Free Inquiry Magazine

[CFLarsen]

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. This is understandable given they are much much smaller than Harepers.

How do you know this was the reason???

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 responsible for its content.

That's not an answer, that's a repetition of the claim. How do you know that it wasn't Flynn who said he was speculating? Why would either the reporter, copy editor, editor or anyone else from the Globe and Mail change the meaning of Flynn's statement in such a dramatic way?

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.

What are you talking about?? Why are you privvy to what went on behind the scenes? How come you are so knowledgable about what happens in the editorial room at Globe & Mail?

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.

Steve, it is you who are not following your own line of reasoning. If there were security concerns about this article because of the Danish cartoons, it could only be because of the content of the article.

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.
T
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.

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

As much as you want this to be Flynn and Kurtz's fault, you cannot get around the fact - fact, Steve - that they announced a new screening policy, but recanted the very next day.

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

Again, how come you are so knowledgable about the editorial decisions at Globe & Mail?

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 jeopardized the security of Indigo and their other booksellers 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.

Wow. That's as wacky conspiratorial thinking as it gets. Keep it up, Steve. The more wackier your accusations of skeptics get, the less credible they are.

 

[Mojo]

Apparently one is not allowed to ask questions either.

Well, you appear to be objecting to Larsen asking questions...

Even when followed by an entire line of question marks. ????????????????????????????????????
which was to make sure Larsen didn't miss one.

A statement like "makes one wonder if it was really lost or this was done deliberately to provoke this", ending with a full stop, is not usually regarded as a question.

Even if it is followed by a line of question marks. I assumed that you'd accidentally rested something on shift and the forward slash key.

In fact, the sentence in question looks very much like a suggestion that it was done deliberately.

It might have been clearer that you were asking a question if you had phrased the sentence as a question, and ended it with a question mark.

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.

How exactly is he stifling freedom of speech?

 

[SteveGrenard]

How do you know this was the reason???

Because the press reports on the pulling of Harper's reported this.

That's not an answer, that's a repetition of the claim. How do you know that it wasn't Flynn who said he was speculating? Why would either the reporter, copy editor, editor or anyone else from the Globe and Mail change the meaning of Flynn's statement in such a dramatic way?

Because Flynn is not quoted as saying he was speculating. The term was used editorially. Hardly overly dramatic except perhaps by you and then, of course, you have your own personal agenda which taints about everything you comment.
If you check the definition of speculation you will see that it hardly matters anyway. Why you persist in bringing this up repeatedly is your own special brand of Larsen's Red Herrings. Are you going to pickle them and sell them?

What are you talking about?? Why are you privvy to what went on behind the scenes? How come you are so knowledgable about what happens in the editorial room at Globe & Mail?

Because the G&M article did NOT say "Flynn said he was speculating but felt it could be this article by Peter Singer ..." etc. The attribute of Flynn speculating was clearly editorial and not directly attributed to Flynn.

Steve, it is you who are not following your own line of reasoning. If there were security concerns about this article because of the Danish cartoons, it could only be because of the content of the article.

Geez Claus you don't even read my replies before you answer them. The July-August issue of FI with Singer's article does NOT contain the Danish cartoons. A previous issue had them. This raised concerns at Indigo and caused the magazine to go on their watch list, yes effective in theory with the July-August issue.

As much as you want this to be Flynn and Kurtz's fault, you cannot get around the fact - fact, Steve - that they announced a new screening policy, but recanted the very next day.

Indigo's screening policy for FI was withdrawn because they determined FI would not publish the Danish cartoons again. Indigo otherwise had no problems with FI. This was a security issue. They also have less convenient ways of monitoring the magazine.

Again, how come you are so knowledgable about the editorial decisions at Globe & Mail?

I read the article.

Wow. That's as wacky conspiratorial thinking as it gets. Keep it up, Steve. The more wackier your accusations of skeptics get, the less credible they are.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck. But there is nothing conspiratorial about this. You are having delusions of others concocting conspiracies. To reiterate:

1. Last Spring FI published some of the Danish cartoons. Not in the July-August issue which didn't get racked. They published them in an earlier issue that did get racked. The July-August issue did not get racked but it did not get received.

2. The Danish cartoons in the earlier issue went initially unnoticed by Indigo who sold the magazine but they soon found out that the cartoons were inside.

