Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Hargus, Diana wrote:
And you are doing to the facts what you accuse others of: searching for
the one exception to a story whereby you invalidate the entire study.
By utiilising your criteria, the world must be flat (
That's not what I did and it isn't what I said I did. I did a google
search, not for exceptions, but for information, and that was the first
thing that came up.
The end result is that we can agree to disagree and keep an open mind at
the same time, there have been some discussions on here that have swayed
me to the other side, but only after study and analysis of the subject
at hand of the ideas brought in to the discussion. It is my personal
belief that your keeping the closed mind attitude you have
Sorry -- what is it that my mind is closed to? I just said that I had
previously simply accepted the usual story about Saddam paying off
families of suicide bombers. Now, for the first time, I have looked it up
and I find that a group called PALF was making payments and that Saddam
had given some money to PALF. That's a little different than the original
story. So I don't know what to think. That is an example
open-mindedness, not closed-mindedness.
and nitpicking everything, you hope to either bore everyone to death
with minutiae, or so infuriate them so that you can sit back like any
good troll and say "I didn't do anything, they are the ones that are
getting upset."
Today my primary interest was in getting people who claim that the media
is biased to show a shred of evidence for their case. Where are those
shreds? None have been forthcoming. The reason for this is fairly
obvious and well known but I will repeat it once more: Everyone with
strong views on an issue believes that the news media are biased against
them. There are studies, we have talked about them before. It isn't nit
picking but it does become boring when people repeatedly (and I've heard
it hundreds if not thousands of times) want to pretend that they are able
to detect bias in reporting without doing any systematic investigation.
These are the actions of a coward and a knave, and certainly not worthy
of a gentleman of learning as you purport (and I suspect may be true).
Maybe this is "nitpicking" but can you name a specific action that you
think was cowardly or knave-like?
They say that words mean things and that you can tell a lot about a man
by his words and actions. As I only know you by your words on this list
and the way you use them (your "actions"), I have doubt to the veracity
of any of your statements; I can also tell that you are a man of your
convictions and will hold steadfast and true to your beliefs. This is
no different than those that hold to their faith in their particular
religions.
The only belief I am holding to is that I don't know something to be true
unless I can verify its truth with some kind of systematic investigation.
Evidence is the key to truth. No matter how much evidence favors a
certain point of view, I always reserve some doubt. I don't believe
*anything* at a *full* 100%.
Please do not take this as an attack,
That's a good one!
but as the observation and critique it is. It does not matter the
manner of your response, as I shall continue to read and learn from all
information sources I come across.
Your messages was so careful and systematic and well-researched (not).
In fact, it was just a spewfest empty of any real critical value. If you
want to do it right, just take something I wrote, quote it exactly, and
tell me why it isn't true.
Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact