Militants kill 14 Iraqi villagers

[Larkinn]

The misery is an entity all on it's own, you on the other hand are a **** of your own making and proportion.Fuck off...please.

Wow...you are like a broken record, but stupider. Want me to fuck off? Its called the ignore feature. Use it, or stop whining.

 

[roomy]

Wow...you are like a broken record, but stupider. Want me to fuck off? Its called the ignore feature. Use it, or stop whining.

You are the epitomy of thickness, you never make a point worth debating yet you always seem to find a point worth blubbing over without making an argument, you are indeed a thick **** bastard.

 

[mattskramer]

The misery is an entity all on it's own, you on the other hand are a **** of your own making and proportion.Fuck off...please.

"You must learn to govern your passions; they will be your undoing."
- Mr. Spock, Star Trek II

 

[roomy]

Anyhoo, thick ****, I am very surprised none of your less thick bastards than you havent told you that you are no match for me.

 

[roomy]

"You must learn to govern your passions; they will be your undoing."
- Mr. Spock, Star Trek II

And you must continue to make a universal arse of yourself

 

[Gunny]

Tsk, everyone's a credit. I'm a shitty writer myself, but I don't see much wrong with it.

Of course you don't because it suits you not to. It's a textbook example of yellow journalism.

There is no purpose whatsoever to include the Iraqi gov't's claim that deaths were down in Nov in an article about 14 deaths that took place in Dec.

Unless of course you wish to use the deaths to downplay and or cast doubt on the claim.

 

[mattskramer]

Of course you don't because it suits you not to. It's a textbook example of yellow journalism.

There is no purpose whatsoever to include the Iraqi gov't's claim that deaths were down in Nov in an article about 14 deaths that took place in Dec.

Unless of course you wish to use the deaths to downplay and or cast doubt on the claim.

People will practically see what they want to see and infer what they want to infer. Why was this sentence included? Why was that word used? What did he really mean? What might he really intend to subtly convey? Hmmm.

 

[Larkinn]

Of course you don't because it suits you not to. It's a textbook example of yellow journalism.

There is no purpose whatsoever to include the Iraqi gov't's claim that deaths were down in Nov in an article about 14 deaths that took place in Dec.

Unless of course you wish to use the deaths to downplay and or cast doubt on the claim.

Wow...you are quite paranoid.

This is not yellow journalism. Whether it is biased or not is surely up for debate, but yellow journalism is a far stronger thing.

As to the purpose...you really don't think there is any purpose when stating that some individuals have been killed in a war zone, to also state what the stats of death rates are in that war zone? You don't think those things are, you know, related at all?

You are looking for a problem where none exists.

 

[Gunny]

Wow...you are quite paranoid.

This is not yellow journalism. Whether it is biased or not is surely up for debate, but yellow journalism is a far stronger thing.

As to the purpose...you really don't think there is any purpose when stating that some individuals have been killed in a war zone, to also state what the stats of death rates are in that war zone? You don't think those things are, you know, related at all?

You are looking for a problem where none exists.

LMAO. How about I've got 4 years of journalism under my belt and know what I'm looking at?

Paranoid my ass.

 

[Larkinn]

LMAO. How about I've got 4 years of journalism under my belt and know what I'm looking at?

Paranoid my ass.

And a hell of a lot of unashamed bias to go with it.

 

[mattskramer]

LMAO. How about I've got 4 years of journalism under my belt and know what I'm looking at?

Paranoid my ass.

So you might be an educated paranoid.

What is the author trying to tell you without telling you?

 

[DeadCanDance]

Of course you don't because it suits you not to. It's a textbook example of yellow journalism.

There is no purpose whatsoever to include the Iraqi gov't's claim that deaths were down in Nov in an article about 14 deaths that took place in Dec.

Unless of course you wish to use the deaths to downplay and or cast doubt on the claim.

Wow, you are really paranoid.

There have been plenty of articles about the drop in violence.

This was an article about a brutal attack by al qaeda against innocent villagers. And they put it in context about the overall drop in violence.

It used to be that cons claimed that the media didn't report enough on the brutality of al qaeda. Why the flip flop? This is a report of a particularly brutal example of al qaeda - the killing of a bunch of innocent villagers.

 

[Gunny]

People will practically see what they want to see and infer what they want to infer. Why was this sentence included? Why was that word used? What did he really mean? What might he really intend to subtly convey? Hmmm.

Which is neither here nor there. This isn't about the big cosmic reason behind everything.

It's a simple yet effective journalism tactic.

 

[Gunny]

And a hell of a lot of unashamed bias to go with it.

