> For all I know Katherine Viner is neo-con, but the Guardian is not a neo-con paper. Agreed, but... > I found it hard to take the rest of the column seriousl

> For all I know Katherine Viner is neo-con, but the Guardian is not a neo-con paper. Agreed, but... > I found it hard to take the rest of the column seriously after that part. What does this mean? Are you saying he is lying about his photo being removed from his Wikipedia entry by Philip Cross, for example? How the *#%)&$ did we end up in a world in which "I disagree with your characterization of some subjective things" has become synonymous with "I flat out refuse to believe anything you claim about easily verifiable objective facts"?