The type of men some other people are...

[Tgace]

Oh yeah, this guy is one of a kind.....not!

http://media.dailycollegian.com/pages/tillman_lobandwidth.html?in_archive=1

http://thingsihate.org/view/393/i_hate_soldiers

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/40259.htm

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/tsegel/2004/ts_0924.shtml

Theres more...need I go on?

 

[rmcrobertson]

So your absolute proof is: a) an editorial in a college paper; b) a blog; c) one of Murdoch's papers; d) a right-wing website.

Oh. Well, I guess I'll be voting Republican from here on out.

 

[Tgace]

Proof of what? That some people out there are all expressing the same contempt of servicemen? Apparently there are.

BTW, since when is the source a refutation of the content? So the story of the wounded soldier being beaten was from a conservative website...so what? Did that mean it didnt happen? You use that tactic frequently..its silly.

 

[ginshun]

So your absolute proof is: a) an editorial in a college paper; b) a blog; c) one of Murdoch's papers; d) a right-wing website.

Oh. Well, I guess I'll be voting Republican from here on out.

Ya, your probably right, I bet Fox News made all those sights so that liberals look bad. That's so much more believable that just accepting that some people are looney.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. In good research, it is always vital to consider the source. Some cannot be trusted; for example, the "Washington Times," is a much less reliable source than the "New York Times," because the former is owned by a famous, world class right-wing religious nutcase, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who has several times publicly announced that his paper is his tool for converting the world to his beliefs, and the latter is owned by rich people and stockholders who have repeatedly said that their interests lie in getting the news out over the last 150 years or so.

2. In good research, primary sources are always best; that is, it is best NEVER to take somebody else's word for what somebody else said or wrote. FOX News has a long history, in fact, of quoting out of context--and moreover, the channel is openly and avowedly conservative/rightist in its politics.

3. You can pretty much find any sort of looniness you want on the Web. I assure you that I can easily find far more, far worse guff and madness from right-wing types--and the leftists have the advantage that they usually don't brandish guns and call for anybody to be shot. Usually, anyway.

 

[Tgace]

So..when an "unreliable source" publishes a story about a soldier being beaten..it didnt happen? :idunno:

While articles of opinion or editorials from slanted sources are questionable, I dont believe it applies to cases of "fact" (either the guy was beaten or he wasnt) most fact based stories come from wires anyway. If you believe the story is false state your evidence. Just saying "well it came from the Washington times" is a silly tactic.....BTW what is it Im supposed to be proving here again? I dont believe I made a statement of any kind.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I thought that what I actually wrote was that a) one should take the source into account; b) there were some sources that were highly unreliable. I don't think I said anything about anybody's politics; just that the "Wash. Times," was a good example (as was FOX) of a source that had a poor track record for reliability, and open bias.

 

[Tgace]

OK..what do you think Im trying to prove here, that I need to take sources into account? I was just contrasting the other thread about Marines sacrificing for each other with some screwballs here in this country who are saying this crap...which some obviously are. Others are going the extra mile and writing hate mail to soldiers and beating injured ones. Are you saying that they are not? If a "liberal rag" doesn't publish a story about a soldier getting hate mail, does that mean it never happened.:idunno:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Should I flip that back, and note that some of our soldiers are torturing prisoners are you saying that they are not?

Actually, what I really wonder about is why we need to have thread after thread about soldiers, and attack after attack on people who're clearly idiots...

Would it be OK by you if I noted, for instance, that what these so-called, "thinkers," have in common is youth, privilege, and contempt for the working people who're doing their...ah, poop work?--for them?

 

[Tgace]

I believe that people do like thread after thread about soldiers...gives them something to gripe about. I guess Im like Savage. You dont like my posts but somehow you listen and respond...I should get some sponsorship.

 

[ginshun]

I guess Im like Savage. You dont like my posts but somehow you listen and respond...I should get some sponsorship.

LOL

 

[arnisador]

You can pretty much find any sort of looniness you want on the Web.

Heck, you can pretty much find any sort of looniness you want on MartialTalk.

 

[Andrew Green]

[font=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]"My favorite thing about the Internet is that you get to go into the private world of real creeps without having to smell them." ~Penn Jillett[/font]

 

[47MartialMan]

Heck, you can pretty much find any sort of looniness you want on MartialTalk.

oooo...thats the type of man i wanna be

 

[sgtmac_46]

I thought that what I actually wrote was that a) one should take the source into account; b) there were some sources that were highly unreliable. I don't think I said anything about anybody's politics; just that the "Wash. Times," was a good example (as was FOX) of a source that had a poor track record for reliability, and open bias.

You mean like Newsweek of CBS? I think we can more succinctly evaluate what you call a reliable source, and that is anything you agree with is automatically reliable, so save the rhetorical attempt at objectivity.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Since you ask, I actually--as opposed to your fantasy--tend to suspect everything that comes out from "Newsweek," and CBS News, on the grounds that they happen to be corporatist mouthpieces for the middle class. I tend to believe PBS and the BBC rather more, though with PBS having been taken over by the ex-editor of "Reader's Digest" (now THERE'S an unimpeachable source!) that's starting to change.

And when CBS or, "Newsweek," is owned, operated and micro-managed by the likes of Rupert Murdoch or the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who make no secret of their politics and their willingness to use their paper or TV channel to promote their politics, I will adopt precisely the same attitude towards them.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Since you ask, I actually--as opposed to your fantasy--tend to suspect everything that comes out from "Newsweek," and CBS News, on the grounds that they happen to be corporatist mouthpieces for the middle class.

So a source is automatically suspicious if it's associated with the middle class? Their actual behavior regardless?

 

[rmcrobertson]

All I said was that I tend to think it's important to consdier the source: don't you?

But since you ask, I tend to think that Puddin' head Wilson was right: "Show me where a man gets his corn-pone, and I'll tell you what his opinions are."

Don't you agree?

 

[Tgace]

So..yes.

 

[heretic888]

Logically speaking, it is not unwise to treat dubious sources with a certain modicum of suspicion. Or at least skepticism. At the same time, however, one shouldn't casually dismiss them without more careful scrutiny, either.