3. This caused Indigo to decide to place FI on their watch list and ask for their contents in advance.

4. Indigo did this based on their concern for the security of customers, staff and their business. Flynn and Kurtz do not seem to care about the security of their readers or sellers.
only free speech. Even their star author Peter Singer believes this is a case where free speech must be tempered by concern for security and safety.

5. FI (Flynn, Kurtz,m et al) were predictably pissed off about this. I guess I would be also but I would find out why first.

6. Then the July-August issue of FI did not appear on the Indigo magazine racks.

7. Flynn told the G&M he felt this was due to the presence of the Singer article on Freedom of Speech. Or he speculated. Whatever, who cares.

8. Indigo investigated and said no, that for whatever reason(s) operating, the reason the July-August issue did not get racked was because they did NOT receive it.

9. Indigo subsequently received an allocation of the July-August issue and placed them on sale. Flynn groused they had a short exposure even though it was beyond Indigo's control to do anything more. Again understand that the July-August issue does not contain any anti-islamic Danish cartoons. All Indigo could offer was that they were sorry about the goof-up (which was not their fault) and to sell the magazine.

10. Indigo decided FI would not publish anti-mohammad/anti-islamic cartoons from Denmark again so they took them off their watch list.

Although obviously they can have store staff monitor the magazine at the time it is being racked just in case.

It's obviously too much of a hassle or insulting for Flynn and Kurtz to advise their selling partners what's going to be in their product in case it might be cause for concern that someone would suicide bomb or shoot up their business as a result.

11. Given the strong debate and considerations that go into any publication's decision to reprint the Danish cartoons, Flynn. Kurtz and companydemonstrated reckless disregard for the security of their sellers/retailers & readers by failing to publicize in advance that they would be doing this, i.e. publish the Danish cartoons. Harper's notified their sellers and widely announced via the press that they would do this, thus giving many sellers the oportunity of declining to carry this issue for security purposes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be nice if you could make an effort Claus to understand the true nature of the issues, the timelines, the who did what and when of this situation before recklessly attacking the messenger.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Mojo:

Your editorial comments are duly noted as are your own analysis of what I did with my ? finger and whether a fact was placed someway to deliberately do something or whatever.

You are entitled to these comments and are free to make them without being questionned. Presumably I am also free to lay out a string of events and facts and draw whatever conclusions I want to as part of that same pattern of free speech without being hounded and bickered by one individual who contributes nothing of substance to any conversation or debate other than said bickering.

 

[CFLarsen]

Because the press reports on the pulling of Harper's reported this.

You are blaming this on the smaller circulation of FI than Harper's?

Because Flynn is not quoted as saying he was speculating. The term was used editorially. Hardly overly dramatic except perhaps by you and then, of course, you have your own personal agenda which taints about everything you comment.
If you check the definition of speculation you will see that it hardly matters anyway. Why you persist in bringing this up repeatedly is your own special brand of Larsen's Red Herrings. Are you going to pickle them and sell them?

I am persisting because this is crucial to your accusation. You have absolutely no evidence that Flynn did not say he speculated. Instead, you have to invent a conspiracy in the editorial room, to make your lie credible.

Because the G&M article did NOT say "Flynn said he was speculating but felt it could be this article by Peter Singer ..." etc. The attribute of Flynn speculating was clearly editorial and not directly attributed to Flynn.

That is wild speculation on your part, Steve.

Geez Claus you don't even read my replies before you answer them. The July-August issue of FI with Singer's article does NOT contain the Danish
cartoons. A previous issue had them. This raised concerns at Indigo and caused the magazine to go on their watch list, yes effective in theory with the July-August issue.

And yet, they recanted the very next day. A fact you can't get around.

Indigo's screening policy for FI was withdrawn because they determined FI would not publish the Danish cartoons again. Indigo otherwise had no problems with FI. This was a security issue. They also have less convenient ways of monitoring the magazine.

Now, you claim inside knowledge to what went on at Indigo. Amazing how well informed you are.

I read the article.

And started inventing this conspiracy of yours, yes.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck.

Wrong. It is probably a duck.

