Free Inquiry Magazine

[SteveGrenard]

Free Inquiry Suppression called Accidental


Paul Kurtz and Paul Flynn’s public outburst at Canadian firm Indigo’s failure to rack their magazine Free Inquiry drew attention to the fact that it was done accidentally. The following two stories explain what happened:

http://www.vueweekly.com/articles/default.aspx?i=4304


Canadian retail giant Indigo Books & Music has backtracked from a controversial move to pull copies of another magazine from its shelves, calling actions reported last week “accidental.”

The Globe and Mail reported that Indigo had ordered 500 copies of the June - July issue of Buffalo-based magazine Free Inquiry pulled from its shelves over concerns with unspecified content Indigo found controversial.

The magazine’s Canadian distributor was also informed the magazine would be screened by Indigo on an issue-by-issue basis and required to supply their cover and table of contents for Indigo’s inspection in advance.

Paul Flynn, the magazine’s publisher, speculated that the offending content may have been an article by well-known ethicist and activist Peter Singer entitled “The Freedom to Ridicule Religion—and Deny the Holocaust.”

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1152827412370&call_pageid=968867495754&col=969483191630

Recently another magazine went missing from Indigo's racks, but the company claims it was an error, now rectified.

"We didn't pull it. We never received shipment of the June/July issue of Free Inquiry;it was not listed in our system," said Sorya Gaulin, spokesperson for Indigo. "It had nothing to do with content."

 

[CFLarsen]

“The Freedom to Ridicule Religion—and Deny the Holocaust.”

Why did you feel the need to emphasize this particular part?

 

[SteveGrenard]

1. Because this was the article the editor of this Kurtz backed magazine blamed for their fallacious paranoia concerning Indigo.

2. Flynn, Kurtz and company obviously were hoping to create a media stir charging Indigo with censorship. They failed. Only two stories about the problem appeared and one of these was tacked onto a Harper's Magazine story.

3. Kurtz and Flynn cried foul when in fact it turned out the bookstore chain never even received the issue in question. Makes one wonder if it was really lost or this was done deliberately to provoke this.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[UserGoogol]

Incidentally, Peter Singer's article is currently available online.

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

2. Flynn, Kurtz and company obviously were hoping to create a media stir charging Indigo with censorship.

Unsupported opinion.

3. Kurtz and Flynn cried foul when in fact it turned out the bookstore chain never even received the issue in question. Makes one wonder if it was really lost or this was done deliberately to provoke this.

Not a "fact," one of several contradictory statements made by Indigo spokespeople. In fact you snipped your second quote right before this:

However Tom Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry, published since 1980 by the U.S. non-profit organization Council for Secular Humanism, tells a different story.

"Indigo usually takes 280 copies, out of about 1,200 copies that go into Canada," said Flynn. His distributor here, Distocor Magazine Distribution in Ajax, informed him two weeks ago that Indigo stores declined to shelve the June/July issue, and that the chain wanted to vet future tables-of-contents.

Source

So, in fact, it wasn't just Free Inquiry making the claim--it was also their Canadian distibutor.

Another article:

In the meantime, Free Inquiry's Canadian distributor reported that the magazine is now operating under Indigo's "issue-by-issue inspection" regime, meaning it will have to submit in advance, for an unspecified time, the cover and table of contents of each issue.

The actions mark the second time in less than six weeks that Indigo has dropped a U.S. magazine.

A statement from another Indigo executive:

Joel Silver, Indigo’s senior vice-president of print procurement, while making no comment on the origin of the screening policy, wanted to make it “very, very clear” that the issue-by-issue program was not in place.

“There was a specific request with regards to this specific magazine,” Silver explains, but he says the request had been dealt with and the issue will be stocked as normal.

A comment from Free Inquiry's editor:

“The interesting thing is that for this to be a mistake, they would have had to accidentally held back the June - July issue and accidentally asked us for our cover and table of contents,” he points out.

So, which do you think is more likely: Indigo didn't receive the issue, or they flip-flopped after some bad press?

 

[CFLarsen]

1. Because this was the article the editor of this Kurtz backed magazine blamed for their fallacious paranoia concerning Indigo.

I see you are back to distorting the truth already: He speculated that this may have been the article responsible.

2. Flynn, Kurtz and company obviously were hoping to create a media stir charging Indigo with censorship. They failed. Only two stories about the problem appeared and one of these was tacked onto a Harper's Magazine story.

