|
Post by blandie on Jul 10, 2013 11:53:29 GMT -5
The newspaper was biased against the fellowship. They posted stories so that people would run from the fellowship as fast as they could. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Is what the Impartial Reporter wrote, true? I think so. But they slanted the news to make the workers look crazy. Probably not unlike a Boston Globe article against the Catholic Church. Or a St. Petersburg Times article against Scientology. Are the articles true? Yep. Are they slanted? Yep. Is that fair and impartial reporting? It depends on point of view. I think that FoxNews is fair and impartial. Liberals tend to disagree vehemently. Fox isn't making up news- but they are probably choosing to focus on items that there core audience likes to see them focus on- runaway Government spending, government corruption, etc.- and not focus as much on the issues with big business. If you are a preacher that the workers are calling a hireling and a thief, then the Impartial Reporters slant/tone would seem fair. If you are a worker that would rather that bit of detail remain hidden, then I doubt it will be considered fair. I think that issue of bias isn't the real issue. The issue is, did the Impartial Reporter libel the fellowship? The evidence appears to be that they did not. I don't think the Impartial Reporter or other papers had to do much slanting 'to make the workers look crazy' because those workers provided plenty of quotes and events that made that impression for themselves. I think you have hit the nail on the head though and no newspaper or other media is going to be completely without a viewpoint and even the whole society of a time will have a viewpoint. That doesn't mean that the news was slanted to slander or libel the workers and some of the antics and statements of the workers were so beyond the pale for that time that it isn't a huge leap to judge someones 'religious mind became unhinged' and it isn't fair to the Impartial Reporter to leave out the word religious and make out that they were saying the guy was insane. I don't think that any lawsuit was made against the Impartial Reporter or any other Irish paper but if anyone knows different it would be interesting to know about it. Reading through it seems that the workers ridiculed against the Impartial Reporter and that was also reported in that paper. Maybe instead of causing the workers any real hinderance the articles reporting the crazy goings-on those articles got a lot more people interested than would have been elsewise because once the media reports toned down and disappear the interest in the workers missions crashed like a lead balloon - maybe the work fed off that publicity and encouraged it like movie starlets who shed crocodile tears over paparazzi and the tribulations of fame while making sure to worm their ways into as many tabloids as possible and once the publicity stops so do their careers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 16:02:52 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure of the rules here. You don't want numerous examples of partiality and hyperbole from many articles, you want me to analyze one article and point out the partiality in it? Where can text copies of all the articles be found? My two cents. The newspaper was biased against the fellowship. They posted stories so that people would run from the fellowship as fast as they could. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Is what the Impartial Reporter wrote, true? I think so. But they slanted the news to make the workers look crazy. Probably not unlike a Boston Globe article against the Catholic Church. Or a St. Petersburg Times article against Scientology. Are the articles true? Yep. Are they slanted? Yep. Is that fair and impartial reporting? It depends on point of view. I think that FoxNews is fair and impartial. Liberals tend to disagree vehemently. Fox isn't making up news- but they are probably choosing to focus on items that there core audience likes to see them focus on- runaway Government spending, government corruption, etc.- and not focus as much on the issues with big business. If you are a preacher that the workers are calling a hireling and a thief, then the Impartial Reporters slant/tone would seem fair. If you are a worker that would rather that bit of detail remain hidden, then I doubt it will be considered fair. I think that issue of bias isn't the real issue. The issue is, did the Impartial Reporter libel the fellowship? The evidence appears to be that they did not. I agree with your assessment. It's biased and not impartial but not likely libelous. They report and highlight the worst of what they see but don't specifically make up direct lies. There is nothing wrong with them reporting that workers preach that clergy are all hirelings, but that is all that is reported (ie negative things only). So they report a slanted view, then come up with outrageous commentary such as "mind unhinged". Those conclusions may technically be libelous but since it can't be proved to be a lie, there would never be a hope of a successful libel suit on that. However, even when I was more socially conservative, I never saw FN as fair and balanced....I always chuckled every time they advertised that. Here's one reason why: they always put a liberal up against a conservative to yell at each other fairly and balanced, at least superficially. But not really, they always put a weak liberal proponent up against a strong conservative proponent so the conservative usually won the shouting match "fairly". Sort of like putting up a lightweight against a heavyweight and calling it a fair fight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 16:26:35 GMT -5