But there is nothing conspiratorial about this. You are having delusions of others concocting conspiracies. To reiterate:

7. Flynn told the G&M he felt this was due to the presence of the Singer article on Freedom of Speech. Or he speculated. Whatever, who cares.

I see you persist with your lies. Flynn did not tell G&M this was due to the presence of the Singer article. He speculated that this may be the reason.

It's obviously too much of a hassle or insulting for Flynn and Kurtz to advise their selling partners what's going to be in their product in case it might be cause for concern that someone would suicide bomb or shoot up their business as a result.

11. Given the strong debate and considerations that go into any publication's decision to reprint the Danish cartoons, Flynn. Kurtz and company demonstrated reckless disregard for the security of their sellers/retailers & readers by failing to publicize in advance that they would be doing this, i.e. publish the Danish cartoons. Harper's notified their sellers and widely announced via the press that they would do this, thus giving many sellers the oportunity of declining to carry this issue for security purposes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be nice if you could make an effort Claus to understand the true nature of the issues, the timelines, the who did what and when of this situation before recklessly attacking the messenger.

It would be nice if you would stop your incessant lying, Steve. You have time and again tried to smear skeptics, James Randi and Paul Kurtz in particular. You will not succeed.

Mojo:

Your editorial comments are duly noted as are your own analysis of what I did with my ? finger and whether a fact was placed someway to deliberately do something or whatever.

You are entitled to these comments and are free to make them without being questionned. Presumably I am also free to lay out a string of events and facts and draw whatever conclusions I want to as part of that same pattern of free speech without being hounded and bickered by one individual who contributes nothing of substance to any conversation or debate other than said bickering.

He asked you a question, Steve: How am I stifling freedom of speech?

 

[Mojo]

Your editorial comments are duly noted as are your own analysis of what I did with my ? finger and whether a fact was placed someway to deliberately do something or whatever.

You are entitled to these comments and are free to make them without being questionned.

I am entitled to make these comments. I am not, on a public forum like this, entitled to make them without being questioned. If anyone has a question about what I have posted, they are intitled to ask it. If anyone disagrees with what I have posted they are entitled to say so. That's freedom of speech for you, I guess.

Presumably I am also free to lay out a string of events and facts and draw whatever conclusions I want to as part of that same pattern of free speech without being hounded and bickered by one individual who contributes nothing of substance to any conversation or debate other than said bickering.

You are entitled to lay out whatever facts you want, and to draw whatever conclusions you want. If anyone, including Larsen, disagrees with your conclusions, or thinks that you haven't presented the entire string of events and facts, they are entitled to say so, and they are entitled to present what they think are the facts. They are also entitled to ask you questions about what you have posted. Preventing people doing this really would be stifling freedom of speech, wouldn't it?

You appear to believe that you are being hounded by a particular individual. Did you really post on a forum frequented by that individual in the expectation that he wouldn't respond? This seems a little contradictory.

And to repeat the part of my post you didn't address, how is Larsen replying to your post stifling free speech?
???????????????????????????????????? ????????????????

 

[SteveGrenard]

No Larsen goes beyond that. He consistently levels his arguments by calling people names. He questions something first by preceding it with the adjective "liar." or verb "you are lying."

In specific answer to your question because of his shameless behavior, Larsen's stifles free or any other kind of speech because few people have the patience to tolerate his epithets. You can see this repeatedly. Yet the double standard here works in his favor and should I call someone a liar by questionning their remarks I would probably be suspended. In fact I was suspended for politely (not even calling him a name) bickering with him. How pathetic. He can bicker but according to Darat no one else can.

I have set forth in numbered fashion the details of this case as clearly as the language allows me to do.

If Mr. Larsen wants to get his panties in a twist over whether someone speculated on blaming an article rather than actually blaming it, it is hardly worth, what 27 posts already? Talk about bickering. At the end of the day is this all he will be left with?

If you wish to disagree please feel free to deny the evidence and disagree. Larsen can do likewise. I have set forth the material I obtained on this matter and presented it and patiently answered Larsen's questions, even the same questions over and over again based on his faulty knowledge of when the Danish cartoons appeared in FI Magazine.

He doesn't get his facts straight because if he did they might work against him and eliminate a need for his questions. Why let the facts get in the way of a good round of inane and stupid questions?

