| |
Main
Date: 20 Aug 2007 13:55:15
From:
Subject: MI5 Persecution: BBC+ITN=MI5 23/7/96 (1930)
|
Newsgroups: uk.misc,alt.radio.uk,uk.media,alt.politics.british,uk.legal
From: bu765@torfree.net (Mike Corley)
Subject: MI5 Buy into the Media
Message-ID: <Dv0p34.73.0.bloor@torfree.net >
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960716155603.6898A-100000@ermine.ox.ac.uk >
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:28:15 GMT
Peter Harding (harding@ermine.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
: I was at speakers' corner on Sunday. There was one chap who was bellowing
: about something or other, I don't know what, but one thing he said to
: someone caught my ear:
: "BBC, MI5, same thing."
Can't disagree with that sentiment.
Wasn't it documented that MI5 sometimes "bought" journalists and broadcasters?
I remember reading a report by some jouralist who had been offered an extra
tax-free income by MI5 to become their covert mouthpiece, and had refused.
Bet you lots of others didn't refuse. Why do you think MI5 have such easy
access to the BBC and media? Because they're directly paying them off, that's why.
=====================================================================
Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:01:15 uk.misc Thread 20 of 25
Lines 17 Re: MI5 Buy into the Media No responses
Iain@cummings.demon.co.uk Iain Cummings at Fish!
In article <Dv0p34.73.0.bloor@torfree.net >, Mike Corley
<bu765@torfree.net > writes
>
>Wasn't it documented that MI5 sometimes "bought" journalists and broadcasters?
>I remember reading a report by some jouralist who had been offered an extra
>tax-free income by MI5 to become their covert mouthpiece, and had refused.
>
>
It was Jon Snow of Channel 4.
--
Iain C*mmings - iain@cummings.demon.co.uk
VISIT THE FEARFUL WORLD OF JIMMY McNULTY - VIOLENT NUTTER!
This web-site is not suitable for mature prudes.
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/7433/
=====================================================================
> : >mouthpiece, and had refused.
> :
> : It was Jon Snow of Channel 4.
>
> Was it reported in any of the papers?
It has been reported several times. The most recent was in Private Eye,
a few months back. As I recall they also wanted information from him;
journalists would be a natural choice for members of the Security Service
and the Secret Intelligence Service for information sources.
> It might be interesting to see what he had to say regarding their
> attempt to recruit him.
He was most concerned that many others would have accepted such an
offer. However, we can probably make an educated guess as to some of
those who accepted: Nigel West (Rupert Allason, MP) and Chapman Pincher
would come near to the top of the list.
--
\/ David Boothroyd. Socialist and election analyst. Omne ignotum pro magnifico.
British Elections and Politics at http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
I wish I was in North Dakota. Next General Election must be before 22nd May '97
The House of Commons now : C 324, Lab 272, L Dem 25, UU 9, PC 4, SDLP 4, SNP 4,
UDUP 3, Ind 1, Ind UU 1, Spkrs 4. Government majority = 1. Telephone Tate 6125.
1930
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 14:28:47
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>> But Bill, do you understand the difference between opinion (editorial
>> material) and reporting?
Tim McNamara wrote:
> The current crop of vocal "conservatives" writing editorials don't
> generally understand the difference between beliefs and facts, and they
> think that a fact is just a belief that is expressed loudly and
> persistently enough. They confuse and blind those who lack critical
> thinking skills.
If you get a minute, read the actual text.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 16:22:00
From: Donald Gillies
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > writes:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>> But Bill, do you understand the difference between opinion (editorial
>>> material) and reporting?
>Tim McNamara wrote:
>> The current crop of vocal "conservatives" writing editorials don't
>> generally understand the difference between beliefs and facts, and they
>> think that a fact is just a belief that is expressed loudly and
>> persistently enough. They confuse and blind those who lack critical
>> thinking skills.
>If you get a minute, read the actual text.
Ok, if Andrew asks, I comply. I read the "Pee Street Journal" (now
owned by Faux News owner Rupert Murdoch.) As usual, the article is
100% factually correct, and 0% relevant to the point at hand.
What I want to know is :
1. how much unfunded road maintenance is needed in Minnessota ?
2. how much would taxes have to increase or budgets have to be
reallocated to complete all said maintenance on a 20-year cycle ?
3. how much is currently being spent on transportation maintenance in
Minnessota ?
As usual, the Wall Street Journal article is 100% factually correct,
ZERO PERCENT RELEVANT to the point at hand. Instead, 45 out of 45
sentences are bitching and moaning about tax rates in Minnessota.
