Signing off

[Jeffrey Goldberg <{$news}$@goldmark.org>]

I am making my apologies for bowing out of existing threads in which I am
involved.  I don't expect to post more here.

I simply find the killfile mechanism of my newsreader insufficient to cope
with this group.  (It its threading sucks too, but it is a great mailer so
I use it for mail and news.)

There are some of you here (with whom I disagree) whose comments and
insights I definitely find worth reading.  But I have found myself
sickened on the one hand by the "nuke the raghead" yahoos.  And on the
other hand, I find myself saddened by the "moral equivalant" crowd (eg,
"What about Hiroshima, Dresden, the West Bank, the Native Americans,
etc?")

While it may seem trivial in comparison it is really the overquoting
top-posters have made this group so unreadable.  One final plea, please
follow the advice of http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html

So, sorry for not responding to various questions that have been put to
me, but think about it as me yielding the last word to those who asked
them.

To some of you I have looked like a vicous hawk for my statements that
deterrence requires a real war to unseat regimes which harbor terrorits,
and that war shouldn't be shied away from despite the horrible fact that
innocent civilians and innocent conscripts will be killed.

To others of you I have looked like a wimpering peace-nik for deploring
suggestions of massive attacks against Islamic people.

To some of you I've seemed like like a Palestinian apologist for
suggesting that the US should not have been supporting Isreal to the
extent that it has been.

To others, I must seem like a Zionist for almost never having anything
good to say about the Palestinian cause.

To others, I must have seemed heartless by always thinking strategically.

While to others, I must have seemed overly sentimental in my more
"personal" writing.

Probably most of you have largely ignored me (so why are you reading
this?)

Anyway, I don't consider my position contradictory.  And I am accustomed
to disagreeing with both sides in a debate.

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg
 I have recently moved, see http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/contact.html
 Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
 From line IS valid, but use reply-to.