Re: [APD] Fish-Related Story

[Vaughn Hopkins <hoppycalif at yahoo_com>]

Just a friendly request:  please don't turn this valuable mail list 
into just another political message board.  There are many places other 
than here to express political opinions.  Discussing religion or 
politics with people who don't necessarily agree with you is a good way 
to destroy friendships, acquaintance circles, message boards, and mail 
lists.

Vaughn H

On Wednesday, November 30, 2005, at 09:26 AM, Jerry Baker wrote:

> Russell Vance wrote:
>> and I'm sure that the washington post, given its reputation of being
>> unbiased and fair (snicker snicker),  has included all relevant facts 
>> to
>> base an opinion on this matter.
>
> We should look to Fox News for unbiased coverage ;)
>
>> Every sentence in that article was slanted and aimed to make the 
>> congressman
>> look like a jerk.
>
> I think he's done a good job of that himself without any assistance 
> from
> the media.
>
>> "In a surgical strike"  sure, that is an unbiased way to start an 
>> article.
>
> What's wrong with that? Would you oppose the phrase if it had said, "In
> a surgical strike against cancer, Larry Craig of Idaho inserted $2
> billion in additional cancer research money into an appropriations
> bill"? It only sounds biased when it is applied to something negative.
> You have to ask yourself why it sounds negative in the first place. I
> would say because it reeks of retribution.
>
>> Is the congressman a jerk??  He might be.  He might be completely in 
>> the
>> wrong. I value our environment and natural resources as much as 
>> anyone, but
>> I am also a scientist and am often critical of whether or not 
>> research is
>> tainted (especially when it relies heavily on statistics).  The 
>> article was
>> clearly written with a strong bias and omitted key information 
>> required to
>> base a valid opinion on the subject.
>
> I would argue that this isn't the case. It's pretty difficult to argue
> that X salmon in 1980 and X-Y salmon in 2005 is "tainted" research. Mr.
> Craig has challenged the research, but the only evidence he has offered
> is a mischaracterization (read: lie) about other investigations of the
> research's validity. It is the challenger's job (Mr. Craig) to offer up
> some evidence of his assertions.
>
>
> -- 
> Jerry Baker
> _______________________________________________
> Aquatic-Plants mailing list
> Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
> http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants
>

_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants