Discussion:
a little balance in the news
(too old to reply)
Technomage Hawke
2004-09-19 10:20:37 UTC
Permalink
ok,
some of you in here have been harping that Bush is the biggest evil in the
world today. Me, I don't particularly think he is evil, just misguided
(more to the point, he has some questionable employees giving him bad
information). The bigger evil in all this is when the news media decides
that they should make decisions for the rest of us instead of reporting
honestly. This was glommed from another newsgroup (local to Arizona) and is
an excerpt from a book. So far as I know, its in print and hasn't been
altered, but it does paint a very disturbing picture.

These talking heads in the tube, the disembodied voices on the radio and all
those who write the news should be answer the 5 basic questions learned in
any high school journalism class: who, what where, when, how and why.

I say, leave the politics to the politicians. The rest of use just don't
have the time to have to filter the bullshit.

and now, the story....

***************************************************************************
60 Minutes of Fame

By BERNARD GOLDBERG
September 17, 2004; Page A14

On Feb. 12, 1996, I picked up a phone at CBS News in New York and
called Dan Rather, who was in Des Moines covering the Iowa caucuses.
It was a call that I -- then a CBS correspondent -- wasn't anxious
to make. I'd written an op-ed for this page about liberal bias in
the news that was going to run the next day. I knew I had to give
Dan a heads up. "I wrote a piece for the Journal, Dan, and my guess
is you won't be ecstatic about it." I hadn't given him any details
yet, so he had no idea what the op-ed was about.

Dan was gracious; he always was when we spoke. "Bernie," he said,
"we were friends yesterday, we're friends today, and we'll be friends
tomorrow. So tell me about it."

I did, and the more I told him the more tense the conversation got.
After listening for a while, Dan told me, "I'm getting viscerally angry
about this" and the call soon ended. And then the man who was my friend
yesterday, today, and tomorrow told a number of our colleagues that he'd
"never" forgive me for what I'd done.

What I'd done was not simply to say that there really was a problem with
liberal bias in the news (if it matters, I'd never voted Republican in
my life), I'd also broken a taboo, doing what no mainstream journalist (to
my knowledge) had ever done: I'd given ammo to "the enemy" by very publicly
saying, in effect, that the conservatives had been right all along.

* * *
As if that weren't bad enough, it was becoming apparent that by writing
about bias, which Mr. Rather over the years had repeatedly said was a
phony issue, I had (at least in his mind) also called into question the
thing he holds most sacred -- his integrity. That wasn't my intent. I was
just writing about bias in the news, not about Dan Rather. But if Dan
thinks his reputation has been attacked, understandably, he gets hotter
than an armadillo at a Fourth of July picnic, as you know who might put it.

That's why in the midst of this Bush memo scandal, you have to wonder:
Now that Dan's credibility really is taking a beating, why won't he blow the
whistle on his source, the one who slipped him the documents that almost
certainly are fraudulent and got him into this mess?

He doesn't have to give us the guy's name and address, just tell us what
motivated him to leak the documents to CBS News. It's a common
journalistic practice, after all, to shed as much light on an unnamed source
as possible. That's why we often read "a source close to the
administration" or "a police source involved in the investigation" said
such and such. No name. But enough info so the news consumer understands,
as they say, where the source is coming from. In the case of the leaked
memos, does the source have any connection to the Democrats? How about the
Kerry campaign? If Dan told us that, he'd still be faithful to his source,
but at least as importantly, he'd be showing good faith to his viewers by
giving them a clue as to the source's motives, whatever they might be.

Instead, Dan and CBS News do what they'd never tolerate in a crooked
politician: They circle the wagons. First we get a statement about how
there's no internal investigation going on at CBS; then we get a bunch
of stories by CBS News backing up the original "60 Minutes" piece that are
so one-sided they'd get a junior-high journalism student an "F" for lack of
balance; then on "60 Minutes" we did get a former secretary, "a credible
voice" as Dan Rather put it, who told him that "she believes the
documents we obtained are not authentic. But . . . she told us she believes
what the documents actually say is exactly as we reported." Put plainly:
The memos may be fake, but "We stand by our story."

We're the ones who have a right to be angry with CBS News, but it turns
out that Dan Rather is the one who's really fuming. Not at the source who
got him into all of this, but at those "partisans" who are fanning the
flames. The Washington Post quotes him as saying: "I don't cave when the
pressure gets too great from these partisan political forces." He's
absolutely right that some of his critics are partisans. But how about
Dan's source? Is he also a partisan?

Now it's possible that the mystery man (or woman) is someone who lives
in Denmark or Tibet and somehow got his hands on genuine documents that
make the president look bad in the middle of a race that might turn out to
be tighter than the rusted lug nuts on a '54 Chevy. But I doubt it. I'm
betting he lives a lot closer to home, and, who knows, he might indeed turn
out to be a "partisan political force" himself. And this is precisely Dan's
problem. This is why, I suspect, he isn't coming clean, despite the
damage to his reputation. Because Dan Rather may be protecting not just his
source, but himself; because, if the source turns out to be a partisan, then
Dan wasn't just taken for a ride, but may have been a willing passenger.

And then Dan, and CBS News, can kiss their reputations goodbye.

Mr. Goldberg, a correspondent with CBS News from 1972-2000, is the
author of "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News," and,
most recently, of "Arrogance: Saving America from the Media Elite" (Warner,
2003).

***************************************************************************

Technomage Hawke


- --
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered!
My life is my own - No. 6
HiEv
2004-09-19 11:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Technomage Hawke
ok,
some of you in here have been harping that Bush is the biggest evil in the
world today.
Name one person and post a message-ID of someone here who has called
Bush the biggest evil in the world.

You know, what? You can't.

Please don't start off your posts with a lie, it doesn't make people
particularly predisposed to believe what follows.

If you're upset with what we write about Bush, fine, address the facts,
don't simply paint us as Bush haters and write off those facts.

[snip]
Post by Technomage Hawke
60 Minutes of Fame
By BERNARD GOLDBERG
September 17, 2004; Page A14
[snip]

Please do not fullquote copyrighted material. A link with a brief
synopsis is preferable.

As for the accusations of a liberal bias in the news, sure there's bias,
reporters are humans, not robots. But in the past three or four years
there has been quite a bit of correction evening that bias out. Fox
News is a prime example of that.

Is news less biased now? Probably not, but at least there's a more even
bias on both sides.
--
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
Technomage Hawke
2004-09-19 14:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by HiEv
Post by Technomage Hawke
ok,
some of you in here have been harping that Bush is the biggest evil in
the world today.
Name one person and post a message-ID of someone here who has called
Bush the biggest evil in the world.
You know, what? You can't.
ooooooh! what brought this on? hit a nerve did I?

Its not up to me to prove anything. it was a generalized statement, and the
"here" I speak of is the alt.hack* hiarchy.
Post by HiEv
Please don't start off your posts with a lie, it doesn't make people
particularly predisposed to believe what follows.
a lie? gee, I /REALLY/ must have hit a nerve!
calling a person a liar in any way, shape or form does not command a lot of
respect. its a directed attack with no intent other than to inflame. In
fact, it could be construed as a personal attack because there is nothing
else to debate (yes/no?).

look bud, this statement you issued is, at best a gross misunderstanding on
your part. I'd hate to think that one would, by intent, seek to start a war
of words by issuing such a gross insult.
Post by HiEv
If you're upset with what we write about Bush, fine, address the facts,
don't simply paint us as Bush haters and write off those facts.
huh? did I mention anyone by name? no. But for some reason, it certainly has
you in a bit of an uproar... again, did I hit a nerve?
Post by HiEv
[snip]
Post by Technomage Hawke
60 Minutes of Fame
By BERNARD GOLDBERG
September 17, 2004; Page A14
[snip]
Please do not fullquote copyrighted material. A link with a brief
synopsis is preferable.
as I stated before, this was glommed from another newsgroup. no link was
provided. otherwise, I would have provided one.
Post by HiEv
As for the accusations of a liberal bias in the news, sure there's bias,
reporters are humans, not robots. But in the past three or four years
there has been quite a bit of correction evening that bias out. Fox
News is a prime example of that.
accusations? its as clear as it gets. I've listened to the cbs evening news,
compared it with others (abc, nbc, etc) and have come to the same
conclusion. these guys aren't telling us the truth, they are telling us
what /they/ want us to hear. Fox news has its own problems. cnn ain't any
better. In fact, I had had to filter so much shit just to get to the real
facts that I get a migraine every time I try. anymore, its turn off the tv,
kill the radio and leave sun sounds off (the talking version of the local
news as played on sap through the local Fm radio).
Post by HiEv
Is news less biased now? Probably not, but at least there's a more even
bias on both sides.
Bias, spin. call it what you will. I would rather hear the /TRUTH/,
ungarnished, without spin. just give me the facts and let me decide (and
yes, there are days even fox news doesn't get it right).

looks like that three edged sword is cutting a lot of folks today.....

Technomage Hawke

- --
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered!
My life is my own - No. 6
Leo Fellmann
2004-09-19 15:25:14 UTC
Permalink
(...)
Post by Technomage Hawke
Its not up to me to prove anything. it was a generalized statement, and the
"here" I speak of is the alt.hack* hiarchy.
Well, if you make an affirmation you generally are expected to back it
up with something.
Besides, absolutely nothing in your post indicated you were talking
about the whole alt.hack* hierarchy.


