This Forum, vs. "News Sites" that are not... "Non-Partisan" Orgs that are not..

[host]

In the last day and a half, two examples "came up" in discussion which renew my doubts as to whether the information 'filters" of those who take differing positions in discussions here, are "tuned" in similar enough "ways" to permit serious discussion between those of opposing POV.

Plenty of what goes on here is "moderated". If a subject is deemed unsuitable for political discussion, it is pointed out by a mod, and....if it is the foundation for a thread, or for a series of posts, the thread or the group of posts are moved to another forum "genre".....

For example, is this a "news site" http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ ? Is it appropriate for threads to be initiated at this politics forum which have "articles" from this site, as a sole source, providing the "details" to be discussed in the thread? I have argued that it is not:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...96&postcount=8

Is this "American Center for Voting Rights ", a "non-partisan" "source", to be cited in our discussions to support a poster's argument?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=11

Was campaigning against voter fraud a Republican ploy?
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

* Posted on Sunday, July 1, 2007

.....Amid the controversy, the American Center for Voting Rights shuttered its Internet site on St. Patrick's Day, and the two nonprofits appear to have vanished.

But their influence could linger.

One of the directors of the American Center,Cameron Quinn, who lists her membership in the Republican National Lawyers Association on her resume
, was appointed last year as the voting counsel for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

The division is charged with policing elections and guarding against discrimination against minorities......

"The problem" in our discussions is that, even though "the work" has been done in prior discussions in other threads to convincingly document that a "reasonable person" would conclude that a source is "too compromised", unreasonable, biased, unreliable, to be cited to support a serious discussion, let alone as a sole, supporting citation...there it is... offered again quite insistently by a poster here.

Can we agree on a method to avoid this? Can we agree that anything linked or cited from a www.worldnetdaily.com web page must be accompanied by a corroborating link to a less biased, more reputable source. (The hope would be that this posting restriction would cause it not to be necessary to link to or refer to the worldnetdaily "version" of the reporting.)

I am accused of posting, too much information, "too many links". It is my belief I posted quite enough documentation to persuade that "facts" supported with links to "material" sourced from "news service", worldnetdaily and from "non-partisan" "voting rights" Org, "American Center for Voting Rights", are not from sources a "reasonable person", could view as "reasonable".

But, in the last day or so, here they are....cited as if they have never been discredited, and defended when it is pointed out that they have been discredited. The sources are then challenged, and not by me alone, and the "process" begins again..... I'm stepping out of "the process", posting this thread to discuss "the problem", because I am sick of it.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by host

I am accused of posting, too much information, "too many links". It is my belief I posted quite enough documentation to persuade that "facts" supported with links to "material" sourced from "news service", worldnetdaily and from "non-partisan" "voting rights" Org, "American Center for Voting Rights", are not from sources a "reasonable person", could view as "reasonable".

But, in the last day or so, here they are....cited as if they have never been discredited, and defended when it is pointed out that they have been discredited. The sources are then challenged, and not by me alone, and the "process" begins again..... I'm stepping out of "the process", posting this thread to discuss "the problem", because I am sick of it.

I accuse you of posting links that are often very little related to the topic, often dont' support your point, and require hours of sifting threw to find out what you were trying to get to.

Sorry you are sick of it, you will note in that voting rights thread the source was attacked but not the information from the source. If the information is false then there is an issue otherwise you are just protesting nothing.

[host]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I accuse you of posting links that are often very little related to the topic, often dont' support your point, and require hours of sifting threw to find out what you were trying to get to.

Sorry you are sick of it, you will note in that voting rights thread the source was attacked but not the information from the source. If the information is false then there is an issue otherwise you are just protesting nothing.

Yes, you have accused me, and, on the rare occasion when you have posted a specific example, I have explained why I've posted what I have posted, i.e., my intent in posting it. I do not know if you have read my responses, because you never acknowledge them:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...83#post2354483 (Post #15)

Originally Posted by Ustwo

No, not at all.



He links a story that doesn't support what he is saying. Its a common theme with him. What is says is that another supplement BESIDES the usual corn/soy flower mix works just as well.

Maybe he just doesn't understand the science, I obviously don't do this for every post, I do have a life, this one just happened to be mercifully short on links.....