IRRELEVANT, GUYS !!
If you'll notice, the article STRUGGLED TO BE ZERO PERCENT RELEVANT,
by only quoting the annual budget at Min-DOT (1.6 billion a year), and
sidestepping the important figure of maintenance (200 million a year,
a 10-second search on google.)
I rest my case. Reading the wall street journal can be deadly.
- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA
P.S Why do rich guys like to get quoted in the Wall Street Journal?
Becuase the paper prints their picture using the same process used by
engravers to put the presidents on the US Currency. It says a lot
about what blows up the skirts of wall-street types ...
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 19:50:57
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <13cjqqqkvc8d4f5@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> > John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
> >> But Bill, do you understand the difference between opinion (editorial
> >> material) and reporting?
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > The current crop of vocal "conservatives" writing editorials don't
> > generally understand the difference between beliefs and facts, and they
> > think that a fact is just a belief that is expressed loudly and
> > persistently enough. They confuse and blind those who lack critical
> > thinking skills.
>
> If you get a minute, read the actual text.
You'll see my response to the text in another post.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 13:40:56
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
A Muzi wrote:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote (to someone he
>> KNOWS plonked him months ago):
>>> But Bill, do you understand the difference between opinion
>>> (editorial material) and reporting?
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> The current crop of vocal "conservatives" writing editorials don't
>> generally understand the difference between beliefs and facts, and
>> they think that a fact is just a belief that is expressed loudly and
>> persistently enough. They confuse and blind those who lack critical
>> thinking skills.
> If you get a minute, read the actual text.
Already suggested that; don't hold your globally warmed breath! LOL
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 08:28:52
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <q7ric3l8tokhudspphtbkb3p9il6rnnl8a@4ax.com>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> But Bill, do you understand the difference between opinion (editorial
>> material) and reporting?
Flogger, why do you keep addressing me?!? I PLONKED you because you're a
liar and a cheater.
> The current crop of vocal "conservatives" writing editorials don't
> generally understand the difference between beliefs and facts, and
> they think that a fact is just a belief that is expressed loudly and
> persistently enough. They confuse and blind those who lack critical
> thinking skills.
The editorial (link to which either you or Flogger clipped) contained
FACTUAL INFORMATION on which its /opinion/ was based. FACTS IS FACTS.
That bridge was flagged as problematic in *1990*. Multi-millions of dollars
have gone to the state and region for infrastructure repair and maintenance
over the years, yet virtually nothing of consequence got done. Politicians
of both parties would rather procure big bucks for something with a ribbon
to cut -- preferably with their name on it -- than allocate money for needed
work. MN can spend a jillion for a new sports facility, yet throw a small
crew to fix a bridge that carries hundreds of thousands of people per day.
Hell, here's the editorial again:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010490
Read it, and if it's FACTUALLY incorrect about something, then speak up.
(Just tell Flogger to stop talking to me. It's only fair, since I'm not
"allowed" to second-hand flame the crap he spews according to the 'Net
cops.)
BS
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 19:50:16
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <46c9b338$0$28888$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <q7ric3l8tokhudspphtbkb3p9il6rnnl8a@4ax.com>, John
> > Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
> >
> >> But Bill, do you understand the difference between opinion
> >> (editorial material) and reporting?
>
> Flogger, why do you keep addressing me?!? I PLONKED you because
> you're a liar and a cheater.
>
> > The current crop of vocal "conservatives" writing editorials don't
> > generally understand the difference between beliefs and facts, and
> > they think that a fact is just a belief that is expressed loudly
> > and persistently enough. They confuse and blind those who lack
> > critical thinking skills.
>
> The editorial (link to which either you or Flogger clipped) contained
> FACTUAL INFORMATION on which its /opinion/ was based. FACTS IS
> FACTS.
My comments were not specifically about this editorial, which is why I
clipped that bit out. They were about the latter day tendencies of the
"conservative" mindset (IMHO modern "conservatives" are often anything
but conservative except on tax policy).
> That bridge was flagged as problematic in *1990*. Multi-millions of
> dollars have gone to the state and region for infrastructure repair
> and maintenance over the years, yet virtually nothing of consequence
> got done. Politicians of both parties would rather procure big bucks
> for something with a ribbon to cut -- preferably with their name on
> it -- than allocate money for needed work. MN can spend a jillion
> for a new sports facility, yet throw a small crew to fix a bridge
> that carries hundreds of thousands of people per day.