(...)
Post by Technomage Hawke
huh? did I mention anyone by name? no. But for some reason, it certainly has
you in a bit of an uproar... again, did I hit a nerve?
Well. I think the problem is that in the last few days it has become
relatively clear that the Iraq war was based on a load of all cobblers
and those of us who were saying so from the start are massively pissed
off about it.
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by HiEv
[snip]
Is news less biased now? Probably not, but at least there's a more even
bias on both sides.
Bias, spin. call it what you will. I would rather hear the /TRUTH/,
ungarnished, without spin. just give me the facts and let me decide (and
yes, there are days even fox news doesn't get it right).
Were there days when Fox news ever got it right?
I used to sit in front of that channel and laugh my head off.
Technomage Hawke
2004-09-20 06:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo Fellmann
(...)
Post by Technomage Hawke
Its not up to me to prove anything. it was a generalized statement, and
the "here" I speak of is the alt.hack* hiarchy.
Well, if you make an affirmation you generally are expected to back it
up with something.
There is a problem with this: its called the "show me the evidence" game.
and that game is being abused entirely too much of late....
Post by Leo Fellmann
Besides, absolutely nothing in your post indicated you were talking
about the whole alt.hack* hierarchy.
yes, I realized that I had failed to post to the other groups only after I
had sent this (rule one: never do anything important requiring high QOS
when you are tired).
Post by Leo Fellmann
(...)
Post by Technomage Hawke
huh? did I mention anyone by name? no. But for some reason, it certainly
has you in a bit of an uproar... again, did I hit a nerve?
Well. I think the problem is that in the last few days it has become
relatively clear that the Iraq war was based on a load of all cobblers
and those of us who were saying so from the start are massively pissed
off about it.
The problem is, this posting wasn't about the Iraq war at all. it was about
the "propagandizing" being carried out by the vast majority of the news
media. The latest out of CBS seems to indicate that as such.
Post by Leo Fellmann
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by HiEv
[snip]
Is news less biased now? Probably not, but at least there's a more even
bias on both sides.
Bias, spin. call it what you will. I would rather hear the /TRUTH/,
ungarnished, without spin. just give me the facts and let me decide (and
yes, there are days even fox news doesn't get it right).
Were there days when Fox news ever got it right?
I used to sit in front of that channel and laugh my head off.
They managed to do so in a fair number of cases, and they did, at least,
report on a factual basis with rehgards to the whole IRAQ,WMD/911/war issue
(for the most part). some of their "bloviating" though gets on my nerves
(O'reilly is an OK guy, but he needs to stick to the facts a little more
than he has of late).

Technomage hawke


- --
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered!
My life is my own - No. 6
Leo Fellmann
2004-09-20 07:16:13 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
[proof before affirmation]
Post by Leo Fellmann
Well, if you make an affirmation you generally are expected to back it
up with something.
There is a problem with this: its called the "show me the evidence" game.
and that game is being abused entirely too much of late....
That's a very cheap atempt indeed to side-step the issue.
It is very clear and always has been, be it science or law, that if you
make an affirmation you back it up or shut up. I see no problem with
this principle in either the present case or in the Iraq war, which is a
rather bad example if you ask me.

[whole of alt.hack.*]
yes, I realized that I had failed to post to the other groups only after I
had sent this (rule one: never do anything important requiring high QOS
when you are tired).
You do know if you'd just /said/ so in the first place we would have
been spared half of this?

(...)
Post by Leo Fellmann
Well. I think the problem is that in the last few days it has become
relatively clear that the Iraq war was based on a load of all cobblers
and those of us who were saying so from the start are massively pissed
off about it.
The problem is, this posting wasn't about the Iraq war at all. it was about
the "propagandizing" being carried out by the vast majority of the news
media. The latest out of CBS seems to indicate that as such.
*shrug* Can't comment on that, it's local media.

[fox news]
Post by Leo Fellmann
Were there days when Fox news ever got it right?
I used to sit in front of that channel and laugh my head off.
They managed to do so in a fair number of cases, and they did, at least,
report on a factual basis with rehgards to the whole IRAQ,WMD/911/war issue
(for the most part). some of their "bloviating" though gets on my nerves
(O'reilly is an OK guy, but he needs to stick to the facts a little more
than he has of late).
They most certainly did not report on a factual basis during the Iraq
war. They were sitting and going "go go go usa" most of the time. I have
yet to see anyone remotely objective on Fox news.
HiEv
2004-09-20 09:14:29 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Leo Fellmann
[fox news]
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by Leo Fellmann
Were there days when Fox news ever got it right?
I used to sit in front of that channel and laugh my head off.
They managed to do so in a fair number of cases, and they did, at least,
report on a factual basis with rehgards to the whole IRAQ,WMD/911/war issue
(for the most part). some of their "bloviating" though gets on my nerves
(O'reilly is an OK guy, but he needs to stick to the facts a little more
than he has of late).
They most certainly did not report on a factual basis during the Iraq
war. They were sitting and going "go go go usa" most of the time.
Yeah, I seem to recall that reports from before the Iraq war on Fox News
about the lack of evidence for WMDs got little coverage, at least
compared to CNN. Of course, once the war started, even CNN started
covering those reports less than they should have as well.
Post by Leo Fellmann
I have yet to see anyone remotely objective on Fox news.
Actually, I do like Fox Media Watch. They even admitted that Fox News
has a conservative bias, and laughed about a documentary that set out to
prove it when it was so obvious. They do tend to be fairly hard on all
media, so it's one of the few Fox News programs I go out of my way to
catch.

A bit of irony for you, I just turned on the TV and someone on Fox was
talking about Bush, and someone on CNN was talking about Kerry. <sigh>
--
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
HiEv
2004-09-20 09:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by Leo Fellmann
Post by Technomage Hawke
Its not up to me to prove anything. it was a generalized statement, and
the "here" I speak of is the alt.hack* hiarchy.
Well, if you make an affirmation you generally are expected to back it
up with something.
There is a problem with this: its called the "show me the evidence" game.
and that game is being abused entirely too much of late....
[snip]

<sarcasm>
Yeah, we should accept more claims at face value, like WMDs in Iraq.
There's far too worry about "proof" and "evidence". What ever happened
to good old-fashioned trust?

I mean, my parents accepted that "duck and cover" would protect them
from a nuclear blast. What would have happened to them if they had
questioned the ability of wall and a school desk to protect them from
lethal doses of nuclear radiation? They'd have ulcers now, and that's
what skepticism gets you.
</sarcasm>

Ugh...

If anything has been getting abused too much of late it's the, "why
can't you just accept my wild claims without any proof?" argument. If
your claims have a leg to stand on, providing a little proof is not too
much to ask.

I'm sorry if you don't like to be "fact checked", but simply trying to
avoid the issue like this just makes you look even more guilty of lying.
--
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
Leo Fellmann
2004-09-19 15:26:57 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by Technomage Hawke
ok,
some of you in here have been harping that Bush is the biggest evil in
the world today.
(snippety)
calling a person a liar in any way, shape or form does not command a lot of
respect. its a directed attack with no intent other than to inflame. In
fact, it could be construed as a personal attack because there is nothing
else to debate (yes/no?).
Wheras incorrectly accusing peope of "harping that Bush is the biggest
evil in the world today" isn't a personal attack?
HiEv
2004-09-19 16:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo Fellmann
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by Technomage Hawke
ok,
some of you in here have been harping that Bush is the biggest evil in
the world today.
(snippety)
Post by Technomage Hawke
calling a person a liar in any way, shape or form does not command a lot of
respect. its a directed attack with no intent other than to inflame. In
fact, it could be construed as a personal attack because there is nothing
else to debate (yes/no?).
Wheras incorrectly accusing peope of "harping that Bush is the biggest
evil in the world today" isn't a personal attack?
Oh no, that's perfectly fine as long as you don't name names.

Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. ;-)
--
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
Technomage Hawke
2004-09-20 06:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo Fellmann
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by Technomage Hawke
ok,
some of you in here have been harping that Bush is the biggest evil in
the world today.
(snippety)
calling a person a liar in any way, shape or form does not command a lot
of respect. its a directed attack with no intent other than to inflame.
In fact, it could be construed as a personal attack because there is
nothing else to debate (yes/no?).
Wheras incorrectly accusing peope of "harping that Bush is the biggest
evil in the world today" isn't a personal attack?
who did I name in that posting? NO ONE.
what personal attack was there?
the statement was a "generalized" one, period.
any indication of a "personal attack" is soley at the discretion of the
reader.

Technomage Hawke


- --
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered!
My life is my own - No. 6
HiEv
2004-09-20 09:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by Leo Fellmann
Wheras incorrectly accusing peope of "harping that Bush is the biggest
evil in the world today" isn't a personal attack?
who did I name in that posting? NO ONE.
what personal attack was there?
the statement was a "generalized" one, period.
any indication of a "personal attack" is soley at the discretion of the
reader.
I think we may have a semantic difference here.

Question: Was your comment directed towards one or more person?
Answer: Yes, even if you didn't name them specifically.

It is a personal attack, even if it isn't a "personalized" attack. A
personal attack is one where you attack a person or persons, which is
what you did. A general attack on unnamed people can also be a personal
attack.

You may mean the phrase "personal attack" differently, but this is how
I, and apparently Leo, understand it.
--
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
Lissi
2004-09-20 13:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Technomage Hawke
who did I name in that posting? NO ONE.
what personal attack was there?
the statement was a "generalized" one, period.
any indication of a "personal attack" is soley at the discretion of the
reader.
*sigh* Imagine: I say "men are rapists". Of course there are men
who aren't, but every man would feel attacked. And rightly so.

Your statement tried to portray everybody who doesn't like the
current US government as someone who thinks that "Bush is the
biggest evil in the world". You try to discredit criticism of
the current US government as "anti-Bush", alleging that this
is unfounded in facts and conveniently avoid any discussion of
facts.

You talk about "facts" as if they were a holy grail, always
indicating that nobody but you has any "FACTS". That permits
you to attempt to call others liar (by saying they don't talk
"FACTS") without so many words. Nice trick, can you do that
standing on your head, too?

Of course, only you know the "TRUTH" and the "FACTS" and what
you were really looking for wasn't any discussion of facts, but
merely an opportunity to rant a bit, right? We can live with
that, Hawke. But if you do that and then dodge any serious
discussion that someone would start with your rant as basis,
you shouldn't expect us to respect you as trying to get to the
bottom.

Your reaction to HiEv clearly showed that he disturbed your
cognitive consonance in a way that hurt you. I'm sure he'll
apologise for it, because it's really inconsiderate of him to
mention mundane things such as facts when you are pondering
all-caps "/TRUTH/".