My response to your criticism: http://http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/...97#post2354897 (Post #18)

Your criticism displayed in the following link, was posted several weeks later. If you post your reaction (on the other thread) to my explanation in post #18, I'll reply to this:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=57

You've also posted, more than a few times, that you do not read my posts. You've declared this, frequently enough, to give me the impression that you are encouraging others not to read my posts. Thank you for reading and responding to this one.

On this thread, you've posted:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

.....the source was attacked but not the information from the source. If the information is false then there is an issue otherwise you are just protesting nothing.

<h3>Above is the core issue to be addressed in this thread.</h3> You posted quotes from a 386 page report from a thoroughly (fraudulent is a reasonable description) discredited source. This was pointed out to you in a reply posted by another member. Your response to him was the same as above.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I have to wonder why the diebold machines didn't 'work' right in 2006



Those lousy Republicans!!!!

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main...d.html?col=434

I'm not sure you want to go this route there dc, not sure at all.

Do you think your reaction is reasonable, considering that the source of the information you're asking the rest of us to react to, is thoroughly discredited, it was a partisan, sham "op" created solely to misrepresent that it was a partisan "op" created to spread misinformation about the "non-issue" of "voting fraud"....and considering that you've provided no backup sources for the information contained in the 386 page report from the discredited "American Center for Voting Rights ".

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ustwo.....do you really know the facts about the non-partisan American Center for Voting Rights.....the source of your examples of alleged voter suppression by the Democratic party.

I'm not sure you want to go this route there Ustwo, not sure at all.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...12#post2377612

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Funny I was thinking just prior, how will my source be questioned instead of the incident.

So are you saying that tire slashing didn't happen?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...12#post2377612

My opinion is that your reaction is unreasonable because, since you cited quotes from a report that is discredited, is a fraud, you must accompany request for debate about the "facts" contained in the report, with legitimate support for the points you ask the rest of us to agree with, or to challenge.

When your source is as discredited as this 386 page report, and it's author are, it is as if you are starting all over again, when you ask for reaction to "the facts" that report contains. <h3>Isn't that reasonable?</h3>

[Cynthetiq]

First, let me commend you on your own reflection that alone is an important step in evolution.

Next, to clarify, sometimes your thoughts don't seem to align with the discussion at hand, it may make complete sense to you how you get from point A to point B, but to others, we are bewildered.

example: Something to Consider thread by tecoyah where you go from the OP of discussion on how to fix the politics forum to making a case for how Bloomberg is a necon.

Finally, where does it end and how does a new person coming into the forum get to know the ropes? Where does it end at? If you discuss prior that Foxnews.com is biased, then where does it leave someone who's opinion is formulated and supported by Foxnews.com articles? or any website for that matter?

Obviously it is for the reader to learn and discern which sites are and aren't acceptable to their point of view, just like the reader decides if the discussion points are acceptable to their point of view.

host, what I'm reading in between the lines is that you seem to think that because you posted all the supporting evidence for how you think and feel about a subject, there's absolutely no sound reason why someone shouldn't believe your statements and subscribe to your point of view. I don't think that people come to a forum, read a few threads, and suddenly have a paradigm shift in their political ethos and outlook.

Personally, I don't think that it works that way.

[dksuddeth]

host, tell you what. why don't you put up your entire list of news sites that YOU consider completely unbiased, accurate, and trustworthy. That way, we here who appear to be naive and gullible to any other false news source can follow your leadership and we can finally have all the facts as you know them and we can form our opinions to match yours.

[ubertuber]

Look, this thread isn't a free for all in which we get to attack host specifically. There's been more than enough of that around here.

Host, one thing is that I prefer for our politics discussions to be about the real world. In the real world, people make decisions based on sources that may be faulty, and they may base their votes on facts. That's why I don't think that it's really possible to collapse discussions into battles of references and citations -- as admirable and thorough as it is that your try to document your reasons for thinking certain things. That's one reason that I prefer to see the information in an article refuted rather than the source attacked or disallowed.


The down side is that we may end up having a bunch of discussions that seems tedious at times.

[Jinn]

host, I'm not "sure" you know what "quotes" are for. "Quotation marks" are used when you're "directly" quoting someone, not when you're trying to "emphasize" something. It's really "distracting", because it makes it seem like you're actually "quoting" something.

