"Well, everyone knows who Linus is, and everyone knows the source of his bias."
WE WEREN'T TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE ON SLASHDOT. We were talking about non-techies, and if you're trying to make the point that non-techies know who Linus is, you're an imbecile.
Linus is anonymous to most people, so your point that "The problem is that this guy doesn't introduce himself" while valid, applies equally to Linus.
So, now that I've eviscerated your entire point, care to try again after letting go of your silly fanboi bias?
"BTW, if you don't think FOX is the worst of the lying network "infotainment" sources, well, you watch too much FOX News. Read a history book, or maybe even and independant news source, it'll be good for you."
I never said that, nor did I say anything that implied it. My original point was that even FOX NEWS occasionally gets it right (they do, whine all you want) and that it is ridiculous not to acknowledge that.
It was an attempt to inject some reason into the bickering I see all the time here on slashbot, but it appears to have failed.
God I wish I had mod points for you, but I'll have to do it with words.
The man is allowed to have bias. You wouldn't squeal about Linus supporting OSS because he's biased, and you SURE AS HELL wouldn't call his opinion "spin". So why do you do it to this guy?
Oh, right you're one of the new breed of individuals who ascribe to the "Do as I say, not as I do" camp. It's ok for your side to be biased, because you can always attack the bias of the other guy, just make sure you're the loudest.
If you really want to help the non-techies, use reason and evidence to discredit this guy instead of throwing around loaded words.
"Oh, but the Iraq war and Katrina debacles, along with Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, have already cost fantastic sums of money. This makes them directly related to anything else that needs money, like oh say, NASA."
And so have Medicare, and Social Security, (FAR FAR more than the war, by the way) but you don't trot out those examples every time this subject comes up, do you?
Why not? Right, it's because you're just like all the other stupid partisan windbags on both sides. Ignore your own issues, and yell louder than the other guy.
Do us all a favor, shut up and listen for a while, at least until you've managed to overcome your inability to consider both sides of an argument.
Why am I not surprised that MY lucid and well reasoned post is responded to by a poorly reasoned screed, that even worse
DIDN'T ADDRESS MY POINT.
"Fox News freely mixes opinion and fact without clearly differentiating between them, and often runs with the "talking points" published by a daily memo from the RNC - this is a known fact, not an opinion and not a speculation."
Well, two things. One, EVERY news source mixes opinion with fact, it is the nature of reporting to exhibit some bias. So it's ridiculous to use that as a basis for dismissing news sources, because you'd have to dismiss them all.
Second, "talking points" is a phrase that is synonymous with "opinion piece", or sometimes "propaganda".
Why are you moaning about an opinion piece that calls itself an opinion piece, especially when your initial criticsm of Fox news was that it was
"a news source that has been shown multiple times to have subtly deceived it's viewers en masse".
Seems a little silly to hammer them for calling their "talking points" exactly what they are.
Reconsider your biases, and maybe you'll figure out why you refuse to acknowledge that even when you disagree with someone, they may still have valuable information.
Now, at the risk of getting flamed off the face of the earth I would like to ask you a question.
Do you genuinely believe that the current crop of news options on TV is completely representative of the viewpoints? If you answered yes, then you can stop reading.
If you answered no, my guess is that you're sophisticated enough to understand that while you may disagree with Fox, they represent a significant portion of the populace. The news options that we have avialable today aren't all inclusive, and generally tend to cluster around one story.
The fact that there are other options is a good thing. And yes, even though they often make fools of themselves at Fox news, they also stumble onto a story every once in a while.
Suggesting that they are worthless as a news source is the worst kind of intellectual elitism, the kind that says if I disagree with you you're wrong.
Whether you like it or not, even a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and then.
PS, no I don't take them seriously as a news source, but that's a TV thing, not a Fox thing. I tend to believe information is valuable in any form, even if only to give insight into what others are thinking.
In approximately 40 responses to this article, I have seen the term "FUD" used about half a dozen times, and I have seen the author of this article attacked based on his opinions about MS in another 20 or so. Then there are the attacks on Fox news...
Not that any of it is wrong mind you, but would it be possible for some of you to actually refute the points, instead of resorting to the all too common "MS SHILL!!!!!" response.
