Moderateman Moderateman

Misleading blogs

▼

Misleading blogs

Convenient or intentional?

from JoeUser Forums
What’s up with all the blogs here on Joe user that only give information that supports the argument put forth by the author?

One blog shouts Innocent man killed in England, telling the story, BUT leaving out one important FACT, that the man was ordered to stop by the police.

Disobeying a lawful order given by law enforcement after they identify themselves is a crime in and of itself.

No one questioned why the man jumped a turnstile and ran from the police after ORDERED to stop.

Another blog shouts Karl Rove ousted Plame, leaving out two important facts, one that plame was not undercover and two that Rove has not even been charged with a crime.

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.

We all get annoyed when we see one side or the other put “spin” on something, yet we do not hesitate spinning something ourselves.

I find this hypocritical to say the least.
blogging
12,231 views 69 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Tuesday, July 26, 2005And btw...."where" did you see he was shot 8 timesIt 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.


Is there really a difference between being shot in heaD 5 TIMES AND 8 TIMES? slanting is not a bad thing but misleading intentionally is.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Yep! 

Still mellowing out?  in this heat?

Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


You are missing the point shades. There is no physical way of knowing how many head shots there were. Without exception everyone admits all rounds fired were "head shots". After 4 or 5 rounds there would NOT be enough left to verify that there were 8 shots. That tells me that whoever is telling the papers that info is stretching the truth! And btw I could find no mention of this in any major British publication available on the web.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
#29 by Dr. Guy
Wednesday, July 27, 2005


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.

Yep!
Still mellowing out? in this heat?


ya mean joeuser is NOT a real news orginazation?
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
I love this one...posted earlier;

I need JU's Help....

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


OFF Subject: Yeah, if you're referencing my bit, i should have had a different title...i was a bit stupid on that part...

--MM, insightful article...
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yet its the Republicans that cheat at every election, right?

Those who are first to accuse are usually guilty of the crime.  Any wonder that the democrats accuse the republicans of it?  The only proven cases were of the democrats.  The only cases that never went to trial, but are known to be true, are democrats.  they accuse republicans.  But only the loopy left beleives it.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
#32 by SuperLiberal
Wednesday, July 27, 2005


MM, insightful article...


thanx lucas, hang in there kid the furies will pass.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top


What is it with liberals and rules.


whip you and I know in the liberal mindset "rules" are for everyone but them.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
#34 by Dr. Guy
Wednesday, July 27, 2005


Yet its the Republicans that cheat at every election, right?


yes we cheat, we tell the truth, keep our word and offer candidates with a clear vision. to the left that is cheating because they cannot offer anything like that.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
thanx lucas, hang in there kid the furies will pass


--hmmm, I dug my own grave, six feet under...
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
So I'm curious: Can anybody tell me what it means, that he was shot in the head 8 times or whatever?

I mean, what are we trying to say, here? Did the Conspiracy steal his teeth, because of the secret radios in his fillings? Then they made up this story about 8 headshots, to explain why the dental records weren't good?

Or were all these headshots on the run? Are these the new British Super-Soldiers, cloned from embryonic stem cells? They're brilliant shots, apparently, but don't tell the public. They'll freak.

Or are the uber-cops werewolves? Brutal killers who can't help but pump a couple extra--hell, five extra--rounds into a fresh corpse? I bet they learned that from those bloodthirsty Jews. "Always shoot those tourists right in the ear," they say.

Okay, seriously. So what? Can anybody tell me why that detail is meaningful to leave in? Can anybody in this thread draw a useful conclusion from it, or can it safely be omitted, like the color of the poor young man's trousers?
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okay, seriously. So what? Can anybody tell me why that detail is meaningful to leave in? Can anybody in this thread draw a useful conclusion from it, or can it safely be omitted, like the color of the poor young man's trousers


--Not to F*** with british law enforcemnt.....
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
'Okay, seriously. So what? Can anybody tell me why that detail is meaningful to leave in? Can anybody in this thread draw a useful conclusion from it, or can it safely be omitted, like the color of the poor young man's trousers?'

Read the history of this thread, stutefish. You'll find that it derives from my attempt to make drmiler see that what he claims to be indisputable facts (and thus irrefutable justification for the actions of the police) are instead open to challenge and interpretation.

And what is drmiler's reaction? Why, he argues that there's no way of knowing exactly how many shots were fired. Thank you drmiler, you have demonstrated my very point! (Nevertheless, Wikipedia confirms 'At the inquest it has emerged that Jean Charles de Menezes was shot a total of eight times, seven in the head and once in the arm.')

Incidentally, the latest on Wikipedia also opens several other perhaps more serious areas of doubt:
'According to Menezes' family, however, the police have admitted that Menezes' did not actually jump over the ticket barrier and was not wearing a bulky jacket as initially reported.'
'There are conflicting reports as to whether the undercover police properly identified themselves, attempted to restrain Menezes on the floor, and if any verbal warning was given before he was shot.'
'Another witness, Lee Ruston, who was waiting on the platform, said the police made no efforts to identify themselves.'
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nevertheless, Wikipedia confirms 'At the inquest it has emerged that Jean Charles de Menezes was shot a total of eight times, seven in the head and once in the arm.')


And like I stated before...That it is not physically possible to determine that. All poice force use hollowpoint ammo and most 9mm. Go check wound ballistics for even the most common 9mm hollowpoint. There would NOT be enough of the head left to determine that. After 5 rounds all that would be left would be a ragged stump.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
All poice force use hollowpoint ammo and most 9mm. Go check wound ballistics for even the most common 9mm hollowpoint. There would NOT be enough of the head left to determine that. After 5 rounds all that would be left would be a ragged stump.


