So the NYT drops their Paterson bombshell and I fucking laugh my ass off.

[xultar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/nyregion/17aide.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Seriously. WTF. They need to get in a circle and kick each others asses simultaneously. Am I the only one shaking my head and wondering WTF all the hubbub was about. Seriously nothing to see at all, bullshit frankly. If that is what passes as a bombshell we'll have to get microscopes to see fireworks.

NYT has fucking jumped the goddamned whale shark.

[JackBeck]

1. Two words:

Judith. Miller.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[applegrove]

2. I don't think a serial assaulter should be near power. That is pretty creepy.

[xultar]

4. But it ain't no dayum bombshell. I mean if he'd confessed to killing his lover then maybe

we have something in the bombshell neighborhood or some shit but as it stands the NYT looks silly.

Unless, they shelved the real story in favor of this because they couldn't get people to go on the record with the truth about the bombshell.

[frazzled]

6. I guess you don't think assaulting women is a character problem

Just a little nothing, eh. I find it disturbing that everyone from Patterson down to some here think this is not an issue. More than half the population of New York State consists of women. I have a feeling they disagree with you.

[JackBeck]

7. Instead of making assumptions about what others think

How about asking them for a clarification?

Since you began your statement with "I guess..." means you are taking a leap of faith in defining the beliefs of the poster you responded to.

From what I see, I think that xultar is mocking the hyped-up shoddy reporting of the NYTimes, rather than commenting on the character flaws of Paterson's personal entourage.

[frazzled]

8. The post spoke for itself.

The OP said that it would have to rise to the level of murder for a story to be of any interest. Simply punching or assaulting a woman is not a story. I disagree. As do others here.

This story has absolutely fucking nothing to do with Judith Miller or any previous transgressions of the New York Times. Let's look at the issues on the table, not on your preconceived notions about newspapers.

[JackBeck]

9. Physical violence against women isn't a bombshell.

Those of us that work in social justice are not phased by the New York Times story since we almost daily come into contact with women who are survivors of violence.

Like I said in my previous post, I find it kind of disturbing that you make assumptions about the poster you responded to when you began your post with "I guess you don't think...".

[frazzled]

10. I rest my case.

Your attitude, and that of the OP, is that physical violence against women is just another ho-hum. See it everyday, thus it is not a bombshell. We see everything from extra-marital sex to murder everyday too. That doesn't make it a non-issue if a high-level government employee does it.

Disgusting.

[Crabby Appleton]

5. I agree, not a bombshell. nt