It's interesting that most people, you among them, Hawke,
who accuse others of being anti-something or biased whine
loudest when they're called to back their allegations up. And
they gleefully shout "I must have hit a nerve" and accuse
others of trolling when said others point out either that they're
not talking facts or facts that are inconvenient.

HiEv was completely rational in his request that you back
your accusation up. Since you couldn't, he was right to say
that you were making unfounded allegations. The wiggling that
you started after that only drove his point home.

Lissi
--
Life ain't fair, but the root password helps.
- BOFH
RTFFAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/
RC5 team FAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/~wolf/RC5-72.html
Technomage Hawke
2004-09-23 07:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lissi
Post by Technomage Hawke
who did I name in that posting? NO ONE.
what personal attack was there?
the statement was a "generalized" one, period.
any indication of a "personal attack" is soley at the discretion of the
reader.
*sigh* Imagine: I say "men are rapists". Of course there are men
who aren't, but every man would feel attacked. And rightly so.
Your example "men are rapists" has nothing to do with this dicusssion. What
I said was: "some of you in here have been harping that Bush is the biggest
evil in the world today". To reinterpret my words for you: This is a value
judgement. You may not have intended for me to harbor this opinion based on
the discussions here, but I do. Note the subject "Balance in the news".
Post by Lissi
Your statement tried to portray everybody who doesn't like the
current US government as someone who thinks that "Bush is the
biggest evil in the world".
I am not commenting on "everybody who doesn't like the current US
goverenment", in fact I never vocalized my personal opintions at any point
in this thread. I was commenting on the over all discussion that I have
seen on usenet in the recent past, and it's parallel to the article that I
sent. You may not approve of my interpretation of the general discussion on
this news group. It is an opinion, of which I have every right to. It is
neither a mistake, or a lie.
Post by Lissi
You try to discredit criticism of the current US government as
"anti-Bush",
Post by Lissi
alleging that this is unfounded in facts and conveniently avoid any
discussion of facts.
No, I said : "some of you in here have been harping that Bush is the biggest
evil in the world today." I have never commented on anyone's specific
criticisms, in any way in this thread. I have pointed out, what appears to
me as extremist arguments going unchallenged. You may not share my opinion
as to how this looks (Bush as the biggest evil), but take special note of
the on going efforts to silence anything but the dominant conviction.

Some arguments are designed to elicit, nurture, and invite understanding.
The one's here, that I draw exception to (no names) are designed solely to
trounce exploration of new ideas. They are never given anything but
distain, how very unhackish. Look at how even you, have spun my words into
meaning something that you can mitigate, and then dismiss.
Post by Lissi
You talk about "facts" as if they were a holy grail, always
indicating that nobody but you has any "FACTS". That permits
you to attempt to call others liar (by saying they don't talk
"FACTS") without so many words. Nice trick, can you do that
standing on your head, too?
No, I never stated that at all. I simply stated that the facts speak for
themselves, and require not additional embellishments. Facts can be
verified.

Half-truths, lies, and other obfuscations can't be verified. Or fail to hold
up under serious scrutiny. My points in the inital posting were this:
1. some folks were harping on about bush being the "biggest evil" (my
perception)
2. bush is not evil, just misguided (my opinion)
3. he had questionable people working for him that had their own agendas
(fact)
4. the news media itself had the biggest problem of all: lack of objectivity
(oft referred to as "liberal bias"). (my conjecture)

The story in question, pointed out this last point and hinted at bigger
problems. These points are verfifiable and do stand up under scrutiny.
Post by Lissi
Of course, only you know the "TRUTH" and the "FACTS" and what
you were really looking for wasn't any discussion of facts, but
merely an opportunity to rant a bit, right? We can live with
that, Hawke. But if you do that and then dodge any serious
discussion that someone would start with your rant as basis,
you shouldn't expect us to respect you as trying to get to the
bottom.
No, I was not looking to vent my consternation. I was talking about facts,
but apparently nobody wanted to discuss my observations in a serious
manner. I don't call the on-going games being played out here, as serious
discussion. They only sought to silence my particular observations, and
focus only on words being defined out of context.

You can't claim that I'm avoiding serious discussion based on my statements
thus far, and then completely reinvent my argument. If you would like to
seriously discuss my accumulated observations as being properly
scrutinized, I would invite the discussion.
Post by Lissi
Your reaction to HiEv clearly showed that he disturbed your
cognitive consonance in a way that hurt you. I'm sure he'll
apologise for it, because it's really inconsiderate of him to
mention mundane things such as facts when you are pondering
all-caps "/TRUTH/".
oh really? I'm sorry, but this just doesn't jive. Now, he called me a liar
right here in public, yet he hasn't done anything to show us how this
should be considered factual. The accusations were designed to inflame and
attack my credibility directly, as are yours. Do you see it now? If no,
please review his previous postings here and in the mailing list. The
pattern is there, if you choose to see it.

Someone who gives only 2 conditions:
1. you are mistaken
2. you are a liar

Maybe they cannot conceive that, perhaps there are multiple other
alternatives? I consider thsi a significant lack of creativity, and this in
and of itself strikes me as a cognitive failure to comprehend the very
facts before him.
Post by Lissi
It's interesting that most people, you among them, Hawke,
who accuse others of being anti-something or biased whine
loudest when they're called to back their allegations up. And
they gleefully shout "I must have hit a nerve" and accuse
others of trolling when said others point out either that they're
not talking facts or facts that are inconvenient.
I'm not making any accusations, mine was a statement of opinion. An opinion,
in fact, that everyone in question seem gleeful to ignore. Yet you only
need a cursory glance at the traffic going on here for the last few years
to verify this pattern. Again, "If you would like to seriously discuss my
accumulated observations as being properly scrutinized, I would invite the
discussion."

Furthermore: Tar someone else with that brush, I have never said anyone was
trolling in this thread. The obvious games being played out here lead me to
believe that I did, in fact, "hit a nerve". And their attempt was to
silence my serious discussion, by painting it as being politically
motivated. (Ahem) You are also engaged in this pitiable behavior. If you
want to discuss facts, then quit playing these games.
Post by Lissi
HiEv was completely rational in his request that you back
your accusation up. Since you couldn't, he was right to say
that you were making unfounded allegations. The wiggling that
you started after that only drove his point home.
Excuse you? I don't call, being called a liar, on such sketchy grounds
anything close to rational. I call his reasoning toward that end as
ingenuous, and I wouldn't call this statement a request to backup what I
said.

"Please don't start off your posts with a lie, it doesn't make people
particularly predisposed to believe what follows."

Now this is simply an accusation, and I have yet to see anything that
resembles real thought being applied to his side of the discussion. To the
contrary, and so far I have been very rational in my approach to this
disgraceful ordeal. Further more the only wiggling going on here is your
attempt to wiggle me off of my original post, and off into your emotionally
charged political lapdog.
- --
Those who Ignore the mistalkes of history will be doomed to repeat them
endlessly. -- General Alexander The Great.
Lissi
2004-09-25 18:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by Lissi
*sigh* Imagine: I say "men are rapists". Of course there are men
who aren't, but every man would feel attacked. And rightly so.
Your example "men are rapists" has nothing to do with this dicusssion.
What I said was: "some of you in here have been harping that Bush is the
biggest evil in the world today". To reinterpret my words for you: This
is a value judgement. You may not have intended for me to harbor this
opinion based on the discussions here, but I do. Note the subject
"Balance in the news".
What I intend or not is of no consequence for this discussion.
I don't make decisions based on what others may think is my
intention, either.

As HiEv pointed out, my analogy wasn't close enough to the point,
insofar I agree with you. So let's change it to "some men in this
NG are rapists".

Is that a value judgement? Not at all. A "value judgement" would
be "I like coffee" or "I don't like it when people do X". You
didn't say that. I'll come back to that later.

<sidetrack>
Does anybody here know an ASCII representation of set-related
symbols, such as "element of", "for all", "intersected with" and
so on?
</sidetrack>

<note>
In mathematical discussions the term "true" is permissible :)
</note>

Consider it in terms of sets:
(1) for all elements X of |M: there is a subset of X of which the
statement /X is an element of |N/ is true.
(2) for all elements Y of |N: the statement "Y does B" is
true.

In the analogies used, B is "is a rapist" or "declares Bush the
biggest evil in the world".

Any statement about X is meant to target all members of |M,
because |N is not defined, which means that every element of |M
must be evaluated. Also your statement "some of you" implies that
the intersecting set has at least two members and that the set
| M consists of the people posting to alt.hacker.

On this basis HiEv challenged your accusation by saying: "Name
one person and post a message-ID of someone here who has called
Bush the biggest evil in the world." By that he actually lowered
the threshold for you: you needn't name all (or more than one of)
he members of the set |N, just name _one_.

Back to the "value judgement". Your assertion that the set |N is
not empty was not about "values", but about characteristics of
the members of |N. It was in fact a statement about properties,
similar to my (meanwhile corrected) analogy "some of you here are
rapists".

HiEv asserted that the set |N is empty.

Since HiEv can't be asked to prove a negative, the burden of
proof is on you. In a f'up to the original challenge, he added
what should be evident from his earlier behaviour: if you prove
him wrong, he will apologise to you. Not quite a Randi challenge,
but good enough.
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by Lissi
Your statement tried to portray everybody who doesn't like the
current US government as someone who thinks that "Bush is the
biggest evil in the world".
I am not commenting on "everybody who doesn't like the current US
goverenment", in fact I never vocalized my personal opintions at any
point in this thread. I was commenting on the over all discussion that I
have seen on usenet in the recent past, and it's parallel to the article
that I sent. You may not approve of my interpretation of the general
discussion on this news group. It is an opinion, of which I have every
right to. It is neither a mistake, or a lie.
Whether or not I like your opinion is irrelevant to the
discussion. Please try to leave such things outside of it or
mark them as "sidetrack", because otherwise they lead to
distractions.
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by Lissi
You try to discredit criticism of the current US government as
"anti-Bush",
Post by Lissi
alleging that this is unfounded in facts and conveniently avoid any
discussion of facts.
No, I said : "some of you in here have been harping that Bush is the
biggest evil in the world today." I have never commented on anyone's
specific criticisms, in any way in this thread. I have pointed out, what
appears to me as extremist arguments going unchallenged. You may not
share my opinion as to how this looks (Bush as the biggest evil), but
take special note of the on going efforts to silence anything but the
dominant conviction.
All HiEv asked you for was to name any poster here calling "Bush
the biggest evil in the world today".

