Should there be an important addition to the Forum rules?

[The_G_Tornado]

That results in warnings and possible bannings every much as direct insults and slurs.

The new rule being:


********* No posting "news" items form the worldnetdaily website ********

Violation of this rule shall result in warning, repeated violation may result in banning from CF.

***********************************************************


There must be several threads on the front page right now with an OP directly using a worldnetdaily link. Apart from the obvious use of such a link as a parody what the heck is the point.

Has anyone ever seen a factual piece of reporting from them?
Has anyone ever seen an item on there that was not a complete, simplistic distortion of whatever facts they may include in an otherwise work of fiction?

[BlessedMan]

This is such a joke...to pick out ONE site and ban it is ridiculous! It's amazing to me how many Bush-hating sites have been posted on here that tend to exagerate things as well. Hopefully people will use their God given brains to decide what's fact or fiction.

Isn't this a Christian Forum? Should atheists and agnostics be banned as well? Of course not! We need everyone's opinion even if you don't agree with it.

<besides, I need you all here to eventually make you agree with MY way of thinking> :)

[The_G_Tornado]

Spot the man with no sense of humour. The OP was somewhat (though not entirely) in jest.

No wonder we Christians are the butt of so many comments about lacking humour!

On a more serious note though, I think even most arch-conservatives and fundamentalists might agree that worldnetdaily is a waste of important internet bandwidth.

[Ampmonster]

$10billion a year in porn a bigger waste.

[The_G_Tornado]

$10billion a year in porn a bigger waste.
Maybe not. People seem to really want porn based upon statistics. And bandwidth is important for all those video downloads.

[Bobmala]

besides, I need you all here to eventually make you agree with MY way of thinking
haha isn't that what we ALL do? :D

[Ampmonster]

Maybe not. People seem to really want porn based upon statistics. And bandwidth is important for all those video downloads.
the fact that people want it doesnt mean it's not a waste. porn serves not one constuctive purpose.

[The_G_Tornado]

I have known several "actresses/strippers" who would disagree with you on that score. It does pay the bills, rather well from my personal knowledge of these "ladies".

[crystalpc]

As long as we ban the liberal media too I will go for that. First to be banned would be CNN, then ABC, and on from there. :)

[Ampmonster]

i guess drugs are ok to because it keep the 24 inch wheel industry rolling.

"porn serves not one constuctive purpose." i'll add, for the consumer.

[crystalpc]

Spot the man with no sense of humour. The OP was somewhat (though not entirely) in jest.

No wonder we Christians are the butt of so many comments about lacking humour!

On a more serious note though, I think even most arch-conservatives and fundamentalists might agree that worldnetdaily is a waste of important internet bandwidth.I don't agree with that, it is conservative just as all the rest of the news is liberal biased, this way you can get both sides of the same story, and land somewhere in between.
I will not watch CNN, or ABC. I do watch CBS and Fox. Fox being a little more conservative, and closer to my own views. I don't need Peter Jennings trying to influence me to do anything...I oppose his views with ever core of my being. But that is me. I don't even know who the anchors are on CNN, because I turned that **** off my set before the first gulf war..

[Paula]

. . . Has anyone ever seen a factual piece of reporting from them?
Yes. In the past, I have been able to cross-reference and verify some of the stories and quoted statements (using sources both foreign and domestic), which have been reported by WND and other internet news magazines as well. WND sometimes also runs exclusive interviews which can be easily verified, if you have the inclination.

[The_G_Tornado]

I was using hyperbole somewhat but the difference between the mainstream media and worldnetdaily (which I sometimes suspect of being a parody a la LandoverBaptist) is that many reports on worldnet crop up as urban legends several weeks later.

i.e. they are made up reports

Most reports on CNN, ABC, CBS etc at least are based upon real events - you may disagree with the editorialising but the event itself occurred. This is a bs litmus test that worldnetdaily frequently does not pass.

[Paula]

I was using hyperbole somewhat but the difference between the mainstream media and worldnetdaily (which I sometimes suspect of being a parody a la LandoverBaptist) is that many reports on worldnet crop up as urban legends several weeks later.

i.e. they are made up reports
Would you give us an example?

