Sorry to keep going: But I just came across a Q&A on Thompson with Taibbi, and he says the same thing about categorizing Thompson, but from the other direction: That he was the only gonzo journalist. Which sounds right to me.

We are eye-to-eye. Grouping Thompson with Wolfe and Talese doesn’t feel right. They were always striving for respectability, belonging, and their work and selves seem fundamentally conservative — not capital C. Thompson never gave any impression that he was pursuing anything as banal as a career or a legacy. I feel…

Harsh on Thompson. Can’t stand one sentence of Mailer and I gave up on Updike three quarters of the way through “Rabbit, Run.” Tom Wolfe and Gay Talese always gave me the creeps with their affectations and was never impressed with their work. Thompson, though, was a genuine iconoclast and I miss him every electoral…

Katherine Boo has spent time with and written about people that Gay Talese, in his prime, would have fainted over the concept of meeting.

Yeah, agreed. “Inspired” is kind of a stupid thing to ask an established writer to say/admit to. Dumb journalism word and concept. But the generalizations are so stupid.

Nintendo’s claim about Rapp’s dismissal is being taken with an undeserved credulity. I guess you’re probably being professionally reticent about the dubiousness of those claims, but on Twitter, at least, I have noticed people who really shouldn’t treating the moonlighting justification as other than a mere pretext. Is…

Came here to ask wtf about that choice.

You know, my response has been bugging me. I don’t want to sound like the jingoistic morons I am responding to. Trivial was in comparison to the costs and contributions of the U.K., the country that is being said here to have been saved by the U.S. in both world wars. That is a boorish, rude and ... gross opinion, and…

“The UK and France certainly contributed much, much more the the overall war effort than the US, of course”

Let’s be honest: Read a fucking book. It doesn’t even have to be one about WWI; it would do you good, anyway. You’re completely ignorant. U.S. involvement in WWI was trivial and after the fact. The only country you could argue you “saved” in WWII is France. I can understand why you might get the two countries…

On the one hand, there’s the overwhelming weight of historical fact. On the other,that is a picture. The U.S. was hardly involved in WWI, and the Battle of Britain, in II, was won by the time it arrived again.

But your position depends on there being something in the email that hasn’t been shown! And even if it is, he’s not violated an off-the-record promise.

I think you’re a little confused; it’s not illegal to break an off-the-record promise, either. It’s purely a question of ethics, and here, his are sound. Walton didn’t make one mention of not wanting to be quoted, not wanting to be on-the-record, not wanting to comment. She disavowed both sides and offered some…

In standard journalistic practice, for a conversation to be off-the-record both parties have to agree. Walton didn’t even ask for it to be off-the-record.

What you mean is that it’s not a first amendment violation.

Off-the-record must be agreed to. One doesn’t just get to send emails saying you don’t want your already public remarks to be written about.

See, one can’t say this and simultaneously assert the club is a complete laughingstock whose name has become synonymous with failure. That is what the English media, mostly, has done, as well as a large proportion of the public. Maybe not you. But seriously: Is it a club whose record of success both past and recent,…

I’m going to be charitable and assume “excuse” is not what you really mean, and that you ended up using it because the OP did.

The Guardian: “It was a clear penalty and the referee Michael Oliver’s decision to wave play on was bewildering, to say the least, with potentially serious ramifications for City when Coutinho equalised in the 83rd minute with Liverpool’s first shot on target.”

Immaterial especially since that’s not actually in the laws.