No argument from me on any of that, Bill. Back when I was a kid,
The bridge was first flagged as problematic in 1990 under the Arne
Carlson Administration. Carlson was a fiscally and socially moderate
Republican (whom I voted for twice because he was a significantly better
choice that the DFL alternative). He was followed by the Jesse Ventura
Administration which ran the state into the ground due; Ventura was a
fiscal extremist who had no concept of planning ahead and was aided and
abetted by Steve Swiggum (R-Kenyon) and current Governor Tim Pawlenty.
They managed to engineer a massive budget deficit which has severely
hampered maintaining and updating Minnesota's infrastructure. Under
Ventura's and Pawlenty's watch, the Minnesota educational system has
gone downhill, our roads are in atrocious condition, our publicly
financed health care system is in the hopper, etc.
The sports arenas (for the University, the Twins and the Vikings) are a
huge error in judgment. Absolutely gigantic. We already built them a
damned stadium at public expense, the HHH Metrodome, which we are still
paying for! My most conservative friend (possibly somewhat to the right
of you, Bill) acutely observed that if building a new arena made
financial sense, the private sector would be doing it.
> Hell, here's the editorial again:
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010490
>
> Read it, and if it's FACTUALLY incorrect about something, then speak
> up.
The editorial is riddled with errant assumptions, significant omissions,
tortured logic, and a few factual errors of some significance. Don't
believe everything you read.
First off, the author utterly omits the emerging evidence that MNDoT
took a "watch and wait" attitude towards the bridge due to budgetary
constraints. Any possible technical reason to defer making repairs or
closing the bridge was embraced, mainly because of the expense of doing
just about anything to address the structural deficiencies. Outside
experts who assessed the bridge were apparently pressured into
acquiescing that the needed repairs could be put off. He also doesn't
mention that the head of MNDoT is Carol Molnau, who is the Lieutenant
Governor and who took on the job of running MNDoT to save the cost of a
salary. She knows little or nothing about running the department,
however.
Even his own figures don't make sense: $1 billion is not 25% of $1.6
billion, for example. The author neglects to omit that bus service is
continually underfunded and reduced year after year, resulting in lower
ridership. His claim that the "light rail network... has had a
negligible impact on traffic congestion" is neither documented nor
factually supported. Also, he neglects the fact that the "light rail
network" is currently a total of one light rail line from the Mall of
America through south Minneapolis to downtown Minneapolis, and that its
choice of alignment was in part determined by opponents to the rail
system who wanted to see it fail. He also failed to mention that the
"rail network" surpassed its projected one year ridership within a few
months of being opened, and that ridership continues to be above even
the most optimistic expectations. Traffic congestion on the immediately
adjacent Hiawatha Avenue corridor is greatly reduced, as I know from
experience and direct observation.
A second rail line from Big Lake to Minneapolis is eagerly awaited by
the people it will serve and- if anything like the same pattern is seen-
will help alleviate congestion on one of the most traveled corridors in
the state.
The author also neglects to mention that Minnesota had an excellent
system of mass transit that was destroyed by a social engineering
strategy in the 1950s to benefit auto makers, tire manufacturers and oil
companies. By the time it was prosecuted and people went to prison, the
damage was done. So we have to rebuild to get back what we previously
had at a horrendous cost.
He also fails to point out that the Twin Cities have the second highest
per-capita bike commutership in the country, thanks to the money
invested in bike infrastructure, and that the number of bike commuters
increases month over month.
If the author based his opinion on "facts" from the Taxpayer's League of
Minnesota, no wonder he's off the mark. They're even less honest than
Bill Clinton.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 20:26:05
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> ...
> The sports arenas (for the University, the Twins and the Vikings) are a
> huge error in judgment. Absolutely gigantic. We already built them a
> damned stadium at public expense, the HHH Metrodome, which we are still
> paying for! My most conservative friend (possibly somewhat to the right
> of you, Bill) acutely observed that if building a new arena made
> financial sense, the private sector would be doing it....
butbutbut, the purpose of government is to transfer money from the
middle class to the rich!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 22:33:55
From: still me
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:26:05 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0003@innvalid.com > wrote:
>
>butbutbut, the purpose of government is to transfer money from the
>middle class to the rich!
Surely you're not suggesting that there are rich people getting richer
from all the spending the gov't does on huge projects and the tax
breaks it grants for others. Please restrain your wild theories. Next
thing you know you'll be suggesting that people actually try to push
through huge projects that put millions and billions of dollars in
their pockets at taxpayer expense.
