All Hank, all the time.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
As it happens, I have an Arab friend (Caldean Iraqi) who doesn't have a problem with Israel's existence. He's American (and I suppose, American-ized in his worldview), though his family is also involved in trying to help Caldean communities in Iraq.

Less and I had a couple Caldean friends in law school (for some reason, outside of Detroit, San Diego has the larges Caldean community in the United States - although they don't drink they own ninety percent of the liquor stores in San Diego county) and they were both opposed to the existence of Israel. But it gives me a little bit of hope that there are a few out there.

Originally posted by Gattigap
I acknowledge that this anecdote demonstrates relatively little, though, and I lack your confidence in extrapolating personal experiences into conclusions about what all Arabs think about Israel.

Actually, I was kind of hoping that someone would cite a poll. As I said, my sample was clearly not a scientific sample, and could be screwed up for many reasons. It could very likely be that Arabs that think Isreal has a right to exist are rather reluctant to share their beliefs or educated Arabs care about "Arabia" but the average Arab could care less etc. Are there polls that show what the average Arab really thinks (I have never seen one), or are there more scientific reports that show how much the average Arab really cares about Israel?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Ouch. "Semireasonable position and descend into Bull Shit."

My point was that when you refer to something that comes from an anoymous source you could at least say it was alleged instead of referring to it as fact. Cites are for demonstrating that there is a legitimate source that shows the information cited is factually true, not just showing that someone else has the same unstabstantiated opinion (like Ann Coulter loves to do).

I think Tys point was (and correct me if I am wrong) is that considering the structure and posture of our government most of our reliable information concerning our government has to come from anonymous sources, and as long as the information comes from a reputable journalist, information from anonymous sources (especially information that also has been reported by multiple legitimate journalists) can be assumed to be accurate (unless shown otherwise), and furthermore, such sources can be used in a cite to show the validity of the facts asserted.

Were we really descending into Bull Shit? Isn't that a legitimate dispute?

I think the reputation of the reporter and the context matter much more than whether a source is named. The bigger problem with anonymous sources is that they are used by the ruling party to float things without consequence.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The bigger problem with anonymous sources is that they are used by the ruling party to float things without consequence.

Or how about float things that are completely innacurate?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think the reputation of the reporter and the context matter much more

let me ask you, pre-2003 did you have respect for dan Rather? what if he told you something now?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
let me ask you, pre-2003 did you have respect for dan Rather? what if he told you something now?

Depends on whether it was floating.


("Your Honor, I have a cite for that!" "Counsel, that one is a real floater.")

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Or how about float things that are completely innacurate?

Cite, please.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
let me ask you, pre-2003 did you have respect for dan Rather? what if he told you something now?

I do not recall having a position concerning Mr. Rather. I rarely if ever watch TV news.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I do not recall having a position concerning Mr. Rather. I rarely if ever watch TV news.

you are aware there is a medium called television, and many people watch the news on it, though right? are you aware people come to trust those sources? are you aware that "Mr. Rather" tried to highjack an election with blantant document creation- (but not hearsay- alleged official record!)-?

And that's difference from your reliable sources how? Because you find them reliable? fuck Ty- we're back to having to accept any blog you cite- should I choose a word besides "cite"?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Cite, please.

There is no way for me to come up with a cite because the sources are anonymous. But seriously, don't you think that the Bush administration feeds inacurate stuff (that makes the admininstration look good) to right leaning news outlets (like Newsmax) and Newsmax reports it as anonymous sources. I know I have read stuff on Drudgereport where people have reported having inside information from unamed people high up in the administration that is to good to be true. I am pretty sure that at one time the Drudge Report reported that the White House had evidence that the WMDs were moved to Syria and that the information was going to be released soon.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you are aware there is a medium called television, and many people watch the news on it, though right? are you aware people come to trust those sources? are you aware that "Mr. Rather" tried to highjack an election with blantant document creation- (but not hearsay- alleged official record!)-?

And that's difference from your reliable sources how? Because you find them reliable? fuck Ty- we're back to having to accept any blog you cite- should I choose a word besides "cite"?

I thought Rather's producer came off looking worse than he did. In any event, a trusted source won't always be right. Doesn't Bush say he relied on the CIA re WMD?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
There is no way for me to come up with a cite because the sources are anonymous. But seriously, don't you think that the Bush administration feeds inacurate stuff (that makes the admininstration look good) to right leaning news outlets (like Newsmax) and Newsmax reports it as anonymous sources. I know I have read stuff on Drudgereport where people have reported having inside information from unamed people high up in the administration that is to good to be true. I am pretty sure that at one time the Drudge Report reported that the White House had evidence that the WMDs were moved to Syria and that the information was going to be released soon.

I don't read that crap, so I wouldn't know, but I guess I was thinking they were finding that stuff under rocks and in sewage mains rather than having it leaked by the administration.

[creamy_ass_face]

Originally posted by Spanky


Actually, I was kind of hoping that someone would cite a poll. As I said, my sample was clearly not a scientific sample, and could be screwed up for many reasons. It could very likely be that Arabs that think Isreal has a right to exist are rather reluctant to share their beliefs or educated Arabs care about "Arabia" but the average Arab could care less etc. Are there polls that show what the average Arab really thinks (I have never seen one), or are there more scientific reports that show how much the average Arab really cares about Israel?

I don't know you or your work here (are you new? a sock? Are you Adder?) but this is absurd. A poll? Poll for what? If you polled the KuKluxKlan do you think you would find out that they mostly hate blacks? When I studied law there was a concept called res ipsa loquiter. Does that still exist in your universe? If so, apply it accordingly.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't read that crap, so I wouldn't know, but I guess I was thinking they were finding that stuff under rocks and in sewage mains rather than having it leaked by the administration.

But wouldn't you agree that there is no way to verify the legitimacy of their claims since they refer to "anonymous" sources. And I hear it from reporters all the time, like last night on MSNBC their reporter (that guy that looks like Matt Lauer who is reporting from Tel Aviv right now) said that anonymous sources high up in the IDF told us that thousands of Iranian commandos were working with Hezbollough right near the Israeli border. But of course, since he said high placed sources no one can ask the person in the IDF where they go that information, what they have to back it up etc. They get to throw that information out there without having to back it up.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by creamy_ass_face
I don't know you or your work here (are you new? a sock? Are you Adder?)

Four whole posts and that makes you what - chef? Unless you're a sock, the species you seem to disparage. Either way, you got some ketchinup to do, son.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
But wouldn't you agree that there is no way to verify the legitimacy of their claims since they refer to "anonymous" sources. And I hear it from reporters all the time, like last night on MSNBS their reporter (that guy that looks like Matt Lauer who is reporting from Tel Aviv right now) said that anonymous sources high up in the IDF told us that thousands of Iranian commandos were working with Hezbollough right near the Israeli border. But of course, since he said high placed sources no one can ask the person in the IDF where they go that information, what they have to back it up etc. They get to throw that information out there without having to back it up.

I agree that there is no way to verify what they say. When a consumer wanders into the marketplace of ideas, he or she must be wary and prudent. But that doesn't mean he or she doesn't buy anything at all.