On 5/24/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
relevant enough to be put in the first line. If at all it has
to be brought up, it should be added in a way that makes it seem
I disagree. If it has to be brought up, it should be introduced in a
way that shows it's very significant indeed. Because if we can't
honestly say it's relevant, we should not be saying it at all.
The reason [[Abu Hamza al-Masri]] raised it during his trial in the UK
was as evidence that the British Foreign Office and media is
controlled by Jews. Why did he believe this? Because Harold Shipman's
Jewish background wasn't mentioned by the media during coverage of
Shipman's murders. Ergo, Jews are in control. That either (a) Shipman
didn't have a Jewish background or (b) he did but the media rightly
dismissed it as irrelevant, is not entertained. For Abu Hamza al-Masri
and his namesake on this mailing list, there's no such thing as
editorial judgment. There are only Jewish conspiracies.