Friday, September 18, 1998
We got 29 letters about the Starr report to date, only one of which
was even vaguely pro-Clinton (from Ron Tolle below) and only one of
which was truly funny (from Steve Langford).
Every one of the anti letters uniformly excoriated
us for suggesting that no one outside Washington gave a rat's ass
about the entire issue. Clearly these people care a great deal. One
gets the impression that they are mad because a pot smoking, draft
dodging, adulterous lier got elected president in the first place -
and what's more still enjoys substantial political support from 60% of
the electorate (according to the polls). The tone of the letters
suggests that these correspondents find it inconceivable that anyone
would not care about these dastardly goings on.
The media are polling like mad asking all sorts of questions about
support for the president and about his just fate. But we noticed that
all the poll questions contain one huge built in assumption - you
guessed it, that the polee gives a rat's ass about any of this. None
of the polls seem to have choice C - "I don't really care, and don't
ever call me again when I'm having dinner". To remedy this monumental
media oversight we have
a little poll of
our own going in this week's issue. We'll see what comes of that.
In any event, here are the letters for your reading pleasure, along
with some of our replies - until we stopped bothering with what was
turining into an obvious flame war. - AB
Please, keep your personal politics out of NSD. Every thinking person knows this is not about Clinton's sexual antics. It's about what happened after all those things he so contritely apologized for. Namely, lying under oath, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, etc. It's not about sex - it's about breaking the law. But if Congress wants to wash their hands and leave matters of law to a public opinion poll, then we have a sorry state of affairs indeed.
Clinton doesn't need to apologize to anyone but his wife and daughter for violating their trust. If Clinton wants to apologize to the people, it should be for wasting $40,000,000 dollars of taxpayer money.
Bob Rankin
Why should we keep our personal politics out of NSD?
We're not some exalted impartial news machine. We've got views, and NSD is
nothing if not an opinionated view of the world from all of us. Some people
like us because of our views, some people despite them, and the rest go
their merry way with our good wishes.
For the record, I don't have any particularly strong views about Clinton
politically. In my view, he's a professional pol, no better and no worse
than any other. He does the legislative job he's been trained for and he's
not incompetent - sadly, that's about all we can expect from our elected
officials these days. Take that into account reading the rest of this
offhand reply rant of mine.
Everybody but the congenitally naive knew he was lying about Monica ages
ago. The vast majority of those who even bother following this story
couldn't care less that he was lying about his private affairs. It's got
nothing to do with his performance in office. In fact I could make a good
case for him being a happier and thus more effective at his job if he was
getting a blow job every now and again, something with which Hilary was
obviously not providing him (read the report, it's in there).
As for breaking the law, an aging lothario lying about boffing some very
willing young thing on the side is the political equivalent of a speeding
ticket. Perspective is all. There's lying and then there's lying. If he was
lying about taking bribes, or about rigging elections, or about putting out
a hit on Rush Limbaugh - that's a whole different ballgame.
The only overwhelming evidence is that he lied to cover up an embarrassing
personal tryst. By all poll accounts, most people have already discounted
all that. Witness tampering, obstruction of justice? Starr is reaching on
those. Even if he's got a circumstantial case (not by my reading), so what?
If you posit that the investigation of his personal life was unjust in the
first place - and a lot of people think that - how can you condemn the man
for trying to fight back? Besides, toss enough lawyers armed with subpoenas
at anybody and they could convict the poor bastard even if he stayed in bed
all day.
And, Hell, Congress has been run by polls for decades, and yes, we've had a
sorry state of affairs for decades. Very few congresscritters have the
balls to stand on their principles. Nevertheless, the great Republic for
which we stand at every ballgame is still intact and by all accounts
thriving. I orgasm in awe every time I contemplate that miraculous fact.
Clinton need not apologize for wasting $40,000,000 dollars. If you recall,
the original investigation was all about Whitewater, Travelgate, etc. Not a
word of either in the report, is there? There's your wasted $40+ mil.
Well, this is surely a political argument and there are seldom any winners
to such blather. Except the publishers who always get the last word. :) -
AB
Wishful thinking does not make something true. Many Americans outside the Beltway do, in fact, care that our President committed perjury in the Paula Jones trial. Many care that for seven months our President lied to the people he is to serve, ruined the lives and reputations of the people involved in this scandal, and has repeatedly refused to take full responsibility for his actions.
So while you may wish that "Lewinsky-gate" were just a matter of a man trying to keep his private life private, it is not that simple. If your own mother or sister were in Paula Jones's situation, you would hope that the person she accused of sexually harassing her was held to the same standard of honesty under oath as every person in this country is held. The fact that the accused is the President of the United States in no way diminishes his responsibility to tell the truth under oath.
Del and Stacy Simmons
The diatribe was fun to write, and I like to stir up
the reader's nest now and again. Keeps their brain cells working.
