Reporter charged with espionage

Uh-oh. Sudan has a very, very bad reputation for justice. (How did it get this reputation - from journalists).

A lot of governments would like to do that.

 

Just think, if the neocons had their way, Bush could arrest journalists for writing the "wrong news."

 

And how did you hear of it?

Wow, indeed, if you really think that is was my point and not the point of those bent on suppressing the press.

 

I always do, but then, I know what I mean beforehand.

 

Originally Posted by El_Guero
you might want to read what you wrote.

Sorry, Daisy -- I don't think you got it this time around. It's sort of a double entendre, without the being risque, of course. Try reading it again.

 

The guy was on assignment for National Geographic, but journalists need to stay away from these muslim countries. The trumped up charges are usually the same - spying. muslim regimes are a paranoid lot. What is there to spy on? Everyone knows they have been committing genocide for decades.

 

You'll have to explain because I don't know what you're getting at.

 

Wait a moment - I didn't say anything about the muslim countries' reputations - I was speaking specifically about Sudan.

Bingo.

But what was the double entendre Not_hard_to_find spoke of?

 

Only? You're adding your own embellishments to what I said.

You took it that way, I explained, you persist.

What fun.

 

I explained what I meant, hoping to correct your misunderstanding, but that, apparently, is uncorrectable.

What I called 'fun', sarcastically, was your persistant, deliberate misunderstanding.

Your embellishment was saying that the "only" belonged to me when it was your own addition. There are books, blogs, message boards, documentaries, travel magazines, advisaries from the State Department, interviews on BookTV, musicians who talk about life back home...

So are you claiming that if the reporters didn't report the atrocities, if it were not in the news, Sudan's reputation would not be atrocious? If nothing is known, then there is no reputation of any kind, good or bad.

 

Dread for the reporter's fate and annoyance that you kept misattributing to me sentiments I did not express.

If you know what I wrote, why do you keep adding sentiments which aren't there?

First off, I have not addressed the subject of "Sudanese muslims" one way or the other. Any sentiment towards them or belief about them that you attribute to me is speculation on your part. Do you need this spelt out more clearly?

Second, the "Uh-oh" in my original post to this thread expresses my fear for Paul Salopek's likely fate. Clear?

Third, my "Sudan has a very, very bad reputation for justice" expresses my opinion that Mr. Salopek is likely to suffer gross injustice and bodily harm from the Sudanese government and the pro-government forces who abducted him. Capisce?

Fourth, my "Sudan has a very, very bad reputation for justice" is based on the reports of atrocities committed by the Sudanese government and the pro-government forces. Is that clear?

Fifth, I believe it is the next, parenthetical part you have the greatest trouble comprehending: "(How did it get this reputation - from journalists)." Note that I did not say, nor intend to imply, that the journalists were not accurate. Do you understand this now?

Sixth, it is ironic because Mr. Salopek is charged with disseminating "false news", but I very strongly suspect (and I get the impression that most here do) that he was detained for, as Laurie Partridge famously remarked, "spreading vicious truths". Is my position on this clear to you now?

I did not speak of "muslims" - that is your addition and interpretation. Surely, this is clear by now?

Again, I did not address the subject of "sudanese muslims". Grasp that?

Neither did I say what you would or would not know, but how it would be possible for a person to know - add to that that many people here have been missionaries or personally know missionaries. Some missionaries and anti-slavery activists have gone to Sudan and lived to tell the tale when they returned. Do you understand now why I object to your gratuitous insertion of that "only" into my statement, apart from my not having said it?

I'll take you at your word that you honestly don't understand, but are trying. I hope the above does it for you.

Is that the royal us? Spelt & respelt, just for you, Wayne.

NB. Not a single "sic", as tempting as it was.