Pro/Forums - View Single Post

tinman5555 · 12-06-2005, 08:38 AM

I don't think he was advocating government control, he's worried about a backlash of regulations that might restrict freedom of speech should certain politician s feel attacked.
The people that deliberately misinform via Wiki or any form of media (websites being the easiest, most available, cheapest, and most anonymous (a good and bad thing)for most people) are among the lowest form of life along with spammers, scammers, and virus writers.
If their argument is so weak, that they can only convincee others by lying, then the premise is false.
However, it is extremely effective to smear someone (look at Kerry vs Swiftwater veterans (many of whom later retracted/changed their quoted statements))
Even traditional media sometimes abuse their powers, and the biggest retraction never carries the weight of the original "caught red-handed" headline.
Editors can be good or can add their own spin.

12-06-2005, 08:38 AM	#3
tinman5555 Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 3	Re: CNN Covers Wikipedia validity concerns I don't think he was advocating government control, he's worried about a backlash of regulations that might restrict freedom of speech should certain politician s feel attacked. The people that deliberately misinform via Wiki or any form of media (websites being the easiest, most available, cheapest, and most anonymous (a good and bad thing)for most people) are among the lowest form of life along with spammers, scammers, and virus writers. If their argument is so weak, that they can only convincee others by lying, then the premise is false. However, it is extremely effective to smear someone (look at Kerry vs Swiftwater veterans (many of whom later retracted/changed their quoted statements)) Even traditional media sometimes abuse their powers, and the biggest retraction never carries the weight of the original "caught red-handed" headline. Editors can be good or can add their own spin.