These words:
came up
filters
tuned
ways
moderated
genre
news site
articles
details
non-partisan
source

...did not need to be quoted. "American Center for Voting Rights" is barely legitimate. It is a title, but it could be quoted provided it it referenced in another document. "Non-partisan source" could've been quoted, but not individually. As a general rule of thumb, you should never quote single words.

I wouldn't ordinarily nitpick this, but I had trouble reading it because of your usage of quotation marks. I ran it through a program that removed quotation marks, and it was actually quite an improvement; I was able to read through the entire thing.

[ottopilot]

Sources of information generally considered biased and unreliable (partisan, tabloid, etc.) can at times be guilty of actually providing accurate details. Should we dismiss some sources just because the fact cited happened to be used within a biased article or media source? I think it's more to do with why the poster thinks the source is pertinent.

I prefer to understand the interpretation of facts rather than read a lot of cut, paste and quote. The evangelist rarely succeeds by preaching book and verse. It is often more effective to plant the seed of discussion than to litigate a well documented thesis.

For me, I'd prefer reading an OP presented with something like a brief statement, followed by opinions (supported by references - linked or cited), a summary/conclusion, then perhaps add questions to help kick-start the discussion. If clarification is needed, most are capable of asking or looking things up.

[dc_dux]

Host...I understand and share your frustration, but I dont know that there is a solution other than 'outing' pseudo news sitesn and other bogus sources and their manipulation of the facts in order to support a political agenda.

I dont particularly mind responding to posts that rely on sources like American Center for Voting Rights or JunkScience.Com. It provide an opportunity to publicly refute the bullshit that some TFP posters attempt to spread, from time to time, in order to support an opinion or position in place of presenting documented and well sourced facts.

[host]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Host...I understand and share your frustration, but I dont know that there is a solution other than 'outing' bogus new sites and their manipulation of the facts in order to support a political agenda.

I dont particularly mind responding to sources like American Center for Voting Rights or JunkScience.Com. Its easy to refute the bullshit that is spread.

dc_dux, I hoped discussing this problem here would lead to a way to progress from the tendency on this forum to assume (by the person posting) all information posted and linked from pages on other sites, rises to a level, merely because it is posted, where it becomes part of a supporting argument, worthy of the time and effort it takes to challenge it.

You're right, it is easy to refute bullshit, but it takes up time and space in a post. When I see it, I'm influenced to throw as much at it as I can muster. I've hoped that responding this way would have a settling effect, or at least create a climate where a regular poster here would be embarrassed to link something from worldnetdaily as a sole supporting source.

If someone began a new thread in TFP politics with an OP founded on an article linked from www.ufomag.com , claiming evidence has been uncovered that one of the 2008 presidential race front runners is an extraterrestrial, would those who objected be put through the same exercise of "ignoring the source" and challenging the specifics in the article, as we are asked to do, again and again, in response to the examples like the ones in the OP?

Can we progress here by mutually agreeing that posting from worldnetdaily as a sole citation, and posting solely from sources fronting themselves as non-partisan, but are EXPOSED as partisan and compromised as American Center for Voting Rights, has been exposed to be, is to be treated as if nothing was posted, or must we ignore the source and challenge the specifics, something we would not be doing in response to a single source article linked from www.ufomag.com , (I hope ?)

Originally Posted by JinnKai

host, I'm not "sure" you know what "quotes" are for. "Quotation marks" are used when you're "directly" quoting someone, not when you're trying to "emphasize" something. It's really "distracting", because it makes it seem like you're actually "quoting" something.....

...did not need to be quoted. "American Center for Voting Rights" is barely legitimate. It is a title, but it could be quoted provided it it referenced in another document. "Non-partisan source" could've been quoted, but not individually. As a general rule of thumb, you should never quote single words.

I wouldn't ordinarily nitpick this, but I had trouble reading it because of your usage of quotation marks. I ran it through a program that removed quotation marks, and it was actually quite an improvement; I was able to read through the entire thing.

If it is a grievous enough error to influence you to post an OT criticism, shouldn't the criticism be about an error that is "cut and dry"? In this case, it isn't:

http://dictionary.reference.com/help...guage/g61.html
Quotation marks (" ")

....Quotations may be used around mottos, slang, misnomers, coined words, proverbs and maxims, <b>ironical reference</b>, and unspoken dialogue.

Your criticism amounts to a personal irritant. I had no way of knowing. I'll admit that my usage of quotation marks is habitual, but it is certainly not unorthodox, or improper.

