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 (24276)	1/14/2004 1:48:46 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

I don't think I changed your basic thought by clipping the couples. LOL. My issue wasn't with the "couples." You've reinforced my argument. Here's what I said: "Should be teaching that stuff to everybody, not just couples, if we're going to do it at all." And here's what you replied: <<Should be teaching that stuff to everybody, Sounds like a way to hire unemployed Social Workers. Don't care for that idea. We would be back to "funding the left." :>) >> So, your response, with the crop, could be read as your disagreeing with what you thought was my suggestion that the government provide classes to everyone and calling me E's dreaded L-word for suggesting such a stupid thing. I think this is a classic illustration of the importance of perception bias in this whole issue of bias in the press. Someone crops a quote. Some oversensitive soul reads something into that that may be entirely off base. There may be bias and insult in what was presented. Or it may just be a communication problem. Your comeback suggesting that you thought the missing "couples" was the problem could be that you are honestly confused about what I suggested you did. Or it could be a very slick way of covering up. There's no way to know. My preferred way of dealing with such things is to assume no ill will. Others assume the worst and cannot be persuaded otherwise. So, to recap, my point was how easy it is to present material in a way that can be interpreted negatively, something to think about the next time you feel the urge to complain about bias in someone's editing of a quote or someone's jump. FWIW, which I suspect isn't much... <g>