Quotes from jorian319 expressing his opinion of the Guardian-Observer, from the New York Times - Science - Missile Defense thread.

All these opinions are negative.

The significance of these comments depends on who jorian319 happens to be, and who knows it. If it is an "open secret" in the New York Times organization that jorian319 has high authority in the New York Times organization - these judgments could be consequential to the people who depend on the New York Times as a source of credible information - either directly or indirectly.

jorian319 - 09:34pm Mar 29, 2003 EST (# 10734 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/12285

The NewsMax is hardly a source of intelligent information on-pair with Foxi News.

Same (or similar) story was run in a plethora of media. Since you and Robert seem to like The Guardian (talk about bias!) go look at their version.

Then go read your own link!!

jorian319 - 09:57pm Apr 1, 2003 EST (# 10937 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/12489

Check Swaziland radio, alarmst - I'm sure they can fabricate something to your delight. OR keep reading the Guardian - pretty much that same thing. Another 48 civilian casualties here, another 197 children burned alive there... all in the amount of time that, given blessed peace, Saddam and his charming kids could have tortured a thousand or so for their amusement - which seems to be of paramount importance to SOME people here.

jorian319 - 08:50am Jun 17, 2003 EST (# 12564 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/14221

I suggest laying off "The Guardian" for a while. That rag is poisoning your mind.

jorian319 - 03:29pm Jul 11, 2003 EST (# 12957 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/14633

S'matter bbbuck? Don't like the "R" show?

How about a little patience for the Guardian of The Guardian?

jorian319 - 10:24am Sep 6, 2003 EST (# 13539 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/15231

Meanwhile, Robert, let ye be judged by the company you keep.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

As the Guardian of The Guardian, I hope you're happy with them. The above article epitomizes the reason The Guardian is nearly universally regarded as a fiction rag. That article looks to be an assemblage of conspiracy theories - I expected to see some assertions about the moon landing being bogus, holocaust never happened and the earth is indeed flat.

jorian319 - 03:30pm Sep 6, 2003 EST (# 13541 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/15233

I agree with very little that they print, and in the cases where I do agree, I generally disagree with their reasons for printing it. The Guardian is a rag IMNSHO.

Jorian319 13546 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/15238

"I will certainly not impersonate the President or any other government official. "

Woah - I was only kidding, gisterme. I'd never encourage dishonesty anyhow. I guess I should be more literal in this medium.

Re The Guardian, how would you describe the "narrow demographic" of their target? I, for one, am surprised that someone as articulate as Rshow would actually find credence in that pub.

jorian319 - 09:55am Sep 7, 2003 EST (# 13553 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/15246

...there is substantial reason to believe that gisterme is closely connected to the Bush administration

I'm sure you have your reasons for repeatedly stating that, Robert. But those "reasons" are hardly substantial. I think the same character flaw that leads you to ingest poison from The Guardian also provides "substance" to your reasons for thinking that gisterme is aggressively lying to you about his position, and about his reasons for posting here.

jorian319 - 04:08pm Sep 7, 2003 EST (# 13560 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/15253

Robert's pathetic ongoing bid to recapture the importance he felt in some past life is certainly a detriment to discourse, but it is not preclusive.

I state that recapturing some past importance (real of imagined) is Robert's mission, and I state it as a fact, which is borne out by his refusal to respond to Will's request by providing the specific quotes that led him to conclude that gisterme is some important liar. If Robert were being forthright with us, that would have been the first thing he'd do after being asked why he is stalking gisterme.

I have a hard time picturing anyone of any importance reading - let alone quoting and linking - The Guardian. It is Robert's past importance that is more in question than any other poster's current importance.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@13.tjN5bZnvEl0.0@.f28e622/15254

jorian319 - 02:34pm Sep 15, 2003 EST (# 13683 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/15376

I think it is worth checking how gisterme and Bush are related. ... When others disagree - it seems to me that they ought to think clearly about why they do.

I think they do think clearly about it, and that the resulting clarity leads them to condemn your approach.

Is it because they think gisterme is GWB ?

No. That's your own private delusion.

If so - what reasons do they have that he shouldn't be forced to admit that - and what reasons do they have that he should ?

A non-starter. Nobody but you thinks that.

Plainly, there are arguments that go both ways.

Plainly, you have failed to justify your rudeness and the conclusion you have jumped to. The argument that gisterme is Bush or someone close to him is specious at best. I would call it fantastic.

How do these arguments and reasons fit together logically?

If you're referring to the arguments that gisterme is Some Important Person, they don't fit together logically at all.

What weights ought these reasons have?

Reasons for thinking gisterme is S.I.P. ? None.

Jorian319 has some reservations about the Guardian Observer

That's not true either (boy this gets tiresome). I have no reservations whatsoever. I regard The Guardian as an unmitigated rag.

jorian319 - 03:36pm Sep 28, 2003 EST (# 14093 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/15799

There once was a rag called the Guardian

Whos stories had gaps you could party in.

It seems only fitting

To read it while sitting

On a pot that it smells sort of farty in.

©jorian2003

jorian319 - 03:15pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14677 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@@.f28e622/16388

Ooooh lookie - more Guardian crap from the guardian of The Guardian. Disgusting.

Will,

Re: signatures, I don't think it would do to just have some kind of "hot" nosecone separate at boost. It would lack key features like superhot trail of gasses etc. You'd have to have actual "live" burning rockets, which would be difficult (but not impossible) to accomplish.

I think the bottom line is that the advantage goes to the attacker if all else is equal. In the case of the USA, all else is not likely to be equal.

FTR, I think there is much greater threat from a "suitcase nuke" or cargo-container nuke than from a missile-borne one.