Originally Posted by ottopilot

........For me, I'd prefer reading an OP presented with something like a brief statement, followed by opinions (supported by references - linked or cited), a summary/conclusion, then perhaps add questions to help kick-start the discussion. If clarification is needed, most are capable of asking or looking things up.

I know of no other way of conveying the portions of an article or other third party information supporting a point I am posting about, than to "cut and paste" those portions, accompanied by a link. Even being that specific, I am impressed by how limited my success is in persuading anyone of anything deviating from what they already knew, before reading my post.

Time and again, we experience that most may be capable, but that they do not look things up. They post reactions, assuming that the subject of discussion is worthy of discussion, when, too many times, a quick search yields other information that clearly demonstrates that a subject does not merit discussion .

[Ustwo]

Just a side note, I'm not going to go hostal on you and post all the links, but that story I posted about the men slashing the republican vans tires on election day in the 'biased' and unreliable source is apparently completely...true.

Do a google of the names if you don't believe me and it bothers you I used such a tainted source.

[host]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Just a side note, I'm not going to go hostal on you and post all the links, but that story I posted about the men slashing the republican vans tires on election day in the 'biased' and unreliable source is apparently completely...true.

Do a google of the names if you don't believe me and it bothers you I used such a tainted source.

I don't disagree, Ustwo, and...over at the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=130045">Voter ID LAw....Safeguard or Suppression</a> , I am in the process of responding to the details that you posted about "the men slashing republican vans tires...bear with me, my post there is a work in progress...

I still maintain that we need a mechanism on this forum whereby there is mutual agreement that posting specifics solely sourced from something as discredited as Mark Thor Hearnes' ACVR's 388 report of Vote Fraud is received as if nothing was posted.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Just a side note, I'm not going to go hostal on you and post all the links, but that story I posted about the men slashing the republican vans tires on election day in the 'biased' and unreliable source is apparently completely...true.

Do a google of the names if you don't believe me and it bothers you I used such a tainted source.

Ustwo...you implied the tire slashing incident was comparable to, or worse than, the NH phone jamming and cited your source. You and the ACVR site made some nebulous inference (or want people to conclude) that the act had some connection to or was sanctioned by the Democratic Party...and the facts do not support that unsubstantiated allegation.

That is the exactly type of misinformation and twisting of the truth spread by such sites to support a political agenda.

No need to google the name..I posted a story with the facts, including a statement that there was no connection to the Democratic Party raised at the trial.

Objective viewers of our discussion can decide for themselves.(thank you Host for moving it to the Voter ID thread.)

Four top level Republican operatives who either copped a plea or were found guilty, along with with trial testimony of direct connections to the RNC in the phone jamming case as opposed to five low level campaign workers who have no ties to, nor were on the payroll of, the Democratic Party or the DNC and no court documents that suggested such a connection in the tire slashing case.

It doesnt take a genius IQ to see the difference.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ustwo...you implied the tire slashing incident was comparable to, or worse than, the NH phone jamming and cited your source. You and the ANVC site made some nebulous inference that the act had some connection to or was sanctioned by the Democratic Party...and the facts do not support that unsubstantiated allegation. That is the type of misinformation spread by such sites.

Objective viewers of our discussion can decide for themselves.

Four top level Republican operatives with direct connections to the RNC as opposed to five low level campaign workers who have no ties to the Democratic Party or the DNC and no court documents that suggested such a connection.

It doesnt take a genius IQ to see the difference.

First, we are talking about the source stuff, secondly, I'm thinking those boys were good soldiers and did their part, and didn't implicate anyone else.

But to reiterate, THATS NOT THE ISSUE, the issue is was my source 'worth' using, and guess what, it was!

[dc_dux]

The complete and unbiased facts are NOT the issue??????

Ok...focus on the source, the ACVR:

...it was well documented by various media sources throughout the 2004 election and now we have the concrete proof: Democrats and their operatives were far and away more involved in voter intimidation, fraud, suppression and, yes, disenfranchisement, than Republicans

Does that statement accurately reflect the facts in both cases?

It doesnt matter that they were not on the DNC payroll and just low level local campaign workers. Its still the same, or worse than the top level RNC operatives phone jamming. I get it ...its "your thinking"

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by host

If someone began a new thread in TFP politics with an OP founded on an article linked from www.ufomag.com , claiming evidence has been uncovered that one of the 2008 presidential race front runners is an extraterrestrial, would those who objected be put through the same exercise of "ignoring the source" and challenging the specifics in the article, as we are asked to do, again and again, in response to the examples like the ones in the OP?