How do you know their motives? Weren't they right about being concerned about the magazine not being on the shelves?

3. Kurtz and Flynn cried foul when in fact it turned out the bookstore chain never even received the issue in question. Makes one wonder if it was really lost or this was done deliberately to provoke this.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Huh? What do you base that on??

 

[SteveGrenard]

Apparently one is not allowed to ask questions either. Even when followed by an entire line of question marks. ????????????????????????????????????
which was to make sure Larsen didn't miss one.


So freedom of speech turns out to be an issue for Claus Larsen as well as others ...by lying and saying I was making a statement and asking for its basis, you are making a feeble attempt to stifle my right to ask a question. Thanks for showing your true agenda.

My information regarding Indigo is based on the last and unequivocal statement made by their spokesperson who stated they did not receive the copies. I did not make this up. Again, Larsen lies in order to stifle freedom of speech supported by the quotes of another.


They were NOT right about the magazine not being racked if it was due to its not being received into their inventory. They could not
display the magazine in question if they didn't receive it. You now conveniently forget that Flynn blames this on a specific article which you were so hot and bothered asbout because I bolded it ...and which we could all read now thanks to to it being online.

Irrespective of the reason, Flynn was unnecessarily or fallaciously paranoid by blaming this article.

Obviously one of several things happened:

1. FI forgot to ship it to them.
2. FI's distributor forgot to ship it to them or lost it.
3. It was lost by either the distributor or Indigo.
4. It was stolen.
5. Or, and this was a question, it was deliberately
witheld from the distributor's part of the shipment earmarked by FI for Indigo. Probably because they were pissed off about Indigo's wish to see the table of contents. And that my friend is the reason I asked a question about this. ????????

 

[CFLarsen]

Apparently one is not allowed to ask questions either. Even when followed by an entire line of question marks. ????????????????????????????????????
which was to make sure Larsen didn't miss one.

It's not just a question. It's yet another veiled attack on skeptics.

So freedom of speech turns out to be an issue for Claus Larsen as well as others ...by lying and saying I was making a statement and asking for its basis, you are making a feeble attempt to stifle my right to ask a question. Thanks for showing your true agenda.

My information regarding Indigo is based on the last and unequivocal statement made by their spokesperson who stated they did not receive the copies. I did not make this up. Again, Larsen lies in order to stifle freedom of speech supported by the quotes of another.

Not at all, Steve. Ask away. But pose your questions based on a need for clarification, and not to insinuate dark motives of skeptics.

They were NOT right about the magazine not being racked if it was due to its not being received into their inventory. They could hardly display the magazine in question if they didn't receive it. You now conveniently forget that Flynn blames this on a specific article which you were so hot and bothered asbout because I bolded it ...and which we could all read now thanks to to it being online.

Flynn does not blame this on a specific article. He speculates that it may have been the article. Why do you keep perpetuate this lie?

Now, what is so bad about this article?

 

[HarryKeogh]

Now, what is so bad about this article?

Nothing, unless one is of the narrow-minded opinion that by saying people should be allowed to deny the holocaust and mock religion that you necessarily endorse those views.

Steve, there is so much speculation by both sides in that article that to critique their motives at this point, as you have done, is pointless.

 

[SteveGrenard]

It's not just a question. It's yet another veiled attack on skeptics.

What part of a question mark don't you understand?

Not at all, Steve. Ask away. But pose your questions based on a need for clarification, and not to insinuate dark motives of skeptics.

Flynn does this all by himself by yelling censorship and then quoting Singer's article.

Flynn does not blame this on a specific article. He speculates that it may have been the article. Why do you keep perpetuate this lie?

Show me in the quote where it says Flynn says "I am speculating ...."
blah blah.

Now, what is so bad about this article?

I never said there was anything bad about the article, Flynn said it was why his magazine was not displayed/sold by Indigo. I thought the article was excellent. Please show me where I said this was a bad article.

 

[CFLarsen]

Irrespective of the reason, Flynn was unnecessarily or fallaciously paranoid by blaming this article.

It wasn't just Flynn that was worried, Steve. It was also the Canadian publisher. Why do you consistently leave out pertinent facts?

5. Or, and this was a question, it was deliberately
witheld from the distributor's part of the shipment earmarked by FI for Indigo. Probably because they were pissed off about Indigo's wish to see the table of contents. And that my friend is the reason I asked a question about this. ????????

