Misleading blogs

I love this one...posted earlier;

I need JU's Help....

We are Ju's Mod...should we help him?

#1 by Manopeace Sunday, July 24, 2005

love this one...posted earlier; I need JU's Help.... We are Ju's Mod...should we help him?

Please mano , stick to subject, no tergeting anyone.

OK...subject sticking...

Not everyone has a flair of writing. We are all members of this community for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure if it is correct to say that the blogs you question are intentionally misleading... I think some people just think we all see an attached article the way they do... they might be 'reading between the lines' and expect us all to do that as well.

3 by Manopeace Sunday, July 24, 2005

OK...subject sticking... Not everyone has a flair of writing. We are all members of this community for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure if it is correct to say that the blogs you question are intentionally misleading... I think some people just think we all see an attached article the way they do... they might be 'reading between the lines' and expect us all to do that as well.

good points, I for one DO NOT have a flair for expressing myself with the written word.

BUT to leave out important FACTS is misleading.

Like police gun down baby, without saying the baby was used as a human shield by a gunman shooting at police slants the story in a manner that is not the whole truth.

I know we all love putting our own perspective on things, but to leave out facts that support the opposing view is just plain bad writing and misleading.
you've said it all here!! a good reporter asks/and or tells the facts, the : who/what/where/when/and maybe the why. THEN leaves it up to the reader to come to their own conclusion thoughts, and feelings on the subject. Yes we all have our own take on stuff, and leaving parts out is almost criminal!

#5 by Trudygolightly Sunday, July 24, 2005

know we all love putting our own perspective on things, but to leave out facts that support the opposing view is just plain bad writing and misleading. you've said it all here!! a good reporter asks/and or tells the facts, the : who/what/where/when/and maybe the why. THEN leaves it up to the reader to come to their own conclusion thoughts, and feelings on the subject. Yes we all have our own take on stuff, and leaving parts out is almost criminal!

perfect, I have a certain view I want to get across, so I leave out important facts. Am I being fair the the reader? hell no. It's nice to HAVE all the facts before taking a stance on anything.

*smirk*

Dude, you did the very thing in this article. You didn't mention that the memo that Rove got his information from was marked confidential. That makes putting her identity out there a crime even if she wasn't "undercover." Just because she wasn't James Bond-ing it out there doesn't mean anything, really. She had a front company set up for use by the CIA and Karl Rove blew that plan to nothing -- putting other agents at risk, too.

Now, when you start giving ALL the infomration yourself, maybe then you can write a whining article like this. Oh, but I forgot -- whining articles like this get you points, and that's all you really care about anyway. Well, here's five points on me, but it's the only five I'll give you.

      While I agree with the thrust of the article I would point out that I would hate to see simply running from the police when you have not been convicted of anything become a shooting offense anywhere in the world.

 

And now I will respond to Myrrander trolling me out here... my resistance is low from being away from JU for a long time you see...

That makes putting her identity out there a crime even if she wasn't "undercover."

        Actually thats factually incorrect. Divulgin classified of *any* level (all the way up through Top Secret/Separately Compartmentalized Information (TS/SCI)) is only a crime if it is determined to have caused severe harm to the United States. Fact is that classified is released intentionally or accidentally everyday and 99.9% of the time it is NOT a crime. This is mainly due to the fact that US intelligence agencies reflexively stamp classifications on things that are not actually classified.

        The "Confidential" classification is actually laughable in and of itself. The Presidents toilet paper is likely to be classified at a higher level than that.

Reply By: MyrranderPosted: Sunday, July 24, 2005*smirk*Dude, you did the very thing in this article. You didn't mention that the memo that Rove got his information from was marked confidential. That makes putting her identity out there a crime even if she wasn't "undercover." Just because she wasn't James Bond-ing it out there doesn't mean anything, really. She had a front company set up for use by the CIA and Karl Rove blew that plan to nothing -- putting other agents at risk, too.Now, when you start giving ALL the infomration yourself, maybe then you can write a whining article like this. Oh, but I forgot -- whining articles like this get you points, and that's all you really care about anyway. Well, here's five points on me, but it's the only five I'll give you.

gee the huffer calling the dopefiend worse than he. wow myrr, do me a favor, do not give me points ever, simply stay out of my blogs, simple huh? do not comment, do not read, pretend I died.