[tulc]

<besides, I need you all here to eventually make you agree with MY way of thinking>
I agree.
tulc(:doh: oh no! it's already started! :eek: )

[The_G_Tornado]

Would you give us an example?ROTFLMAO!

You are really serious thinking worldnetdaily is a legitimate news source.

Why not in your Google search box enter "worldnetdaily" and "urban legends".

Look at all the hits you get, especially from snopes.com where they list the worldnetdaily examples of "stories" they ran with and it turned out to be fake material or they picked up "stories" that were planted as fake because smart folks know what a bunch of illiterate fools run worldnetdaily.

Lifting the Onion parody about Harry Potter and treating it as real news. LOL LOL - What a bunch of blinded by their zealotry morons - have they ever heard of fact checking. I'm sure The Onion just loves this - it reinforces there opinion that groups like worldnet are a bunch of ignorant fundies who deserve to be picked on.

There are many other examples if you troll the search hits.

Good hunting and sorry for the bubble burst.

[crystalpc]

I agree.
tulc(:doh: oh no! it's already started! :eek: )lol...

[jameseb]

ROTFLMAO!

You are really serious thinking worldnetdaily is a legitimate news source.

Why not in your Google search box enter "worldnetdaily" and "urban legends".

Look at all the hits you get, especially from snopes.com where they list the worldnetdaily examples of "stories" they ran with and it turned out to be fake material or they picked up "stories" that were planted as fake because smart folks know what a bunch of illiterate fools run worldnetdaily.

Lifting the Onion parody about Harry Potter and treating it as new. LOL LOL - What a bunch of blinded by their zealotry morons - have they ever heard of fact checking.

There are many other examples if you troll the search hits.

Good hunting and sorry for the bubble burst.





I'll give ya ***-for-tat....


New York Times. Liberal news source. Known for fabricating stories too.


How do ya like them apples? ;)



*bows*

Thank you, thank you.... autopgraphs will be signed later. :D



Sincerely,

"Laying down the BOOM" Jameseb :P

[crystalpc]

I'll give ya ***-for-tat....


New York Times. Liberal news source. Known for fabricating stories too.


How do ya like them apples? ;)



*bows*

Thank you, thank you.... autopgraphs will be signed later. :DWe can also add the Washington Post a few years back..remember??

[jameseb]

We can also add the Washington Post a few years back..remember??


Ah yes..... indeed.... :blush: Okay, so I don't really remember, lol! Refresh my memory? :hug:

[Paula]

Look at all the hits you get, especially from snopes.com where they list the worldnetdaily examples of "stories" they ran with and it turned out to be fake material or they picked up "stories" that were planted as fake because smart folks know what a bunch of illiterate fools run worldnetdaily.FYI, I've also found inaccuracies in Snopes, after which I no longer refer to them. That is why I prefer to do my own research, thank you.

What a bunch of blinded by their zealotry morons - have they ever heard of fact checking. I'm sure The Onion just loves this - it reinforces there opinion that groups like worldnet are a bunch of ignorant fundies who deserve to be picked on.Flaming and baiting are both violations of Rule 1.

There are many other examples if you troll the search hits.He who makes the accusation must prove it to be so, and thus far, you haven't. As I haven't seen the article you're referring to, provide me with a link to the Onion parody.

P.S., I was just now able to verify the Pizza Hut delivery man gun story posted in the News section by Robert 43 who used WND as a source. Yahoo News, the Indianapolis Star, the Macon Telegraph, and many others, have also reported the identical story.

[Polycarp1]

Geesh -- the NY Times and the Washington Post have been involved in scandals of falsified stories, and apologized greatly for it. Their editorial staff tries to produce accurate reporting.

Any reporter is going to produce a slanted story -- it's inherent and incumbent in the choice of words selected to report the story, the relative emphasis given aspects of the story in the article, and so on. Liberal reporters will tend to produce stories with liberal slants, conservative reporters ones with conservative slants. Being generally liberal myself, I tend to notice the conservative slants in stories more; those of you with conservative views, the reverse will be true. (Hence the outcry from conservatives about "the liberal media" -- the stories that are slanted to agree with their perspectives are usually not noticed.)