I want one complete article that I can see where you are coming from AND to see if I can relate to it from my own experience and what I was told by previous generations. Keep in mind, the Impartial Reporter was reporting on events relating to the sect in Ireland, whilst my experience was Scotland. My recollections are, though somewhat distant, were that I found nothing untoward in the reporting,that I could identify with most of it, AND that the things that I could not identify with specifically, I found a consistency with other matters that I could relate to. I have a hard copy of the compilation of the articles somewhere, which I haven't looked at for a few years now. I still maintain though that it is an accurate record of many of the controversial aspects of the sect at that time and contains records of beliefs, attitudes and practices which might seem alien today, even unbelievable perhaps, to those who do not know about these things, hence it IS an invaluable historical record, especially nowadays when there exists a groundswell of opinion against these things ever having occurred. I'm not quite sure of the rules here. You don't want numerous examples of partiality and hyperbole from many articles, you want me to analyze one article and point out the partiality in it? Where can text copies of all the articles be found? I misunderstood you CD. I thought you were objecting to having to provide multiple examples (due to time & effort etc?). That's why I asked for only one example. I think it would be an interesting study to examine one or two or more articles. I still can't fathom you out. It's alright for the early workers to vehemently lambaste the clergy and other Christians of the day, yet when a newspaper is attracted to report on the controversy and highlight true unfriendly and controversial characteristics in the workers, it is somehow unfair, unbalanced and so on. As I have said, it is an invaluable true record of characteristics which many today will either deny or refuse to believe. That is one "good" reason why it is invaluable. We have a record of it. It was widespread, not just in Ireland and caused much damage to many people. People from generations down the line can now examine the past and get an understanding of why their ancestors behaved in certain ways and see the type of influences they were under.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 16:35:14 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure of the rules here. You don't want numerous examples of partiality and hyperbole from many articles, you want me to analyze one article and point out the partiality in it? Where can text copies of all the articles be found? I misunderstood you CD. I thought you were objecting to having to provide multiple examples (due to time & effort etc?). That's why I asked for only one example. I think it would be an interesting study to examine one or two or more articles. No, what I wanted to know was how much slanted reporting would it take to convince you that it is actually slanted? I don't mind doing the work, I just want it to be successful work!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 16:41:18 GMT -5
I misunderstood you CD. I thought you were objecting to having to provide multiple examples (due to time & effort etc?). That's why I asked for only one example. I think it would be an interesting study to examine one or two or more articles. No, what I wanted to know was how much slanted reporting would it take to convince you that it is actually slanted? I don't mind doing the work, I just want it to be successful work! If it is slanted then I will accept that. Conversely, how much truth will you need before you accept it as being truth, even though you have already admitted to it being true. Remember, for slanted I expect there to be evidence of the reports being twisted in some way, not merely reporting a series true facts of poor behaviour and claiming this alone shows "slant!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 16:48:07 GMT -5
