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 (113047)	5/8/2005 10:22:59 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793964

NYT MONDAY: CHEMICAL PLANT IN SHADOW OF NYC 'LOOSELY GUARDED'; EDITORS ARGUE NAMING LOCATION XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN MAY 08, 2005 18:48:02 ET XXXXX Editors at the NEW YORK TIMES are debating the merits of splashing a Monday scare story that will name "the most dangerous two miles in America" -- vulnerable to a possible terrorist strike. NYT reporter David Kocieniewski has quietly filed a story, newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT, naming a chemical plant that processes chlorine gas, so close to New York City that the Empire State Building seems to rise up behind its storage tanks! The plant poses a potentially lethal threat to 12 million people who live within a 14-mile radius. Yet on Friday afternoon, it remained loosely guarded and accessible. One editor is arguing how naming the plant could be seen as offering terrorists specific details on "weakness" in the nation's security. One top source predicts a frontpage placement for the controversial story. Developing...

To: unclewest who wrote (113047)	5/9/2005 8:28:08 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793964

I'm responding to this simply as an illustration of the use of rebuttal, apropos of my earlier point. I said: "...the Dems have [no] obligation to affirmatively offer an alternative to Bush's proposal." And you challenged that with "US Congressmen most certainly do have an obligation to correct government errors that affect their constituencies" as if your point were somehow a rebuttal of my point. So, if I disregard your point, it doesn't mean that I disagree with it or that I don't respect it or you, only that I find it not relevant to the subject at hand. (FWIW, I agree with it.)