the people involved are adequately protected, or are sufficiently "public figures" for their personal information to be publicized.]
(3)Yes, it's true that almost everyone has private information online if you look hard enough. Some of us are better than others at staying anonymous, but it seems like a chimera to argue that the Times' photographer's information was already google-able and hence publicizing it in Rocco's context made no difference. What Rocco did--and what he's doing with the editors--is recontextualizing information in a way that changes who knows about it and in what context. So again, this is not the same thing as they are claiming.
[This is a difficult one to change my mind on. You'd have to show, somehow, that the sublimated, treatening tone that permeates the site and the context of the new posting of the reporters information didn't mean that new people found the reporters contact information and that the new context didn't represent, essentially, publicizing private information.]"
I hope that answers your question.
Hi all,
I am not AMerican, but I got here by following some links. May I say that I really believed in the American dream. To my countrymen, success is epitomized by a. regular trips to USA or b. a complete move to USA. But thank god I don't really believe that anymore. Apparantly, in your country even publishing an article about a great leader's home is considered tantamount to assisting terrorists according to your site. Strange, but weren't you the guys who're all gung-ho about the freedomn of speech and all that jazz. If drawing cartoons mocking Allah is permissable by the decree of freedom of speech (despte knowing that Islam forbids depictions of God through pictures or idols)- then I think showing pics of a political leader should not be made such an issue out of. There are people dying in a war declared by your Government. There are more people dying from American weapons sold decades ago - who sold them why and when doesn't matter -my people are still dying from them. There are people dying of hunger from natural famines and man-induced ones, there are governments falling in countries, militants fighting, insurgents trying to take over, despotic dictators and military governments all compromising the value of human lives.
What I'm trying to say to you is that AMerica is the golden country - blessed with over 300 years of independence and self-governance, you are the richest, you have the best of everything -and instead of being happy - you go about hating each other for merely having different political viewpoints.
In my country, sadly, over 500 people die each year in religious strife. Then there are the infiltrators at our borders -from all 4 directions. We are still getting used to independence and are still so poor.
Take comfort in the knowledge that you are the priviledged and do not abuse the joys that nature has given you. In your joys, can you not for a second wish others well? How can you think that you are helping by fighting this unending war in the Gulf - do you not see that the insurgents will go when they're enemy, your troops, go?
I beg you to take a look at some of the local news in different countries that AMerica is associated with - you can easily do so on the web - you will see the negative impact of your government's interference everywhere. Have you read of the girl raped and torched by US troops in Bagdad? Have you seen the records of dead Kashmiris - killed by weapons of AMerican make by Pakisthani militants? Do you know how many Palestinian women and children languish in your ally Israel's prison?
Aren't there more important things happening in the world? You should unite to end the war in Iraq. You should unite to protect Palestine for Palestinians are people too. Muslims are human too. I am human as well. And Islam is not a religion of flaming pits and torture as your comments suggest here- we have our own beliefs just as you have yours - can you not repect our beliefs as we respect yours. Your Gods are not any greater than ours just as our are not greater than yours. It is the way the holy bopoks are interpretted that matter - and along the same line - the best of things can be interpretted as the worst. There are of course extremists amongst us as well - fools who cannot hear or do not want to comprehend what is obvious - in front of them.
You Americans are so lucky that you have the choice to educate your self instead of believing everything you are told. You must know for your self. Howe can you not trust each other? How can you hate your countryman? How can you support a government that actively uses aggression to counter aggression.
But then maybe my tiraade is unrequired here. But I had to speak out to you - because of the 30 odd blogs I encountered- this one has the most hatred and is the most logic-defying. I felt I had to help. I know you'll probably pull my comment apart and have a wonderful laugh calling me names and abusing me as you have done to your leftist fellow patriots. I don't really expect you to treat me kinder -but I just had to let you know - I read your blog and it hurts to see how every word on this site has been twisted so viciously to meet your political viewpoint. The bits about Palestine, Islam and the rest. And no I'm not Islamic - in case you think thats why I'm yapping so much,cos I'm not. I'm just stunned by your ability to hate and twist.
Ok - go on now - deride me.
Ummm, so Glenn Greenwald has an interesting post on this issue:
(http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-
is-left-of-malkin-hinderaker-and.html)
I'll snip the bit that I think clears up this issue:
"I received an e-mail from Spillers this morning, in which she said:
'Ironically, photos were taken with Secretary Rumsfeld's permission.'"
Ummm, so where does this leave the accusations that this was somehow "treason" on the part of the Times? This seems to be conclusive evidence to the contrary...
Boom Shankar:
You insulted yourself with that phony post.
A bit of advice for the next time you try to pass yourself off as a foreigner: Don't use so many idioms. No foreigner uses English idioms so casually. Don't use moonbat shibboleths like "Great Leader" and "AMerica" either. Finally, don't conform so closely to the left's party line. It's a dead giveaway.
Good luck, Gunga Din.
Somethought:
Did Rumsfeld give permission to provide directions to his home and point out his security camera? Is Spillers a reliable, impartial source?
Nice try. You moonbats know better than any moderate that the NYT printed that article to incite violence.
"When you're visiting this community, don't follow the directions we've provided to Rumsfeld's home, and forget about the security camera we revealed. We didn't print this story solely because he lives in the community. We just didn't have enough space to include directions to homes that didn't belong to a man detested by rabid leftists and terrorists everywhere. We're the New York Times? Would We lie?"
Proof is conclusive Sherlock, not evidence.
An ideology that can only be defended with deceit and misdirection is a poor excuse for an ideology. You must be so proud.
Somethought said,
"Ironically, photos were taken with Secretary Rumsfeld's permission."
Did Rumsfeld give permission for them to use this article as revenge against him? They gave him what seemed to be an innocent request. He didnt give them permission to reveal his security system and mock him for it. What do you think his reaction was when he saw the prominent picture with the caption making fun of his much-needed security?
While Rocco calls this yet another act of treason, you say that "this (article) seems to be conclusive evidence to the contrary". As if it is proof that the Times loves the Bush administration. How can I possibly believe that you have any intention of honest debate when you make such a statement?
You ignore the fact that Rocco stated that this is just one in a long line of treasonous articles published by Times. As if it is not treason for them to publish articles revealing our country's tactics to bring terrorists to justice, but criticizing journalists is more of an act of treason
...
Boom Shankar,
I am sorry that you think this blog is hateful. We are merely defending our country against those who despise it and spread false propaganda against us.
The hatred you see is the reflection of our opponents.
Please view the websites of:
Counterpunch
Indymedia
Common Dreams
VHeadline
Democracy Now
Code Pink
...etc...
These people truly hate us and they words drip with venom.
You are attacking us as well and then accuse us of unjustifiable hostility against you.
However, I am not deriding you, despite what I feel are your unreasonable attacks on my country. Maybe one day the hatred that you have for us and Israel will dissappear and the anger that causes your self-destructive rantings will allow rational thought to replace it.
I have just one question, you say, "do you not see that the (iraqi) insurgents will go when their enemy, your troops, go?"
Since the insurgents are killing more Iraqis than Coalition soldiers, would you suggest that all Iraqi Kurds and Shiites leave Iraq as well
???
"Thanks RM I needed that after reading some of these responses. AL
Andre Lan"
Good!
Then it served it's purpose, and I'm thankful you told me. 
Those gargoyle's responses are flummoxing to say the least.
Commenting by HaloScan
