Sure. I got the joke. And it is amusing. Your right.
It is not, however, proof of the underlying facts from which the metaphor crawls.
Just like iceberg metaphors abound, when it turns out that the bulk of icebergs are not mostly under water.
:-)
-cb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Michael Pollak
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 3:22 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: attn. Chip Berlet: NYTIMES goes conspiritorialist
>
>
>
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Chip Berlet wrote:
>
> > If "they" are so clever, which "they" is writing the NYT
editorials,
> > and which "they" is shredding documents for Arthur Andersen?"
>
> I could be wrong, but I think the joke was that the NYT
> editorialist seems
> to be assuming below that the lone gunman theory is absurd on
> its face and
> everybody knows it. Which is something that only
conspiratorialists
> believe, no? I'm sure it was an unintentional bit of
> metaphor slip but
> it's still a little amusing.
>
> > > From 25/01/02 Editorial:
> > >
> > > "It would certainly make life easier for Arthur Andersen
> if the world
> > > accepted its story, the accounting industry version of the
> > > lone-gunman theory."
>
> Michael
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ____________
> Michael Pollak................New York
> City..............mpollak at panix.com
>
>
>