Docta Jones

Except my comment wasn't directed at the topical content, it was directed at a method of editorialization that was used and pointed out. The rebuttal to that, while technically and factually accurate, is one that can be used to argue either side of the omission. :poke:

Probably because quoting too much of it is violates intellectual copyrights. At least there's a famous mod on this forum who inspires for us not to do it. I would like to point out however that this "famous mod" you are mentioning stated (as I recall to the best of my ability) "*paraphrased* you can post a link, and a portion, just don't copy past the entire/vast majority of the information in the link". What was done with reference to your quote is similar to a journalist using elipsis to snip out the remainder of a sentence to add weight to the idea of the statement that they want. Your quote's reduction happened to occur at the end of the sentence, but not the end of an idea. This kind of editorialization is how people on all sides of politics, religion, and other highly passionate organizations attempt to skew fact in their direction. I like to think of it as disinformation by fact, or a lie of omission. It's one reason I dislike michael moore. Sure he presents facts, but only the ones that support his ideas. People like moore (imo) are a detriment to the image of the united states. Once people are able to see past their own one sided agendas and take part in real dialog and want real change, understanding that it can't all be their way, then perhaps we will be able to move toward being a society that does some good. But hey, we've been in end times since 1844, the clock's still ticking down, just a matter of when the alarm goes off.