No, what I wanted to know was how much slanted reporting would it take to convince you that it is actually slanted? I don't mind doing the work, I just want it to be successful work! If it is slanted then I will accept that. Conversely, how much truth will you need before you accept it as being truth, even though you have already admitted to it being true. Remember, for slanted I expect there to be evidence of the reports being twisted in some way, not merely reporting a series true facts of poor behaviour and claiming this alone shows "slant!" The discussion was never about truth even though you have attempted to shift it in that direction a couple of times. The discussion was always about the Partial vs Impartial Reporter. Now that you have accepted it is "slanted", then we are on the same page. It now has a new name: The Partial Reporter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 17:20:39 GMT -5
If it is slanted then I will accept that. Conversely, how much truth will you need before you accept it as being truth, even though you have already admitted to it being true. Remember, for slanted I expect there to be evidence of the reports being twisted in some way, not merely reporting a series true facts of poor behaviour and claiming this alone shows "slant!" The discussion was never about truth even though you have attempted to shift it in that direction a couple of times. The discussion was always about the Partial vs Impartial Reporter. Now that you have accepted it is "slanted", then we are on the same page. It now has a new name: The Partial Reporter. Sorry, my poor explanation. I meant that if you provide an article that is truly slanted then I will accept that, with the proviso that I accept your view of "slant!" The discussion was never about truth? How more "impartial" can you get by simply reporting the "truth" of a matter? You are neither partial one way or the other. Reporting truth implies "free from bias!" In no way am I suggesting that the Impartial Reporter was perfect in their reporting, but rather their reporting was a true record of characteristics which were typical of the early workers. This is why I see the newspaper as a veritable source of information. Many nowadays will not believe, or may choose not to believe, that the reported events happened, or that the early workers had much of the beliefs or behaviour recorded.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 10, 2013 18:00:14 GMT -5
The discussion was never about truth even though you have attempted to shift it in that direction a couple of times. The discussion was always about the Partial vs Impartial Reporter. Now that you have accepted it is "slanted", then we are on the same page. It now has a new name: The Partial Reporter. Sorry, my poor explanation. I meant that if you provide an article that is truly slanted then I will accept that, with the proviso that I accept your view of "slant!" The discussion was never about truth? How more "impartial" can you get by simply reporting the "truth" of a matter? You are neither partial one way or the other. Reporting truth implies "free from bias!" In no way am I suggesting that the Impartial Reporter was perfect in their reporting, but rather their reporting was a true record of characteristics which were typical of the early workers. This is why I see the newspaper as a veritable source of information. Many nowadays will not believe, or may choose not to believe, that the reported events happened, or that the early workers had much of the beliefs or behaviour recorded. Ram! Editorializing is not impartial! Reporting that WI thought he was one of the Jerusalem Chosen Two is simple reporting -- and impartial. Calling it 'unhinged' or 'depraved' or 'deranged' or whatever they call it is editorializing, and that is NOT impartial! It's no more 'reporting of fact' than it would be for me to call you a lunatic because you believe in a virgin birth!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 21:59:05 GMT -5
Sorry, my poor explanation. I meant that if you provide an article that is truly slanted then I will accept that, with the proviso that I accept your view of "slant!" The discussion was never about truth? How more "impartial" can you get by simply reporting the "truth" of a matter? You are neither partial one way or the other. Reporting truth implies "free from bias!" In no way am I suggesting that the Impartial Reporter was perfect in their reporting, but rather their reporting was a true record of characteristics which were typical of the early workers. This is why I see the newspaper as a veritable source of information. Many nowadays will not believe, or may choose not to believe, that the reported events happened, or that the early workers had much of the beliefs or behaviour recorded. Ram! Editorializing is not impartial! Reporting that WI thought he was one of the Jerusalem Chosen Two is simple reporting -- and impartial. Calling it 'unhinged' or 'depraved' or 'deranged' or whatever they call it is editorializing, and that is NOT impartial! It's no more 'reporting of fact' than it would be for me to call you a lunatic because you believe in a virgin birth! That's about as simple as it gets. I have have run out of ideas on how to present this and be understood.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jul 11, 2013 0:15:30 GMT -5