"Kennedy could promote vision and enthusiasm from his fellow politicians and constituents when it came to exploration... whereas Bush can only seem to promote vision and enthusiasm among those politicians and constituents when it comes to blowing up brown people"
"How is it that Kennedy says we'll do the (at the time) completely impossible within 10 years and they do it 9 years later, and today we can't even decide if we'll do the completely possible (and redundant) within 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 years - or ever?"
You're kidding right?
The obvious answer is that no matter what the current administration proposes, a large part of the electorate will squeal about it. So large, generally, that it kills any momentum a genuinely forward thinking proposal might create.
In short, it's the crybabies, and the cowardly politicians who listen to them too much.
So, why is it that every time someone brings up the government spending money, it is inevitably followed by someone else with a supposedly "insightful" comment about the war, or the Bush administration?
What is insightful about repating the mantra "war BAD!, Bush BAD!" in as many different forums, about as many different unrelated topics as possible?
WE GET IT. You think the war is a hughe mistake, Bush is the anti-christ blah blah blah. Could we PLEASE try to stay on the subject?
What happened to the "offtopic" mod? (Watch as I get one)
"Why? I have a wife and a daughter, and another kid on the way. I have a house payment, 2 car payments and retirement in 40 years to worry about. I would shovel sh&t all day if it meant that my family could have a higher standard of living."
No offense, but this has to be the saddest commentary I've ever heard.
I would suck on a shotgun before I let you sentence me to this version of hell.
Great, so once I'm satisfied that the facts are correct to my liking, I can keep them that way for as long as I like.
Sounds fantastic, I'll just post that "Silverlancer" is synonymous with baby goat raper in Yiddish, then link to it every time I see your posts come up.
"BBBBBBZZZZZZTTTTTTTT. Thanks for playing; would you like to try again?"
That was someone else you were conversing with, not me. So, since you can't be bothered to be factually correct there, well...
"Frankly, you remind me of a gentleman I used to know who once asked "if I say it louder, can I make it true"."
That's funny, after listing several logical inconsistencies (which you arrogantly dismiss, but don't refute) you simply repated that you "don't see any logical inconsistencies". I have spelled out each and every point in detail. In short, you've done exactly what you accuse me of, in an obvious attempt to avoid admiitng you made a mistake.
When are you running for president?
"But clearly continuing this dicussion is a waste of my time, at least."
I agree, especially since you can't even keep it straight who you're discussing this with...
Honestly, how can you expect people to find you credible, when you can't even keep track of who you're talking to?
Link to all the stories you want, your argument is essentially that you want to be able to use the images of dead soldiers, regardless of their wishes, or the wishes of their families.
That's an untenable position, and all the attempts to be snide won't change that.
"And if you can't see how the rate and severity of those laws (passed and attempted) has increased to beyond the rate of facism, well... It's that attitude that lets our government get away with it"
Ok, got you. What is this "rate of fascism" you talk about? There was no mention of it in any of your previous posts, when you claimd that "ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE STATE CONTROL" were a sufficient definition of fascism. It seems you're changing the definition to suit you (and your SUBJECTIVE OPINION), otherwise known as making things up as you go along.
Truthfully, I don't think you've thought any of this through. If you had you wouldn't have to backpedal every time you are confronted with your own logical inconsistencies.
"Do you think the people living under the 'facist' regime thought their government was facist? Not until it was too late to do anything about it, would be my guess."
And that's your argument, because you I disagree with you, I must be blind to it?
Damn man, you're not very good at this logic thing.
By the way, you're being fascist in an attempt to control my opinion. At least by your flawed definition of the term.
"Because only pictures like that can actually show people what war is about. Because only pictures like that can turn these men's sacrifice from an empty number in some official statistic into a real thing."
This betray your obvious contempt for these men.
Their sacrifice stands on its own. It is only an "empty statistic" to cretins who fail to understand exactly what is involved in giving your life for people you don't even know, and sometimes hate, but that you have sworn to protect.
"Freedom of press cannot stop because of concerns like this"
Of course it can. There is NOTHING informative abou tpictures of dead bodies. The photographs are for shock value, nothing more. And just in case you STILL think it's ok, the courts disagree with you, and no, that happened LONG before Bush.