Do many care? Many is a wonderfully ambiguous number which can be applied
to any number greater than one. Sure, many care. Do most? Not in my
estimation. It's an opinion, to be sure - you can argue with it, so go
right ahead and enjoy yourself.
As far as lying under oath for stupid personal reasons (not bribery, not
election tampering, not murder) - well, sometimes the law as groped by a
political prosecutor is an ass. My cynical view is that at those rarified
levels the law is a political tool and has little to do with justice.
(Hell, the Simpson case and most corporate litigation prove that the law
has little to do with justice and more to do with hotshot legal teams.)
There are lies and there are lies. A man who does not know how to lie for
political reasons is not qualified to be President. It's a harsh world and
I don't want a moral virgin with his finger on the button. We overlook
their little lies (viz. campaign promises) and kick their butt for the big
ones (viz. Nixon). You can argue whether Clinton's lie was big or little.
That's politics and it will play itself out on the waves of voter sentiment
as it always has.
As for Paula, if my mother or sister acted like that, I'd disown her. A guy
came on to her (crudely, I'll grant you), she said no (quite properly),
nothing bad ever happened because of it, he never propositioned her again,
and years later she sues him for some notoriety and ready cash. Those are
the facts as nearly as I can make them out and I find the plaintiff's
motives rather repugnant.
None of the principles come out clean in this whole sorry mess. But then,
whose life can stand up under that kind of scrutiny? Can yours?
Anyway, thanks for contributing. - AB
I'm beginning to wonder if I want to even receive NSD after the caustic and myopic comment that "Just about nobody outside of Washington DC gives a rats behind about this issue anymore". I can forgive the fact that your writer's English is poor, since the leftist politics is a sure giveaway of a public school education. I also understand that this writer can do nothing about the genes life dealt them; perhaps they are not to blame if they lack the mental capacity to rise above the systemic limitations imposed by public school educators, who were likewise rewarded for bureaucratic group-think. But please, don't insult my intelligence and treat me as though I was a moron, someone incapable of grasping events beyond my own circle of friends and self-interest.
I give more than a "rat's behind" and so do millions of others who live beyond the narrow, dark streets of citified prognosticators. Sex is not the key issue here and to say it is, to belittle our interest in keeping America strong, is to be dishonest in one's assessment of the facts. What we've got here is much more than a President who trying to keep his private life private. We have a President who lied like no other President ever lied: he lied to his cabinet, to Senators and Congressman, to the American people, and he compounded the lie by using the power of his office to obstruct the investigation. It was Bill who cost the taxpayers 25 or 30 million of that 40 million figure, and he had the gall to tell us Ken Starr was the evil one who was misusing our tax dollars!
Here in rural America, from the hills of West Virginia to our vast heartland to small towns on our west coast, Americans who still hold onto the timeless values of right and wrong, who have children for whom they wish to provide moral standards, as well as an understanding that good character is a virtue, are fed up with the tired old line that this is about private sex. These acts were performed on property we, the American people own, and on our time! I personally understand that all of us can be tempted to do the wrong thing, but we expect more, not less of our public officials.
Ethical lines have been crossed here way beyond the scope of a simple affair. Very few Americans would want to oust a President who was having an affair with someone they loved other than their wife. But President Clinton's extramarital sex life is not about love, it is about sexual perversion, and a pattern of endless affairs that has gotten him in trouble throughout his adult life. Now I ask you, who in his right mind is going to bring a total stranger (Paula Jones) into their presence, sit them down on the couch, proceed to expose their genitals and then expect the other person to fall in love with what they see? Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Jennifer Flowers, and all the others were the truth tellers. Bill Clinton not only lied, he tried to destroy these women. He is guilty of more than sexual harassment here.
Americans who still hold the basic values that made America the strong country she is today are sick of hearing from materialistic sell-outs who long ago gave up ethical standards of conduct in exchange for the false financial security and the empty promises of "smoke and mirrors Bill". And we are not naive enough to fail to see that empty promises are not limited to Bill or the liberals. The Republicans are equally culpable! But empty promises and outright lying are two different things.
A liar's lies are not limited to the few that have found them out. What is the true status of our military strength, now that Bill has declared war on terrorism? Can we trust him to tell us the truth? Does anyone care that his unprecedented abuses of Presidential power extend to bypassing the FBI and the State Department in a quid pro quo for Chinese campaign money, so that he could give the Communist Chinese both encryption and satellite secrets? Would you care if your son or daughter was in a city the Chinese destroyed with missiles that were previously incapable of reaching the United States? Freedom depends on vigilance, and my instincts regarding the Chinese campaign finance connections are now backed up by a growing body of evidence, all of which is telling us this President is guilty of much more than a sexual indiscretion, that he is a liar that cannot be trusted to run this country with the cooperative mandate We the People expect from our leaders. And if they don't perform as they should, we have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to send them packing!