And where have I "smeared" James Randi? Oh, I know. When I pointed out how Randi was upset, in his own words, that this site was blocked from being seen by kids because of filters or nanny bots. And when a rule was made, after months of haggling (and objection by among others Claus Larsen) this problem went away and I applauded that decision. Randi does not publish porn so he is is not in a league with Paul Kurtz. Randi was smart to sever his ties from CSICOP and remain severed even though the original problem is no longer a problem.

 

[CFLarsen]

No Larsen goes beyond that. He consistently levels his arguments by calling people names. He questions something first by preceding it with the adjective "liar." or verb "you are lying."

In specific answer to your question because of his shameless behavior, Larsen's stifles free or any other kind of speech because few people have the patience to tolerate his epithets. You can see this repeatedly. Yet the double standard here works in his favor and should I call someone a liar by questionning their remarks I would probably be suspended. In fact I was suspended for politely (not even calling him a name) bickering with him. How pathetic. He can bicker but according to Darat no one else can.

Rubbish. You are, as well as all others, free to speak your mind here. Nobody's freedom of speech is stifled. You, OTOH, tries to stifle my freedom of speech by denying me the right to question your false claims.

I have set forth in numbered fashion the details of this case as clearly as the language allows me to do.

If Mr. Larsen wants to get his panties in a twist over whether someone speculated on blaming an article rather than actually blaming it, it is hardly worth, what 27 posts already? Talk about bickering. At the end of the day is this all he will be left with?

No, Steve. At the end of the day, I have challenged you to provide evidence of your false claims. You were not able to. yet again, you have falsely accused skeptics of wrongdoing.

If you wish to disagree please feel free to deny the evidence and disagree. Larsen can do likewise. I have set forth the material I obtained on this matter and presented it and patiently answered Larsen's questions, even the same questions over and over again based on his faulty knowledge of when the Danish cartoons appeared in FI Magazine.

He doesn't get his facts straight because if he did they might work against him and eliminate a need for his questions. Why let the facts get in the way of a good round of inane and stupid questions?

Why don't you stop inventing these wild conspiracy theories in order to smear skeptics?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Thank you. Now I will invent what the bloggers are saying about this (search Free Inquiry and Indigo in Google) by offering the following a relevant quote from a larger article:

Mr. Flynn speculated that Indigo's apparent ban may have been prompted by a Free Inquiry editorial by the Princeton bioethicist and animal-rights activist Peter Singer titled "The Freedom to Ridicule Religion -- and Deny the Holocaust."

Mr. Flynn also suggested the apparent censorship may have been "in retaliation" for Free Inquiry's reproduction, in its April-May issue, of four of the 12 hotly contested cartoons that a Danish newspaper published last year satirizing the Prophet Mohammed. Their appearance in Free Inquiry went undetected by Indigo until late May when the retailer unleashed a storm of controversy by banning the June issue of another U.S. publication, Harper's, which had published all 12 Danish cartoons.

http://sequential.spiltink.org/2006/07/update-on-indigo-censorship.html

Now that you know that the article with Singer's article on free speech did not have the Danish cartoons in them, perhaps a discussion of Indigo's unstated position may be helpful.


According to this and other blogs, Indigo did not notice that 4 of the Danish cartoons were being sold by them in FI when in fact they decided not to sell the well publicized reprinting of the cartoons in Harper's.

Well of course they soon found out, to their embarsssment, that when they ousted this issue of Harper's, they were already selling at least some of the cartoons in FI. They probably couldn't imagine that FI would go to the trouble of reprinting these, getting permission from the Danish newspaper or cartoontists, etc. to do this. They clearly missed the boat
as this was the issue they probably would've wanted to oust if they knew about it.


I hope you agree that while free speech is important to preserve, these cartoons have proven they hold the promise of violent retaliation by islamic extremists and based on this no one can be cited for not wanting to go out on a limb andsell these cartoons if there was the slightest possibility they would result in reprisals and death threats. This would be especially true of a business with 260 locations throughout Canada. Such an amorphous conglomeration of sites would result in a logistical nightmare and huge expense for increasing security against islamic extremists.