Can we progress here by mutually agreeing that posting from worldnetdaily as a sole citation, and posting solely from sources fronting themselves as non-partisan, but are EXPOSED as partisan and compromised as American Center for Voting Rights, has been exposed to be, is to be treated as if nothing was posted, or must we ignore the source and challenge the specifics, something we would not be doing in response to a single source article linked from www.ufomag.com , (I hope ?)

So you are basically creating a blacklist of "biased" sources? why not just create a crib sheet that states which ones are biased and in which manner?

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

So you are basically creating a blacklist of "biased" sources? why not just create a crib sheet that states which ones are biased and in which manner?

I agree that there is a problem with pseudo news and other blatantly biased sites, but I dont see a solution...other than taking the time to refute each false or misleading quote from such soures....even if the poster attempts to divert the discussion by changing the focus to an "attack on the source" and refuses to acknowledge any counter (and substantiated and documented) facts from less biased sources.

The members of TFP are intelligent enough, even if we're not all (including me) at the genius IQ level, to evaluate a discussion and supporting links on both sides of a discussion and decide for themselves.

I wish it were easier to deal with misinformation or blatantly false information that some TFP users will perpetuate from less than credible and/or biased sources with an obvious political agenda, but a list of banned sites will only further the divide within TFP.

[reconmike]

I have a question on people posting blogs, blurbs, and papers, (not newspapers) as facts to back up an opinion.

Will these also be banned from use? Because I have seen posts with numerous
blogs quoted as facts by certian posters.

And maybe we need to have thread-jacker police present at all times, or a automatic program that redirects all Bush is the devil, he and henchmen should all go to prision t-jacks straight to the Diablo Bush thread.

[The_Jazz]

So we need MORE rules and not fewer? Someone explain why that's a good idea. Is this going to be Tilted Formal Political Debate?

Personally, I think we need fewer rules, not more, but that's just my personal opinion.

[reconmike]

Your absolutely right Jazz, but we are now having people who post here dictating how and what we can post, what the rules WILL be in a thread, it is really absurd what this board turned into.

[Willravel]

By my understanding, the original poster is responsible for setting the ground rules for discussion. Did I miss something?

[roachboy]

there are a few ways to look at the general problem of various blurrings of political position and information---infotainment is a good word for the results--i've spent alot of time working with explicitly left press outlets from the 1950s and 1960s, and reached the point such that i could recognize the positions from the rhetoric alone---inside party=speak. it's obvious. a hardline trotskyist paper is obvious. l'humanité, the french communist party daily paper--was obvious. and there's a way in which that rhetorical obvious-ness was a good thing in that it gave clear markers about what the infotainment was, where it was coming from, to whom it was addressed, etc..

over the past 20 years or so, there has been this bizarre and destructive campaign to blur the line between political position and information without providing a whole lot of markers at the level of rhetoric...this has been one of the hallmarks of conservative media on the order of fox news and the washington times...to recognize it, you need to know the various points or terminologies across which political views get slid into information, but even that is often not enough--- stories can be and often are entirely driven by ideological factors from the viewpoint of selection and framing.

you see this kind of thing coming from conservative think tanks---which i single out because of the amazing level of funding WITHOUT EARMARKS that alot of conservative think tanks have and continue to benefit from--nothing like that is operative, so far as i know, amongst "progressive" think tanks, which work with FAR LESS money and with a much greater level of earmarking (donors give money for specific projects). in this, conservates have simply been more innovative--eliminating earmarked funding to the greatest possible extent enables the organizations to be far more flexible in the issues they address and in the ways they address them. there is a ton of infotainment generated by outfits like rand and heritage and cato that really is nothing but infotainment. but it's not so easy, even there, because there is also good information. the problem is that unless you devote considerable time to working out what it what, you can't tell. and people tend not to treat information as a problem in that way.

similar there has been something of a campaign to disable debate on questions like global warming by flooding the infotainment market with mutually exclusive types of information, reducing the question to a matter of opinion that you can buttress by locating infotainment that is symmetrical with it.