Leroy Grey
Umm, Leroy? "...As though I was a moron" should be "...as though I were a moron". "Congressman" should be "congressmen", a classification which, by the way, includes senators. Her name is Gennifer Flowers. I guess I'll take this opportunity to point out that because of a time squeeze, the Starr Report article didn't go through the usual editorial channels, and thus it contained a few more errors than normal - LN
Wow, I haven't read such wonderfully patriotic drivel since I studied Cold
War anti-commie rhetoric.
I am also driven to note that dividing the world neatly into leftist and
rightist politics is a reflection of the failure to educating one's self
about the complexities of the modern world. My politics are rather more
interesting then you give me credit for. I will however cop to the
grammatical errors and blame Society.
Thanks, sincerely, for taking the time to write. - AB
Your analysis of the mood and concerns of the voting populace of the United States is dead wrong. Where do you get your information, and how can you state so brazenly that "Just about nobody outside of Washington DC gives a rats behind about this issue anymore." What an arrogant and mindless statement!
I have asked to unsubscribe to your newsletter. I really have no interest in receiving any more of this material!
Daniel Mappus
See the current issue 04.28 for a poll which will prove one of us wrong. - AB
I, for one, still care about Starr Report. Let me say right up front that I am a lifelong (very) liberal Democrat who thinks that Clinton's political agenda is if anything too far to the right, and that I am also a confirmed atheist who thinks that the so-called "Religious Right" should crawl back into the hole that it came from, so please don't think that my disgust with Clinton is either a partisan or moral issue.
That said, I care very much about the issue, and I think that Clinton should resign ASAP because he lied to the American public for seven months; he allowed his friends to rack up huge legal bills defending themselves before the "Starr Chamber" and look like fools publicly defending him when it became obvious that he was lying; and, when finally confronted with physical evidence of his prevarication, he fell back on the linguistic hair-splitting for which he has become notorious.
Come on! The issue is not whether Clinton got a hummer or ten in the Oval Office: we all knew his peccadilloes when we voted for him (at least I did). The issue is not even whether Starr had any business investigating the whole situation (he didn't). The issue is ethics: Clinton, to all appearances, lied under oath in court, and then lied to the public about it, and tried to stonewall any way he could, with spurious claims of executive privilege and possible obstruction of justice. That brought down Nixon, and rightly so. If Clinton has indulged in the same behavior, and from the available evidence it is rather likely that he has, he has to go.
The problem is not what Clinton did in his private life, which, to be frank, I have no objections to (although I do find it curious that he seems to pursue women who are less attractive than his wife). The problem is his response to the inquiry: if the President commits or suborns perjury, regardless of his motives, he can no longer be trusted, especially a President with as casual a relationship to the truth as Clinton (I inhale, and I roll my eyes whenever I think of his response on that one...).
I don't think Clinton is a bad person, and he's certainly the best President we've had in a long while (Reagan, anyone? Bush? Feh!), but trustworthiness is one of the key elements one needs to be an effective President. Clinton has shown his to be on a par with Nixon's, and for the good of the Democratic Party, I say "dump the sucka!"
Joe Cogan
Quite the contrary. There are many Americans interested in the Starr Report. We are also interested in the reports from the other two Starr grand juries which will concern Filegate, Whitewatergate, Travelgate, ad infinitum-gate....
John Cummins
Fascinating. How did you conclude "Just about nobody outside of Washington DC gives a rats behind about this issue anymore"?
"What we've got here is a public man desperately trying to keep his private life private and being crucified for it." Wow! So a whole lot of other folks were just under the misinterpretation that it was about perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. Just silly I guess. Thanks for setting that straight.
By the way, I had no idea NSD actually originates from Whitehouse.org.
Felix Grabowski
Giving a rat's in Washington State. America wake up!
Nwspirit
Please don't start with political spin doctoring. I get enough of that everywhere else. Keep your politics to yourself. Get back to what you do best.
If you intend to keep up with the political BS cancel me now and save me the trouble of doing it later.
Richard Ulrich
I think that what we really need is more details, not fewer! For instance:
Was the cigar Cuban (illegal)?
Was it lit?
If so, which end was inserted first?
Is this one of the times Lewdwinky reached orgasm?
If he smoked it at all, did Little Billy smoke the cigar completely?
Is there anything left which could be used to assure that it was Lewdwinky's DNA, not Willy's or another of many possible consorts - e.g. Hilariosly's?
What is the best brand of cigar for such purpose?
Put Billy out to stud. Let's get a real man in the White House, if one can be found.
Steve Langford
Read this, you hypocritical apologist:
"Yes, the President should resign. He has lied to the American people, time and time again, and betrayed their trust. Since he has admitted guilt, there is no reason to put the American people through an impeachment. He will serve absolutely no purpose in finishing out his term, the only possible solution is for the President to save some dignity and resign."
- 12th Congressional District hopeful William Jefferson Clinton, during the Nixon investigations in 1972.
Al
Your comments about this so-called report from Ken Starr were right on target. This whole mess will go down in history as the biggest and most vicious witch-hunt since the McCarthy era, and Mr. Starr can count on going down in the history books as the poisonous little drone that he is.