"Also, if the families are proud of their son's sacrifice, why should a picture of the son's coffins make them uncomfortable?"
Ok, reading is clearly not your strong suit. It's NOT THE PICTURES, it's the inevitable USE of the pictures by causes that are inconcictent with the soidier's values.
WHY should the DNC be allowed to use photographs of dead soldiers in an anti-war screed? They will you know.
"I would be much more offended by somebody trying to hide a death of my family member, or ignore it! Or turn it into some stupid statistic in some governmental records..." OR use their death to support an ideology they, and their families, vehemently disagree with.
Slashdot Mirror
"everyone"
Not your mom, not some DJ you rememebr for no reason other than he mentioned Linus,
EVERYONE.
You said it, and you know you're wrong about it, but you don't care.
That's a F-A-N-B-O-I.
I just went in the hall at work, asked 10 people and NONE knew who Linus was.
So, should we go at this all day with dueling anecdotes, or will you just admit your point was crap, and you're wrong?
GOOD!
I'm a smart, technically savvy individual, who generally knows how ALL of his technology works. In fact, I make it a point to do so most of the time.
And as long as that's the case, that means that I WANT the younger generation to be ignorant, so I can reap the rewards of their ignorance.
As long as they're still ignorant, I'm still getting paid.
"Well, everyone knows who Linus is, and everyone knows the source of his bias."
WE WEREN'T TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE ON SLASHDOT. We were talking about non-techies, and if you're trying to make the point that non-techies know who Linus is, you're an imbecile.
Linus is anonymous to most people, so your point that "The problem is that this guy doesn't introduce himself" while valid, applies equally to Linus.
So, now that I've eviscerated your entire point, care to try again after letting go of your silly fanboi bias?
"BTW, if you don't think FOX is the worst of the lying network "infotainment" sources, well, you watch too much FOX News. Read a history book, or maybe even and independant news source, it'll be good for you."
I never said that, nor did I say anything that implied it. My original point was that even FOX NEWS occasionally gets it right (they do, whine all you want) and that it is ridiculous not to acknowledge that.
It was an attempt to inject some reason into the bickering I see all the time here on slashbot, but it appears to have failed.
"The difference is that other news casts try to eliminate that as much as possible. There is a large attempt to show both sides of the argument,"
WHAT!?
You honestly believe this?
You CAN'T really think this is true. I find it impossible to believe anyone is that naive.
The news will slant its coverage any way it needs to in order to find viewiers/readers/listeners.
It sacres me that people like you actually believe that the news tries to be fair.
"Any other news outlet that does something similar is also being evil."
Then that would be all of them.
God I wish I had mod points for you, but I'll have to do it with words.
The man is allowed to have bias. You wouldn't squeal about Linus supporting OSS because he's biased, and you SURE AS HELL wouldn't call his opinion "spin". So why do you do it to this guy?
Oh, right you're one of the new breed of individuals who ascribe to the "Do as I say, not as I do" camp. It's ok for your side to be biased, because you can always attack the bias of the other guy, just make sure you're the loudest.
If you really want to help the non-techies, use reason and evidence to discredit this guy instead of throwing around loaded words.
"There is deffinately an effort here to misguide the reader into believing lies. That is what makes Fox News evil"
All news outlets slant the truth. Why is this concept so difficult for people to get?
By your standard, every news outlet that has ever done any story that wasn't completely factual is evil.
Or is your point that SOME lying is ok, but Fox just lies too much for your delicate sensibilities?
"Oh, but the Iraq war and Katrina debacles, along with Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, have already cost fantastic sums of money. This makes them directly related to anything else that needs money, like oh say, NASA."
And so have Medicare, and Social Security, (FAR FAR more than the war, by the way) but you don't trot out those examples every time this subject comes up, do you?
Why not? Right, it's because you're just like all the other stupid partisan windbags on both sides. Ignore your own issues, and yell louder than the other guy.
Do us all a favor, shut up and listen for a while, at least until you've managed to overcome your inability to consider both sides of an argument.
Why am I not surprised that MY lucid and well reasoned post is responded to by a poorly reasoned screed, that even worse
DIDN'T ADDRESS MY POINT.