It should be noted that any "specific" criticism does _not_
suffice to support your allegation, because specifics are valid
items that are open for discussion and can either be proven or
not.

Even a large number of "specific criticisms" isn't evidence for
your allegation, because first it would have to be defined which
of these "specific criticisms" constitute "evil" and secondly how
many of such specifics would have to be present. Besides, each
and every of the specifics needs to be falsifiable.

Since you didn't define "evil" in the first place, anybody who
criticises Bush more than once (that AFAIK, is the meaning of
/harping/) is a member of the group who calls "Bush the biggest
evil in the world".

Your statement is not logically valid because:
1. without defining the meaning of "the biggest evil", you call
anybody who criticises Bush more than once a member of that group
2. by avoiding to mention the "specific criticisms", you
construct an undefined set of criticisms, where nobody but you
knows what is a member of that set

Since each of the "specific criticisms" is falsifiable, it can
be debated and founded in facts (or not). By your sweeping
statement, you a) take in _every_ criticism (see reason 2) and
b) avoid discussing the facts.

My statement hence stands.
Post by Technomage Hawke
Some arguments are designed to elicit, nurture, and invite
understanding. The one's here, that I draw exception to (no names) are
designed solely to trounce exploration of new ideas. They are never
given anything but distain, how very unhackish. Look at how even you,
have spun my words into meaning something that you can mitigate, and
then dismiss.
I need to evaluate your words in terms of logic. It's a habit of
mine to do that in symbolic logic, because that way I avoid the
spinning you accuse me of.

From what I have said above, it should be utterly clear that
_you_ are trying to "trounce exploration" by using sweeping and
not falsifiable claims.

HiEv has challenged you to prove your claims. I'm confident that
he would be content if you defined your words sufficiently, so
that they can be individually addressed. It is obvious that if
you can't provide evidence for all parts of your statement "some
of you here have been harping that Bush is the biggest evil in
the world today", your statement is false (in a boolean sense)
and semantical noise.
Post by Technomage Hawke
No, I never stated that at all. I simply stated that the facts speak for
themselves, and require not additional embellishments. Facts can be
verified.
I agree with you that facts speak for themselves, but you'd have
to let them out of the cage you alone have the key for to let
them speak. By avoiding to specify the "specific criticisms" you
take issue with (reason 2 above), you keep those "FACTS" to
yourself.
Post by Technomage Hawke
Half-truths, lies, and other obfuscations can't be verified. Or fail to
hold up under serious scrutiny. My points in the inital posting were
1. some folks were harping on about bush being the "biggest evil"
(my perception)
HiEv has called you out on that. Provide us with MID and names,
please, to back your allegation up.

Perceptions can be tricky. If you're stoned, you don't see things
quite the same way than someone who's sober ;) What we humans
perceive is necessarily filtered by our senses, our experiences
and _always_ by what we want things to be like.

What I'm after is that your perception should be evaluated with
specific facts. If we don't know how your perception came to
exist, we can't address it. It follows that you either don't want
us to address your perception, or that your statement is a mere
rant that needn't be addressed, only noticed.
Post by Technomage Hawke
2. bush is not evil, just misguided (my opinion)
Irrelevant for the matter at hand. Allthough my fingers just
*itch* :)
Post by Technomage Hawke
3. he had questionable people working for him that had their own agendas
(fact)
That is in fact the same statement as your second. Both or
either could be addressed, but they're irrelevant for the
matter at hand.
Post by Technomage Hawke
4. the news media itself had the biggest problem of all: lack of
objectivity (oft referred to as "liberal bias"). (my conjecture)
The term "liberal bias" is undefined. People on the left side of
the political spectrum point to the very same media and say
there's a "right-wing bias". That would be a different thread,
too, though.
Post by Technomage Hawke
The story in question, pointed out this last point and hinted at bigger
problems. These points are verfifiable and do stand up under scrutiny.
The original story is not what you and I are talking about.

You and I are talking of your statement that "some of you in here
have been harping that Bush is the biggest evil in the world
today" and it's logical validity.
Post by Technomage Hawke
No, I was not looking to vent my consternation. I was talking about
facts, but apparently nobody wanted to discuss my observations in a
serious manner. I don't call the on-going games being played out here,
as serious discussion. They only sought to silence my particular
observations, and focus only on words being defined out of context.
That is utter nonsense. You're alleging that by challenging you
to back your allegations up with facts, HiEv tried to "silence
you"?!?

Observe all you want, but be prepared to back up. Otherwise we
either can't take you serious or have to dismiss what you say
as rant.
Post by Technomage Hawke
You can't claim that I'm avoiding serious discussion based on my
statements thus far, and then completely reinvent my argument. If you
would like to seriously discuss my accumulated observations as being
properly scrutinized, I would invite the discussion.
First of all you have to define the subject of a discussion. In
this particular case you were asked to do so by providing a MID,
which you didn't. Your subject is undefined and not falsifiable.

Let's discuss the existance of the some god, instead, there's
more substance to that.
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by Lissi
Your reaction to HiEv clearly showed that he disturbed your
cognitive consonance in a way that hurt you. I'm sure he'll
apologise for it, because it's really inconsiderate of him to
mention mundane things such as facts when you are pondering
all-caps "/TRUTH/".
oh really? I'm sorry, but this just doesn't jive. Now, he called me a
liar right here in public, yet he hasn't done anything to show us how
this should be considered factual. The accusations were designed to
inflame and attack my credibility directly, as are yours. Do you see it
now? If no, please review his previous postings here and in the mailing
list. The pattern is there, if you choose to see it.
You're just trying to shift the burden of evidence. You alleged
that "some people[... and so on]", it's _your_ part to back that
up. Until you do, you're not talking facts.

I myself don't like the term "liar", but considering how it's
commonly used, an analogy could be you calling someone a
murderer and he says "liar". It's not him who has to prove that
_your_ allegation is correct.
Post by Technomage Hawke
1. you are mistaken
2. you are a liar
Maybe they cannot conceive that, perhaps there are multiple other
alternatives? I consider thsi a significant lack of creativity, and this
in and of itself strikes me as a cognitive failure to comprehend the
very facts before him.
Who is "they"?

You did the original posting, so _you_ define the subject. We
don't need to be creative in defining your subject. Besides, if
we wanted creativity in subjects, we'd make our own threads.
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by Lissi
It's interesting that most people, you among them, Hawke,
who accuse others of being anti-something or biased whine
loudest when they're called to back their allegations up. And
they gleefully shout "I must have hit a nerve" and accuse
others of trolling when said others point out either that they're
not talking facts or facts that are inconvenient.
I'm not making any accusations, mine was a statement of opinion. An
opinion, in fact, that everyone in question seem gleeful to ignore. Yet
you only need a cursory glance at the traffic going on here for the last
few years to verify this pattern. Again, "If you would like to seriously
discuss my accumulated observations as being properly scrutinized, I
would invite the discussion."
*sigh* OK, back to my analogy: "some men here are rapists." That
is _not_ an opinion, but a statement of a fact. If I can't
provide evidence, I'm rightly called a liar.

Of course, if you only want it to be considered a statement of
opinion, we can leave you to it and ignore you. Otherwise you
have to provide us with a train of thought that shows how you
formed your opinion. To merely say "it is so" is a waste of
perfectly good bandwidth.
Post by Technomage Hawke
Furthermore: Tar someone else with that brush, I have never said anyone
was trolling in this thread. The obvious games being played out here
lead me to believe that I did, in fact, "hit a nerve". And their attempt
was to silence my serious discussion, by painting it as being
politically motivated. (Ahem) You are also engaged in this pitiable
behavior. If you want to discuss facts, then quit playing these games.
Speaking about HiEv's posting you said: "its a directed attack
with no intent other than to inflame". Your words in
Message-ID: <EXg3d.278083$***@fed1read03>. That is the very
definition of trolling.

If I was trying to silence you, Hawke, I'd killfile you or at
least wouldn't reply. Instead I'm telling you that HiEv was
challenging you to back your allegation up, while you try to
avoid this.
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by Lissi
HiEv was completely rational in his request that you back
your accusation up. Since you couldn't, he was right to say
that you were making unfounded allegations. The wiggling that
you started after that only drove his point home.
Excuse you? I don't call, being called a liar, on such sketchy grounds
anything close to rational. I call his reasoning toward that end as
ingenuous, and I wouldn't call this statement a request to backup what I
said.
That's another reason I don't like the word "liar": it's likely
to make people sidestep the issue by fighting over the usage of
the word instead.

Would you have stayed on the issue if he had said "back up or
shut up" (to quote root)?
Post by Technomage Hawke
"Please don't start off your posts with a lie, it doesn't make people
particularly predisposed to believe what follows."
Since you can't back your allegation up, it's not a fact but
an allegation. Considering how the term "lie" is commonly used,
it is correct to call an unfounded allegation a lie.
Post by Technomage Hawke
Now this is simply an accusation, and I have yet to see anything that
resembles real thought being applied to his side of the discussion. To
the contrary, and so far I have been very rational in my approach to
this disgraceful ordeal. Further more the only wiggling going on here is
your attempt to wiggle me off of my original post, and off into your
emotionally charged political lapdog.
Oh, don't be silly. The only person pushing emotion into the
matter is you.

HiEv's original challenge was very much to the point of your
original posting. It was after that the wiggling began, with
HiEv (and me) trying to make you provide evidence and you
complaining that you're called out. If you can't or won't give
evidence, we can lay the topic to rest. You would feel
"silenced", of course, but that's the way things go when lack
of evidence sprouts conspiritism.