Ironically of all the high minded bloggers criticizing Indigo for suppressing freedom of speech not one seems to have read Singer's piece or if they have, would mention that ironically Singer cited the Danish cartoons as the sole instance where freedom of speech should be tempered as these stupid cartoons are just not worth the lives they already cost and could cost in the future should they continue to be distributed. Indigo, without realizing it, took Singer's advice. Flynn apparently did not nor anyone following his line of reasoning. I find it hard to believe that Flynn didn't read Singer's treatment of the cartoons; and, that he failed to mention it. This reasoning did not fit in with his speculation (if you want) that Indigo was not racking the July-August issue because it had a freedom of speech article in it by Peter Singer when clearly the reason was that they did not receive their allocation of magazines to sell.

 

[CFLarsen]

Thank you. Now I will invent what the bloggers are saying about this
(search Free Inquiry and Indigo in Google) by offering the following quote from a larger article:

How about providing evidence of your false claims and explain why you try to stifle freedom of speech by demanding that nobody questions your claims?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Peter Singer writes in the July-August 2006 issue of FI:

Yet, the outcome of the publication of the Danish cartoons ridiculing Muhammad was a tragedy. More than a hundred people died in Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Libya, Nigeria, and other Islamic countries during the ensuing protests and riots. In hindsight, it would have been wiser not to publish the cartoons. The benefits were not worth the costs. 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.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=psinger_26_4

Today, now, that hindsight is ours to have and use if we see fit. Indigo saw fit.

 

[CFLarsen]

Peter Singer writes in the July-August 2006 issue of FI:



Today, now, that hindsight is ours to have and use if we see fit. Indigo saw fit.

How about providing evidence of your false claims and explain why you try to stifle freedom of speech by demanding that nobody questions your claims?

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

I have set forth in numbered fashion the details of this case as clearly as the language allows me to do.

Your "numbered version" of the case simply assumes that one Idigo rep was correct and everyone else isn't. Based on this one assumption and an apparently willful avoidance of inconvenient facts, you attribute the basest of motives to Free Inquiry. Feh.

 

[SezMe]

Randi does not publish porn so he is is not in a league with Paul Kurtz.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'd like to know what porn Kurtz published?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'd like to know what porn Kurtz published?

Well it seems after 200 posts in another thread it is a matter of one's personal judgement whether SOME of the following is porn or not so its up to you to decide for yourself:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59530

Scroll to Post#33.

Each title is a link that goes to a description of the title.

 

[SezMe]

Thanks. I looked at about half the links. Not porn. Racy, maybe. Inappropriate for kids? Some. In league with "real" porn. Not in my opinion, and thanks for letting me make my own decision.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Your "numbered version" of the case simply assumes that one Idigo rep was correct and everyone else isn't. Based on this one assumption and an apparently willful avoidance of inconvenient facts, you attribute the basest of motives to Free Inquiry. Feh.

Who exactly is everyone else? This is a dispute, if even it is that, between two parties: Free Inquiry and Indigo.

What wilful avoidance of inconvenient facts are you referring to?

The following blogs serve to highlight the fact that the failure to obtain the FI shipment for July-August was accidental, that it may somehow be
related to FIs publication of the Danish cartoons in the previous issue which Indigo did not catch and which I mentioned above.

The following blogs confirm this. What they all fail miserably in doing is allowing for the fact that Indigo has every right to secure the safety of its staff, customers and property by refusing to carry publications which contain the Danish cartoons. What they fail miserably in neglecting to mention is that even Peter Singer, the presence of whose article was speculated by Flynn as the reason they were blocked, agrees that this is one of those few times when someone would be within their rights to suppress expression given the toll these cartoons have taken in lives.

I have come to agree with Larsen that Flynn was speculating when he nominated Singer's article as the reason. I criticize Flynn for speculating on such an important matter instead of finding out the real reason for his magazine's failure to be sold. Here I thought that Free Inquiry cherished the truth above all else but apparently its editor is allowed the luxury of speculating unlike the rest of us.