--interesting enough, since the first bombings the 'bobbies'(london police) have started using guns...before then they rarely if ever used them...
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
'And like I stated before...That it is not physically possible to determine that.'
Could they possibly have examined the police's guns and counted how many bullets were missing? Perhaps they might even have been able to extract the bullets from the 'ragged stump' to which you refer?

'--interesting enough, since the first bombings the 'bobbies'(london police) have started using guns...before then they rarely if ever used them...'
A few points of clarification here, SL.
1. 'Bobbies' (after Sir Robert Peel) are any British police, not just those in metropolitan London.
2. A select minority of UK police officers in specialist units have been carrying and using guns for decades. ('Rarely'? Well, yes - compared to police officers in the USA, I imagine so.)
3. Conversely, it is my understanding that the majority of UK police officers continue not to carry firearms.
4. Those officers involved in this shooting were not 'run-of-the-mill' police officers - as we know, they were in plain clothes, for a start - but members of Scotland Yard’s SO19 firearms branch.
Reply #42 from WinCustomize Forums Top
See several topics in this thread: When is a blog misleading? What happened in London? + more. For me, misleading in a witty, even point inflating way seems somewhat journalistic + can be legal or tolerated in places like JU, at least the majority of top authors seem to be doing it and not just them including myself. The more the same author does that or the same topics overabused for that on these sites, the less u click on that pattern, although the first times its even fun.



Also have an example of EXTREMELY DANGEROUS other type of misleading in blog titles because that causes a lot of internal site damage and waste of time making new outside visitors think they should not get involved with or endorse our projects - the hijack to articles not even a witty scheme worth reading itself, but just a polar bear photo in bad resolution or a cry for help the author could have solved with google, making Manopeace comment there - find it on google, which then gives him more points + opportunity to comment that with another question instead of googling and scoring AGAIN instead.



If you blacklist Superliberal cause Baileys gone, try blacklisting LiberalCrusader as well, a misleading SITE, not identity, maybe, created 3 days ago, with no icon or E-mail. He learns if it is him, but does not realize Stardock might soon outrule his making any sites at all, once we direct powerful peoples attention to this. Obviously moderateman wants him in this thread although MM is an interesting guy, I thought, there are more folks like this though, thats where it stops for me. So were not talking Bailey good or not, u need to know new visitors now think: Manopeace whom I like and was mislead just like me weeks earlier is worthless, MM is worthless, by not blacklisting he blows up a thread, SuperLiberal and LiberalCrusader etc. add up to 5 useless authors, counting me in who was also mislead; any site terrorism like this will go on as long as FROGBOYs missing 40,000$ for subscrips a year on WC so don´t be surprised about JU FUTURE quality if there is any, which I hope. Is that still journalism or BBC?



Anybody who is not a newbie involved looks bad.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
1. 'Bobbies' (after Sir Robert Peel) are any British police, not just those in metropolitan London.
2. A select minority of UK police officers in specialist units have been carrying and using guns for decades. ('Rarely'? Well, yes - compared to police officers in the USA, I imagine so.)
3. Conversely, it is my understanding that the majority of UK police officers continue not to carry firearms.
4. Those officers involved in this shooting were not 'run-of-the-mill' police officers - as we know, they were in plain clothes, for a start - but members of Scotland Yard’s SO19 firearms branch


1)I was just specifying which city....

2)Didn't know that...

3)True, but considering the history of the use of firearms in the UK...

4)Didn't know that either...

(Thanks for enlightening me on these things...)


If you blacklist Superliberal cause Baileys gone


--I'm still here...
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
#45 by SATYROBE


Toby... I have no idea what you are talking about... my name is there twice or more...in reference to what??
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
38 by SuperLiberal
Wednesday, July 27, 2005


thanx lucas, hang in there kid the furies will pass


--hmmm, I dug my own grave, six feet under...


the great thing about being down, is there is no where to go but UP.. ha!!!
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Furry CanaryPosted: Thursday, July 28, 2005


I would just like to point out what all law enforcement and prosacuting lawyers KNOW.. eye witness account are the LEAST reliable of all forms of identafication.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top

the great thing about being down, is there is no where to go but UP.. ha!!!

That reminds me of one of the quotes from a Job review: The employee has reached bottom and started to dig.

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Thursday, July 28, 2005the great thing about being down, is there is no where to go but UP.. ha!!!That reminds me of one of the quotes from a Job review: The employee has reached bottom and started to dig.


I been down doc , so far down that it looked like up to me {book by tom wolfe}
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
'I been down doc , so far down that it looked like up to me {book by tom wolfe}'
MM, perhaps you mean 'Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up to Me' by Richard Farina?
Reply #50 from WinCustomize Forums Top
my name is there twice or more...in reference to what??


Hi, Steve, u responded to SuperLiberals Need help blog about composer google was full of with ur own comment saying find it on google. SuperLiberal got people on his site + ur comment give him points, exactly what he wanted. Then, instead of saying thanks & googling, he tried to provoke another comment with a question to u (what does it say on google or so), he can respond to this blog by moderateman only because mm did not blacklist Liberal Crusader + SuperLiberal of his MM site, tomorrow, he changes names again, + can still hijack us to clicking on his site with blog titles we dont know are his till we give him points by clicking there, which is why he is still in the top 10 + we loose time, no offense against u, taking further measures meself. Blacklisting aint enough, only thing would be for a wizop to block his stardock account independent from his e-mail he could also change