Certainly no citizen would distort the political process in the USA in
that way and corporations, not being citizens, would never have that
kind of pull in strict "one man, one vote" nation.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 21:13:50
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:50:16 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>In article <46c9b338$0$28888$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> > In article <q7ric3l8tokhudspphtbkb3p9il6rnnl8a@4ax.com>, John
>> > Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> But Bill, do you understand the difference between opinion
>> >> (editorial material) and reporting?
>>
>> Flogger, why do you keep addressing me?!? I PLONKED you because
>> you're a liar and a cheater.
>>
>> > The current crop of vocal "conservatives" writing editorials don't
>> > generally understand the difference between beliefs and facts, and
>> > they think that a fact is just a belief that is expressed loudly
>> > and persistently enough. They confuse and blind those who lack
>> > critical thinking skills.
>>
>> The editorial (link to which either you or Flogger clipped) contained
>> FACTUAL INFORMATION on which its /opinion/ was based. FACTS IS
>> FACTS.
>
>My comments were not specifically about this editorial, which is why I
>clipped that bit out. They were about the latter day tendencies of the
>"conservative" mindset (IMHO modern "conservatives" are often anything
>but conservative except on tax policy).
>
>> That bridge was flagged as problematic in *1990*. Multi-millions of
>> dollars have gone to the state and region for infrastructure repair
>> and maintenance over the years, yet virtually nothing of consequence
>> got done. Politicians of both parties would rather procure big bucks
>> for something with a ribbon to cut -- preferably with their name on
>> it -- than allocate money for needed work. MN can spend a jillion
>> for a new sports facility, yet throw a small crew to fix a bridge
>> that carries hundreds of thousands of people per day.
>
>No argument from me on any of that, Bill. Back when I was a kid,
>
>The bridge was first flagged as problematic in 1990 under the Arne
>Carlson Administration. Carlson was a fiscally and socially moderate
>Republican (whom I voted for twice because he was a significantly better
>choice that the DFL alternative). He was followed by the Jesse Ventura
>Administration which ran the state into the ground due; Ventura was a
>fiscal extremist who had no concept of planning ahead and was aided and
>abetted by Steve Swiggum (R-Kenyon) and current Governor Tim Pawlenty.
>They managed to engineer a massive budget deficit which has severely
>hampered maintaining and updating Minnesota's infrastructure. Under
>Ventura's and Pawlenty's watch, the Minnesota educational system has
>gone downhill, our roads are in atrocious condition, our publicly
>financed health care system is in the hopper, etc.
>
>The sports arenas (for the University, the Twins and the Vikings) are a
>huge error in judgment. Absolutely gigantic. We already built them a
>damned stadium at public expense, the HHH Metrodome, which we are still
>paying for! My most conservative friend (possibly somewhat to the right
>of you, Bill) acutely observed that if building a new arena made
>financial sense, the private sector would be doing it.
>
>> Hell, here's the editorial again:
>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010490
>>
>> Read it, and if it's FACTUALLY incorrect about something, then speak
>> up.
>
>The editorial is riddled with errant assumptions, significant omissions,
>tortured logic, and a few factual errors of some significance. Don't
>believe everything you read.
[details snipped]
I have to laugh at Sorni lecturing McNamara about details of Minnesota
politics. Sort of like him telling me trans fats are banned in New
York City.
>significant omissions
This is a problem with using editorials (and opinion radio, TV,
whatever) as a source of news information. They can be a source of
useful arguments, or even pointers to interesting facts and patterns
in facts, but if that's all someone is consuming they are going to end
up ... like Sorni.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 02:29:05
From: still me
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:13:50 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:
>This is a problem with using editorials (and opinion radio, TV,
>whatever) as a source of news information. They can be a source of
>useful arguments, or even pointers to interesting facts and patterns
>in facts, but if that's all someone is consuming they are going to end
>up ... like Sorni.
Ya think? Is there something wrong with the author selecting only the
facts that support his point of view and ignoring all that don't?
Should we note that the author choose to compare the tax rates of
Minnesota with TX and NH - two states that are totally incomparable to
MN in every aspect? Should we note that he fails to make his own
numbers add up?
But, actually, in the case of this article I think it's OK. It's on
the editorial page. He is trying to prove a point. It's up to the
reader to determine the biases and check the facts. The author knows
he's being creative, smart people know he's being creative. Admittedly
the naive just accept it all and end up with more talking points for
the water cooler.
