Sunday, April 06, 2008
Comments and Policies
Comment policies:
- Any comments containing personal attacks will be removed.
- Any comments with inappropriate language will be removed.
- Radically off-topic comments will be removed.
- In sum, we will not edit any comments, ever, but may remove comments at our discretion.
- If you're really concerned that we will delete your comment, save a copy so that you can post it elsewhere. After all, if it's on your site, then we can't do anything about it other than link to and argue with you.
- UPDATE: This isn't so much a rule as a request: please use a name when posting. It doesn't have to be your real name, just something that will distinguish you from other anonymous commenters.
Posted by A.S. Erickson at 5:05 PM
Comments
Posted by — April 07, 2008 7:24 AM
What this Anonymous poster does not understand about the First Amendment is that, while he has the right to express what he wants about the war in Iraq or any other topic, neither the Review nor any other media outlet has any constitutional, legal, or moral obligation to publish it.
Posted by — April 07, 2008 8:53 AM
I'm pretty sure it was a joke. Inappropriate language, off-topic, and at least arguably a personal attack all in 1 short sentence.
Posted by — April 07, 2008 9:32 AM
I suppose you're right. What little sense of humor I have was overcome by the attitude reflected in the posting (even if it wasn't the writer's) that unfortunately is common in some quarters.
Posted by — April 07, 2008 10:19 AM
A.S., do you plan to respond to Phil Aubart's unattributed use of material from the Review in the D?
Aubart: "Spalding, the executive committee secretary -- and also the College's vice-president for Alumni Relations -- stated in a committee meeting that the administration [..] would spare no effort in ensuring the defeat of lawsuit supporters."
The Review, quoting Frank Gado: "At a meeting not long ago, Executive Committee Secretary David Spalding, who is also the College’s Vice President of Alumni Relations, stated that the administration would spare no effort in order to defeat those of us who have opposed the Board’s actions."
Posted by — April 07, 2008 3:42 PM
Silverman's willful omission of the judge's contradiction of what Daukas and Bradley had confabulated in their amicus brief is astounding. It is a bit like taking credit for the Ptolemaic System while failing to mention Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Alpher, and Gamow, among others.
Similarly, Hutchinson repeats Spalding's assertion that the trustees responded swiftly to the single request we made for discussion with the Governance Committee of the Board. This despite the fact that Hutchinson himself wrote the letter sent to the trustees at the start of the summer--a letter which was never so much as acknowledged by the Board. And dspite the fact that, when Hutchinson, without authorization, arranged to meet with Haldeman, the EC specifically stated that he was not to present himself as in any way representing the EC except to propose conferences between the AoA's Govenrnance Committee and corresponding committee of the Board. Nor are these rebuffed invitations, a matter or record, isolated. Anyone who wishes the spend the time can play the recordings of our EC meetings and hear the evidence. And if that is not enough, there are numerous email files I can make available.
The reckless mendacity that characterizes the claims of the Dartmouth Undying campaign is without precedent in the annals of Dartmouth.
Frank Gado '58
Posted by Tom Paine — April 25, 2008 6:17 PM
(we enforce our comments policy)
|
