Skip to main content

View Diary: Case for Adding TANG Forgeries to Fitzgerald's Brief (101 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sadly (none)
    No, it's apparently not a typo.  Like the man said, check the link behind the name.

    I just don't know why somebody would put such a spectacular amount of effort into a diary and then destroy his credibility with what is at best an incredibly puerile joke.

    •  I have credibility. This site is apparently (none)
      made by Jews for Jews.  How can you be anti-Semitic if you are Jewish?

      It is not a great site though and I will remove the link.

      - Sherlock

      •  what amazes me is how many comments (none)
        are posted at dKos that reveal the posters clearly didn't click the links they're commenting on.

        we see it over and over -- from comments that simply ask questions that are answered at the link, to comments like the ones right above, with incorrect assumptions about what the link represents.

        it's always good to click the link first before getting all warmed up about something -- just like it's always good to double-check that your own link works in the preview screen, before posting.

        nobody's perfect, but Sherlock Google is credible in my eyes.

        •  You only think you get it (none)
          Be as amazed as you wish.  Apparently you still don't get the point.

          Sherlock may well have credibility, but the diary as it stood had as much credibility as a religious service incorporating Mad magazine or a professional paper citing National Lampoon.  The seriousness of the entire work was compromised by inclusion of such an unserious element.  You merely assumed that nobody was clicking the link.

          For my part, I didn't call it antisemitic.  It was a glaringly unprofessional element in an otherwise professional piece of work.  Now that it has been corrected, this treatment can be cited in a much wider context.

          But just for the record, of course Jews can be antisemitic.  And gays can be homophobic and women can be misogynistic and so on.  My God, without such existential contradictions we'd lose a fair swath of literature and much of the economic subniche occupied by psychotherapists.  And we'd lose a lot of other economic and cultural output from people driven by such internal conflicts.

          •  well, if you did click the link, before going (none)
            off on how "puerile" and "sad" -- and now "unprofessional" -- I think you've violently overreacted in your description of what I see as a respectable e-mag, celebrating Jewish ethnicity, culture and spirituality in an in-your-face way, with some pretty good numbers re: demographics and number of readers on their Advertising page. Hey, for all I know, maybe they're lying when they say:

            "Since our launch in '01, we've not only managed to become one of the most widely read Jewish magazines, but have also gained a high level of credibility. We are regularly referenced and linked to by:
            Wall Street Journal
            Yahoo News

            Our Readers
            Jewsweek's readership is overwhelmingly Jewish (as you might have guessed!), young, and affluent.

            You obviously don't like the editor's sense of humor, well, you're entitled.

            This might not be the highest-class magazine, and most of it is cultural, not political, but it's just plain factually incorrect to suggest this e-mag is the equivalent of Mad magazine or National Lampoon. Parade mag is mostly non-political, too, and it's not all that high-class either, but I recall some quite good tidbits in Parade mag during the leadup to the Iraq invasion.

            I find parts of Vanity Fair pretty damn puerile, too, but that doesn't change how I feel about their good stuff.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site