"Fox News freely mixes opinion and fact without clearly differentiating between them, and often runs with the "talking points" published by a daily memo from the RNC - this is a known fact, not an opinion and not a speculation."
Well, two things. One, EVERY news source mixes opinion with fact, it is the nature of reporting to exhibit some bias. So it's ridiculous to use that as a basis for dismissing news sources, because you'd have to dismiss them all.
Second, "talking points" is a phrase that is synonymous with "opinion piece", or sometimes "propaganda".
Why are you moaning about an opinion piece that calls itself an opinion piece, especially when your initial criticsm of Fox news was that it was
"a news source that has been shown multiple times to have subtly deceived it's viewers en masse".
Seems a little silly to hammer them for calling their "talking points" exactly what they are.
Reconsider your biases, and maybe you'll figure out why you refuse to acknowledge that even when you disagree with someone, they may still have valuable information.
Now, at the risk of getting flamed off the face of the earth I would like to ask you a question.
Do you genuinely believe that the current crop of news options on TV is completely representative of the viewpoints? If you answered yes, then you can stop reading.
If you answered no, my guess is that you're sophisticated enough to understand that while you may disagree with Fox, they represent a significant portion of the populace. The news options that we have avialable today aren't all inclusive, and generally tend to cluster around one story.
The fact that there are other options is a good thing. And yes, even though they often make fools of themselves at Fox news, they also stumble onto a story every once in a while.
Suggesting that they are worthless as a news source is the worst kind of intellectual elitism, the kind that says if I disagree with you you're wrong.
Whether you like it or not, even a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and then.
PS, no I don't take them seriously as a news source, but that's a TV thing, not a Fox thing. I tend to believe information is valuable in any form, even if only to give insight into what others are thinking.
In approximately 40 responses to this article, I have seen the term "FUD" used about half a dozen times, and I have seen the author of this article attacked based on his opinions about MS in another 20 or so. Then there are the attacks on Fox news...
Not that any of it is wrong mind you, but would it be possible for some of you to actually refute the points, instead of resorting to the all too common "MS SHILL!!!!!" response.
"Kennedy could promote vision and enthusiasm from his fellow politicians and constituents when it came to exploration... whereas Bush can only seem to promote vision and enthusiasm among those politicians and constituents when it comes to blowing up brown people"
Do Vietnamese count as brown people?
"How is it that Kennedy says we'll do the (at the time) completely impossible within 10 years and they do it 9 years later, and today we can't even decide if we'll do the completely possible (and redundant) within 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 years - or ever?"
You're kidding right?
The obvious answer is that no matter what the current administration proposes, a large part of the electorate will squeal about it. So large, generally, that it kills any momentum a genuinely forward thinking proposal might create.
In short, it's the crybabies, and the cowardly politicians who listen to them too much.
So, why is it that every time someone brings up the government spending money, it is inevitably followed by someone else with a supposedly "insightful" comment about the war, or the Bush administration?
What is insightful about repating the mantra "war BAD!, Bush BAD!" in as many different forums, about as many different unrelated topics as possible?
WE GET IT. You think the war is a hughe mistake, Bush is the anti-christ blah blah blah. Could we PLEASE try to stay on the subject?
What happened to the "offtopic" mod? (Watch as I get one)
"I know the sugary drinks and food taste great, but they don't help you sit still and concentrate. (A new slogan perhaps? :"
and amazingly, there seems to bo no evidence that they hurt your concentrarion either.
Honestly, such lucid points, and you got sucked in by an old wives tale. SCIENCE! Use the research, don't go off of what you heard from granny.
"Why? I have a wife and a daughter, and another kid on the way. I have a house payment, 2 car payments and retirement in 40 years to worry about.
I would shovel sh&t all day if it meant that my family could have a higher standard of living."
No offense, but this has to be the saddest commentary I've ever heard.
I would suck on a shotgun before I let you sentence me to this version of hell.
Great, so once I'm satisfied that the facts are correct to my liking, I can keep them that way for as long as I like.
Sounds fantastic, I'll just post that "Silverlancer" is synonymous with baby goat raper in Yiddish, then link to it every time I see your posts come up.
Magnificent!
With all due respect, this is crap.
I read an article just the other night that was locked, for exactly the reasons you state.