Lissi
--
Life ain't fair, but the root password helps.
- BOFH
RTFFAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/
RC5 team FAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/~wolf/RC5-72.html
Leo Fellmann
2004-09-25 20:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Lissi wrote:
(...)
| <sidetrack>
| Does anybody here know an ASCII representation of set-related
| symbols, such as "element of", "for all", "intersected with" and
| so on?
| </sidetrack>

No. I don't think there are any.
You could use the predicate logic versions: \/, /\ and 3 for "belongs
to" ( You'd need E for "exists" ). Ugly hacks, but I can't think of much
else.




- --
Leo Fellmann
Lissi
2004-09-29 18:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo Fellmann
No. I don't think there are any.
You could use the predicate logic versions: \/, /\ and 3 for "belongs
to" ( You'd need E for "exists" ). Ugly hacks, but I can't think of much
else.
*sigh* OK :)

Lissi
--
Life ain't fair, but the root password helps.
- BOFH
RTFFAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/
RC5 team FAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/~wolf/RC5-72.html
HiEv
2004-09-23 07:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lissi
Post by Technomage Hawke
who did I name in that posting? NO ONE.
what personal attack was there?
the statement was a "generalized" one, period.
any indication of a "personal attack" is soley at the discretion of the
reader.
*sigh* Imagine: I say "men are rapists". Of course there are men
who aren't, but every man would feel attacked. And rightly so.
[snip]

I think a more accurate analogy would be if someone said, "Some men in
this newsgroup are rapists."

He made specific allegations against unnamed people who are in this
newsgroup (or the hacker newsgroups, as he later amended), not general
allegations about all people in one category.

Of course, he still can't name anyone here, since nobody here has called
Bush "the biggest evil in the world today", as he put it.
--
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
Technomage Hawke
2004-09-23 07:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by HiEv
[snip]
I think a more accurate analogy would be if someone said, "Some men in
this newsgroup are rapists."
He made specific allegations against unnamed people who are in this
newsgroup (or the hacker newsgroups, as he later amended), not general
allegations about all people in one category.
Of course, he still can't name anyone here, since nobody here has called
Bush "the biggest evil in the world today", as he put it.
I never said it was a direct quote by you or anyone in specific, but a value
judgment based on the one sided nature of the disussions represented here.

Again since you missed it the first time around:

"I have never commented on anyone's specific criticisms, one way or the
other in this thread. I have pointed out, what appears to me as extremist
arguments going unchallenged. You may not share my opinion as to how this
looks (Bush as the biggest evil), but take special note of the on going
efforts to silence anything but the dominant conviction."

how about it? you'va called me a liar with no way to back it up, you seek to
change the direction (and thus, the subject) of this 'arguement" and you
have, thus far, failed to even consider my opinions seriously. at least
with Lissi (and others) I can have something approaching a decent,
intellectual discussion.

Technomage Hawke

- --
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered!
My life is my own - No. 6
HiEv
2004-09-23 09:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by HiEv
I think a more accurate analogy would be if someone said, "Some men in
this newsgroup are rapists."
He made specific allegations against unnamed people who are in this
newsgroup (or the hacker newsgroups, as he later amended), not general
allegations about all people in one category.
Of course, he still can't name anyone here, since nobody here has called
Bush "the biggest evil in the world today", as he put it.
I never said it was a direct quote by you or anyone in specific,
I never claimed that you had. In fact, I said the same thing above when
I used the word "unnamed".
Post by Technomage Hawke
but a value
judgment based on the one sided nature of the disussions represented here.
An utterly errant value judgment that has no basis in fact. You are
attempting to paint some people who disagree with you as loons who can't
think of anything more evil than Bush. You know that's untrue of anyone
here, which is why I'm calling you a liar.

As for "one sided", I have to say that between Big Bad Bob and yourself
on one side, and silver and myself on the other, not to mention all of
the other people in-between, the arguments here are anything but "one
sided".
Which I didn't...
Post by Technomage Hawke
"I have never commented on anyone's specific criticisms, one way or the
other in this thread.
But you did make false claims as to some people's points of view here.
Making vague false claims is no better than making specific false
claims, and I have just as much right to challenge those claims.
Post by Technomage Hawke
I have pointed out, what appears to me as extremist
arguments going unchallenged.
And so you make an extremist argument of your own, and then balk when I
challenge it? Are you going for hypocrite now too?
Post by Technomage Hawke
You may not share my opinion as to how this
looks (Bush as the biggest evil), but take special note of the on going
efforts to silence anything but the dominant conviction."
LOL. No one's trying to "silence" any opinions that I'm aware of. If
disagreeing with something is always an attempt to "silence" the
opposite position in your book, then you need to get a new book.

Please point out some of these supposed efforts. Message-IDs preferred.

I should not that there were some complaints against some people for
ignoring facts, making misleading claims, making illogical leaps, making
baseless claims, failing to use logic, and such, but those aren't
complaints against the opinions, merely the debating style.
Post by Technomage Hawke
how about it? you'va called me a liar with no way to back it up,
I pointed out that there is not even one person here who fits the
description you gave of "some of you here".

You know this, or at least you should, so making such a claim is a lie.

On the other hand, you have no way to back up your claim, so rather than
try to do so, you attack the person who pointed out this blatant
untruth.

So, please post proof of your accusations against "some of [us] here",
if there is any, and I will gladly apologize. If you are so sure your
accusations are the truth, then this should be no problem.
Post by Technomage Hawke
you seek to
change the direction (and thus, the subject) of this 'arguement" and you
have, thus far, failed to even consider my opinions seriously.
When your opinions aren't based on facts, why should I seriously
consider them? Your argument is based on false assumptions about the
opinions and beliefs of people in this group, so your argument falls
apart.

I'm not changing the direction of this argument in the least by pointing
out problems with the foundation of your argument.
Post by Technomage Hawke
at least
with Lissi (and others) I can have something approaching a decent,
intellectual discussion.
LOL. Accusing unspecified people here of doing things that they didn't
do, and then running away from proving it when asked hardly counts as
decent intellectual discussion. I hope you're not blaming me for that.

I'm still waiting for you to name names and post message-IDs...
--
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
Lissi
2004-09-25 20:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by HiEv
I think a more accurate analogy would be if someone said, "Some men in
this newsgroup are rapists."
He made specific allegations against unnamed people who are in this
newsgroup (or the hacker newsgroups, as he later amended), not general
allegations about all people in one category.
OK, thanks for the correction :)
Post by HiEv
Of course, he still can't name anyone here, since nobody here has called
Bush "the biggest evil in the world today", as he put it.
I can't recall anybody calling Bush that either, at least
not among the regs.

Btw, did you catch which story was taken off the program for
the one with the papers? I heard it was one about the forged
papers "Uran from Niger", telling new things about the reporter
who got them first and from whom she got them.

The source is known to move in "intelligence circles" and has
particular relations to SISMI (Italian flatfeet). He has told
the reporter he had gotten the documents from a woman in the
Nigerian embassy, without naming her. It seems, though, that
there never was a secretary in the position the source named
_after_ the papers had made their rounds. The reporter works
for a station that is owned by Berlusconi (who in turn is known
to keep a tight reign) and was ordered to pass the papers to
the US embassy. It remains unclear where the forgeries
originated.

Lissi
--
Life ain't fair, but the root password helps.
- BOFH
RTFFAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/
RC5 team FAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/~wolf/RC5-72.html
HiEv
2004-09-26 06:15:36 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Lissi
Post by HiEv
Of course, he still can't name anyone here, since nobody here has called
Bush "the biggest evil in the world today", as he put it.
I can't recall anybody calling Bush that either, at least
not among the regs.
I did a small search using Google, and the only ones I could come up
with was one non-reg who called both candidates evil, and then there was
my reference to my Cthulhu bumper sticker, which said "Why settle for
the lesser evil?" In both cases both candidates were referred to as
evil, not just Bush.
Post by Lissi
Btw, did you catch which story was taken off the program for
the one with the papers? I heard it was one about the forged
papers "Uran from Niger", telling new things about the reporter
who got them first and from whom she got them.
That would be ironic. Almost as ironic as a post where one makes false
allegations against people in a newsgroup while simultaneously
complaining about false allegations made by CBS. ;-)

I might take this as an opportunity to mention that the case with CBS
does not prove a liberal bias in media, it only proves that the media
can get sloppy when they see a juicy story. If some media outlet got
something juicy handed to them about Kerry they might make the same
kinds of mistakes. (Remember the faked photo of Kerry standing on a
podium together with Jane Fonda? I seem to recall that it briefly got
some press before it was revealed as a fake.)
Post by Lissi
The source is known to move in "intelligence circles" and has
particular relations to SISMI (Italian flatfeet). He has told
the reporter he had gotten the documents from a woman in the
Nigerian embassy, without naming her. It seems, though, that
there never was a secretary in the position the source named
_after_ the papers had made their rounds. The reporter works
for a station that is owned by Berlusconi (who in turn is known
to keep a tight reign) and was ordered to pass the papers to
the US embassy. It remains unclear where the forgeries
originated.
Isn't it possible that the person who passed the documents was lying
about being a secretary, but worked there in some other department? Who
knows... It can be hard to tell who's the forger and who's the stooge
in these kinds of situations. Still, I may look into this later if I
think of it.
--
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
Lissi
2004-09-29 18:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by HiEv
I did a small search using Google, and the only ones I could come up
with was one non-reg who called both candidates evil, and then there was
my reference to my Cthulhu bumper sticker, which said "Why settle for
the lesser evil?" In both cases both candidates were referred to as
evil, not just Bush.
Personally I try to avoid words like "lie", "truth", "evil"
and other laden things. They're either fuzzy or not constructive.