Missed It: Indigo and Free Inquiry

Via Sequential comes a link to this article declaring that the Canadian distributor Indigo first blocked the magazine Free Inquiry from appearing on its clients' shelves and then declared it a mistake and deciding to carry the magazine. That magazine had in a previous issue printed four of the famed Danish Cartoons from the Copenhagen newspaper Jyllands-Posten, cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed blamed for riots across Europe, Asia and Africa earlier this year. The distributor had recently decided not to carry the June issue of Harper's because of an Art Spiegelman-penned article delving into those cartoons. While catching and punishing Western Standard for carrying some of the cartoons, Indigo's crack staff failed to notice that Free Inquiry ran some of the cartoons and been carried by Indigo. This was pointed out to them in the wake of the Harper's story. The editors of Free Inquiry suspect that an editorial about Peter Singer could also have been the cause for the since-rescinded move.

http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/missed_it_indigo_and_free_inquiry/

Josef Braun / josef@vueweekly.com
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.




According to this blog the issue was blocked by accident, an accident that probably was caused by the Danish cartoons appearing in the issue immediately before it which Indigo did not catch in time to block:


Free Inquiry had also published four of the cartoons in its April - May issue, though this went undetected by Indigo until it was discovered during debate over the Harper’s ban. This led Free Inquiry editor Tom Flynn and Paul Kurtz, chair of the Council for Secular Humanism, to send a letter to Indigo CEO Heather Reisman inquiring as to whether objections to the June - July issue were made in retaliation for publishing the Danish cartoons or whether their latest issue contained some new objectionable content.

In 2001, Reisman, a founder of the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, made headlines when she ordered all copies of Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kampf pulled from Indigo shelves.

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

Canada's largest retail bookseller says it accidentally blocked the distribution of a small U.S. current affairs magazine from its 260 stores and plans to start selling the magazine's June-July issue as soon as possible.

Joel Silver, senior vice-president of print procurement for Toronto-based Indigo Books and Music, telephoned Tom Flynn, the editor of Free Inquiry, with the news late yesterday afternoon.

According to Mr. Flynn, the Indigo executive "gave me a sort of a stammering apology, said that the June-July issue was blocked by accident, and that they have contacted [Ajax, Ont.-based Disticor Magazine Distribution Services] to send it through again."

http://sequential.spiltink.org/

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Who exactly is everyone else? This is a dispute, if even it is that, between two parties: Free Inquiry and Indigo.

What wilful avoidance of inconvenient facts are you referring to?

See my original post. You consistently claim that it is a "fact" that the issues were lost. This ignores the statement of the independent Canadian distributor (not just Free Inquiry), and the Indigo Senior VP who says that it was held back because of a "specific request with regards to this specific magazine," not because it was "lost."

The following blogs serve to highlight the fact that the failure to obtain the FI shipment for July-August was accidental, that it may somehow be
related to FIs publication of the Danish cartoons in the previous issue which Indigo did not catch and which I mentioned above.

The blogs are basing their stories on the exact same articles we are already discussing. It's a "fact" that it was "accidental" and may be related to the Danish cartoons?!? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

 

[SteveGrenard]

What we have here is the distributor, according to Flynn and Flynn only, stating that Indigo blocked the issue and refused to sell it. Flynbn may have been speculating again or the distributor may've told him what they did by shifting the blame to Indigo. We have Indigo saying whatever caused this was done by accident. "Lost" is but one option, Indigo clearly stated they were not received. Being done deliberately was another possibility I gave. Obviously there could be a myriad of reasons for this but only the editor of Free Inquiry is allowed to speculate. Right?

Mr. Flynn clearly speculated that the Singer article may be the reason and yet clearly there is nothing objectionnable in the Singer article. In fact it supports Indigo's blocking of Harpers and another magazine which published the Danish cartoons. I conceded that Indigo may have placedFI on their watchlist because they published the Danish cartoons without advising anyone they were doing so. Ironically Flynn, who must have read Singer's article well before he published the cartoons, recklessly disregarded Singer's comment that publishing or distributing these stupid cartoons are not worth the lives they cost. This was irresponsible of Flynn and FI and apparently neither you nor Larsen understand that. I also can't criticize Mrs. Resiman, Head of Indigo, for refusing to sell Adolph Hitler's maniaical hate-filled manifesto (Mein Kampf) as well. There is a moral limit to the concept of free speech, Singer knows that and I agree with him. And after being burned by FI's publication of the Danish cartoons I can't blame them for being cautious about this magazine and demanding to know what surprises subsequent issues will contain.

Thankfully nobody was harmed but if it were otherwise, Indigo acting with an abundance of proverbial caution would not be a reason today to castigate them.