Reply By: greywarPosted: Sunday, July 24, 2005 While I agree with the thrust of the article I would point out that I would hate to see simply running from the police when you have not been convicted of anything become a shooting offense anywhere in the world.

here in america, I know if a cop shouts freeze, I better freeze or there are consequences to pay. It's against the law to disobey a lawful and just order.

Argueing with myrr is futile, he is going to believe what he believes no matter what is truth. Truth never has stopped any loon from there own perceptions.

'Dude, you did the very thing in this article.'
Myrrander, you are spot on.
Picking just one example re. the London shooting ... MM failed to mention that the police were in plain clothes. All that remains is for him to tell us whether this was simply sloppy research on his part, or because it might conceivably raise doubt in the police's claims to have clearly identifed themselves to the victim before they shot him. So, which was it, MM?

Reply By: Furry CanaryPosted: Monday, July 25, 2005'Dude, you did the very thing in this article.'Myrrander, you are spot on.Picking just one example re. the London shooting ... MM failed to mention that the police were in plain clothes. All that remains is for him to tell us whether this was simply sloppy research on his part, or because it might conceivably raise doubt in the police's claims to have clearly identifed themselves to the victim before they shot him. So, which was it, MM?

ok, busted doing what I complained about, fair enough.

Reply By: little_whipPosted: Sunday, July 24, 2005I know exactly what you mean, MM...many here only tell half the story, leaving out facts that might make the US or it's allies look a little better.While I agree with greywar in the fact that running from the police shouldnt necessarily get you shot in the head, (it doesn't here in the US, btw, unless you are shooting at the cops or putting other lives in immediate danger) I can also understand why the London Police did what they did. If they had let him get away and he'd had explosives on him, we'd be asking "WHY DIDNT YOU SHOOT THE SOB WHEN YOU HAD HIM IN YOUR SIGHTS?"

thats' a perfect example of liberal thinking, damn if you do, damned if you do not.

did NOT know zink was dabe, but Iam really unconcious about that lurker kind of stuff.

Hi dabe/zink come back I miss you.

MM, it is called Spin, and is usually reserved for politicians.  And others who have to justify their lies.

#15 by little_whip Monday, July 25, 2005

Sorry for the hijack.

mm uses best D.O.M. voice.. tis ok whip, YOu can hijack me anytime. eh eh eh

#16 by Dr. Guy Monday, July 25, 2005

MM, it is called Spin, and is usually reserved for politicians. And others who have to justify their lies.

yep I remember when the term "spin doctors" came into vogue.

Dude, you did the very thing in this article.' Myrrander, you are spot on. Picking just one example re. the London shooting ... MM failed to mention that the police were in plain clothes

Okay, he forgot to mention it. Now for a question. "Why" should it matter if they were in plain clothes? When police id themselves and tell you to "HALT", and they're in plain clothes does that mean I don't have to listen to them?

Given the "exact" same circumstances in "most" other counties of the world, I expect that the same thing would happen.

'Okay, he forgot to mention it. Now for a question. "Why" should it matter if they were in plain clothes? When police id themselves and tell you to "HALT", and they're in plain clothes does that mean I don't have to listen to them?'

MM's response to my post was this: 'ok, busted doing what I complained about, fair enough.' That, to me, has both good grace and style.

Your response, on the other hand drmiler, appears to miss the point - this being that we need to acknowledge that what you refer to as 'the "exact" same circumstances' are neither completely known nor beyond contention. We have been told that the police identified themselves. That is a fact. Just as yesterday it was a fact that they shot him 5 times, whereas today it is a fact that they shot him 8 times.

