That's the address for a Twitter that's at the first page of search results for a Google search of "Dean Baquet."
I can't publish pictures of it because my written blog was suddenly, and seemingly permanently, disabled from publishing pictures months ago, when I was publishing pages about rape at the University of Virginia. The conglomerate doesn't seem to think that this disabling is an infringement on my right to free speech.
There are 2 Tweets at that Twitter. They say:
"Reading The Good Spy by Kaibird123 The debate over spying on friends, and whether human spies better than machines began a long time ago."
"How to write a funeral story. A great example by Sonny Kleinfeld, who captures a remarkably sad moment in the city."
The second Tweet also has an address for a New York Times article from June 6, 2014. The title of the article is "Hundreds Gather to Remember 6-Year-Old Victim of Brooklyn Stabbing."
These are quotes from that article:
"They had heard, as most had heard, and so they came in their good clothes because they wanted to and because they felt they had to. On Friday morning, they came to grieve...a 6-year-old Brooklyn boy known as P.J. who had barely tasted life and who died for no plausible reason."
" 'I came because it's a child,' he said. 'You come for a child.'"
"The pews were packed with some 700 people for the service."
If this is Mr. Baquet's real Twitter, then he is aware of the gross violations of my rights by people who work for him, and he's defending those violations and the people who perpetrate them by trying to portray what's happening to me as part of a historical continuum of legitimate debate over whether it's moral or legal for a newspaper to subject someone to voyeurism and involuntary pornography, to hack the person's phone and monitor everything the person reads, listens to, or watches, to monitor and publicize the person's private phone conversations, to interpret and publicize all of the information that the newspaper illicitly obtains according to that newspaper's agenda of ridiculing and persecuting the person, to perpetrate years of vicious character defamation, and to encourage other people to perpetrate privacy-violating crimes against the newspaper's target.
Is Mr. Baquet trying to say that he's my friend? Would he consider being treated the way that the New York Times treats me as friendly? Does he want to be treated this way?
I have never considered anyone who has violated my privacy to be my friend, even when the person violating my privacy thought that he or she cared about me. Also, I don't know how anyone could interpret the plastering of vicious code articles all over the website of the New York Times as being anything other than full of hatred and harmful intent.
Mr. Baquet also seems to be an avid proponent of the conglomerate's agenda of the sexual abuse of children. It is especially reprehensible when the media exploits tragedies to promote crime.
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, May 2, 2016 @ 10:33 a.m.
