Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (23065)	1/5/2004 4:43:36 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793719

I had found the article. It was the web sites where the controversial material either was or wasn't that I was looking for. I was trying to see if putting it there would be consistent with the surrounding information or not. For example, if the web sites talked about the health risks of various reproductive choices, then it belonged. If they didn't, then throwing this bit of info in would stick out like a sore thumb. You can't tell if the treatment is evenhanded or not unless you look at the actual treatment. Obviously the Reporter is clueless and bought the "Pro Choice" statements at face value. Are you reading the same article I am? It's about how SD came to its decision and the controversy surrounding it. I thought it did that quite well. What pro-choice statements were in there that the author bought into? As for whether or not there's a significant risk of breast cancer from abortion, the article didn't say. The only question was whether the original Minn. statement damaged their credibility or not. Seems unlikely to me, but the author is agnostic about that, as well.