Nothing biased about it one way or the other on my part. I'm not selling an agenda here.

But I'm going to predict in advance your verbal monkeyflips to deny one.

 

[Gunny]

Wow, you are really paranoid.

There have been plenty of articles about the drop in violence.

This was an article about a brutal attack by al qaeda against innocent villagers. And they put it in context about the overall drop in violence.

It used to be that cons claimed that the media didn't report enough on the brutality of al qaeda. Why the flip flop? This is a report of a particularly brutal example of al qaeda - the killing of a bunch of innocent villagers.

You can't do better than echoing someone else's lame accusation?

A textbook example of yellow journalism followed by a textbook example of a bleeting, brainwashed sheep who swallows the shit hook, line and sinker.

 

[mattskramer]

Which is neither here nor there. This isn't about the big cosmic reason behind everything.

It's a simple yet effective journalism tactic.

Well. I’m a literalist to a high degree. While taking articles at face value, I take them with a grain of salt. I don’t believe everything that I read, but I don’t bother trying to “read between the lines”. The author said what he said. Take each sentence as an independent sentence. There is no hidden agenda.

 

[Gunny]

Well. I’m a literalist to a high degree. While taking articles at face value, I take them with a grain of salt. I don’t believe everything that I read, but I don’t bother trying to “read between the lines”. The author said what he said. Take each sentence as an independent sentence. There is no hidden agenda.

Of course not. That would be why a completely irrelevant topic is introduced in and dominates the middle of the article.

Taken at face value, the article should report on the 14 deaths.

In what way do 14 deaths in December impact the total number of deaths in November? Once could at least go through the motions of trying to draw a correlation between the two.

THAT of course would be rather smooth.

 

[mattskramer]

Of course not. That would be why a completely irrelevant topic is introduced in and dominates the middle of the article.

Taken at face value, the article should report on the 14 deaths.

In what way do 14 deaths in December impact the total number of deaths in November? Once could at least go through the motions of trying to draw a correlation between the two.

THAT of course would be rather smooth.

I am not a journalist but I don’t see anything wrong with the article. It starts with an introduction on the attack. Then it uses the following transition:

The attack came as figures suggested the number of Iraqis killed in bombings and shootings was continuing to fall.

It seems like appropriate statistical information for people wanting a bit more information about the number of attacks in the past month.

Then it talks about the trend in attacks (the decline). Then it returns to talk about this particular recent attack in more detail. It is just presenting information. I think that any correlation, relevancy, or irrelevancy would be for the readers to draw. I think that it gives an appropriate amount of information – not too much and not insufficient.

Ummm. I’m sorry but I don’t see a secrete motive or anything sinister. I don’t see anything duplicitous or wrong.

 

[Gunny]

I am not a journalist but I don’t see anything wrong with the article. It starts with an introduction on the attack. Then it uses the following transition:

The attack came as figures suggested the number of Iraqis killed in bombings and shootings was continuing to fall.

It seems like appropriate statistical information for people wanting a bit more information about the number of attacks in the past month.

Then it talks about the trend in attacks (the decline). Then it returns to talk about this particular recent attack in more detail. It is just presenting information. I think that any correlation, relevancy, or irrelevancy would be for the readers to draw. I think that it gives an appropriate amount of information – not too much and not insufficient.

Ummm. I’m sorry but I don’t see a secrete motive or anything sinister. I don’t see anything duplicitous or wrong.

It seems appropriate to you because you are used to reading it. The correlation is being made for you by the writer. You are not being allowed to draw your own.

The statistical information on November's total deaths has nothing to do with the attack that killed 14 people in Dec; especially, when the writer doesn't bother to make a correlation.

I didn't say there was anything sinister about it. That's someone else's lame accusation. It IS duplicituous though, and is a standard ploy in journalism. The writer is leading you down the path he/she wants you to follow rather than merely imparting information.

 

[mattskramer]

It seems appropriate to you because you are used to reading it. The correlation is being made for you by the writer. You are not being allowed to draw your own.

The statistical information on November's total deaths has nothing to do with the attack that killed 14 people in Dec; especially, when the writer doesn't bother to make a correlation.

I didn't say there was anything sinister about it. That's someone else's lame accusation. It IS duplicituous though, and is a standard ploy in journalism. The writer is leading you down the path he/she wants you to follow rather than merely imparting information.

We simply disagree. I think that people think for themselves. There is no law against independent thought and drawing your own conclusion. Perhaps I am not following the author’s path. I guess that for this reader, the author should be more explicit and direct. There has been no correlation stated that I can see.