January 23, 2004
Move along. There's nothing to see here.
The NY Times reports that no rules were broken when GOP Senate aides accessed the files and servers of Democrat Judiciary Committee members.
Since the Times has spoken, we guess that the Boston Globe story that we linked to yesterday must be wrong. After all, the NY Times never makes a mistake or spins a story to favor the party in power.
All cattiness aside, it's hard to believe that the two papers are reporting on the same story.
[Ed: added link]
[Magpie: that should teach us to blog when we aren't quite awake]
Posted by Magpie at January 23, 2004 01:58 AM | TrackBackEver wonder why that in the past 25 articles posted on this site, there have been only about 16 replies total for all of them?
I mean, it's like an opera singer, singing to an empty opera house.
This means that:
A. The content of the singing, or preaching is not worthy of the attendance of an audience
or,
B. A, again.
Posted by: Mujahi-Dean on January 23, 2004 02:11 AM(Damn trolls to rot in hell. Go away, "Mujahi-Dean," until you have something constructive to contribute.)
Magpie, your link to the NYT article is empty or broken, but I've run across it elsewhere. I tend to believe the Globe version. And even if no rules were broken, the whole business has the smell of the Watergate break-in. And I'm old enough to remember Watergate.
As I pointed out on my blog, if I leave my bicycle on my front porch, I may expect it to be stolen, but that neither justifies the theft nor exonerates the thief. Just so with the Judiciary Republican staffers who took this info. And feeding the illegally obtained Democratic files to the press deserves special attention, don't you think?
Posted by: Steve Bates on January 23, 2004 02:29 AMGo to hell majhaidean.
I'm a regular reader and not much of a poster and this is an excellent site.
Posted by: Buffalo soldier on January 23, 2004 07:20 AMNatasha hasn't always welcomed people with views different to hers. I'd comment more if I felt that wasn't so.
Magpie: your NYT link in the story is linking to this site. Is that intentional? I think the main reason to link to a NYT story these days is to laugh at them. This story is an excellent example.
Posted by: DavidByron on January 23, 2004 09:04 AMEver wonder why people such as someone like Mujahi-Dean, a person who apparently visits, reads, and pays attention to the contents of this site on a regular basis, would then post a degrading sarcastic comment as noted above about the production/readership/commenters of this site? Why would they visit this site so regularly and post such a comment?
This means that:
A) afraid of the truth, jealous of the great quality of posts, and threatened by the issues brought up here.
B)a troll
C)A and B
or,
D) C again
Perhaps the Times article is a faith-based iniative.
Posted by: theologicus on January 23, 2004 11:59 AMsorry about the link problem. i plead diminished capacity :)
the NYT story was bad even by that paper's increasingly low standards. you wouldn't have a clue that anything of significance had occurred. it really saddens me that the reporter and/or editor might actually believe that the NYT story got to the heart of the matter.
Posted by: Magpie on January 23, 2004 08:18 PMgood luck for the future. great site
Posted by: josi on January 26, 2004 04:59 AMNope, Mujahi: the audience is in the concert hall. They're just responding with awestruck silence at the bravura performance of the bloggers.
Posted by: Mr Ripley on January 29, 2004 05:12 AM