Originally Posted by aceventura3

I continue having a problem understanding the point of view of you and others on this "cherry picking" concept. In the universal set of facts and information, if someone is going to support an argument isn't it by definition that they will "cherry Pick" information to support that argument?

Just because someone "cherry picks" facts, data or information does that then mean that the person had to have ignored other facts, data or information? Is it possible that a person can objectively give differing weight to what could be conflicting information? Why assume other information was ignored? Why shouldn't the otherside simply make the case for the other information, engaging in real debate?

When "the otherside" presents "facts", why aren't those facts considered "cherry picked" assuming they do not list every possible related piece of information?

On the editorials, there are often two ways to read them. I agree with you I read them for the entertainment value, but I also read them for the data points and the sources to other information listed. I often go to the original sources cited in an editorial and look at that information, no different than when I go to an original source from what you may post. I separate the editorial content from the fact based content.

Given the differences - you make conclusions about me and my approach and I do the same regarding you and others. As you know (and as odd as it sounds, I am not trying to be offensive to you or anyone as an individual), I think my approach is more honest.