Difference between revisions of "Talk:Paul Hoffman"
Bob Burton (talk | contribs) (query: note sure the citations clearly support the description "US-centric") |
(you are right, and i will remedy this) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
The AI release seems to respond to an unspecified accusation that the paper would introduce "new issues" but it is unclear what these were. On my reading of the abstract there's nothing there that I wouldn't expect AI to say so I'm not sure that it lends weight to the description of it being "too "US-centric". Or is there something I'm missing? (If so, I suspect other readers will have the same problem). I think the problem is that the term "US-centric" is ambiguous as to what the specific criticisms were.--[[User:Bob Burton|Bob Burton]] 17:47, 11 Dec 2004 (EST) | The AI release seems to respond to an unspecified accusation that the paper would introduce "new issues" but it is unclear what these were. On my reading of the abstract there's nothing there that I wouldn't expect AI to say so I'm not sure that it lends weight to the description of it being "too "US-centric". Or is there something I'm missing? (If so, I suspect other readers will have the same problem). I think the problem is that the term "US-centric" is ambiguous as to what the specific criticisms were.--[[User:Bob Burton|Bob Burton]] 17:47, 11 Dec 2004 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hi Bob; | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yes, I will expand on this. I am looking for the references online, and may rewrite this to put it in context with the recent ruminations by Schulz. Schulz & Hoffman are pushing the same theme. John Pilger has some references about this, and I will attach my criticism of Schulz and tie it in with the Hoffman incident. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Kind rgds | ||
| + | PaulR | ||
Latest revision as of 23:34, 11 December 2004
Paulo,
I'm afraid I don't quite follow the argument re AI/UNESCO. The lead par states " On May 17, 2004, AI pulled out of a UNESCO meeting because it found Hoffman's position on the "war on terror" too US-centric".
However on reading the AI release and the summary of Hoffman's paper neither indicates that the withdrawal was because the presentation was "too US-Centric". Maybe that is stated somewhere else.
The AI release seems to respond to an unspecified accusation that the paper would introduce "new issues" but it is unclear what these were. On my reading of the abstract there's nothing there that I wouldn't expect AI to say so I'm not sure that it lends weight to the description of it being "too "US-centric". Or is there something I'm missing? (If so, I suspect other readers will have the same problem). I think the problem is that the term "US-centric" is ambiguous as to what the specific criticisms were.--Bob Burton 17:47, 11 Dec 2004 (EST)
Hi Bob;
Yes, I will expand on this. I am looking for the references online, and may rewrite this to put it in context with the recent ruminations by Schulz. Schulz & Hoffman are pushing the same theme. John Pilger has some references about this, and I will attach my criticism of Schulz and tie it in with the Hoffman incident.
Kind rgds PaulR