Perhaps you could avoid "lie" in the future as well? It's very
likely to send people on rants about "lie is the wrong word"
and unlikely to keep discussions on issue.
Post by HiEv
That would be ironic. Almost as ironic as a post where one makes false
allegations against people in a newsgroup while simultaneously
complaining about false allegations made by CBS. ;-)
:)
Post by HiEv
I might take this as an opportunity to mention that the case with CBS
does not prove a liberal bias in media, it only proves that the media
can get sloppy when they see a juicy story. If some media outlet got
something juicy handed to them about Kerry they might make the same
kinds of mistakes. (Remember the faked photo of Kerry standing on a
podium together with Jane Fonda? I seem to recall that it briefly got
some press before it was revealed as a fake.)
Or the other forgeries, such as the "Swift Boat" types. I found
it very funny that one of these types said he had earned his
medals when the documents about that actually _proved_ that Kerry
had earned his.

The whole idea of "bias" would be an ad hominem if TV stations
were humans. It's meant to discredit the source while avoiding
to address the content. Besides, the victim role is rather
powerful when you want to bypass the brain.
Post by HiEv
Isn't it possible that the person who passed the documents was lying
about being a secretary, but worked there in some other department? Who
knows... It can be hard to tell who's the forger and who's the stooge
in these kinds of situations. Still, I may look into this later if I
think of it.
Here's the story:
"Forged Documents: The 60-Minutes Story That Didn't Run"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0923-02.htm

And this one cost me a keyboard - you've been warned :)
"CBS Nixes '60 Minutes' Story on Iraq War"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0926-04.htm

I doubt that it was a money scam and I also doubt that they were
a kind of practical joke. That excludes a number of possible
origins. It's also interesting that they were passed through
extra stages to conceal their origin. I wouldn't expect them to
be passed from "source_1" to "source_2" to "reporter" who then
passes them to the US when "source_2" could have passed them to
SISMI directly (which normally shares such things by default) and
would have done so with everything else. Unless, of course, it's
the same tactic we've seen before: drop things to the press and
then point to the press as evidence.

There's actually two questions: who produced the "documents" and
who demanded them. Of course, both answers could point to the
same person or group.

It's worth remembering that Mr Wilson was sent to find out more
about the documents, when the forgeries were so crude that it
took the IAEA only minutes to catch the joke. I think that speaks
volumes. So much for the "blame the CIA" and "we were misled"
games.

Lissi
--
Life ain't fair, but the root password helps.
- BOFH
RTFFAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/
RC5 team FAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/~wolf/RC5-72.html
HiEv
2004-09-19 16:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by HiEv
Post by Technomage Hawke
ok,
some of you in here have been harping that Bush is the biggest evil in
the world today.
Name one person and post a message-ID of someone here who has called
Bush the biggest evil in the world.
You know, what? You can't.
ooooooh! what brought this on? hit a nerve did I?
Yes, falsely accusing people of things will always bother me.
Post by Technomage Hawke
Its not up to me to prove anything.
It is if you expect people to believe what you say.
Post by Technomage Hawke
it was a generalized statement, and the "here" I speak of is the
alt.hack* hiarchy.
It may be a generalized statement, but it's still false.

Also, I'm only familiar with what's going on in alt.hacker, and that's
the only group you posted to. If you meant this statement for people
who aren't in this group, then why didn't you post it there?
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by HiEv
Please don't start off your posts with a lie, it doesn't make people
particularly predisposed to believe what follows.
a lie? gee, I /REALLY/ must have hit a nerve!
calling a person a liar in any way, shape or form does not command a lot of
respect.
Lying commands far less respect.

Sometimes you have to say that the emperor has no clothes. If you don't
like it, then stick to the facts.
Post by Technomage Hawke
its a directed attack with no intent other than to inflame. In
fact, it could be construed as a personal attack because there is nothing
else to debate (yes/no?).
No, it's a way of pointing out that one is not speaking the truth. You
made a false claim, I called you on it.

If you want to get all defensive, fine, but it doesn't make what you
said any more true.
Post by Technomage Hawke
look bud, this statement you issued is, at best a gross misunderstanding on
your part. I'd hate to think that one would, by intent, seek to start a war
of words by issuing such a gross insult.
You said, and I quote, "some of you in here have been harping that Bush
is the biggest evil in the world today." This is false. Nobody here is
doing that.

When someone states things that are false they are either mistaken or
liars, and I don't find it very probable that this was a mistake on your
part. You know what was said here, so that only leaves the latter
option.
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by HiEv
If you're upset with what we write about Bush, fine, address the facts,
don't simply paint us as Bush haters and write off those facts.
huh? did I mention anyone by name? no.
Obviously you don't have to. I will still defend the facts.
Post by Technomage Hawke
But for some reason, it certainly has
you in a bit of an uproar... again, did I hit a nerve?
Yes, false accusations against the people in this newsgroup will tend to
bother me. I don't understand why you find that so surprising or
interesting.

If someone said that some people here had been stealing credit cards or
something like that I would have reacted the same way. If I had done
so, would you then be assuming that I stole credit cards?

One does not need to be guilty of something to stand up for other
people, especially when the accusations are baseless and no one is
guilty.
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by HiEv
[snip]
Post by Technomage Hawke
60 Minutes of Fame
By BERNARD GOLDBERG
September 17, 2004; Page A14
[snip]
Please do not fullquote copyrighted material. A link with a brief
synopsis is preferable.
as I stated before, this was glommed from another newsgroup. no link was
provided. otherwise, I would have provided one.
It took me all of 30 seconds to find a link to the article here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005636

I put the author name and article name in Google, and the first page it
listed linked directly to the article.

I don't suppose you even tried to look for it?
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by HiEv
As for the accusations of a liberal bias in the news, sure there's bias,
reporters are humans, not robots. But in the past three or four years
there has been quite a bit of correction evening that bias out. Fox
News is a prime example of that.
accusations? its as clear as it gets.
The word "accusations" has nothing to do with clarity. If you accuse
someone of being a certain way, that is an accusation. The case may be
clear, but it's still an accusation.
Post by Technomage Hawke
I've listened to the cbs evening news,
compared it with others (abc, nbc, etc) and have come to the same
conclusion. these guys aren't telling us the truth, they are telling us
what /they/ want us to hear. Fox news has its own problems. cnn ain't any
better. In fact, I had had to filter so much shit just to get to the real
facts that I get a migraine every time I try. anymore, its turn off the tv,
kill the radio and leave sun sounds off (the talking version of the local
news as played on sap through the local Fm radio).
I listen to a lot of CNN and some Fox News, plus The Daily Show, and I
just filter it from there myself. Sure it may be biased in one way or
another, but it's better than being totally uninformed about what's
going on.
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by HiEv
Is news less biased now? Probably not, but at least there's a more even
bias on both sides.
Bias, spin. call it what you will. I would rather hear the /TRUTH/,
ungarnished, without spin. just give me the facts and let me decide (and
yes, there are days even fox news doesn't get it right).
It's rather ironic that you complained of bias in the news in your
obviously biased post.

If you want to hear the truth, then I recommend you start by speaking it
whenever possible. Don't make up stories about people calling Bush the
ultimate evil now, when people aren't actually saying that.
Post by Technomage Hawke
looks like that three edged sword is cutting a lot of folks today.....
What is this "three edged sword" you keep going on about? Most swords
I'm familiar with only have one or two edges. I mean, I understand the
"your side, their side, and the truth" part, but a "three edged sword"
is just a terrible metaphor.

I Googled found the phrase in a few fan parodies, book titles (mostly
self-help), and in a number of people's quotes, but it still makes no
sense. Where would you find the third edge on a sword? (And no, the
tip isn't an edge, it's a point.)

Sorry, but every time I hear "three edged sword" from you, I picture
this nearly useless looking three bladed sword where the three blades
meet in the center.

So, if I'm "cut", I'm cut by your side, because that certainly wasn't
the truth.
--
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
Leo Fellmann
2004-09-19 16:16:06 UTC
Permalink
HiEv wrote:

(...)
Post by HiEv
Sorry, but every time I hear "three edged sword" from you, I picture
this nearly useless looking three bladed sword where the three blades
meet in the center.
You could have a blade shaped like a triangular prism - that would have
3 edges :)
HiEv
2004-09-19 16:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo Fellmann
(...)
Post by HiEv
Sorry, but every time I hear "three edged sword" from you, I picture
this nearly useless looking three bladed sword where the three blades
meet in the center.
You could have a blade shaped like a triangular prism - that would have
3 edges :)
It would still be pretty useless as a sword. If yours is the correct
description, perhaps a "three edged pole" would be more accurate. ;-)
--
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
Leo Fellmann
2004-09-19 16:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by HiEv
Post by Leo Fellmann
(...)
Post by HiEv
Sorry, but every time I hear "three edged sword" from you, I picture
this nearly useless looking three bladed sword where the three blades
meet in the center.
You could have a blade shaped like a triangular prism - that would have
3 edges :)
It would still be pretty useless as a sword. If yours is the correct
description, perhaps a "three edged pole" would be more accurate. ;-)
Well. That or you could call it a hypersword and define it as only
usable in R^4, where a three edged sword would make sense.

Anyway, a pole needs to be long. You could make a shortish prism-based
sword. I agree that it wouldn't be very useful but then I'm not a fencer :)
Lissi
2004-09-20 13:06:11 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Sep 2004 the suspect HiEv said:

[snip-a-lot]
Post by HiEv
What is this "three edged sword" you keep going on about? Most swords
I'm familiar with only have one or two edges. I mean, I understand the
"your side, their side, and the truth" part, but a "three edged sword"
is just a terrible metaphor.
I Googled found the phrase in a few fan parodies, book titles (mostly
self-help), and in a number of people's quotes, but it still makes no
sense. Where would you find the third edge on a sword? (And no, the
tip isn't an edge, it's a point.)
Uh... now you set me off ;)

There are daggers that look a bit like a + if you look at the
blade from the end. That has four edges, though. There are very
pretty samples in the blade museum in Solingen, but they were
in fashion from about +1.6k greg to +1.8k greg. Since there are
only two possible uses for such a blade (bragging and killing),
they were never widely used. I know no modern knife maker or
smith who made such a blade, allthough I could name a few
smithes who would be able to.