What I object to about WND is that in my experience with them, they will often fail to validate supposed facts -- and often have accepted "garbage statistics" uncritically. Add this to an extremely conservative stance that makes O'Reilly look pink by comparison, and they become (1) unreliable, and (2) "proof" for people with strongly conservative opinions that their views are right.

I gather that, like Rush, they are trying to clean up their act and provide a bit more critical review on their material. Paula's post can, I think, testify to that. But they've lost my respect by uncritically circulating falsehoods from questionable sources in the past.

However, I don't think that CF should be in the business of censoring news sources -- except to the extent of the policy that says, "no links to anti-Christian sites." (Note: I remember that being a part of the rules when I joined, but a cursory review of them doesn't show it any more. Would a Moderator be willing to expound on policy here?)

[mpshiel]

That is still a rule, under the "no gay365.com" stories.

[crystalpc]

It was a few years back. The journalist won a prize for her indepth reporting. It was found out by the editors, and there was a big deal about it, in that she had to admit that the person in her report was made up.

[feral]

My only suggestion would be ensure that news really was being posted, instead of baits for arguments or the same tiresome old information again and again.

[jameseb]

Geesh -- the NY Times and the Washington Post have been involved in scandals of falsified stories, and apologized greatly for it. Their editorial staff tries to produce accurate reporting.



Oh, I know. :) This thread was started in good natured fun, according to the OP, so I had to throw in my humor as well.. being a conservative and all. :P ;)

God bless mate,

Eric

[jameseb]

The OP was somewhat (though not entirely) in jest.




I thought it was a joke too, but looks like you're thread has now been moved to 'Bugs & Support.' :)

[AngelAmidala]

No fair confusing me!! :D

So is this a serious thread about the particular news service in question? Or was it really started as a joke?

[jameseb]

No fair confusing me!! :D

So is this a serious thread about the particular news service in question? Or was it really started as a joke?



I don't know, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[chalice_thunder]

That is still a rule, under the "no gay365.com" stories.

I was going to mention that one too, mpshiel. :sigh:

[Plan 9]

No fair confusing me!! :D

So is this a serious thread about the particular news service in question? Or was it really started as a joke?

I can't tell, either, Angel, because the OP has written what appear to be somewhat contradictory posts. :scratch:

Just in case it's on the level, I say, why ban such an inaccurate news service link, supposing it is, thereby depriving our members of the fun of so easily refuting its stories? ;)

[Erwin]

In terms of bandwidth it's possible this thread has wasted more. Worse, it's wasted my time reading it when I should be leaving my office to go home and have dinner! ;) :P

[Gunny]

In terms of bandwidth it's possible this thread has wasted more. Worse, it's wasted my time reading it when I should be leaving my office to go home and have dinner! ;) :P
Amen, Brother In Christ.

[jameseb]

In terms of bandwidth it's possible this thread has wasted more. Worse, it's wasted my time reading it when I should be leaving my office to go home and have dinner! ;) :P



Just had a delicious microwave dinner..... chicken-fried steak. :)

.... :|

Tums anyone?

[The_G_Tornado]

In terms of bandwidth it's possible this thread has wasted more. Worse, it's wasted my time reading it when I should be leaving my office to go home and have dinner! ;) :P

Well getting a sense of humour might be in order then.


Are you guys so dense about anything tongue in cheek.

I stated at least twice that it was somewhat in jest.

I have already asked for it be moved back and a Mod said it would be.



OBVIOUSLY THE OP ASKING IT BE A WARNING FOR POSTING A LINK TO worldnetdaily WAS A JOKE but at the same time was putting forawrd for discussion the lack of merit of the said site.

[jameseb]

That wasn't necessary, Tornado.......

[nyj]

This thread has taken a rather nasty turn for the worse. Therefore, I am closing it. Further action may be taken in the near future.