Unfortunately for Sorni, he doesn't realize that his head runs like an
editorial page writer, selecting only the facts he wants and
disregarding what doesn't support his preconceived conclusions.
All that said, the author is right even if his methods are suspect:
there's plenty of state and federal money running around. The vast
political and moderately fascist machine chooses to spend the money
elsewhere, on a myriad of allegedly conservative and liberal causes,
much to the detriment of those who have to pay for it all.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 13:02:57
From: Bill Westphal
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > writes:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:13:50 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>This is a problem with using editorials (and opinion radio, TV,
>>whatever) as a source of news information. They can be a source of
>>useful arguments, or even pointers to interesting facts and patterns
>>in facts, but if that's all someone is consuming they are going to end
>>up ... like Sorni.
>
> Ya think? Is there something wrong with the author selecting only the
> facts that support his point of view and ignoring all that don't?
Yes, plenty. It's lies by ommission.
> Should we note that the author choose to compare the tax rates of
> Minnesota with TX and NH - two states that are totally incomparable to
> MN in every aspect? Should we note that he fails to make his own
> numbers add up?
>
> But, actually, in the case of this article I think it's OK. It's on
> the editorial page. He is trying to prove a point. It's up to the
> reader to determine the biases and check the facts.
The reader has a reasonable expectation that the editorial uses
objective and accurate (and carefully fact-checked) information to
support it's arguments. Otherwise, the editorial staff, and the
publication in general, loses credibility, at which point reasonable
and intelligent people cease to read it's editorials. Those that
continue to read from a source they know to be disingenuous are
idiots. When I read the paper I shouldn't be made to feel that I'm in
a courtroom listening to a lawyers selective argements, or having a
"discussion" with my lawyer brother-in-law. Our legal system is
designed to base argument on lies by ommission, but using this
patently dishonest technique elsewhere is unethical. Furthermore,
when editorial content is spread to parts of the publication normally
reserved for "reporting", such as the front page, whether I agree with
the opinions or not, I cease to take that publication seriously. Rest
assured though, the new management at WSJ will end this atrosity, and
make a subscriber of me!
> The author knows
> he's being creative, smart people know he's being creative. Admittedly
> the naive just accept it all and end up with more talking points for
> the water cooler.
>
> Unfortunately for Sorni, he doesn't realize that his head runs like an
> editorial page writer, selecting only the facts he wants and
> disregarding what doesn't support his preconceived conclusions.
>
> All that said, the author is right even if his methods are suspect:
> there's plenty of state and federal money running around. The vast
> political and moderately fascist machine chooses to spend the money
> elsewhere, on a myriad of allegedly conservative and liberal causes,
> much to the detriment of those who have to pay for it all.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 19:37:50
From: still me
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:02:57 -0600, Bill Westphal <aioe@westphal.org >
wrote:
>> Ya think? Is there something wrong with the author selecting only the
>> facts that support his point of view and ignoring all that don't?
>
>Yes, plenty. It's lies by ommission.
Standard fare for many soap box pounders these days. >
>The reader has a reasonable expectation that the editorial uses
>objective and accurate (and carefully fact-checked) information to
>support it's arguments. Otherwise, the editorial staff, and the
>publication in general, loses credibility, at which point reasonable
>and intelligent people cease to read it's editorials.
Agreed, but people who *want* to have a particular opinion are drawn
to it as justification and reinforcement. Witness talk radio.
> Those that
>continue to read from a source they know to be disingenuous are
>idiots.
No arguments there, but they convince themselves it's true because
they want it to be true.
>When I read the paper I shouldn't be made to feel that I'm in
>a courtroom listening to a lawyers selective argements, or having a
>"discussion" with my lawyer brother-in-law. Our legal system is
>designed to base argument on lies by ommission, but using this
>patently dishonest technique elsewhere is unethical.
Your standards, unfortunately not the rest of the world's.
>Furthermore,
>when editorial content is spread to parts of the publication normally
>reserved for "reporting", such as the front page, whether I agree with
>the opinions or not, I cease to take that publication seriously. Rest
>assured though, the new management at WSJ will end this atrosity, and
>make a subscriber of me!
LOL. The news business is as obscene as government these days.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 09:07:09
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
In article <gggkc3hd4oopeg5tc88tpf02j0caob8bh4@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Unfortunately for Sorni, he doesn't realize that his head runs like
> an editorial page writer, selecting only the facts he wants and
> disregarding what doesn't support his preconceived conclusions.
Which we are all prone to doing. Seems to be part of human nature. In
this newsgroup Andrew, Bill, Mark Hickey, etc. have pointed me to things
I'd not have noticed on my own which is what makes debate useful.