Why would they do this? If found out, it would mean disaster for the magazine.

Do you have any evidence of this, or is this merely malicious speculation on your behalf?

 

[HarryKeogh]

Show me in the quote where it says Flynn says "I am speculating ...."
blah blah.

You're kidding right?

Paul Flynn, the magazine’s publisher, speculated that the offending content may have been an article by well-known ethicist and activist Peter Singer entitled “The Freedom to Ridicule Religion—and Deny the Holocaust.”

 

[CFLarsen]

What part of a question mark don't you understand?

Why ask the question, if you have nothing to back it up with? You might as well ask if they did it to cover up Area 51.

Flynn does this all by himself by yelling censorship and then quoting Singer's article.

Where does Flynn yell "censorship"? You do realize that the Canadian distributor was informed that it would be screened by Indigo on an issue-by-issue basis? Is that not reason to be concerned?

Show me in the quote where it says Flynn says "I am speculating ...."
blah blah.

HarryKeogh showed you. Explain that away.

I never said there was anything bad about the article, Flynn said it was why his magazine was not displayed/sold by Indigo.

Why do you keep perpetuating this lie, when you are demonstrably wrong?

Flynn speculated that it may be the reason.

I thought the article was excellent. Please show me where I said this was a bad article.

You were the one making a point out of emphasizing what article it was. Why do that, if not to draw attention to the article itself?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Why ask the question, if you have nothing to back it up with? You might as well ask if they did it to cover up Area 51.

Excuse me, only you can ask silly questions then.

Where does Flynn yell "censorship"? You do realize that the Canadian distributor was informed that it would be screened by Indigo on an issue-by-issue basis? Is that not reason to be concerned?

Indigo is a private company. It is free to sell or not sell what it wants based on their internal policies. For all we know, while they may agree with a magazine publishing the Danish cartoons for example, they may be concerned about the safety of their personnel and customers were they to do so. They may feel they cannot implement the kinds of security measures that would be necessary to prevent retaliatory acts by whacko islamic fundamentist nut jobs. They clearly stated that the magazine FI (July-Aug)was not received. They clearly stated that Singer's article was not the reason it wasn't sold. They clearly stated it wasn't sold because they didn't have it. Flynn, on the other hand, states that it wasn't sold because Indigo objected to Singer's article. Indigo clearly states this was not the case. Flynn and Kurtz should've investigated before making these accusations. What kind of skeptics are these two?

HarryKeogh showed you. Explain that away.

Harry showed me what ...by first saying "You're kidding right?" I don't consider this remark a powerful case for anything. It was a question which is a concept suddenly foreign to you when you have personal biases against those asking them.

Answer: No. Harry, I am not kidding.

Harry went on to opine that there is much speculation on both sides. Frankly I don't see any speculation. I see Flynn saying Singer's article resulted in Indigo's action and I see Indigo saying no it didn't, the article had nothing to do with it. I see Indigo saying that for whatever reason Indigo did not get their allocation. There is nothing speculative about it.

Why do you keep perpetuating this lie, when you are demonstrably wrong? Flynn speculated that it may be the reason.

I'll ask you one more time: show me where it says Flynn "speculated," not what the writer said he was doing. But an exact quote from Flynn saying oh, "I am just speculating this." And even if he was, he should not be speculating on something as important as smearing a bookstore chain, a business which sells their product no less, such as Indigo.

You were the one making a point out of emphasizing what article it was. Why do that, if not to draw attention to the article itself?

I drew attention to the article because this was the reason Flynn gives for smearing Indigo by saying they were censoring the magazine because of it. Indigo denies this. Indigo clearly states they didn't sell that issue because they never received it. They carry thousands of magazines; when one small magazine doesn't come in they expect that from time to time. They don't send out the Mounties to look for it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Excuse me, only you can ask silly questions then.

Do you have anything but speculation, yes or no?

Indigo is a private company. It is free to sell or not sell what it wants based on their internal policies. For all we know, while they may agree with a magazine publishing the Danish cartoons for example, they may be concerned about the safety of their personnel and customers were they to do so. They may feel they cannot implement the kinds of security measures that would be necessary to prevent retaliatory acts by whacko islamic fundamentist nut jobs. They clearly stated that the magazine FI (July-Aug)was not received. They clearly stated that Singer's article was not the reason it wasn't sold. They clearly stated it wasn't sold because they didn't have it. Flynn, on the other hand, states that it wasn't sold because Indigo objected to Singer's article. Indigo clearly states this was not the case. Flynn and Kurtz should've investigated before making these accusations. What kind of skeptics are these two?

