On 28 Aug 2002 at 12:40, rhinoceros wrote:
>
> [Joe Dees]
> Isn't it funny how when Hermet and his like-minded minions
>
> [rhinoceros]
> I can understand "like-minded", but what "minions" is supposed to
> mean?
>
Birds of a feather, droogies, sheep in a fold, etc.
>
> [Joe Dees]
> flooded the list
>
> [rhinoceros]
> Until recently, I could find political articles only on the BBS.
>
You must not have been reading.
>
> [Joe Dees]
> with anti-US and anti-Israel propaganda,
>
> [from Merriam-Webster]
> propaganda
> 1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction
> over missionary territories and related institutions 2 : the spreading
> of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring
> an institution, a cause, or a person 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations
> spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing
> cause; also : a public action having such an effect
>
> [rhinoceros]
> The least I can say is that the definition does not make distinctions
> as to what is being promoted. It seems to be about the determination
> and dedication to promote something, and I believe those factors can
> be evaluated in several ways here.
>
I consider propaganda to be purportedly objective reprting that is
actually slanted to support an agenda; that has indeed been Hermit's
modus operandus in his selection of political articles.
>
> [Joe Dees]
> it was characterized as updating and informative,
>
> [rhinoceros]
> As far as it contained information.
>
As far as it contained only information that supported its agenda.
>
> [Joe Dees]
> but when the slant leans the other way, all of a sudden it is to be
> condemned?
>
> [rhinoceros]
> Was something to be condemned? I didn't notice.
>
You have not been reading even your own posts, then.
>
> [Joe Dees]
> Perhaps what really upsets these types is the fact that the argument
> for the positions opposing theirs is so strong that there are a
> plethora of resources to back them up.
>
> [rhinoceros]
> I don't know about those types who got upset, but I do know that the
> strongest arguments I have encountered are tautologies, which hardly
> need a plethora of resources to be accepted. A weak or a very unusual
> argument needs much more in order to get through.
>
Sometimes a strong argument nevertheless requires more
reinforcement in order to breach memetically closed and resistant
minds.
>
> That said, a google search would produce hundreds of opinion articles
> from good sources in support of anything. It is easy to post a dozen
> articles a day. So, it is possible that the reason most people don't
> do that is that they find it meaningless. But they may be wrong and
> Goebels may be right about repetition.
>
So you find the UK Times Online to be such a worthless source when
compared to the prestigious and illustrious Yellow News?
>
> [Joe Dees]
> I happen to believe that when Hermit's hand was the only one
> one-sidedly clapping on this issue, that THAT'S when this commons was
> undergoing its REAL tragedy
>
> [rhinoceros]
> Personally, I didn't see any tragedy, neither then nor now. Anyway, if
> you want to further your case, you can go to the politics section of
> the BBS and answer to each and every of Hermit's posts, or post your
> own, preferably in a single thread or in two or three topical threads.
>
Let him lord over the BBS if he so chooses; I will continue to address
the issues raised in this format.
> ----
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on
> Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26281>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:20 MDT