if the united states is supposed to be anything at all--and i mean at all--like a democracy, this infotainment production is a real and ongoing problem--and the idea, which to my amazement actually has currency (including here) that politics is a matter of opinion and nothing more is a consequence. if yuo believe that, then you have to accept its consequences. one of those consequences is that voters vote without knowing what the fuck is going on, without having any idea of the issues, or ideas about issues that are rooted in nothing beyond wish fulfillment. THAT is what the reduction of politics to a matter of opinion means: no democracy, just opinion management.

this because a functioning democratic system presupposes and requires an informed polity. you fuck with information, you fuck with the system itself.
to my mind, this is a major problem and i personally think that the conservative movement has created it--the justification for it was a simple projection--this nonsense about "the liberal press"...

there is a routine problem of biais, and obvious procedures that you can use to control for it. then there is another problem of deliberate and sustained attempts to disable informed debate, to generate divisions by enabling people to inhabit mutually exclusive informational contexts.

given this, it seems pretty reasonable to be suspicious of information, but on the basis of the assumption that politics IS NOT a space of "that's just my opinion, man."---problematic sources should be understood as problematic. period. but if that was the only issue, this would all be easy peasy--but it's not. folk need to read critically--but they dont. folk need to assemble a range of information and work out by comparing versions what they can find of the facts--whatever that really means---behind the politics--but folk are too lazy, or they dont have time, or there's no motivation because "its all opinion."

so i dont see the problem with being critical of sources, calling out infotainment.
what seems a problem is NOT doing it.
that seems to me nothing but laziness.
and saying politics is just opinion is a way of justifying that laziness.
nothing more.

[The_Jazz]

Just to clarify, I don't see any problem with the OP (and only the OP) laying out the expectations of a thread. The lazy mod in me sees it as a great way to keep discussions on track without having to actually do anything. Besides, the OP is setting the tone and tenor of the discussion anyway with the phrasing of that first post.

What I don't want, however, is a boardwide list of rules of engagement. Like I said, Politics has too many rules as it is.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Just to clarify, I don't see any problem with the OP (and only the OP) laying out the expectations of a thread. The lazy mod in me sees it as a great way to keep discussions on track without having to actually do anything. Besides, the OP is setting the tone and tenor of the discussion anyway with the phrasing of that first post.

What I don't want, however, is a boardwide list of rules of engagement. Like I said, Politics has too many rules as it is.

agreed.

Also, sometimes the thread goes so differently than what the OP had in mind, it takes a life of it's own and that's when the moderators may step in and help guide it back on track, or let the discussion flow the way that it seems to be.

[loquitur]

How about letting people post what they find persuasive, and letting other people call bullshit on them if they think it's bullshit? Isn't discussion what this place is supposed to be about? I'm suspicious of rules in the area of free expression because they are too often used to entrench the views of the rulemakers.

In terms of style, host gets a lot of flack for the bombardment, which is sort of unfair because he does a lot of work, and instead of garnering respect for the effort he gets grief. Personally, host, I think if you did "short excerpt plus link" rather than whole articles (which apparently leads people to hit the "page down" button hard, or exercise the scrolling finger), your stuff would be easier to follow and consider. But that's just me. Host, when you step outside from behind the sources and use your own words to pull stuff together you're much more persuasive and it comes across much less like hectoring. At least to me.

This is just my suggestion, and you can take it or not, as you choose. Use your own words, backed up with links to your sources or short excerpts with the links, if the source happens to have put things especially well. The posts will be tighter, easier to read and follow and probably come across as much less polemical.

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by loquitur

How about letting people post what they find persuasive, and letting other people call bullshit on them if they think it's bullshit? Isn't discussion what this place is supposed to be about? I'm suspicious of rules in the area of free expression because they are too often used to entrench the views of the rulemakers.

This is so well said that I may adapt and use it in the future -- if you don't mind.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by loquitur

How about letting people post what they find persuasive, and letting other people call bullshit on them if they think it's bullshit? Isn't discussion what this place is supposed to be about? I'm suspicious of rules in the area of free expression because they are too often used to entrench the views of the rulemakers.

In terms of style, host gets a lot of flack for the bombardment, which is sort of unfair because he does a lot of work, and instead of garnering respect for the effort he gets grief. Personally, host, I think if you did "short excerpt plus link" rather than whole articles (which apparently leads people to hit the "page down" button hard, or exercise the scrolling finger), your stuff would be easier to follow and consider. But that's just me. Host, when you step outside from behind the sources and use your own words to pull stuff together you're much more persuasive and it comes across much less like hectoring. At least to me.

