>>>>I really get annoyed sometimes when the Times is dismissed as some loony left wing attack dog. When people say that I know they are picking it up from right wing "pundits" and don't even read the damn paper.
>>>
>>>Why should they read "the damn paper"? Life is short and reading sources are unlimited. Hopefully, you don't suggest pushing your favorite reading down the other people throats?
>>
>>You're surely not proposing to just have the public reject and condemn the writing as if they read it, in the true and tried communist manner?
>
>Your communist expertise is beyond any questions, Dragan, but you should not invoke it in so determined manner.

I left the determination to you. At least I expected "You're surely not proposing" to be understood in that mode, but English is not my maternal tongue. Maybe there were better ways to express such an intention.

> It means that any perceived slight against your favorite communal issues is not necessarily communist conspiracy.

But it is a great American tradition, seeing communism in anything one doesn't like. Only yesterday I heard comments quoting someone important (on the radio, didn't memorize the names) shouting "it's socialism!" about the government bailouts. And this thing about condemning without reading is exactly what was done to Dušan Makavejev and his movie "WR or mysteries of organism" in 1971. There was a whole campaign to condemn a movie which nobody saw.

Why did you feel the need to insert "conspiracy" into this? There's nothing clandestine here, it's so open. We're talking about method here ("manner" as I put it). It's just a simple political fight, getting the oponent's views summarily dismissed by labeling them as this or that, and having one whole house and anything that it publishes thrown out the window by the masses so that they have no voice in further discussion but to try to defend themselves. That's no conspiracy, it's simple labeling.