If some religious fanatic sets off a bomb in a bunch of school kids it wouldn't be impartial to characterize that as having his 'religious mind unhinged' and instead we should expect a news report not to connect those dots??? Maybe then if they are observed launching into vicious and unfounded verbal slanders thats also an illegal attack those dots cannot be connected without being accused of bias? So to be 'impartial' they are restricted to just repeating the slander??? No way is that journalism even today. To me being 'impartial' means to tell both sides and not something where a news source can't call a fanatic on his warped outlook or twisting of religion be it a worker or a mullah. In the day when that article was written it impartially reflected what society saw as normal and second guessing a hundred years later isn't very fair - and a hundred years from now the attitude that impartial = nonjudgemental will seem just as weirdly unbalanced as you are accusing the newspaper's reporting. Damning somebody was fightin words during my youth and damning somebody's mother still is. We expect juries and judges and newspapers to be impartial but we don't expect them not to make judgement calls and don't accuse them of being biased or editorializing or being unfair or being partial when they do their job. The workers could have written to the paper - and did in some cases - if they felt the paper reported something wrong and they could have launched a lawsuit if they had an inkling that they were being libeled or slandered - and they did that too - and when you're in the business of being wildly provocative to attract a following both of those would have been real attractive if you could make a case. Its starting to remind me of this thread in which no one is being very impartial
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 4:18:56 GMT -5
Ram! Editorializing is not impartial! Reporting that WI thought he was one of the Jerusalem Chosen Two is simple reporting -- and impartial. Calling it 'unhinged' or 'depraved' or 'deranged' or whatever they call it is editorializing, and that is NOT impartial! It's no more 'reporting of fact' than it would be for me to call you a lunatic because you believe in a virgin birth! That's about as simple as it gets. I have have run out of ideas on how to present this and be understood. CD and Gene, let me put it this way. CD's position has clearly been one to cast aside the validity of the Impartial Reporter on accounts of his perceived bias, propaganda, etc. I see this as a very dangerous position, because in reality the position is nowhere near to being as bad as he claims. The Impartial Reporter articles contains MANY historical facts with regards to the beliefs (many former), characteristics and behaviour of the sect in former times. I have never come across one claim in all the articles that I could say was false, untrue or twisted. This is significant for me. Today, many of the statements in the articles are not believed by some who don't know any better, or would choose to revise history. I will resist this to the hilt because I believe in the truth of the matter. The Impartial Reporter is in fact a valuable historical record which can be generally be relied upon with regards to the sect. Now Gene, having regards to Irvine being described as unhinged or depraved. Have regard to the man's known temperament, character and substance of his sermons when preaching, which is well established. Now place yourself in the position of an "impartial" reporter going along to listen to one or more of his sermons. Do you honestly think that these descriptions were manufactured on a basis of bias, OR, do you think that was indeed the impression that came across to the reporter? Remember, some of Irvine's co-workers saw him on the slide, long before he was side-lined. 100 years have distanced us from these events and also have blinded us.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 11, 2013 7:05:09 GMT -5
Excerpt from Impartial Reporter August 5, 1909, p. 8:
Mr. Cooney than said it might be the last time he might be able to address them. He had sacrificed his home without the possibility of ever having a hearth of his own, but he WARNED THEM AGAINST THE CLERGY WHO were making money by damning them, and he said that because he loved them. ‘I love my dear old father, ‘ said he, ‘and my dear old mother, and I took a run in this week to see them, and it makes the blood boil hot in me when I see them sticking up to the clergy who are making fortunes by damning their souls.
Of course, the IMPARTIAL REPORTER makes me out some sort of a brute, with a brute character, without any human affection for parents or relatives. I am not a brute; I am a man, and I love my father, and mother, and sisters, and brother, and all my fellow-men. Is it fair representing a man like that as a brute? (We fail to find one line in the IMPARTIAL REPORTER of any description as warrant for this statement.—ED. I.R.)