Ron Tolle
Please keep your political opinions out of your publications. Contrary to your writer's beliefs, many of us out here do give a rat's ass that the nation's chief law enforcement officer and commander-in-chief lied while under oath! Sixty percent of voters in Time's online poll think he should resign. Your remarks probably offended more readers than you think. Besides, if no one cares, how come every news site on the Net was inaccessible when the report was released?
Every person who works for the government in sensitive areas is put under the same scrutiny when they undergo FBI background checks for security clearances and for Clinton to believe he is above that is ridiculous. When you work for Big Brother, your private life is null and void and if you don't like it, you better choose a non-government career. Clinton's own actions and reactions led this investigation down the path it took.
At any rate, the purpose of writing this isn't to argue opinion but to suggest that you save it for Netsurfer Politics 1.01.
Shawn Donovan - Portage, Michigan
Gee, Netsurfer Digest, tell us how you really feel....
Berry
I'm sorry, but you've got it wrong. We have here a former law professor, the most powerful man on earth, who lied under oath about having sexual relations with an intern barely out of her teens. He is not being crucified. He is being asked to resign because of his totally unacceptable behavior.
H Greenberg
This is not an issue about a man trying to keep his private life private. It is about lying under oath, abuse of power, and sexual harassment in the workplace. While you may not agree, I feel it would have been more responsible of you to at least mention them instead of your dismissive attitude.
I am a lifelong Democrat and voted for Mr. Clinton twice, yet I now feel he should step down from office, and if he will not, should be impeached.
Harrison Judd
What are you guys smoking? "Just about nobody outside of Washington DC gives a rats behind about this issue anymore" yet "...the official report distribution sites were totally inaccessible." Who wrote that, Yogi "that place is so crowded, nobody goes there anymore" Berra?
Since when is sex in the workplace with an intern half your age considered your private life? Not to mention that he looked his management (us) straight in the eye and lied about it. Just try that in any company in America and see if the boss doesn't care. Is that tolerated on the premises of NSD?
How about that Air Force pilot who's career was destroyed because she had sex with a separated/married man. It was a big issue because she had access to nuclear weapons and her dishonesty proved her unfit for the job. Slick Willy sat by and let it happen even while he was engaged in an illicit affair himself. Get his sorry ass outta here!
Tim Quinn
Your editorializing about the Ken Starr report is unbelievable to me. How dare you presume to speak for me and the rest the country. I intend to read it all because I want to know what the President did in the White House, on the job, with a subordinate. I've been a subscriber to NSD for several years. You've insulted me and I will not stand for it. I'm outta here. You should be ashamed.
Kathleen Carey - Granite Bay, California
Who the hell do you think you are? Better yet, who do you think we are? You need to do some real soul searching. Give some thought to how many Americans have died to keep this experiment in humanity going. Think about how seriously the writers of the Constitution had to take the future of this country to write the Constitution in a way that was not just pertinent to their horse-and-buggy, lamp-oil lives, but relevant more than 200 years later.
People do care about this country, and do still want to take pride in our government and our people. The dirt of which you speak was only included, I believe, to show that whether Mr. Clinton called it dirt, or dust saturated with waste, or dry pond scum, dirt is dirt. The vast majority of voters would get no mileage with their spouse using any of the President's legalese. A principal, a superintendent, even a janitor, would be toast. How can we expect less from our President?
He and his spinners should not get away with saying his private life should be private. It is not when his is being sued for using his position to hit on Paula Jones. He took advantage of his position to hit on a woman that he should have told to grow up. How much respect for the office and the people of this country can this man have? Please give some thought to what you are trying to do with your digest.
Dennis Samsel
The vast majority really expect some honesty and virtue, someone for the children to look up to and set decent standards.
Herb
You said that a lot of people just want to read the dirty parts in the Starr Report. You went on to say that it was a lot like reading all of "Moby Dick" just to get to the part which says, "Thar she blows." Did you really mean to be funny or is it my mind that is sick? I mean, we all saw how "she" was blowing the President....
Jack Cleary
Boy, are you wrong when you say no one cares about having a criminal and moral leper as President. You aren't asking the right people. Come down South, where honor and morality matter. And I don't mean Atlanta.
Virgil H. Huston, Jr.
You are way off the mark on the scandal issue. President Clinton lied to the people. He lied to everyone about the incident.
Point two: This activity occurred during a period in which President Clinton signed drafts issuing standards of sexual conduct of government workers. I am a member of the armed forces and I could very easily and most probably be expelled from the military under dishonorable discharge, or even sent to jail for these offenses. Does this rule not also apply to my superiors? My Commander-in-Chief? Sorry folks, I just couldn't take such an article from a periodical that I enjoy so much.
John Wessell
I have to most respectively disagree with the Starr article on several counts. First, I fail to see what this editorializing has to do with informing me about a Web site. Second, I, along with most of the individuals I've talked to, do care a great deal about these allegations. Third, no one that I have talked to cares about the sex side of this. However, just about everyone cares about the all too substantiated claims of perjury and obstruction of justice. These are very real and very serious charges to be laid against a public official. I am saddened by claims such as yours quoted above that attempt to justify or dismiss this alleged felonious behavior.