Steve, you have to stop perpetuating this lie. Nowhere does Flynn state that it wasn't sold because Indigo objected to Singer's article. He speculated that this may be the case.

Now, where does Flynn yell "censorship"?

You do realize that the Canadian distributor was informed that it would be screened by Indigo on an issue-by-issue basis?

Is that not reason to be concerned?

Harry made a powerful case by first saying "You're kidding right?"
I don't consider this remark a powerful case for anything. It was a
question which is a concept suddenly foreign to you when you have personal biases against those asking them.

Answer: No. Harry, I am not kidding.

Harry went on to opine that there is much speculation on both sides. Frankly I don't see any speculation. I see Flynn saying Singer's article resulted in Indigo's action and I see Indigo saying no it didn't, the
article had nothing to do with it. I see Indigo saying that for whatever reason Indigo did not get their allocation.

I'll ask you one more time: show me where it says Flynn was speculated, and even if he was, he should not be speculating on something as important as smearing a bookstore chain such as Indigo.

Where does it say Flynn was speculating? Gee....

Paul Flynn, the magazine’s publisher, speculated that the offending content may have been an article by well-known ethicist and activist Peter Singer entitled “The Freedom to Ridicule Religion—and Deny the Holocaust.”

There: "Paul Flynn"..."speculated".

I drew attention to the article because this was the reason Flynn gives for smearing Indigo by saying they were censoring the magazine because of it.

Stop lying, Steve.

Indigo denies this. Indigo clearly states they didn't sell that issue because they never received it. They carry thousands of magazines; when one small magazine doesn't come in they expect that from time to time. They don't send out the Mounties to look for it.

Indigo gave contradicting explanations. How do you explain that?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Do you have anything but speculation, yes or no?

I have the press on the incident.

Steve, you have to stop perpetuating this lie. Nowhere does Flynn state that it wasn't sold because Indigo objected to Singer's article. He speculated that this may be the case.

The Globe and Mail reporter characterized Flynn's remark as speculation. Flynn didn't say he was speculating nor is he quoted as saying he was speculating. There is a difference.

Now, where does Flynn yell "censorship"?

By mentioning this article as the reason that is the more than obvious conclusion. He blamed Indigo's actions on the article.

This usually means censorship, which in fact, the Singer article was arguing against. I guess it was a perfect fit for Flynn.

You do realize that the Canadian distributor was informed that it would be screened by Indigo on an issue-by-issue basis?

I covered that above. They did it after being burned by the publication if the Danish cartoons in a previous issue which could have presented them with a security risk. Even Singer says publishing these cartoons and the lives they cost was not worth the bother. No company operating a chain of stores wants to place their customers and staff at risk of these nuts. Indigo did not sell Harper's Magazine because they did publish all 21 of the Danish cartoons.

Is that not reason to be concerned?

Not if there is a security concern.

There: "Paul Flynn"..."speculated".
Stop lying, Steve.

No, not lying, but reading. It does not quote Flynn as saying he was speculating. The writer of the piece characterized his cause as speculating.
Flynn did not say he was speculating.

Indigo gave contradicting explanations. How do you explain that?

Because of the earlier issue having reprinted some of the Danish cartoons. The ultimate cause was the the fact they didn't get their order, not Singer's article. Flynn and Kurtz smeared Indigo unnecessarily. In fact Indigo said they were sorry for the confusion and said they would be selling this issue of the magazine as soon as it arrives.

Sour grapes from Flynn who said it would only be for two weeks since the next issue was already out. Flynn could allow them to sell the July-August and the Sept-October issuesimultaneously if he wanted to.

 

[CFLarsen]

I have the press on the incident.

Then, you have no reason to ask that question, other than to cast doubt on skeptics.

The Globe and Mail reporter characterized Flynn's remark as speculation. Flynn didn't say he was speculating nor is he quoted as saying he was speculating. There is a difference.

How do you know that it was the reporter who characterized Flynn's remark as speculation? Now you have the reporter inventing things? If this is the case, why believe anything the reporter says?

By mentioning this article as the reason that is the more than obvious
conclusion. He blamed Indigo's actions on the article. This usually means
censorship, which in fact, the article was arguing against.