As I spoke to my mother, she said she had not read the IMPARTIAL REPORTER yet, because ‘I knew’ she said, ‘it would misrepresent you.’ She believes in me despite what is said about me. The dirty, filthy way that Trimble has of representing me as some of you know—and those of you are here today will perhaps see another report of the same mean horrible character in next Thursday’s REPORTER, as perhaps there’s a secret reporter in the tent again today. I don’t know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 8:00:01 GMT -5
That's about as simple as it gets. I have have run out of ideas on how to present this and be understood. CD and Gene, let me put it this way. CD's position has clearly been one to cast aside the validity of the Impartial Reporter on accounts of his perceived bias, propaganda, etc. I see this as a very dangerous position, because in reality the position is nowhere near to being as bad as he claims. I'm glad that we agree it is a bad situation. "Cast aside"? Strawman. Now I see why you have been digging in on this......you have leaped to a strange conclusion that I am trying to make the IP as invalid. No, I haven't gotten anywhere near that idea. I have simply identified a simple truth: that the IP is slanted on their coverage of this story. They have decided to oppose the Tramps and their reporting supports their opposition. What's the big problem with that? They were entirely free to oppose the Tramps and they did yet this seems to be something blatantly obvious that you don't want to acknowledge for some unknown reason. Do you own shares in the company?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 11, 2013 8:52:56 GMT -5
Wonder why it was this particular newspaper that seemed to be the most opposed to "the tramp" movement? And reported the most about them, over any other newspaper of that time?
I am very grateful for the factual information presented in the IR. It has helped me a great deal in piecing together the early 2x2 history
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 10:18:15 GMT -5
Wonder why it was this particular newspaper that seemed to be the most opposed to "the tramp" movement? And reported the most about them, over any other newspaper of that time?
I am very grateful for the factual information presented in the IR. It has helped me a great deal in piecing together the early 2x2 history I think you have certainly been using the IP properly. Extract the factual information and recognize the sentiments of the editorials. Usually when we see this level of opposition, there is more than a philosophical reason. Maybe the Tramps emptied out Trimble's church in Enniskillen.....or something along that line. A lot of friends professed in Enniskillen so there would have been at least some sort of personal connection between Trimble and the Tramps.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 11, 2013 10:45:48 GMT -5
CD wrote: Usually when we see this level of opposition, there is more than a philosophical reason. Maybe the Tramps emptied out Trimble's church in Enniskillen.....or something along that line. A lot of friends professed in Enniskillen so there would have been at least some sort of personal connection between Trimble and the Tramps. From Chapter 1 of my book: THE IMPARTIAL REPORTER & FARMERS JOURNAL: You may be asking, "What on earth is the Impartial Reporter?" It was the local newspaper, located in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland. Quotes from this newspaper will outnumber quotes from any other source in this book. Their earliest newspaper article about The Testimony to be found at this time (year 2000) is dated January 15, 1903. These articles have been reprinted for your convenience on the Telling The Truth Website. The Impartial Reporter published its first newspaper on May 19, 1825. In 1900, it published one newspaper per week. Some issues contain the following heading: "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The ‘Impartial Reporter’ is the only paper which circulates throughout the Diocese of Clogher, in counties of Fermanagh, Donegal, Tyrone, and Monaghan. It is the only paper which circulates throughout the Diocese of Kilmore in Cavan and Leitrim; and it issues five copies for two copies of the local paper nearest in position." (taken from July 23, 1908 p5 issue) William Trimble (1802-1886), a native of Pomeroy, County Tyrone, Ireland, was the first editor-proprietor of The Impartial Reporter and Farmers' Journal. It is based in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, Norther Ireland. He was succeeded by his second son, William Copeland Trimble (1851-1941), who wrote a pamphlet titled The Tramps or Go-Preachers, (Sometimes called Pilgrims), 1910 under the initials W.C.T. Wm C. Trimble was married twice. First, on October 3, 1881, to Letitia Jane Weir, born May 18, 1854. Their marriage was registered in South Dublin. They had 5 children and she died eleven years later on January 8, 1892, being 38 years old. Letitia Jane Weir was the daughter of John Weir, and was related to the William Weir family who owned a store on Baggot Street in Dublin, where the first Sunday morning meeting was held. Perhaps this is why W.C. Trimble took a keen interest in the activities and beliefs of the Tramp Preachers. His second marriage was to Lily Reilly on May 8, 1893. They had 3 children. The weekly newspaper was owned and run by the William Trimble family since it was founded in 1925.William Copeland Trimble was succeeded as editor-proprietor of the Impartial Reporter by his son William Egbert Trimble (1882-1967). On his death, his daughter, Joan (born 1915) took over the reins. In turn, they were passed on to her daughter, Joanna McVey. In June, 2006, the 181 year-old Northern Ireland weekly, The Impartial Reporter, was bought by Ulster News Group, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dunfermine Press Ltd. In the past twenty years, friends, workers, and ex-friends have continued to make pilgrimage visits back to the “Old Country” and visit the office of The Impartial Reporter, located in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland investigating the group’s beginning. At this newspaper publishing office, there are at least 100 old newspaper columns on file written by reporters who visited conventions, missions, workers and friends and trace the development of the 2x2 fellowship at the turn of the 20th century. Visit their website.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 11, 2013 10:46:02 GMT -5
CD wrote: Usually when we see this level of opposition, there is more than a philosophical reason. Maybe the Tramps emptied out Trimble's church in Enniskillen.....or something along that line. A lot of friends professed in Enniskillen so there would have been at least some sort of personal connection between Trimble and the Tramps.
