Subject:
|
Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 May 2003 22:19:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
238 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > If you want to keep your head in the sand, then that's your choice. Don't
> > > admonish those that want to actually practice some true discernement, however.
> >
> > Who do you view as a good source? I already know who Scott does, presumably.
>
> Well, I'd start with a variety of sources, instead of just one or two that
> tell us what we want to hear, or worse, tell us what they want us to hear
> and filter out that which may "harm" us.
Excellent advice. But you'd agree that some sources are more credible than
others, right?
Or would you tend to view all sources with equal credulity? I would think
not, and further, I would think that a source that tends to be factually
correct, even if their editorial outlook is not in agreement with yours, is
one you'd find superiour to one that tends to flub the facts consistently,
even if their editorial outlook is not aligned with yours. Right?
Further, there's a lot of info out there in the world. So much that one can
drown in it. Once one has invested time in learning about the tendency for
source veracity, one would want to tend to reuse that knowledge, ne?
So dismissing a source out of hand, might well actually be appropriate in
some cases rather than merely dismissive?
That said, I tend to dismiss the Guardian and the NYT (to pick two) as less
worthy of my attention, not because of their particular editorial outlook,
but rather because they tend not to be reliable. The NYT in particular, lies
by omission on a regular basis. We're not talking about plagarism here (1),
we're talking about fabrication of information, leaving key facts out to
support assertions, not publishing retractions, refusing to investigate
things that matter, and then baldly denying it.
That said, I can't imagine even John Neal, if you sat him down and made him
answer honestly, having much good to say about certain conservative sources,
because they tend to faff the accuracy too.
1 - there seems to be a peculiar fascination with plagarism in some corners
here. I'm rather baffled by why it's so fascinating, actually. I would tend
to think that out and out fabrication of facts is far worse than plagarism,
and that plagarism by a national newspaper's reporter is rather worse than
plagarism of a random line or two here in .debate by one of the regulars...
but then I find that last "crime" rather small beer.
But who knows? Perhaps using assertions of plagarism against others,
repeatedly, (as in over and over and over again) to the point of being
tiresome about it, is considered a valuable rhetorical technique in some
schools of thought. Me, I think it just tends to cover up a paucity of
ideas, but of course, your mileage may vary.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
| Fix a small typo... capitalized area of repair for emphasis (...) SHOULD read Or would you tend to view all sources with equal credulity? I would think not, and further, I would think that a source that tends to be factually correct, even if their (...) (21 years ago, 17-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) Well, I don't treat my life like it's made up of binary management--if we remove certain criteria, then we allow *everyting*. I thought it would be inferred by my slam towards the Nat. (...) (21 years ago, 20-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | plagarism [Re: "Saving" Private Lynch]
|
| (...) In what way is the Guardian not "reliable"? You may not find it "reliable", but you do cite it when the text is right [eg]: (URL)The NYT in particular, lies (...) If all that is true, let the market damn them both and FoxNews can prevail! (...) (21 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) Well, I'd start with a variety of sources, instead of just one or two that tell us what we want to hear, or worse, tell us what they want us to hear and filter out that which may (...) (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