He was speculating, Steve.

I covered that above. They did it after being burned by the publication if the Danish cartoons in a previous issue which could have presented them with a security risk. Even Singer says publishing these cartoons and the lives they cost was not worth the bother. No company operating a chain of stores wants to place them or their customers and staff at risk of these nuts.

Where does Singer say that? What does that have to do with Free Inquiry?

Not if there is a security concerned. Indigo is not in the crusading business.

Why would there be a security risk involved by publishing an article on the right to freedom of speech?

No, not lying, but reading. It does not quote Flynn as saying he
was speculating. The writer of the piece characterized his cause as speculating.

Where's your evidence of that?

Because of the earlier issue of the Danish cartoons. The ultimate cause was the the fact they didn't get their order, not Singer's article. Flynn and Kurtz smeared Indigo unnecessarily. In fact Indigo said they were sorry for the confusion and said they would be selling this issue of the magazine
as soon as it arrives.

Sour grapes from Flynn who said it would only be for two weeks since the next issue was already out. Flynn could allow them to sell the July-August and the Sept-October issue simultaneously if he wanted to.

If that was the reason, why backtrack, apologize and put the magazine back on the shelves?

Indigo messed up, Steve. You are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Indigo was a victim of a smear attack by Flynn and Kurtz. They did not receive the magazines in question. Too bad, they didn't notice it. Flynn tried to smear them by blaming their action on the presence of Singer's article. He didn't give any other choices.

Flynn singled out one reason, speculating or not, for their actions. Indigo denies this and clearly point to the fact that they did not receive the magazine in question and this was the reason. Flynn and Kurtz by extension screwed up. And they won't admit it.

Merriam-Webster on definition of speculation:

Etymology: Latin speculatus, past participle of speculari to spy out, examine, from specula lookout post, from specere to look, look at -- more at [SIZE=-1]SPY[/SIZE]
intransitive verb
1 a : to meditate on or ponder a subject : [SIZE=-1]REFLECT[/SIZE] b : to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively

The author of the article attributed the statement regarding the Singer article as being speculated by Flynn. Flynn didn't mention anything else. Flynn did not say he was speculating, the reporter felt he was. If he was idlly casting that reason about in order to smear Indigo he should have investigated further before talking to the press about this.

You are obviously not following the involvement of the Danish cartoons reprinting in this situation. I have explained it twice and don't see why I have to explain this to you a third time but it is the reason FI went on
Indigo's watch list: FI published some of the cartoons, Indigo didn't realize it and this put their customers and staff at risk of reprisals by islamic fundamentalist whackos. Indigo banned Harper's magazine for this reason because they published all 21 of the Danish cartoons; this was not for anydisagreement with the magazine in principle, it was for security concerns. Even Peter Singer in his article on freedom of speech concedes that the cartoons were not worth the lives lost by rioting religious nut jobs.

 

[CFLarsen]

Indigo was a victim of a smear attack by Flynn and Kurtz. They did not receive the magazines in question. Too bad, they didn't notice it. Flynn tried to smear them by blaming their action on the presence of Singer's article. He didn't give any other choices.

Flynn singled out one reason, speculating or not, for their actions. Indigo denies this and clearly point to the fact that they did not receive the magazine in question and this was the reason. Flynn and Kurtz by extension screwed up. And they won't admit it.

Merriam-Webster on definition of speculation:



The author of the article attributed the statement regarding the Singer article as being speculated by Flynn. Flynn didn't mention anything else. Flynn did not say he was speculating, the reporter felt he was. If he was idlly casting that reason about in order to smear Indigo he should have investigated further before talking to the press about this.

You are obviously not following the involvement of the Danish cartoons reprinting in this situation. I have explained it twice and don't see why I have to explain this to you a third time but it is the reason FI went on
Indigo's watch list: FI published some of the cartoons, Indigo didn't realize it and this put their customers and staff at risk of reprisals by islamic fundamentalist whackos. Indigo banned Harper's magazine for this reason because they published all 21 of the Danish cartoons; this was not for anydisagreement with the magazine in principle, it was for security concerns.

Even Peter Singer in his article on freedom of speech concedes that the cartoons were not worth the lives lost by rioting religious nut jobs.