One side had a very biased point of view, as did the other.
The fact that the article you mention was not also locked speaks volumes about whether there really were lies in it at all.
"Censorship decisions based on moral grounds I merely find suspect; censorship decisions based on political expediency I find quite frightening."
And yet we agree it's the right thing to do.
So, then is it more important to take a stand against "partisan crap" or try to do the right thing.
It's either the right thing to do, or it's not. The ads you (and others) have linked to were distasteful to me as well.
But they're not the issue. The issue is displaying the dead bodies of soldiers (in caskets, but how does that matter?). The rest is partisan crap.
Is Bush a hypocrite? Sure, but how does that make it ok to use these soldiers as political fodder?
The answer is, if it was allowed, the OTHER side would use the images, then they would be hypocrites too.
To qute YOU
"BBBBBBZZZZZZTTTTTTTT. Thanks for playing; would you like to try again?"
That was someone else you were conversing with, not me. So, since you can't be bothered to be factually correct there, well...
"Frankly, you remind me of a gentleman I used to know who once asked "if I say it louder, can I make it true"."
That's funny, after listing several logical inconsistencies (which you arrogantly dismiss, but don't refute) you simply repated that you "don't see any logical inconsistencies". I have spelled out each and every point in detail. In short, you've done exactly what you accuse me of, in an obvious attempt to avoid admiitng you made a mistake.
When are you running for president?
"But clearly continuing this dicussion is a waste of my time, at least."
I agree, especially since you can't even keep it straight who you're discussing this with...
Honestly, how can you expect people to find you credible, when you can't even keep track of who you're talking to?
Again, it's not about the politicians either.
Link to all the stories you want, your argument is essentially that you want to be able to use the images of dead soldiers, regardless of their wishes, or the wishes of their families.
That's an untenable position, and all the attempts to be snide won't change that.
"So, let's stop talking about China and start talking about something we might be able to change: America"
I've got a better idea, let's try to avoid dragging the US/Bush/Guantanamo/Iraq/WMD into every political discussion of every kind ever.
It's hard enough to discuss politics without some asshat forcing the discussion off course. Discuss America? Let's not.
"And if you can't see how the rate and severity of those laws (passed and attempted) has increased to beyond the rate of facism, well... It's that attitude that lets our government get away with it"
Ok, got you. What is this "rate of fascism" you talk about? There was no mention of it in any of your previous posts, when you claimd that "ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE STATE CONTROL" were a sufficient definition of fascism. It seems you're changing the definition to suit you (and your SUBJECTIVE OPINION), otherwise known as making things up as you go along.
Truthfully, I don't think you've thought any of this through. If you had you wouldn't have to backpedal every time you are confronted with your own logical inconsistencies.
"Do you think the people living under the 'facist' regime thought their government was facist? Not until it was too late to do anything about it, would be my guess."
And that's your argument, because you I disagree with you, I must be blind to it?
Damn man, you're not very good at this logic thing.
By the way, you're being fascist in an attempt to control my opinion. At least by your flawed definition of the term.
"Because only pictures like that can actually show people what war is about. Because only pictures like that can turn these men's sacrifice from an empty number in some official statistic into a real thing."
This betray your obvious contempt for these men.
Their sacrifice stands on its own. It is only an "empty statistic" to cretins who fail to understand exactly what is involved in giving your life for people you don't even know, and sometimes hate, but that you have sworn to protect.
"Freedom of press cannot stop because of concerns like this"
Of course it can. There is NOTHING informative abou tpictures of dead bodies. The photographs are for shock value, nothing more. And just in case you STILL think it's ok, the courts disagree with you, and no, that happened LONG before Bush.
"Also, if the families are proud of their son's sacrifice, why should a picture of the son's coffins make them uncomfortable?"
Ok, reading is clearly not your strong suit. It's NOT THE PICTURES, it's the inevitable USE of the pictures by causes that are inconcictent with the soidier's values.
WHY should the DNC be allowed to use photographs of dead soldiers in an anti-war screed? They will you know.
"I would be much more offended by somebody trying to hide a death of my family member, or ignore it! Or turn it into some stupid statistic in some governmental records..." OR use their death to support an ideology they, and their families, vehemently disagree with.
Do you get it now?