The blogs are basing their stories on the exact same articles we are already discussing. It's a "fact" that it was "accidental" and may be related to the Danish cartoons?!? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

You make light of something as serious as the major sticking point in this issue onlydemonstrates your failure to appreciate that people died because of this stupid Danish cartoons.
You seem to be tyring to deny that FI published these cartoons in the previous issue, you seem to forget that for sound reasons Indigo DID block Harpers and the Weekly Standard for publishing them as well. I posted the relevant excerpts from the blogs which confirm this so I guess crazy pills must be the reason you can't see the loss of life and property these cartoons cause(d).

 

[CFLarsen]

Well it seems after 200 posts in another thread it is a matter of one's personal judgement whether SOME of the following is porn or not so its up to you to decide for yourself:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59530

Scroll to Post#33.

Each title is a link that goes to a description of the title.

But, Steve: Is it porn - or a description of a porn book/video?

I have come to agree with Larsen that Flynn was speculating when he nominated Singer's article as the reason.

Amazing.

I criticize Flynn for speculating on such an important matter instead of finding out the real reason for his magazine's failure to be sold. Here I thought that Free Inquiry cherished the truth above all else but apparently its editor is allowed the luxury of speculating unlike the rest of us.

OK, that's weak.

What we have here is the distributor, according to Flynn and Flynn only, stating that Indigo blocked the issue and refused to sell it. Flynbn may have been speculating again or the distributor may've told him what they did by shifting the blame to Indigo. We have Indigo saying whatever caused this was done by accident. "Lost" is but one optio, Indigo clearly stated they were not received.

No, we have Indigo giving contradicting accounts. That's what you should criticize.

Being done deliberately was another possibility I gave. Obviously there could be a myriad of reasons for this but only the editor of Free Inquiry is allowed to speculate. Right?

Not at all. But the onus is on Indigo, not FI. Indigo messed up, not FI. I don't see why you even bring up FI at all.

Mr. Flynn clearly speculated that the Singer article may be the reason and yet clearly there is nothing objectionnable in the Singer article.

According to you, yes. But clearly not to Indigo.

In fact it supports Indigo's blocking of Harpers and another magazine which published the Danish cartoons.

No, it doesn't.

I conceded that Indigo may have placedFI on their watchlist because they published the Danish cartoons without advising anyone they were doing so.

They did place FI on their watchlist. Don't you even read your own source?

Ironically Flynn, who must have read Singer's article well before he published the cartoons, recklessly disregarded Singer's comment that publishing or distributing these stupid cartoons are not worth the lives they cost. This was irresponsible of Flynn and FI and apparently neither you nor Larsen understand that. I also can't criticize Mrs. Resiman, Head of Indigo, for refusing to sell Adolph Hitler's maniaical hate-filled manifesto (Mein Kampf) as well. There is a moral limit to the concept of free speech, Singer knows that and I agree with him. And after being burned by FI's publication of the Danish cartoons I can't blame them for being cautious about this magazine and demanding to know what surprises subsequent issues will contain.

More accusations based on more speculation from you.

Thankfully nobody was harmed but if it were otherwise, Indigo acting with an abundance of proverbial caution would not be a reason today to castigate them.

Why aren't you going after the other newspapers who published the cartoons? Why only FI?

You make light of something as serious as the major sticking point in this issue onlydemonstrates your failure to appreciate that people died because of this stupid Danish cartoons.

Wrong. People didn't die because of these "stupid" cartoons. People died because religious fundamentalists stirred up riots around the world, where people got killed. These cartoons was published months before the riots began. The riots only began after a group of imams from Denmark had travelled to the Arab world and shown the cartoons, along with some much more insulting cartoons and photos that had nothing to do with JyllandsPostens cartoons.

You seem to be tyring to deny that FI published these cartoons in the previous issue, you seem to forget that for sound reasons Indigo DID block Harpers and the Weekly Standard for publishing them as well. I posted the relevant excerpts from the blogs which confirm this so I guess crazy pills must be the reason you can't see the loss of life and property these cartoons cause(d).

You seem to be trying to deny that FI published four of these cartoons. Have you seen which ones they published? Why aren't you railing against Harper's? They published them all?

It is obvious that you are trying to pin something - anything - on a publication for skepticism.