'Okay, he forgot to mention it. Now for a question. "Why" should it matter if they were in plain clothes? When police id themselves and tell you to "HALT", and they're in plain clothes does that mean I don't have to listen to them?' MM's response to my post was this: 'ok, busted doing what I complained about, fair enough.' That, to me, has both good grace and style. Your response, on the other hand drmiler, appears to miss the point - this being that we need to acknowledge that what you refer to as 'the "exact" same circumstances' are neither completely known nor beyond contention. We have been told that the police identified themselves. That is a fact. Just as yesterday it was a fact that they shot him 5 times, whereas today it is a fact that they shot him 8 times.

No, I believe your missing the point. Is "anyone" contesting the fact that the police identified themselves? 5 times or 8 times. What's the difference? He's just as dead since they were all head shots. From CNN:

De Menezes on Friday left a south London apartment building that had been under surveillance as part of the investigation into Thursday's attempted bombings. Officers followed him to the Stockwell Underground station. The man's "clothing and suspicious behavior at the station added to their suspicions," a police statement said. He challenged police and refused to obey orders before he was shot and killed Friday morning, Blair said Friday. A witness to the shooting, Mark Whitby, said he was sitting on the train when "I heard a lot of shouting." "I saw a chap run on to the train," Whitby said. "He was running so fast he half sort of tripped. He was being pursued by three guys. One had a black handgun in his hand."

From BBC:

1: Witnesses report seeing up to 20 plain clothes police officers chase a man into Stockwell Tube station from the street 2: One person says the man vaulted the automatic ticket barriers as he made his way to the platforms 3: The most direct route is via this escalator or the staircase that sits alongside it 4: Police challenge the man but he apparently refuses to obey instructions and after running onto a northbound Northern line train, he is shot dead

And btw...."where" did you see he was shot 8 times. That in itself is "highly" unlikely. There wouldn't be enough left of his head to ID 8 shots. Let alone enough to shoot at. Especially since they use at a minimum, a 9mm firearm with hollowpoint rounds

Reply By: Furry CanaryPosted: Tuesday, July 26, 2005

MM's response to my post was this: 'ok, busted doing what I complained about, fair enough.' That, to me, has both good grace and style.

yikes, be still my heart, da furry one said something nice about me, this is surely one of the seven signs of the end of the world, lol

Reply By: drmilerPosted: Tuesday, July 26, 2005

And btw...."where" did you see he was shot 8 times. That in itself is "highly" unlikely. There wouldn't be enough left of his head to ID 8 shots. Let alone enough to shoot at. Especially since they use at a minimum, a 9mm firearm with hollowpoint rounds

exactly, As I have said you might not get shot here in america MIGHT NOT, but if you disobey a lawful command from the police you better be prepared to pay the piper.

I will respond to Myrrander trolling me out here

the Espionage Act of 1917, look into it, greywar

And I'd like to pretend you died, Republicanman, but corpses talking idiocy are still idiots...Here's another five points, whore...you got busted on what you complained about? Every blog you write is exactly what you complained about. So STFU about other bloggers, you're no prime example of altruistic beauty or something. Your writing is dishonest and you complain about dishonesty.

And pay no attention to Myrr, dear, he's just feeling pissy today because I outed his best friend, dabe.

Actually, I had no idea you had done it. Good job, Inspector Clouseau, ask Brandie how long we've all known that.

And btw...."where" did you see he was shot 8 times

It was widely reported in UK papers, yesterday, as it was told to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, who began an inquest into the shooting.

As for the topic--this isn't a news site, it's a blog site, where people, necessarily slant their articles to reflect their own reality. If you want news, read the BBC, CNN, FOX, whatever--but if you are reading JU, be prepared to get someone's opinion on the facts rather than simply the facts.

Reply By: MyrranderPosted: Tuesday, July 26, 2005I will respond to Myrrander trolling me out herethe Espionage Act of 1917, look into it, greywarAnd I'd like to pretend you died, Republicanman, but corpses talking idiocy are still idiots...Here's another five points, whore...you got busted on what you complained about? Every blog you write is exactly what you complained about. So STFU about other bloggers, you're no prime example of altruistic beauty or something. Your writing is dishonest and you complain about dishonesty.

do you even know how to be kind?