If you can limit yourself in future to talking about the content of Web sites, then I'll continue to be interested in your digest. If, on the other hand, you continue to insist on pressing your political views upon me, I will not.
Jim Johnson
Clinton "crucified" ? Self-immolation is more like it.
Jacques Jolie
Amidst the gory details, the rebuttals, the apologies, the damage control, the spin, the forgiveness - I look for honor.
Where is it?
I know that honor must still exist in the American government because it was woven into the very essence of these United States, through the wisdom, blood and courage of our Founding Fathers.
So many lives have been given to protect our heritage. So many children are now learning about the "privilege" of being an American.
There is so much to lose, if we discard our honor. Please do what you can to uphold the glory of our national honor.
Scott R. Henderson - Plano, Texas
You are wrong. And, what's worse, in making a statement like that, you (intentionally or not) are misleading folks who trust you and who might be relying on you for the truth. There are polls out there which report as "fact" both sides of this issue.
The folks who are being shown on TV as "representative of public opinion" are not representative of my own opinions, nor of the opinions of my wide circle of friends, acquaintances and family - all of whom do give a "rat's behind".
Our President has a history of bankrupt moral values, poor judgement, and what now appear to be documented illegal activities. And I fear the "other shoe" has not yet been dropped, with regard to China-gate, File-gate, and the mess in the Whitewater affairs, not to mention the ticking bomb of the illegal campaign contribution mess.
Again and again, I see TV and written reports that seem to be designed to be deliberately skewed and written with the intent to create public opinion - not to fairly report it. Repeatedly, I see the reporters choosing to select interviews which show people who obviously base their opinions upon how they "feel" rather than upon a serious examination of the facts and issues. I resent the implication that the majority of viewers are represented by the stupid and/or ignorant. I am neither. Nor are my acquaintances and family.
I am angry and appalled at the behavior and poor judgement of our President. That he leads our nation is both a matter of shame and of fear about where his propensity for poor decisions will lead us.
Jo Craemer
What we have here is a powerful man desperately trying to keep his lies private while being sued for sexually harassing an employee (Paula Jones). This is perjury regarding a matter material to the case. Persisting in his legalistic hair-splitting, Clinton perjured himself before a federal criminal grand jury. We'll ignore the offensive posturing and shameless lying to the citizenry - hell, that's just a prerequisite for being a politician. But the perjury is the heart of the matter and very serious indeed; mere citizens like us would suffer criminal sanctions for such conduct. But you choose to pretend this is an embattled man's noble quest to preserve his privacy. Please think again.
John Shattuck
Wrong! More people than you know don't want the country's elected leader to think he can fail to tell the truth in a court of law and get away with it. Sure, I wish the government would "get back to running the country", but not if its members are free to abuse authority for personal gain. Where does that leave us? Is an extramarital affair worth violating the laws that protect our freedom?
Jrobinso
Your remarks on the Starr Report are off-base, at best. A lot of citizens give significantly more than a rat's ass about what our politicians do, especially the President. "The vast majority of voters want the politicians to get back to running the country" is wrong and exactly what the President, his lawyers, and the Democrats want to happen - so that the President and his party are not held accountable for his conduct. Most of my friends and acquaintances, including lifelong Democrats, want to know what the truth is and assure that justice is served. Try taking a more unbiased approach in what you publish.
I had only a little difficulty in downloading the report and am reading it now. I couldn't care less (okay, maybe some) if the President has sex with an intern. But lying under oath, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, even blackmail (attempts to coerce the chairman of the Judicial Committee with something taken from the FBI files - possession of which was also an illegal act) are items that, if true, cannot go unpunished.
Tom Cree - Longmont, Colorado
It is tough to defend a sexual predator that I like, when I have cheered the public firings of Republicans, and corporate schmucks that have done less. It is also painful when my friends download information off the Net and continually remind me of what an idiot I am to support Clinton. I hear disgusting comments about his bimbos, and the unspoken wish of liberal women to be intimate with this stud at the same time they say they do not want to be seen as sex objects. Go figure.
Gordon Lundene
Great idea. We use Amazon a lot, but we'll go through your portal first on those books.
Rick and Sherry Rhodes
You've got an OK site, although not nearly as good as it used to be, but please desist with the recommended books scam easily bought through - what a surprise! - Amazon!
Richard Carle
Scam? We've read every book we recommend. If you
think you'd like to read it too, you can purchase it at Amazon or go to
your local book store. Yes, we'd prefer if you buy it at Amazon, since we
get a small "finder's fee", and that helps keep NSD in business.
We're not forcing anyone to buy, or tricking anyone into buying a book that
way. It's not a scam. I'd have a harder time arguing against calling it an
ad, but I would anyway. The reviews are honest; just because we make it
easy for someone who might like to test our review doesn't make it an ad.
