> Perhaps it wasn't fair of me to conject, but I admitted I was and
> was sure I'd be corrected if wrong.
And you were wrong, and were corrected.
Me - in correction.
>>Incidentally, while I support the International Criminal Court myself, I
>>I will add the Zmag, and it's related web site Znet have mentioned the
>>ICC for years, mostly in passing when discussing other subjects -
>>generally favorably towards the idea, and sarcastically toward the
>>United States for joining with China and Iraq in opposing it.
Peter
>
> This is like having your cake and eating it, too, the type of argument
> I got tired of hearing over on Znet. Again, I doubt you could produce
> an article on the subject. Ed Herman has been bashing the human
> rights groups for years, (sometimes deservedly so).
>
Your original point was that everybody politically close to Chomsky would opposed the ICC. Mentioning it favorable refutes that.
>
>
>
>
> I repeat, both sides compromised, but the significant fact this time is
> that the US did so. I'll wait and see if its reported in the next Z mag,
> I doubt it will be.
Given lead times to produce a paper magazine, I doubt it will be either. And it if it is never published in Znet, then that will mean that Znet does not give it the same priority you do. This is not the same as "opposing the ICC". In other words this is squirming on your part. You attribued a particular postion - opposing the ICC to Chomsky and others. Your evidence was lack of articles on the subject. When pointed out that that it was supported in a variety of articles, you call it "having your cake and eating it too". In other words you are demanding that Zmag not only support the ICC but give the same priority to it, and the "backdown" that you do. This is why I was a bit patronizing. As lbo-talks official "typo boy" I was not patronizing your grammar, but your logic - which is normally better.