This is just my suggestion, and you can take it or not, as you choose. Use your own words, backed up with links to your sources or short excerpts with the links, if the source happens to have put things especially well. The posts will be tighter, easier to read and follow and probably come across as much less polemical.

Quoted just because there is sheer beauty in this post and valid points...

Loquitur is a God.

Ok, would ya believe a great mind?

How about a man with a very good posting of his opinion?

[loquitur]

aw shucks, guys.............

thanks. But I'm just posting what seems to me sensible.

Feel free to quote, re-use or whatever.

[host]

Originally Posted by loquitur

How about letting people post what they find persuasive, and letting other people call bullshit on them if they think it's bullshit? Isn't discussion what this place is supposed to be about? I'm suspicious of rules in the area of free expression because they are too often used to entrench the views of the rulemakers.

In terms of style, host gets a lot of flack for the bombardment, which is sort of unfair because he does a lot of work, and instead of garnering respect for the effort he gets grief. Personally, host, I think if you did "short excerpt plus link" rather than whole articles (which apparently leads people to hit the "page down" button hard, or exercise the scrolling finger), your stuff would be easier to follow and consider. But that's just me. Host, when you step outside from behind the sources and use your own words to pull stuff together you're much more persuasive and it comes across much less like hectoring. At least to me.

This is just my suggestion, and you can take it or not, as you choose. Use your own words, backed up with links to your sources or short excerpts with the links, if the source happens to have put things especially well. The posts will be tighter, easier to read and follow and probably come across as much less polemical.

Done....my goal is less confrontation within threads, and avoiding, from iside a thread, "shooting a messenger" who authors or publishes an article that is posted as representing important background in support of a POV or point, or more importantly, is the foundation/centerpiece of a thread OP. If an article linked and excerpted by a poster in this forum is so obviously biased/compromised that it is ridiculous to represent it as "news", or some kind of authority on a subject under discussion, or more critical, represented as the BASIS of the discussion, I think it is best to focus on that flaw, rather than be required to go through an exercise that makes one a pawn in the poster of the questionable article's hands....required to debate every point, "because some of it is probably true".

That's BS....it's bait, and it reinforces the practice of posting crap from a crap site, and fronting it in your post, as "news".

I've put together a new thread, it will display in a few moments, as an example of a way to respond to what I have just described, and simultaneously, allow the thread "with the problem" article, to proceed internally, as if it's centerpiece or a later posted article, was not an object of controversy and vehement criticism, because it is represented as "news", or authority, when it isn't.....

[loquitur]

Host, I suspect that different people here would have different standards for what makes a source "ridiculously biased." In either direction.

[host]

Originally Posted by loquitur

Host, I suspect that different people here would have different standards for what makes a source "ridiculously biased." In either direction.

....andi I maintain that some things the pentagon and the administration are engaging in today are unprecedented in their partisanship, scope, expense to all taxpayers, and in the way they interfere with a US resident or voter's efforts to become and to stay informed.... the results of this malignancy is manifested all over this forum. It has to be called out for what it is when it shows up here.

Do you not agree that we should be discussing this problem, in view of the following, and considering that threads here are founded on articles sourced from the "process" described below, and from " www.ufomag.com quality", "news" sites, like..... www.worldnetdaily.com ?

Isn't it one thing to react to news reporting that contains reports that challenge your belief system, ideology, sense of fairness, or your prior sense of the details of an incident or controversy, and quite another to build a parallel "news" stream filled with fantasy that is much more to your liking?

It is being done, in the outside world, my tax dollars are used by the pentagon and by the administration to do it. I can't counter it or push back at it in the outside world, but here, in this forum, I can.

