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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (66496)	9/2/2004 4:03:10 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793958

There was a decline of about one-third in attempts. What made the "lull" was that the Israeli success rate in stopping the attempts rose from 90% to 100% for those few months. I see. You're counting attempts and I'm counting body parts. I went back to the original Reuters article. It said "The Beersheba bombings shattered a nearly six-month lull in suicide attacks..." You're talking about the attacks and I'm talking about the bombings. There was a big lull in bombings and only a small lull in attacks. The problem is that the article either erred or oversimplified making it seem that the two were one and the same. I want bias for civil society and the rule of law, and against the deliberate murder of civilians. That's all well and good, Nadine, but different people have different ideas about what that civil society should be. You could get a consensus on axe murderers. Everyone disapproves of them. But past that it gets complicated pretty quickly so reporters' taking sides gets complicated pretty quickly. The only place to draw a bright line is zero tolerance for cheerleading or eye-rolling. If you're not prepared to draw the line at zero, you have no cause for complaint about bias that doesn't suit you. If you're authorizing bias, then Reuters and the Beeb are as entitled to their pet ones as you are. You can dispute their POV but you can't complain about the bias itself. What is and isn't a war crime is an important stake in the ideological wars, and the WOT is very much an ideological war. That is the point that you are missing when you join the calls for 'objectivity'. It's a question of what you value more. It's like free speech. If you support free speech on principle you have to accept that you're going to hear some things that shouldn't be said in polite company. If you support the sanctity of the confessional, some criminals go free. That's the price we pay. I can see where some might not agree.