(OT:) What's the difference between Korean Humanitrain Hostages and Taliban?

Same one you are...

Reply to
Hachiroku
Loading thread data ...

Why should I have to check up on one of the most trusted news sources in the world?

Even though they are too Liberal for my liking, I trust the BBC for mostly accurate reporting (Except when one 'science reported' unequivocally anninced Global Warming is entirely caused by humans).

Their report said that the Taliban announced two hostages were released, but the Koreans and the UN said only one was. Why would I check that?

Sounds like whomever you use for your source didn't do any checking and took the Taliban at their word.

Big mistake...

And as far as being accurate, at least I know how to read a graph...

Reply to
Hachiroku

When you are ready to stop behaving like a pissed off 8 year old girl, we can continue.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

That's odd - why did you clip out your current bit of idiocy in question? Don't worry, I'll quote it later for you.

You should have checked because you thought " "Where are you getting your news, al-jazeera? THEY [DH's source] said the Taliban released two, the rest of the world knows it was one woman." - Hachiroku, August 16, 2007, 4:25PM CDT, in this thread.

You *could* have just said, "yeah, I heard something about that," if you didn't feel like checking the facts but you felt you had to put me in my place and correct me based on some half-remembered report lodged in your head by the BBC, so you tried to slap me around a little.

Except, you were wrong. The Telegraph even has a picture...

formatting link

Except, they were right when they said two and I was right when I echoed it. For example, this BBC report says two:

formatting link

No, you don't. You don't even know how to read the news. And you don't check your facts. You might be fairly intelligent but you're sloppy and lazy and you compensate for those characteristics with obstinacy and bullying tactics.

Reply to
DH

I didn't "think" 'one'; the BBC *told* me 'one'.

Just further evidence you can't take Liberals at their word. So, like information I get from most Liberals, I guess when I listen to the BBC I will have to assume that something has been omitted, mis-stated, understated, over stated or just plain false because the reporter has an agenda and can't be fully trusted.

I thought the BBC was trustworthy, but you have shown me I'll have to discount them and find another news source that takes what the Taliban says as the truth.

Reply to
Hachiroku

When you're ready to stop patronizing me, I'll think about not acting like a mirror image of you...

Reply to
Hachiroku

Sorry. This isn't the BBC's fault. When presented with a conflicting set of facts, responsible people check. You didn't and don't.

Then you chose to elevate the issue with an insult. That's really bad judgement when you don't check.

Considering I readily found a BBC story that said, "twol hostages," the simplest explanation is that you mis-heard, misunderstood or misremembered - or all three.

Reply to
DH

The BBC announced it two days in a row. Of course, when I checked their web site, those stories are not to be found.

I don't think I should have to keep tabs on one of the biggest news organisations in the world. I would think they would have the 'quality control' to report responsibly, but I guess that's not the case.

Now I wonder how many other stories that I've heard, that I've reported here are false or altered?

BWAHAHAHA See above. If the Lefties can't get the facts straight, why should I find that surprising?

To be fair, *BOTH* 'sides' with agendas take things out of context, miss relevant facts, mis-state or over or under state issues.

Biggest part of the reason I stay away from Fox News.

But now I see the BBC is doing it too, I guess I should tune in Fox for half the night, and maybe I'll get the whole story...

But I have to admit, I am becoming very disappointed with the BBC. I always looked to them as a trusted news source, and am disappoinited to find they now have agendas as well.

No, I didn't 'mis hear', they reported it every half-hour for three hours. And I never heard a retraction or a clarification, either, not that day nor the days following.

Guess I can't trust them as an 'infallible' news source any more.

Reply to
Hachiroku

Well, you can wonder that but the rest of us will be wondering what else you mis-heard, misunderstood or misremembered.

Let's suppose you're right and the announcer said, "one hostage" was released. How is making a mistake "an agenda?"

But - you're most likely wrong. You were wrong about aircraft fuel consumption being unrelated to load, you were wrong about carbon levels decreasing (they're increasing and this is such a central part of the science and the discussion that this is mind-boggling ignorance), you didn't know that CO2 levels are higher now than they have been anytime in the previous half million years.

Getting the hostage count wrong would be in keeping with your record.

If you're so sure of yourself, you should do something about it:

formatting link

Reply to
dh

Gee, let me say this again:

They announced it every half hour for three hours. They said the Taliban said two, they also said Korea and the UN only counted one.

Every half hour for three hours. They even had a 5-7 minute discussion about it. That occured twice in the three hour period.

I didn't misrepresent anything. I said it like I heard it.

But, then, do I expect you do to anything but stick up for fellow Liberals, even when they're wrong? I stopped listening to Limbaugh because of his "Republicans can do no worng" attitude; guess I'll have to stop paying attention to you, too,

Reply to
Hachiroku

But they don't do that, unless they were criminals before they became terrorists. Otherwise they tend to have rather strong principles and rigid rules..

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

It's strange that you compare the far-right Taliban to leftists. What thought did you put into your statement?

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

Just because you said it again doesn't make it right. You sound like a highly aromatic 4 year old boy denying that he's pooped his pants.

If you're so sure of yourself, you should do something about it:

formatting link
I found the link for you and everything. What's the hold-up? Improve the world. Hold a "liberal" news source to a rigid standard of accuracy.

Reply to
dh

I...am...stupefied. Larry, you can NOT be serious with either of these statements.

Terrorist don't make rules as they go along, unless they were first criminals? If you really meant that, it's the most dumbfounding thing I've read on usenet in many years.

I'm married to a woman of middle eastern extraction. She's pure-blooded Lebanese, though both she and her parents were born here. If you ask her, and any of her family, about the mind set of their blood relatives, you'd know just how ridiculous your assertion truly is. There is nothing in the way of structure, honor, rules, or principles among these extremists.

And I'm getting that from them, not you or the drivel on MSNBC. Please, get help.

BTW, did you get that letter off yet to Mr. Nasr?

Reply to
witfal

Thanks. I think I will.

One of the reasons (actually, the sole deciding reason) I chose an XM receiver over a Sirius receiver was that XM offered the BBC in their line up.

If I had realized the BBC had become so Liberal, and such a poor source of news, I would have gone with Sirius.

So, here's a challenge for you. Why don't you monitor the BBC with me, and when they misreport or misrepresent something, you can ensure that I remain well informed. You can listen to them on-line, by Podcast, or on a lot of NPR stations.

So far, you've been doing a good job. You pointed up thay misreported the hostage release, and you also debunked the report I heard last month that said Climate Change is caused entirely by humans. You did that when you posted the data that shows Climate Change is a naturally occurring phenomenon and has happened many times in the past.

Keep up the good work, dh!!!

Reply to
Hachiroku

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.