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: Lane3 who wrote (112256)	5/2/2005 6:24:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

One way to sum it up - 1 - Defending the LA times on this issue, does not mean you are supporting the LA times in general. 2 - Defending the LA times on this issue at this time does not mean you might not change your mind if more information becomes available. 3 - Asserting that the charge against the times is not sufficiently supported, is not the same as asserting it is bogus. (Its agnosticism not atheism :) 4 - Defending the LA times on this issue, does not mean that you are saying that the soldiers at the checkpoint did anything wrong. A related idea - Disputing the details of a statement made against something, does not mean you are for the thing that the statement was made against. For example on another thread I recently disputed the unreasonable assertion that the Inquisition killed many tens of millions of people. That doesn't mean I think the Inquisition is a good thing, or that its about time to have another. Tim