There also are arrowheads that have three edges. They're out of
fashion for some 1.5k years, IIRC the last confirmed find was
in a grave of +300 greg in northern Germany. Lately there's a
Swiss smith who does replicae among other things, though, so
you might be able to get one.

The very definition of a sword includes "one or two edges".
Whatever something with three edges is, it's never a sword.
Except for a child or someone sloppy, I suppose.
Post by HiEv
Sorry, but every time I hear "three edged sword" from you, I picture
this nearly useless looking three bladed sword where the three blades
meet in the center.
*grin* Thank you, HiEv. Now I've got that picture in my head...
I'll give my He your address, because he'll want to thank you in
person for giving me an image that he will have to realise.

Lissi
--
Life ain't fair, but the root password helps.
- BOFH
RTFFAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/
RC5 team FAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/~wolf/RC5-72.html
Leo Fellmann
2004-09-20 16:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Lissi wrote:
| On 19 Sep 2004 the suspect HiEv said:
|
| [snip-a-lot]
|
|>What is this "three edged sword" you keep going on about? Most swords
|>I'm familiar with only have one or two edges. I mean, I understand the
|>"your side, their side, and the truth" part, but a "three edged sword"
|>is just a terrible metaphor.
|>
|>I Googled found the phrase in a few fan parodies, book titles (mostly
|>self-help), and in a number of people's quotes, but it still makes no
|>sense. Where would you find the third edge on a sword? (And no, the
|>tip isn't an edge, it's a point.)
|
|
| Uh... now you set me off ;)
|
| There are daggers that look a bit like a + if you look at the
| blade from the end. That has four edges, though. There are very
| pretty samples in the blade museum in Solingen, but they were
| in fashion from about +1.6k greg to +1.8k greg. Since there are
| only two possible uses for such a blade (bragging and killing),
| they were never widely used. I know no modern knife maker or
| smith who made such a blade, allthough I could name a few
| smithes who would be able to.

I know that there were French bayonets that looked like that also,
although I couldn't give you a date. My brother, who is also slightly
insane in this way, found one at an auction.


- --
Leo Fellmann
silver
2004-09-20 19:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Lissi <***@dusnet.de> wrote :

<snip>
Post by Lissi
I could name a few
smithes who would be able to.
Speaking of smithes, my Dad (retired) was a knife smith once for Grohmann
Knives.



silver
--
Be not afraid of growing slowly, be afraid only of standing still.
Pick up a sesame seed but lose sight of a watermelon.
Lissi
2004-09-21 13:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by silver
Speaking of smithes, my Dad (retired) was a knife smith once for Grohmann
Knives.
:) My He will have a real smithy soon, far better than what he
has now. And I'm seriously considering taking up knife making.

Lissi
--
Life ain't fair, but the root password helps.
- BOFH
RTFFAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/
RC5 team FAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/~wolf/RC5-72.html
silver
2004-09-21 16:43:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lissi
:) My He will have a real smithy soon, far better than what he
has now. And I'm seriously considering taking up knife making.
My dad showed me the basics of it (to the point where I was able to make my
own knife), and told me if I wanted to learn more he would be there to
teach me. Maybe someday I will take him up on it, but right now, my plate
is full with the baby and now College (starting this Monday) to upgrade
some training I need/want.


silver
--
Be not afraid of growing slowly, be afraid only of standing still.
Pick up a sesame seed but lose sight of a watermelon.
Lissi
2004-09-25 18:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by silver
My dad showed me the basics of it (to the point where I was able to make
my own knife), and told me if I wanted to learn more he would be there
to teach me. Maybe someday I will take him up on it, but right now, my
plate is full with the baby and now College (starting this Monday) to
upgrade some training I need/want.
Don't miss it :) The knowledge isn't hard to get, but it's rare
enough to be worth having. Besides, you'll want a knife for your
girl, right?

Lissi
--
Life ain't fair, but the root password helps.
- BOFH
RTFFAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/
RC5 team FAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/~wolf/RC5-72.html
Leo Fellmann
2004-09-25 21:02:40 UTC
Permalink
Lissi wrote:

(...)
| Besides, you'll want a knife for your girl, right?

You /do/ realise what that sounds like taken out of context? :)

- --
Leo Fellmann
Lissi
2004-09-29 18:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo Fellmann
You /do/ realise what that sounds like taken out of context? :)
No. Explain please?

Lissi
--
Life ain't fair, but the root password helps.
- BOFH
RTFFAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/
RC5 team FAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/~wolf/RC5-72.html
HiEv
2004-09-29 19:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lissi
Post by Leo Fellmann
Post by Leo Fellmann
Besides, you'll want a knife for your girl, right?
You /do/ realise what that sounds like taken out of context? :)
No. Explain please?
It sounds a little "serial killer"-ish.
--
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
Lissi
2004-10-07 18:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by HiEv
It sounds a little "serial killer"-ish.
Ah :) But then, most women are serial killers. I used to do
target practice with my knife on flies :)

Lissi
--
Life ain't fair, but the root password helps.
- BOFH
RTFFAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/
RC5 team FAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/~wolf/RC5-72.html
silver
2004-09-25 23:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lissi
Don't miss it :) The knowledge isn't hard to get, but it's rare
enough to be worth having. Besides, you'll want a knife for your
girl, right?
Yes, in time I will put together a knife (kit) for her, and show her how to
make a good knife, and how to use it right.
This training/time will take place along with weapons (bow and gun)
training (for hunting if needing wild game), hand to hand, and summer and
winter wilderness survival.



silver
--
Be not afraid of growing slowly, be afraid only of standing still.
Pick up a sesame seed but lose sight of a watermelon.
Leo Fellmann
2004-09-26 08:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by silver
Post by Lissi
Don't miss it :) The knowledge isn't hard to get, but it's rare
enough to be worth having. Besides, you'll want a knife for your
girl, right?
(...)
Post by silver
This training/time will take place along with weapons (bow and gun)
training (for hunting if needing wild game), hand to hand, and summer and
winter wilderness survival.
Crikey. Where was that you said you lived? :)
silver
2004-09-26 12:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo Fellmann
Post by silver
This training/time will take place along with weapons (bow and gun)
training (for hunting if needing wild game), hand to hand, and summer
and winter wilderness survival.
Crikey. Where was that you said you lived? :)
lol... in a world/place that little girls/boys need this type of training.
You never know when your life may depend on it. :)



silver
--
After the head is off, one does not cry over the hair.
He who asks is a fool for five minutes, but he who does not ask remains a
fool forever.
Lissi
2004-09-29 18:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by silver
Yes, in time I will put together a knife (kit) for her, and show her how
to make a good knife, and how to use it right.
This training/time will take place along with weapons (bow and gun)
training (for hunting if needing wild game), hand to hand, and summer
and winter wilderness survival.
Skip the gun. I don't trust the things. They tend to get stuck
or out of ammunition when you need them most and for hunting a
good bow will do. Besides, if all you have is a knife, you _know_
that you're the chicken, not the fox. That's useful for boys,
too, but girls should even more be able to keep a very low
profile if need be.

Lissi
--
Life ain't fair, but the root password helps.
- BOFH
RTFFAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/
RC5 team FAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/~wolf/RC5-72.html
Brian
2004-09-21 18:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lissi
Post by silver
Speaking of smithes, my Dad (retired) was a knife smith once for Grohmann
Knives.
:) My He will have a real smithy soon, far better than what he
has now. And I'm seriously considering taking up knife making.
Lissi
I need some pulling out of my back work *sigh*

Brian
If vampires can't see themselves in mirrors,
then how come they always have perfectly combed hair?
gavnook
2004-09-22 00:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lissi
Post by silver
Speaking of smithes, my Dad (retired) was a knife smith once for Grohmann
Knives.
:) My He will have a real smithy soon, far better than what he
has now. And I'm seriously considering taking up knife making.
Holy crap. I just got into knife-making. In fact, I'm on my way soon to
pick up some plumbing parts to build a propane torch and some fire
bricks for heat-treating and possibly forging.

I got the idea for the torch here:
http://www.reil1.net/design1.shtml

but decided to try the similar one here:
http://www.geocities.com/zoellerforge/

I've got one knife ready for heat treatment and another about 30%
complete. I really enjoy it and have mangaged to impress myself, but I
don't think I'm ready to make 3-sided swords just yet :p
--
gavnook

If they didn't need us, they wouldn't bother lying to us.
Lissi
2004-09-25 18:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by gavnook
Holy crap. I just got into knife-making. In fact, I'm on my way soon to
pick up some plumbing parts to build a propane torch and some fire
bricks for heat-treating and possibly forging.
http://www.reil1.net/design1.shtml
http://www.geocities.com/zoellerforge/
I've got one knife ready for heat treatment and another about 30%
complete. I really enjoy it and have mangaged to impress myself, but I
don't think I'm ready to make 3-sided swords just yet :p
I believe we're talking of different things :) Knife-making to
me means getting the "raw" knife delivered and doing everything
after the actual smithying (forging?). My He's the one who
plays with fire ;)

You can do the final ... *bah*, I only know the German words ;)
Because of that, I don't really understand "heat treatment",
especially as there are at least three different ones :) You
could do some of it in a household oven, because most reach
200°C. The others could be done in a potter's oven, which is
convenient because you don't have to check/regulate the
temperature.

The bricks could, theoretically, be salvaged from an old oven.
They "tire" and break after a while and if you use borax, you
also have to replace them sometimes. But there might be a
chance to save some money :)

For the forge He'll use a former steel water boiler salvaged
from a house's heating system. A gas bottle would do as well,
but he'd have to cut that open on both ends.

Right now my He's using our old barbeque "pot" with charcoal,
but it's impossible with his setup to get the necessary
temperature for welding without an air blower. A hair dryer
would in theory be enough, but the silly things turn themselves
off when they become too hot - which, in He's tests, was when
the steel reached ~1100°C ;) The "Gresse" (German: barbeque =
Grill, forge = Esse) is good enough for most things, though,
including knives.