From Chapter 1 of my book:
THE IMPARTIAL REPORTER & FARMERS JOURNAL: You may be asking, "What on earth is the Impartial Reporter?" It was the local newspaper, located in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland. Quotes from this newspaper will outnumber quotes from any other source in this book. Their earliest newspaper article about The Testimony to be found at this time (year 2000) is dated January 15, 1903. These articles have been reprinted for your convenience on the Telling The Truth Website. The Impartial Reporter published its first newspaper on May 19, 1825. In 1900, it published one newspaper per week. Some issues contain the following heading:
"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The ‘Impartial Reporter’ is the only paper which circulates throughout the Diocese of Clogher, in counties of Fermanagh, Donegal, Tyrone, and Monaghan. It is the only paper which circulates throughout the Diocese of Kilmore in Cavan and Leitrim; and it issues five copies for two copies of the local paper nearest in position." (taken from July 23, 1908 p5 issue)
William Trimble (1802-1886), a native of Pomeroy, County Tyrone, Ireland, was the first editor-proprietor of The Impartial Reporter and Farmers' Journal. It is based in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, Norther Ireland. He was succeeded by his second son, William Copeland Trimble (1851-1941), who wrote a pamphlet titled The Tramps or Go-Preachers, (Sometimes called Pilgrims), 1910 under the initials W.C.T.
Wm C. Trimble was married twice. First, on October 3, 1881, to Letitia Jane Weir, born May 18, 1854. Their marriage was registered in South Dublin. They had 5 children and she died eleven years later on January 8, 1892, being 38 years old. Letitia Jane Weir was the daughter of John Weir, and was related to the William Weir family who owned a store on Baggot Street in Dublin, where the first Sunday morning meeting was held. Perhaps this is why W.C. Trimble took a keen interest in the activities and beliefs of the Tramp Preachers. His second marriage was to Lily Reilly on May 8, 1893. They had 3 children.
The weekly newspaper was owned and run by the William Trimble family since it was founded in 1925.William Copeland Trimble was succeeded as editor-proprietor of the Impartial Reporter by his son William Egbert Trimble (1882-1967). On his death, his daughter, Joan (born 1915) took over the reins. In turn, they were passed on to her daughter, Joanna McVey. In June, 2006, the 181 year-old Northern Ireland weekly, The Impartial Reporter, was bought by Ulster News Group, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dunfermine Press Ltd.
