Word: sackful
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...That Sack's charges are of a highly personal nature about a member of this community, where a person's intellectual integrity is everything, seemed to matter for little. Before printing, out of the blue, such an unfounded assault on my character--which it cannot be emphasized enough, was not a response to anything I have said or written for over three years, but was given occasion by an AP wire story which The Crimson picked up about the Holocaust Museum's refusal to give Sack a forum to peddle his views--The Crimson did not take the journalistically responsible...
...only because of this gross irresponsibility of The Crimson in printing this sort of personal attack on me that I would even bother to respond; I have learned over the years that Sack is someone who is willing to say just about anything, including outright and highly damaging falsehoods about others, in order to gain publicity and pursue his other ends. Responding to him, unfortunately, gives him more publicity...
Here are just a few of the facts: Sack writes in his piece regarding some disputed information: "I reported this in a letter to The New Republic, but the editors (my avowed free speech defenders) wouldn't publish it, and when I bought a $425 advertisement, the editors...wouldn't publish that either." Reasonable people would conclude from this that Sack was muzzled, that he was not even accorded the decency to have his response to my review printed, that this might be an instance of the conspiracy that he has repeatedly claimed exists to silence...
...fact which Sack neglects to mention, which would reveal how misleading his statement is, is that The New Republic had already published a letter from him that took up an entire page in the Feb. 14, 1994 issue. In that letter, Sack devoted almost a full column to a discussion of this disputed information. He had his say. Did The Crimson know this before they printed this deceptive statement by Sack...
...Sack's "free speech" was not abrogated (as if "free speech" is even the issue). The stratagem employed here, to mislead thoroughly by artfully suggesting something that is never said and then by upping the ante, in this case by mentioning, "free speech," is standard fare for Sack. It is but one technique in his arsenal of such techniques (which I exposed systematically in my review), and which indicates the general character of his book and of the charges that he has made against me. All of Sack's other claims and "facts" should be read with this example...