It's more like a free computer paper (like Computer Currents) that you can
pick up on racks outside computer stores. - LN
We're right up front that we get a commission from Amazon.com here, and
believe it or not, all the books we recommend have been ones that someone
on our staff likes. Calling this a "scam" implies that we're doing
something underhanded to trick our readers. That's hardly the case - nobody
is standing behind you and twisting your arm until you buy a $15 book from
Amazon.
What we've got here is a feature which we think some of our readers will
appreciate and which happily sends a modest amount of money our way. This
in turn enables us to keep putting out material our readers will
appreciate. Hardly a complicated or underhanded concept, is it?
Qualitatively, it's not that different from a sponsorship, where Amazon
underwrites our book recommendations, but make no mistake, the choices are
entirely ours and no one else's.
Bottom line is, if you don't like our e-zine, unsubscribe. - AB
Frankly, I don't believe you have read the books. Sorry.
RC
As usual, I enjoyed NSD 4.26, but have you been taking a peek at my personal Web site? Two books out of the six currently reviewed there - coincidence, or what?
Tony Turton
Yup, coincidence. We just review what we like to read, or sometimes what gets sent to us. - LN Coincidence, but perfectly understandable - both new books appearing on a lot of the more interesting book lists. Also, perhaps similar taste in reading? - AB
We are prompt to complain but seldom acknowledge, don't we? For several months now, I've received, enjoyed, used, and shared your digest and its science brother. Do go on, your results are unique.
Alain Siboni - Nice, France
I finally unsubscribed from your mailing list today. I've been meaning to do it for months! A hard decision to make. I used to save Netsurfer into a folder and browse them from there. The earliest one I have is 0.06 - they're all lined up like National Geographics!
So why did I get off my favorite list? Simple, really. NSD is about the only thing that comes to my uni e-mail address these days, so I miss too many as I don't check it often. I immediately resubscribed from my main address as the Web just wouldn't be the same without Netsurfer.
I subscribe to heaps of lists - yours is the most read. I try not to miss any, and since it's much easier reading it in Netscape, there are no excuses for missing it now!
Malcolm Abel
Thank you for the review. I always like to read your newsletter, but this time I liked it even more. :-)
Leo Hartong
Thanks for the kind review of Morons of the World (NSD 4.25). We just wanted to let you know that the word "hundreds" does now apply better than "dozens". We have been getting over 500 hits per day now, though we had no idea why!
AxeMan
I enjoy the two Netsurfer editions very much, yet there is one thing that annoys me: not all of the advertisements work. When I clicked one for greater Internet communications speeds, I got a message that said I can't get linked through. Would you know the reason for this? Thanks for your attention, and I wish you every success with these well-written and informative Web-zines.
Nico van de Water
We had a configuration problem in a couple of issues
in which several of the ads did not have the correct URL. This has been
fixed.
Thanks for taking the time to let us know. And thanks for clicking on the
ads. - AB
Just had to comment. I'm adding many of the sites you refer us to to my favorites. Netsurfer is a wonderful source of Internet fun.
Kevin Frindik
Thank you for your magazine. I have been a subscriber for over a year now and I have been very happy with your product.
George Esses
You don't know me but l have been following NSD for a long time now and l would like to say keep up the good work that you are doing right now. I give you all a pat on the back.
Kok Kin
You have a very informative site and the entities mentioned are well worth visiting. Thank you for your kind words about our Web site, Temptu.com. We are working on it to make it even more special.
Roy Zuckerman
I just read you biased jabbing at the Drudge Report ("Out-Drudging Matt", NSD 4.24). It never ceases to amaze me how those that never make it keep putting down those that do. I'd not believe the editor of NSD has ever appeared on "Meet the Press" or had his own television show. You can remove my e-mail address from your newsletter mailing list - it will no longer get read - just deleted.
Bonnie Rae
Hey, wait a minute! I was on "Reach for the Top". And
the Magic Tom show. And Arthur was on PBS.
What I don't understand is how you could think we put down Matt Drudge in
that article. Well, other than considering him a bonehead for losing his
domain name. Of course, Rogers and Jonathan don't appreciate Drudge and
since they have his domain name, what they think is news.
Perhaps you missed our original, favorable review of Matt, in NSD 2.36. -
LN
I want first to say how much I appreciate and enjoy your usual high-quality digest. But "Muammar Gadhafi Gives Fidel Castro Human Rights Award" in NSD 4.24 irritated me to the point of response.
Please remember that you are publishing on the Internet, and therefore to a world-wide audience. Your sarcastic comments betray a highly parochial attitude, which you should realise is often unwelcome, as well as inappropriate.
I can see no reason why Fidel Castro should not receive such an award. A little too much noise in with the signal there I think....
Dave Ziemann - London, England
I laughed so hard when I read your e-mail I fell off my chair. - AB
I am sorry that you resorted to sarcasm in your reply. The result is that I have no understanding of your objection to Castro winning a humanitarian award (although it does seem that you have one).