This is a process intended to serve up ridiculously biased "reporting", at taxpayer's expense. If you think the pentagon's new process and it's unprecedented treatment of the AP's Iraqi photographer is for some other intent and purpose, I'd like to read what you make of it.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000587
How the Pentagon’s “Surrogates Operation” Feeds Stories to Administration-Friendly Media and Pundits
DEPARTMENT Washington Babylon
BY Ken Silverstein
PUBLISHED July 19, 2007

Earlier this week I <a href="http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000539">wrote a story</a> about a program run by the Pentagon’s Office of Public Affairs. <h2>This program seeks to bypass the mainstream press by working directly with a carefully culled list of military analysts, bloggers, and others who can be counted on to parrot the Bush Administration’s line on national security issues.....</h2>

http://www.ap.org/response/response_092006a.html
AP statement following Bilal Hussein's Dec. 9, 2007 court hearing in Baghdad

From Paul Colford, Director of Media Relations, The Associated Press:

Bilal Hussein and his lawyers have finally had a chance to learn about the allegations that the U.S. military has withheld from them since they imprisoned Bilal 20 months ago. But, they were not given a copy of the materials that were presented today, and which they need to prepare a defense for Bilal. We would hope that we have an opportunity to review the material. There is still no formal charge against Bilal, and The Associated Press continues to believe that Bilal Hussein was a photojournalist working in a war zone and that claims that he is involved with insurgent activities are false. Bilal continues to be detained by the U.S. military.

Because the judge ordered that the proceedings today be kept secret, we are restricted from saying anything further.

Paul Colford
Director of Media Relations
The Associated Press
450 W. 33rd St.
New York, NY 10001

DefenseLink Blogger's Roundtable: Home Page Blogger's Roundtable
The Bloggers' Roundtable provides source material for stories in the blogosphere concerning the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Global War on Terrorism ...
www.defenselink.mil/Blogger/Blogger.aspx

thinkprogress.org/2007/10/25/pentagon-righty-blogs/

....<p>Another aspect of this politicization is the budding ties between the right-wing blogosphere and the military. Last October, the Pentagon announced that it was “starting an operation akin to a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103001336.html">political campaign war room</a>” in order to “set the record straight” on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New teams were to “develop messages” focusing “on newer media, such as blogs.”</p>
<p>In February, the Pentagon began holding <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/Blogger/Blogger.aspx">Bloggers Roundtables</a> to “provide source material for stories in the blogosphere concerning the DoD and the Global War on Terrorism.” But at these roundtables, the Pentagon has reserved space almost exclusively for conservatives and military bloggers. Some examples of the bloggers on the roundtables just this month:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://wizbangblog.com/">Wizbang</a><br />
<a href="http://weeklystandard.com">Weekly Standard</a><br />
<a href="http://threatswatch.org/">Threats Watch</a><br />
<a href="http://qando.net"> Qando.net</a><br />
<a href="http://uscavonpoint.com/">U.S. Cavalry On Point</a><br />
<a href="http://griffsnotesdc.blogspot.com/">Griff Jenkins</a> (Fox News anchor)<br />
<a href="http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com/">Air Force Pundit</a><br />

<a href="http://military.com">Military.com</a><br />
<a href="http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/channel_dti.jsp?channel=dti">Defense Technology International</a><br />
<a href="http://austinbay.net/about.html">Austin Bay</a></p></blockquote>
<p>When the program was started in February, the calls occurred <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/Blogger/Blogger.aspx">approximately once a week</a>; since September, the Defense Department PR team has surged the roundtables’ frequency to <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/Blogger/Blogger.aspx">nearly every day</a>. Many of these conservative bloggers <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/%20dodcmsshare/%20BloggerAssets/%202007-10/%20ROZELLE_transcript.pdf">regularly</a> <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/%20dodcmsshare/%20BloggerAssets/%202007-10/%201003_Bacon_transcript.pdf">appear</a> on the calls, receiving unfettered access to military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. One military official explained the real <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/BloggerAssets/2007-10/1004_fakan_transcript.pdf">intent</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p>[W]e’re trying to do as many of these type of blogger calls as possible <strong>to let folks know what is really going on out there</strong> and to provide the opportunity for people to hear and write about it.</p></blockquote>
<p>Despite the regular frequency of the “Blogger Roundtables,” progressive bloggers or anti-war military bloggers are rarely featured. Furthermore, small blogs like that of <a href="http://griffsnotesdc.blogspot.com/">Fox News anchor Griff Jenkins</a> are featured on the <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/%20dodcmsshare/%20BloggerAssets/%202007-10/%20ROZELLE_transcript.pdf">calls</a> while more prominent progressive blogs are not.</p>

[loquitur]

Listen, buddy, I read the NY Times for my news. Much of what I read there sets off my bullshit sensors. Surely you don't think that mainstream journalists don't have axes to grind?