> All that said, the author is right even if his methods are suspect:
> there's plenty of state and federal money running around. The vast
> political and moderately fascist machine chooses to spend the money
> elsewhere, on a myriad of allegedly conservative and liberal causes,
> much to the detriment of those who have to pay for it all.
It's a conspiracy, I tell you!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 21:21:30
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
still me wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:13:50 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> This is a problem with using editorials (and opinion radio, TV,
>> whatever) as a source of news information. They can be a source of
>> useful arguments, or even pointers to interesting facts and patterns
>> in facts, but if that's all someone is consuming they are going to
>> end up ... like Sorni.
>
> Ya think? Is there something wrong with the author selecting only the
> facts that support his point of view and ignoring all that don't?
> Should we note that the author choose to compare the tax rates of
> Minnesota with TX and NH - two states that are totally incomparable to
> MN in every aspect? Should we note that he fails to make his own
> numbers add up?
>
> But, actually, in the case of this article I think it's OK. It's on
> the editorial page. He is trying to prove a point. It's up to the
> reader to determine the biases and check the facts. The author knows
> he's being creative, smart people know he's being creative. Admittedly
> the naive just accept it all and end up with more talking points for
> the water cooler.
>
> Unfortunately for Sorni, he doesn't realize that his head runs like an
> editorial page writer, selecting only the facts he wants and
> disregarding what doesn't support his preconceived conclusions.
>
> All that said, the author is right even if his methods are suspect:
> there's plenty of state and federal money running around. The vast
> political and moderately fascist machine chooses to spend the money
> elsewhere, on a myriad of allegedly conservative and liberal causes,
> much to the detriment of those who have to pay for it all.
Morons, it wasn't my link. HTH
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 05:49:10
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:21:30 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:
>still me wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:13:50 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a problem with using editorials (and opinion radio, TV,
>>> whatever) as a source of news information. They can be a source of
>>> useful arguments, or even pointers to interesting facts and patterns
>>> in facts, but if that's all someone is consuming they are going to
>>> end up ... like Sorni.
>>
>> Ya think? Is there something wrong with the author selecting only the
>> facts that support his point of view and ignoring all that don't?
>> Should we note that the author choose to compare the tax rates of
>> Minnesota with TX and NH - two states that are totally incomparable to
>> MN in every aspect? Should we note that he fails to make his own
>> numbers add up?
>>
>> But, actually, in the case of this article I think it's OK. It's on
>> the editorial page. He is trying to prove a point. It's up to the
>> reader to determine the biases and check the facts. The author knows
>> he's being creative, smart people know he's being creative. Admittedly
>> the naive just accept it all and end up with more talking points for
>> the water cooler.
>>
>> Unfortunately for Sorni, he doesn't realize that his head runs like an
>> editorial page writer, selecting only the facts he wants and
>> disregarding what doesn't support his preconceived conclusions.
>>
>> All that said, the author is right even if his methods are suspect:
>> there's plenty of state and federal money running around. The vast
>> political and moderately fascist machine chooses to spend the money
>> elsewhere, on a myriad of allegedly conservative and liberal causes,
>> much to the detriment of those who have to pay for it all.
>
>Morons, it wasn't my link. HTH
Nice. I respect you even more now.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 19:08:39
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: why the bridge collapsed.....
|
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:28:52 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:
>Tim McNamara wrote:
>> In article <q7ric3l8tokhudspphtbkb3p9il6rnnl8a@4ax.com>,
>> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But Bill, do you understand the difference between opinion (editorial
>>> material) and reporting?
>
>Flogger, why do you keep addressing me?!? I PLONKED you because you're a
>liar and a cheater.
What cheating? What lying?
More to the point, do you understand that your killfile doesn't
prevent me from addressing questions at you, or commenting on what you
wrote?
And also, it's interesting that you still respond to some of my posts.
If you really don't want to read what I write, don't. Exercise some
self control.
>> The current crop of vocal "conservatives" writing editorials don't
>> generally understand the difference between beliefs and facts, and
>> they think that a fact is just a belief that is expressed loudly and
>> persistently enough. They confuse and blind those who lack critical
>> thinking skills.
>
>The editorial (link to which either you or Flogger clipped) contained
>FACTUAL INFORMATION on which its /opinion/ was based. FACTS IS FACTS.
I said in my post that the editorial in question may well contain lots
of facts, but it's odd that you post opinion pieces far more than
straight journalism.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
|