Sarcasm is not an effective communication technique, particularly in the written word, and especially when it used without any explanation or argument. One problem is that it leaves the reader feeling that something is being hidden. I wonder what it could be?
I'm now a bit unclear about the "flavour" of Netsurfer Digest - it seems to have tight, factual, interesting information as its basis, but sometimes there is mixed in some unpleasant, random, personal opinion. This reduces my estimation of the quality of the information I'm being given, and detracts from it by making me question why I'm being given it.
Anyway, at least it provoked a response, right?
DZ
Fair point, but I was under the impression that
Castro's dismal human rights record is common knowledge. Apparently, I was
wrong. I appreciate the fact that you are interested in furthering your
knowledge - a rare and precious commodity to be sure.
Let me refer you to the US State Department report on human rights for Cu
ba and L
ibya to give you a good background on Fidel's and Gadhafi's
dictatorships. The irony of the award should be self evident.
One could label charges of extreme bias here, but reading other sections of
this report on other countries, I personally am convinced that it is a
reasonably fair and balanced piece of work.
I must disagree that sarcasm is not effective communication, however. I
find sarcasm to be a deeply satisfying expression of personal exasperation.
It's a communication tool, but not in an educational sense. To be honest, I
didn't think your original response was serious. Yet another limitation of
the written word is the opaqueness of sincerity.
Now, about NSD. At its core, NSD is personal opinion. We express it by the
choice of sites we cover, what we write about the sites, and yes, we do
throw in the occasional random personal opinion. What would be the fun of
having an e-zine otherwise? As for the "pleasantness" of our opinions it
would be tiresome to trot out the old arguments about varying tastes among
the teeming millions.
The quality of our information is firmly based on the sincerity of our
opinion. We make our opinion available because one way or another we feel
it's important or even amusing. And it's less a question of us giving it to
you than of you taking it - we don't force anyone to subscribe. If you
continue to do so, then you probably value our opinion, either intrinsicly
or simply for the opportunity to mock it (a perfectly valid reason which
still gets us the last laugh by providing us with advertising revenue. :)
We never write just to provoke responses, though. It's too easy to start
flame wars and they bore us to tears - we've outgrown that years ago.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. It was probably much more then my
offhand comment deserved. - AB
Isn't "Muammar Gadhafi Gives Fidel Castro Human Rights Award" a hoot, or is it? Come on, you are more intelligent than that. Should the US give out human rights awards? The US is afraid of establishing an International war crimes court - they fear many of their own military personnel would be charged. Didn't anyone tell you, when talking to the uninformed rest of the world, don't talk politics?
Joe
I have been a subscriber for about a year, and have in the past forwarded copies of NSD to my e-mail account at work. However, for the last three or four issues, I have not been able to do this. When I try to forward, it says the message has not finished downloading and cannot be forwarded. It's like the content of the e-mail is perpetually updating itself and never gets to a state where Outlook thinks its done downloading.
I know I could just subscribe with my work e-mail address, but I don't want to get every issue at work. I can cut and paste the text of the issue into a new e-mail, but its a less than ideal solution.
Ron
Sorry if this sounds brusque, but another work-around is to get a decent e-mail client. Outlook has so many problems with standard e-mail and news server formats, it's a crime anyone uses it at all. And avoid Pegasus, too. Eudora might not be the prettiest client around, but by gum, it works like a e-mail software is supposed to. - LN
Yes, your answer was rather "brusque". I am not of the "all that is Microsoft is evil" school of thought, and I am not going to step backwards and use old technology like Eudora (no offense - if it works for you, great; it's just not for me). It's almost like telling me to go back to pen and paper for correspondence because its more "reliable" than e-mail.
But I think you miss my point. For a year, I never had a problem forwarding NSD. Six weeks ago I started having a problem. Since my e-mail software has not changed, something in your message format must have changed. I'm trying to figure out what, so I can possibly fix it, perhaps there is a setting I can change, perhaps not. The point is that I want to define the problem, not work around it.
R
Wanna bet that something in your system has altered
Outlook? - LN
Let me amplify that we've not changed anything on our end for some time.
Windows is so fragile that it's likely an install of other software on your
PC may have broken Outlook. For example, I had all sorts of odd problems
when I upgraded my fairly old version of Windows 95 to the latest version
of Explorer.
If you've done any sort of software install, that may be the place to start
hunting for what may be wrong with your setup. There's always the old
standby of trying to re-install Outlook.
All I can say is best of luck. - AB
As a last resort I have to ask you, overworked human, how I can view the HTML format in my Outlook 98 e-mail client. Saving to file is a major hassle (I use Word as e-mail editor). For now, I've had to delete my subscription since it is of no use to me anymore.
