[jwallaceparker]

>> Me: I think that’s totally relevant and will definitely put it in. (N.B.: In the end, I did not put this in the story for several reasons, not the least of it was the fact that it was late and over word limit.)

So what ARE the reasons?!?!

I'd like to hear why Adrianne Jeffries didn't include any of Moglen's points in the final article.

Does Adrianne Jeffries really think Moglen's ideas are "totally relevant"? The tone of her article suggests otherwise. She introduces him as a "militant" professor, and the title of her post appears to mock the entire situation.

The telephone exchange is certainly entertaining, but Moglen's points are relevant and I'm disappointed the author didn't include her reasons for omitting them from her article.

[yobfountain]

The author is referring to another article in her N.B. It's linked in the first paragraph: http://www.betabeat.com/2011/12/13/as-banks-start-nosing-aro...

[pessimizer]

Her reasons, I think, are as Moglen suggests. She has a false concern for social networking privacy issues that only exists to the extent to which she will not be inconvenienced in any way. She's not willing to indict herself in an article, because her chosen journalistic posture is to present real debates as interesting abstractions rather than as actual moral questions that should have implications on your daily behavior.

You really couldn't be both against apartheid and play Sun City, no matter how much you said you sympathized.