Lissi
--
Life ain't fair, but the root password helps.
- BOFH
RTFFAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/
RC5 team FAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/~wolf/RC5-72.html
silver
2004-09-25 22:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lissi
I believe we're talking of different things :) Knife-making to
me means getting the "raw" knife delivered and doing everything
after the actual smithying (forging?). My He's the one who
plays with fire ;)
Is this the type of kit you are speaking of?
http://www.grohmannknives.com/pages/kits.html



silver
--
Be not afraid of growing slowly, be afraid only of standing still.
Pick up a sesame seed but lose sight of a watermelon.
Lissi
2004-09-29 18:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by silver
Is this the type of kit you are speaking of?
http://www.grohmannknives.com/pages/kits.html
NO! That's only half the game, you only assemble that. I
mean, that's like having a network installed and all you have
left to do is to plug in the cables. Boooooring ;)

When you start out with a real knife, you've got a raw blade
that is still black from the smithy. And the wood(s) you use
for the handle looks like something you'd throw on the fire.
The sheath almost says "moo" (or whatever ;) ), too.

Lissi
--
Life ain't fair, but the root password helps.
- BOFH
RTFFAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/
RC5 team FAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/~wolf/RC5-72.html
HiEv
2004-09-20 21:18:10 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Lissi
Post by HiEv
Sorry, but every time I hear "three edged sword" from you, I picture
this nearly useless looking three bladed sword where the three blades
meet in the center.
*grin* Thank you, HiEv. Now I've got that picture in my head...
I'll give my He your address, because he'll want to thank you in
person for giving me an image that he will have to realise.
Hey, can I help it if some of my memes leak out into the real world? ;-)

P.S. Welcome back! :-)
--
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence
has its limits.
Lissi
2004-09-21 13:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by HiEv
Hey, can I help it if some of my memes leak out into the real world? ;-)
Nobody asked you to. It's just that like all people you have to
face the consequences. But don't worry, my He will be nice. At
worst you'll have to pump the bellows.
Post by HiEv
P.S. Welcome back! :-)
Shhht! Don't say that. Whenever I say I'm back, I'm gone soon
after ;)

Lissi
--
Life ain't fair, but the root password helps.
- BOFH
RTFFAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/
RC5 team FAQ: http://www.alt-hacker.org/~wolf/RC5-72.html
First Prophet of Kaos
2004-09-20 06:28:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:44:50 -0700, Technomage Hawke
Post by Technomage Hawke
a lie? gee, I /REALLY/ must have hit a nerve!
calling a person a liar in any way, shape or form does not command a lot of
respect.
It does when the accuser can both point the lie out and explain why
it's more than just error. I don't think HiEv even attempted the
latter, though.
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by HiEv
Is news less biased now? Probably not, but at least there's a more even
bias on both sides.
Bias, spin. call it what you will. I would rather hear the /TRUTH/,
ungarnished, without spin.
Truth doesn't sell papers on it's own; presentation does. And it's
very hard to avoid spin while making the presentation good enough to
sell.

I've always had trouble comprehending this idea about liberal media
bias, though; I'm sure it exists, but the local media I grew up on is
so right-wing that actually encountering liberal media *still* feels
odd after twenty years.
--
You can't claim the moral highground
By sinking to your enemy's level.
Technomage Hawke
2004-09-20 07:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Prophet of Kaos
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:44:50 -0700, Technomage Hawke
Post by Technomage Hawke
a lie? gee, I /REALLY/ must have hit a nerve!
calling a person a liar in any way, shape or form does not command a lot
of respect.
It does when the accuser can both point the lie out and explain why
it's more than just error. I don't think HiEv even attempted the
latter, though.
heh. there is that. However, was it really a lie?
Personally, I don't think so (and google groups is being rather slow to get
up to date with these groups for some reason).
Post by First Prophet of Kaos
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by HiEv
Is news less biased now? Probably not, but at least there's a more even
bias on both sides.
Bias, spin. call it what you will. I would rather hear the /TRUTH/,
ungarnished, without spin.
Truth doesn't sell papers on it's own; presentation does. And it's
very hard to avoid spin while making the presentation good enough to
sell.
the problem is this eactly: money. whatever sells the most print regardless
of whether its true or not. Personally, I'd rather read/hear/view the
truth.
Post by First Prophet of Kaos
I've always had trouble comprehending this idea about liberal media
bias, though; I'm sure it exists, but the local media I grew up on is
so right-wing that actually encountering liberal media *still* feels
odd after twenty years.
its out there. you must live in one of those rural areas where most folks
tend to be conservatives. I've often found in large cities (phoenix being
among them) that the local news media is very left of center on politics.
most of the rest of the local stuff that deals with anything other than
politics gets the usual few words and thats it (murders and the like). when
it comes to the political "hot button" issues, its always been left of
center (the latest example, especially in the national news was all the
hand wringing over the sunset of the "assault weapons ban" and the "chicken
little" syndrome <the sky is falling routine>).

ah well, I take a lot of it with a grain of salt, but I still get a tad
irritated at folks who spout the "party line" but who do not understand
what it is they are really saying (mindless sheep?). I guess this is what
most hackers (who happen to be pretty good thinkers) are viewed as a
"threat". They don't hold the party line and often question its validity
(there are notable exceptions of which I have seen a few in here and on
AHM).

meanwhile.... back at the ranch.

Technomage Hawke


- --
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered!
My life is my own - No. 6
First Prophet of Kaos
2004-09-20 09:22:16 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 00:20:46 -0700, Technomage Hawke
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by First Prophet of Kaos
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:44:50 -0700, Technomage Hawke
Post by Technomage Hawke
a lie? gee, I /REALLY/ must have hit a nerve!
calling a person a liar in any way, shape or form does not command a lot
of respect.
It does when the accuser can both point the lie out and explain why
it's more than just error. I don't think HiEv even attempted the
latter, though.
heh. there is that. However, was it really a lie?
Personally, I don't think so (and google groups is being rather slow to get
up to date with these groups for some reason).
Lies are deliberate misinformation. If you weren't aware of the
falsehoods, it is an error at most.

OTOH, your squirming about backing up the statement hints that you
were aware that it was at least an exaggeration. I'd still not call
that a lie, but it comes close.

<Snip>
Post by First Prophet of Kaos
I've always had trouble comprehending this idea about liberal media
bias, though; I'm sure it exists, but the local media I grew up on is
so right-wing that actually encountering liberal media *still* feels
odd after twenty years.
its out there. you must live in one of those rural areas where most folks
tend to be conservatives. I've often found in large cities (phoenix being
among them) that the local news media is very left of center on politics.
I live in Alberta, Canada, which is generally conservative. To the
point where a noticable segment of the population threatened to
seperate from Canada if the Liberals won the last election. One of
the more memorable op-ed pieces in our local paper was a rant about
how bullying of wimpy children in school is just a sign that hating
homosexuality is normal.
--
You can't claim the moral highground
By sinking to your enemy's level.
Technomage Hawke
2004-09-21 05:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Prophet of Kaos
Post by Technomage Hawke
heh. there is that. However, was it really a lie?
Personally, I don't think so (and google groups is being rather slow to
get up to date with these groups for some reason).
Lies are deliberate misinformation. If you weren't aware of the
falsehoods, it is an error at most.
well, from my POV, it isn't a lie (that I know of) and it may be erroneous
information (at worst). The fact remains though that there IS liberal BIAS
in the news (and CBS just proved it with their "apology" today).
Post by First Prophet of Kaos
OTOH, your squirming about backing up the statement hints that you
were aware that it was at least an exaggeration. I'd still not call
that a lie, but it comes close.
squirming? no. I just didn't bother to cover that aspect of things (why
justify a fact that stands on its own without any help from me?).
Post by First Prophet of Kaos
<Snip>
Post by Technomage Hawke
Post by First Prophet of Kaos
I've always had trouble comprehending this idea about liberal media
bias, though; I'm sure it exists, but the local media I grew up on is
so right-wing that actually encountering liberal media *still* feels
odd after twenty years.
its out there. you must live in one of those rural areas where most folks
tend to be conservatives. I've often found in large cities (phoenix being
among them) that the local news media is very left of center on politics.
I live in Alberta, Canada, which is generally conservative. To the
point where a noticable segment of the population threatened to
seperate from Canada if the Liberals won the last election. One of
the more memorable op-ed pieces in our local paper was a rant about
how bullying of wimpy children in school is just a sign that hating
homosexuality is normal.
heh. I have many friends in Western Canada. A lot of them see what is
happeneing in Quebec and torronto as nothing short of the communist
revolution of the early 1900's (in russia). They also don't like the fact
that students in grade and high schools are being taught to "hate the
US" (and for no damned good reason they can discern).

Again, this goes back to the political mongering of the news media and their
need to mold the perceptions of the general public to their agenda..

Technomage Hawke
--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered!
My life is my own - No. 6
gavnook
2004-09-21 07:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Technomage Hawke <technomage-***@127.0.0.1> wrote in news:14d3d.278074$***@fed1read03:

I think it's silly to demand unbiased news coverage. It's impossible. The
right's been accusing the media of a leftward bias, and the left has
recently been accusing them of a rightward one. They're both correct, but
it'd be more accurate to describe them as having a pro-government bias.
The fact that showing news media to be supporters of the other side makes
your side look better tells me most people are unsatisfied with news
media, in general.

Most US TV networks and large newspapers display a left-ward bias,
because the journalists themselves are liberal. The bias at Fox news is
much more manufactured. I think Bernard Goldberg is right, and so are the
"Out-Foxed" people.

Talk-radio is a different beast, altogether. The talkers on the AM dial
don't claim to be unbiased. Also, the network news you hear on the radio
is normally a lot better quality than what those same networks put on TV.

I prefer to get my news from opinionated radio, internet, and the local
Phoenix New Times.
--
gavnook

If they didn't need us, they wouldn't bother lying to us.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...