Eric Haesen
I'm not sure. I do know that Microsoft e-mail products have some difficulty dealing with standard HTML e-mail. If I see one more "why doesn't Outlook work with..." question, I'm going to explode. - LN
Your newsletter started as an excellent means to learn about interesting but off-beat things. Recently, it has become an obnoxious vehicle for bothersome, repugnant advertising. Banner ads are fine; the embedded ones are not. Either knock it off, or I'll resign from your list, which, repeated hundreds of times, would defeat the whole purpose of your offensive assault. Cease and desist!
Steve Petersen
What are you talking about? The only advertising we carry are the banners. Everything else is content - pro and con various things, but it's content, it's what we do. - AB
Lots of PC users have been looking forward to the DirectX 6.0 release. Your article suggesting this is an embarrassed bug-fix collection from Microsoft (NSD 4.25) seems inaccurate. Was the intent to just say something bad (true or not true) about Microsoft? I thought the article about Back Orifice (NSD 4.24) was also inaccurate, after reading a few other articles. More fun news and less ideology, please!
Don Mitchell
I find it offensive that you include such salacious material ("Market Ups and Downs: Sex and Stock Quotes" NSD 4.26) in your otherwise excellent reviews. Is this not a mainstream publication? Sure, there are prostitutes in NYC, but I don't see ads for them in the Times. You should stick to clean content.
Pam Shorey
We won't shy away from nudity if it's newsworthy. The
unique - so far - business model here to my mind qualifies it as
newsworthy.
We might be a mainstream publication. You know, I haven't really thought
about it much. I just do my thing, and anyone who likes my thing is free to
tag along. That's pretty much been my guiding principle - that and letting
Arthur do the niggly stuff.
As far as prostitutes in the paper go - ever read the classifieds? They
have "escort" services in there, probably phone sex too.... But I do see
your point here. I like to think of our approach as more of a feature story
- certainly many newspapers do stories on or about prostitutes. It comes
down to judgement - my judgement, in fact, for reasons stated above.
If you want to delve deeper into this, read the past Letters to the Editor
for a longer analysis. - LN
My thoughts ran along similar lines, and you've got to admit, as an
off-kilter comment about the market frenzy that week, the site had no
equal. Besides, we assume our readers are mature enough not to head for the
hills at the least hint of sex - as far as we know, they all do it (or wish
they were doing it) and all their parents did it too.
And what's mainstream? This is the age of the narrowest of narrowcasts.
There is no more mainstream market, because there are all those media
outlets. The only reason you could say there was a mainstream market in the
past was because - at least in the US - there were only three networks and
two wire services and they defined what was mainstream. I don't believe the
potential audience was ever as homogenized as major media made it seem.
Now, you have all those divergent points of view served by a plethora of
media outlets. No more mainstream but a vast delta of tributaries draining
the swamp of our culture. We're the little rill on the side there, the one
with the toy sailboat carved out of tree bark bobbing along. As Laurie
said, if you like us, come on in for a float. If not - plenty of other ways
to the sea. - AB
Thanks to you both for taking the time to reply to my complaint. Please let me amplify and clarify my views.
Nudity and sex per se are not what I object to. I guess I prefer good clean sex and nudity though, not smarmy power-driven sex, and not meat-market nudity.
By "mainstream" I did not mean boring or bland or all-the-same-as-the-next-guy, but conforming to the standards of civilized behavior. I think you might do well to apply standards similar to what would be acceptable in the workplace - and pin-ups girls, no matter what they're packaged with aren't acceptable. They create an atmosphere hostile to women. I hope that is not your intention. If it is your intention to exclude women, let me know and I will unsubscribe to your otherwise excellent, thoughtful publication.
Pam Shorey
With reference to the New Orleans site in NSD 4.25, HDL is the "good" cholesterol. I believe you meant "high LDL recipes."
An avid reader
It's not only the British and North Americans who use the expression "counting your chickens before they're hatched" ("Agency Offers Nifty Cultural Tidbits", NSD 4.27). Australians (and I suspect many other English-speaking people) do, too.
Also, sorry to disappoint you, but Bondi is not a nudist beach; the nearest nude beach is Lady Jane on Sydney Harbor.
Bondi ("Adventure Pass Australia's Guide to the Underworld") may well be the most famous Oz beach (although we in Newcastle would not agree to its being the best), but you are expected to wear swimmers' when surfing there.
John Lambert - Newcastle, Australia
Bondi Beach is a nudist beach? Um, having lived in Sydney all my life, and having been to Bondi many times, this is news to me. :)
Angus Mann - Sydney, Australia
Just thought I'd correct you on your comments re: Bondi Beach being a nudist beach. In fact, it is not a nudist beach, however because of our relaxed attitude to beachwear in Australia, many women tend to sunbake topless there.
It is, however, a general purpose, all welcome, public surf beach.
Not that I care all that much - I live in Melbourne - but still, thought you'd like to be accurate.
Jason Cleeland
Publisher: Arthur Bebak
Editor: Lawrence Nyveen
Address your letters to
editor@netsurf.com.
Letters and
signatures edited for clarity and brevity.