Well, were it the case that an appointment of Bill Clinton or one of his close relatives/students to a related office of NASA coincided with a new wave of censorship... Then I'd likely take note and add it to my list of reasons why I won't vote for another Clinton or anyone closely related to him.
But that is not the case.
It IS the case that an individual closely related to Mr. Rove is in that position, and I see no reason in either case to wag my finger and insinuate a political bias on behalf of the poster.
Perhaps if you could provide some evidence that the statement was intentionally deceptive?
Questioning the political motivations of an article is a signal that the person cares less about the main issue a more about the politics of the poster.
So the parent poster doesn't like political implications. If that's the case, then they have every right to ignore it, or ignore me (if they don't like what I'm implying).
I will always fail to understand why anyone would defend censorship. If it is the case that this coincides with the assignment of new top-level personnel, then it's not unfair to draw connections.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, were it the case that an appointment of Bill Clinton or one of his close relatives/students to a related office of NASA coincided with a new wave of censorship... Then I'd likely take note and add it to my list of reasons why I won't vote for another Clinton or anyone closely related to him. But that is not the case. It IS the case that an individual closely related to Mr. Rove is in that position, and I see no reason in either case to wag my finger and insinuate a political bias on behalf of the poster. Perhaps if you could provide some evidence that the statement was intentionally deceptive?
Questioning the political motivations of an article is a signal that the person cares less about the main issue a more about the politics of the poster. So the parent poster doesn't like political implications. If that's the case, then they have every right to ignore it, or ignore me (if they don't like what I'm implying).
I will always fail to understand why anyone would defend censorship. If it is the case that this coincides with the assignment of new top-level personnel, then it's not unfair to draw connections.