In the past twenty years, friends, workers, and ex-friends have continued to make pilgrimage visits back to the “Old Country” and visit the office of The Impartial Reporter, located in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland investigating the group’s beginning. At this newspaper publishing office, there are at least 100 old newspaper columns on file written by reporters who visited conventions, missions, workers and friends and trace the development of the 2x2 fellowship at the turn of the 20th century. Visit their website.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 17:19:02 GMT -5
CD and Gene, let me put it this way. CD's position has clearly been one to cast aside the validity of the Impartial Reporter on accounts of his perceived bias, propaganda, etc. I see this as a very dangerous position, because in reality the position is nowhere near to being as bad as he claims. I'm glad that we agree it is a bad situation. "Cast aside"? Strawman. Now I see why you have been digging in on this......you have leaped to a strange conclusion that I am trying to make the IP as invalid. No, I haven't gotten anywhere near that idea. I have simply identified a simple truth: that the IP is slanted on their coverage of this story. They have decided to oppose the Tramps and their reporting supports their opposition. What's the big problem with that? They were entirely free to oppose the Tramps and they did yet this seems to be something blatantly obvious that you don't want to acknowledge for some unknown reason. Do you own shares in the company? I am thankful that you have corrected my misconception (strange conclusion) that you thought the IP is invalid (cast aside)even though you consider it biased, used hyperbole, etc. Perhaps I was confused by your apparent onesidedness earlier on? I am grateful to you for clarifying your opinion as to its validity. My sincere apologies and thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 11, 2013 18:03:56 GMT -5
I'm glad that we agree it is a bad situation. "Cast aside"? Strawman. Now I see why you have been digging in on this......you have leaped to a strange conclusion that I am trying to make the IP as invalid. No, I haven't gotten anywhere near that idea. I have simply identified a simple truth: that the IP is slanted on their coverage of this story. They have decided to oppose the Tramps and their reporting supports their opposition. What's the big problem with that? They were entirely free to oppose the Tramps and they did yet this seems to be something blatantly obvious that you don't want to acknowledge for some unknown reason. Do you own shares in the company? I am thankful that you have corrected my misconception (strange conclusion) that you thought the IP is invalid (cast aside)even though you consider it biased, used hyperbole, etc. Perhaps I was confused by your apparent onesidedness earlier on? I am grateful to you for clarifying your opinion as to its validity. My sincere apologies and thank you. If I may, I'd like to go on the record as well: I have no problem believing the accuracy of the IP reporting of FACT. And I have no difficulty discerning fact from editorial opinion. I may agree with much of the editorializing as well, but in my own mind, I like to keep fact well-separated from opinion. And Ram, as an officer of the court, I expect you are accustomed to doing the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 16:16:38 GMT -5
I am thankful that you have corrected my misconception (strange conclusion) that you thought the IP is invalid (cast aside)even though you consider it biased, used hyperbole, etc. Perhaps I was confused by your apparent onesidedness earlier on? I am grateful to you for clarifying your opinion as to its validity. My sincere apologies and thank you. If I may, I'd like to go on the record as well: I have no problem believing the accuracy of the IP reporting of FACT. And I have no difficulty discerning fact from editorial opinion. I may agree with much of the editorializing as well, but in my own mind, I like to keep fact well-separated from opinion. And Ram, as an officer of the court, I expect you are accustomed to doing the same. I agree Gene. There have been many attempts to dismiss facts on account of opinion and on not a few occasions, to conveniently revise history according to one's own bias or desire. I'm talking generally here, not specifically in relation to the above debate. I guess I get more than a bit protective of things that I know to be fact and I try to be fair and unbiased. Perhaps too, I am well used to examining and establishing facts, which often of necessity has to cut through the biases and opinions of others.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 12, 2013 17:15:31 GMT -5
If I may, I'd like to go on the record as well: I have no problem believing the accuracy of the IP reporting of FACT. And I have no difficulty discerning fact from editorial opinion. I may agree with much of the editorializing as well, but in my own mind, I like to keep fact well-separated from opinion. And Ram, as an officer of the court, I expect you are accustomed to doing the same. I agree Gene. There have been many attempts to dismiss facts on account of opinion and on not a few occasions, to conveniently revise history according to one's own bias or desire. I'm talking generally here, not specifically in relation to the above debate. I guess I get more than a bit protective of things that I know to be fact and I try to be fair and unbiased. Perhaps too, I am well used to examining and establishing facts, which often of necessity has to cut through the biases and opinions of others. Understood, Ram -- thank you. G
|
|