What you leave out - not surprisingly - is this:

But that judgment is, as I say, made with the benefit of hindsight, and it is not intended as a criticism of the actual decisions taken by the editors who published them and could not reasonably be expected to foresee the consequences.
To restrict freedom of expression because we fear such consequences would not be the right response. It would only provide an incentive for those who do not want to see their views criticized to engage in violent protests in future. Instead, we should forcefully defend the right of newspaper editors to publish such cartoons, if they choose to do so, and hope that respect for freedom of expression will eventually spread to countries where it does not yet exist.
Source

Funny how they didn't put Harper's Magazine on an issue-to-issue basis.

Time for a Larsen List:

• How do you know that it was the reporter who characterized Flynn's remark as speculation?
  
• If the reporter is inventing things, why believe anything the reporter says?
  
• Why would there be a security risk involved by publishing an article on the right to freedom of speech?
  
• If the Danish cartoons was the reason, why backtrack, apologize and put the magazine back on the shelves?

And, of course, you really need to explain this one:

The removal of Free Inquiry and the new screening policy were reported on Jul 7, but by the next day Indigo was claiming that the ban was “an accident” and the screening policy would not be pursued.
Source

They messed up, Steve. You are wrong.

 

[SteveGrenard]

What you leave out - not surprisingly - is this:



Funny how they didn't put Harper's Magazine on an issue-to-issue basis.

Because Harpers announced well in advanced and it was widely publicized they would publish the cartoons. FI published them but failed to widely announce the fact.

How do you know that it was the reporter who characterized Flynn's remark as speculation?

It could have been the reporter, it could've been the copy editor, it could've been the editor but it obviously was someone from the Globe and Mail as they were putting out the story and are ultimately responsible for its content.

If the reporter is inventing things, why believe anything the reporter says?

The reporter certainly did not invent that Flynn put forth Singer's artricle as the cause. Using this common figure of speech to characterize Flynn's
accuastion is common in journalism. The reporter had no way of knowing about the existence of the Singer article had not Flynn told him about it.
I suspect if this was a phone interview that Flynn faxed a copy of Singer's article to the Globe and Mail as nothing stirs a newspaper's pot more effectively than an article on freedom of speech and the possibility that a seller of magazines and newspapers was suppressing it. They tried to smear Indigo and failed.

Why would there be a security risk involved by publishing an article on the right to freedom of speech?

Show me where I said that. The security risk to Indigo was as a result of them actually carrying a previous issue of FI which contained the Danish cartoons. Again you demonstrate that you are not following this story close enough to display even a most rudimentary understanding of the issues. I am truly sorry if I somehow failed to make this extremely clear to you.

If the Danish cartoons was the reason, why backtrack, apologize and put the magazine back on the shelves?

Again you demonstrate that you have not done your homework on this while wrapped up in the semantics of a single word. You fail to notice that the July-August issue of FI carrying the Flynn blamed Singer article does NOT have the Danish cartoons in it. This was a previous issue of FI which Indigo did sell and were upset they didn't catch which is why FI then went on their watch list. So there were no Danish cartoons in the July-August issue. Flynn blamed or if you prefer speculatatively blamed the Singer article as the reason Indigo failed to rack the July-August issue. When Indigo completed its investigation of Flytnn & Kurtz' smear attack they found the reason was not the Singer article but the fact threy didn't receive their shipment of the magazines so could hardly sell them.

They "apologized" as you say one like one would say "Oh, I am so sorry ...."your uncle died" when you have no reason to apologize for that.

They were not actually apologizing, they were saying they were sorry for the confusion and explained what it was. Again the subtleties of the English language sometimes leaves you short on true comprehension and I am sorry about that but believe me I am not apologizing to you. Just sorry.

Indigo were much more polite about it than their would-be smearers, Flynn and Kurtz.

And, of course, you really need to explain this one:

Because their decision to flag FI was a reaction to their publication of the Danish cartoons in a prior issue but now they figured it was a one off thing that they won't have to worry about again in the future.

They messed up, Steve. You are wrong.

No, there is another way of looking at this. Flynn and Kurtz tried to smear Indigo. They failed. On the other hand FI, Flynn, Kurtz and their organization put Indigo and other sellers of FI at risk of retaliation by islamic fundamentalist whackos. They recklessly jeopardized the security of Indigo and their other booksellers, their staff and customers by slipping the Danish cartoons into a prior issue of their magazine without letting their retailers and distributors know about it. Ironically Singer agrees that the risks caused by the reactions to the Danish cartoons are not worth it.