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: unclewest who wrote (112247)	5/2/2005 10:44:00 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

They stopped the vehicle prior to it becoming a massive threat to personnel manning the checkpoint. Why do you feel you have to explain that to me "one more time"? I get it. Never once suggested that I didn't get it. I have no problem whatsoever with how our troops handled that incident. What makes you jump to the conclusion that I do? It was not an accidental overlook. I agree that it wasn't an accidental overlook. I already posted something to that effect. You can check the record. I suggested that they might have excluded it because they didn't have a primary source. You keep trying to deflect their responsibility to report the whole story. No, I'm not. I'm saying that you and I and the LA Times don't know what the whole story is. You're the one who wants them to report a story that may not have any basis. For all we know, CBS could have made a mistake or made the whole thing up, as they have been known to do. Or someone could have falsely reported that CBS reported it and everyone jumped on the bandwagon. You don't know from any news source that the bit you want included is true. You will get some more opportunities to defend the LAT. I am not defending the LA Times. I am not defending anyone. I'm trying to introduce some critical thinking into the charge that has been made against the LA Times. There is a fallacy in assuming, and aggressively asserting, that the LA Times did not report that bit because of its bias, which, BTW, I am not denying, just because what they omitted was good news and they have a pattern of omitting good news. In this case, the good news isn't supported by any evidence that we know of. Had it been, they might have omitted it anyway due to their bias, in which case you would have a case. At this point the charge is premature if not bogus.