The BBC is full of tihS!!

You know what EJ,

I will not go into the topic, I will just follow your style of bringing one example, commenting it, but not making any analysis or synthesis…. just some “plain news”:

christian fanatics mostly only found in the US
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/26/1061663772106.html

Now something EJ rarely does, a kind of disclaimer:
Don’t get me wrong, even though i think my “summary” is correct, it says nothing about the rate of fanatics or the degree when someone should be considered one.

On the topic: Go BBC !! News can only be unbiased if you don’t have to look where you r money comes from!

@F_alk:

On the topic: Go BBC !! News can only be unbiased if you don’t have to look where you r money comes from!

In other words, when you know you’ll have a steady source of income? In that case, wouldn’t you tend to be biased towards said source of income?

Also, in ref. to your article, one incident hardly shows that christian fanatics are “mostly” found in US.

not necessarily.
The CBC seems to take great joy in reporting, commenting and parodying Canadian gov’t follies.

@El:

Yes, and the BBC’s funding buys it’s silence/barking on issues, too. Money works both sides of the street.

But still, in the recent TB-Iraq-Kelly affair, they worked against “their sponsors”, to that point that the gov’t threatened to cut their money. Still thy didn’t give up.

F_alk, you and I obviously have different styles. …Discussion takes various forms. Please, be flexible.

Ok, I must admit that i didn’t consider your comments as “stirring things up”, but as your own opinion, that you would defend it and not use the comment for provoking.

perhaps. but do i care what a worm thinks? or furthermore (very off topic) Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines.

EJ, you have already noticed that we have a different approach.
Mine is more: Even if i am the worm/eagle, i still tell my stupidity from the start on to the eagles/worms. Maybe this starts a thinking process, and by my way that thinking process could start a day earleier than by yours. And, i open myself from the start on. Your approach is -of course- as valid as mine, but you start from a more secure position, as you could withhold (correct word?) your opinion all the time, depending on how it goes. You could give your -possibly new and over-thought- opinion, while i give my original opinion and -when recognizing it is flawed or faulty- have to admit that i was wrong….

But, both ways have their merit. I just had not recognized the thoughts and motivations behind yours.

I don’t think it’s a fault, or something you have to excuse yourself for. It was just something that i didn’t know :)

My thoughts on the differing styles of topic introduction: while both ways are equally valid, I think that LJ’s style is better, for the following reasons.

Very often, in these forums, discussion breaks down into liberal/conservative lines. What this means is that sometimes, debates are started along these lines without any in-between viewpoints being considered. (After all, there are generally more than the L/C versions of something) Now, I’m going to use some regular posters as an example, so please don’t be offended.

Let’s say F_alk, a known liberal, starts a thread and posts his thoughts on the matter. Now, his statements are perfectly valid. But then, Janus comes along, and being a conservative (or possibly just being Janus) :wink: , automatically rebuts F_alk’s opinion. So now we have a debate going on that everyone else is likely to weigh in on one side or the other, without any alternative opinions cast in.

On the other hand, if a thread is started without an opinion, we have the freedom to make our own opinions, and it is possible that someone will come up with something that hasn’t been considered.

That’s all I have to say on the subject, it probably could have been more coherent, but I came up with it right before I went to sleep, for some reason.