Comments on: Soldier of Fortune

By: Buzz

Buzz — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:01:18 +0000

I knew Ruby Ridge was a case of severe mis-use of government power, but an in-depth special the other night on Dish really opened my eyes to the many, many sordid and disgusting details I had barely known before.

By: Laurel

Laurel — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:36:24 +0000

Hey! Where else are we going to get Rhodesia recaps 'til the end of time?

By: Barry D

Barry D — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:09:50 +0000

I have to give props to anyone who is willing to admit they have a subscription to SOF in public.:-)

By: Laurel

Laurel — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:44:39 +0000

I have no idea why they don't use editor @ sofmag.com . *shrug*

By: dagamore

dagamore — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:30:52 +0000

am i the only one concerned that a major (sort of) magazine is still using an AOL address?

By: Laurel

Laurel — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:56:54 +0000

As I said in my email to them, I have a feeling it was an oversight on their part, and absolutely not something the folks in charge would have signed off on had they had all the details. SOF's treatment of government thuggery (at least the domestic variety) generally leans pretty pro-liberty. They've written a lot about ATF abuses (including, if I recall correctly, breaking the "Always Think Forfeiture" story), federal pay/overtime fraud, the General Vang/Laos story (on Vang's side), and some other anti-JBT things that don't come immediately to mind.

I don't know how SOF treated Ruby Ridge at the time, since it was long before our subscription, but I find it really difficult to believe their current editorial staff smiles over the idea of Vicki Weaver's murder.

By: Drang

Drang — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:29:21 +0000

I haven't read a single article on SOF since I hung up my soldier suit 10 (!) years ago, but I find this appalling.

Probably, will say editorial staff does not review actions of admin/advertising staff…