Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clam Dip
hey, host, lemme axe you a question... or three...
1: why do you always post an entire article when just the gist will suffice along with a link to it?
2: why do always place emphasis on what you like in the quoted article when the article did not?
3: do you really believe we would be better off with john kerry?
i mean, look at the "big dig"... a few years ago while campaigning in massachusetts, he referred to it as a quagmire regarding over-spending by the government on the project. now because of cost over-runs, cut back demands on his part, as well as the part of the contractors forced to do so, has cost the life of a person. i'm just wondering if he will set a withdrawl date.
how do you ask a commuter to be the last to die for a mistake?
|
1.) Answer: What willravel said, and, before a recent "revision" of tfproject forums, the entire forum was searchable, any post was retrievable using search words. That resource disappeared from here in the last ten weeks.
If I had simply posted this link,
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20030714.shtml in this post concerning Bob Novak's columns about "Joe Wilson's CIA wife".... or this link,
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000978837 both in this post,
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=18
they would be meaningless now, because both of those links no longer resolve. It happens with at least half the links, after a short while, and with almost every link to NY Times reports....so....I know of no other way to preserve the docmentation in what I post. Do you have any suggestions to solve this, or should I post with the recognition that documentation and references should vanish after a brief period? Doesn't make much sense, to me.
2.) As willravel said, "You're giving mixed messages." How do you know "when the article did not?" (emphasize a certain point....) In the FISA "reform" legislation article that I posted, I enlarged and bolded the sentence:
"However, such details could include politically explosive disclosures that the government has kept tabs on people it shouldn't have been monitoring."
Why do you think that this sentence is placed as the third paragraph in the article, if it is not intended to "stand out" by it's author? In the original article, none of the sentences are highlighted. I observe "placement" of ideas and facts in news reporting, as one of the ways to determine what details are being emphasized by the reporter. How do you decide what is important, once you get past the headline of an article?
3.)John Soloman is an AP reporter with, if you research his reports, a reputation for less than unbiased reporting, when it comes to his pieces on prominent democrats.
Here is another AP report that counters Soloman's reporting on Kerry and the "Big Dig". I'll just post the link and headline:
http://www.showmenews.com/2004/Feb/20040208News030.asp
Kerry defends ‘Big Dig’ decision
Company gave him money, report says.
Published Sunday, February 8, 2004
As far as your last question, I have plenty of company, as far as my opinion:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11385.xml?ReleaseID=919
June 1, 2006 - Bush Tops List As U.S. Voters Name Worst President, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Reagan, Clinton Top List As Best In 61 Years
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/9549319.html
Historians say Bush is sinking fast
Kerry, or just about any native born, American citizen, over aged 35, would have been a better choice in Nov., 2004, than Bush.