Announcement: Upcoming Site Changes

Indeed, such insults are inappropriate. (Well, except for the one about President Obama's having a penchant for dictatorial governing; that seems accurate enough. But let us not digress too much.)

That, however, begs the question: Why would you wish to stoop to a similar level?

 

[MENTION=57858]Mr_Truth[/MENTION] has a very good point in this thread. Being a new member I found the thread title like "China's oppression in Tibet" is quite offensive without real proofs but "heard" "images" from TOTALLY BIAS medias. As forum rules state this is not a government running forum, then we should not hold such an opinion towards to a FOREIGN COUNTRY, right? How can we not use some nice human language? It's not that difficult imo.

Apart from that, it's one OLD POST from TWO years ago fixed on the frond page, I'm more confused about the agenda behind it ...really.....FACEPALM ...

 

and who decides what is "TOTALLY BIAS medias" every media these days has a bias. name one that isn't. if a media reports a story you don't like or you think it is unfair doesn't make it non creditable.
What I find offensive for example any story that is posted with Fox as its source it gets attacked by the left not for the inaccuracy of the story but because its perceived bias. there for it must not be creditable. being bias doesn't mean it is not creditable. stop attacking the source and debate the content of the story provided by the source
I feel the mods need to crack down on the attacks on the source with no attempt to debate the content of the information provided by the source, and should be considered as an attempt to derail or troll the thread, because you end up debating the creditability of the source instead of the content of the source

 

@@TRFjr

Definition of word "creditable" : bringing or deserving credit, honor, reputation, or esteem.
Wiki define Credit (finance): Credit (from Latin credo translation. "I believe" ) is the trust which allows one party to provide resources to another party where that second party does not reimburse the first party immediately (thereby generating a debt), but instead arranges either to repay or return those resources (or other materials of equal value) at a later date.

When someone/media is obviously uncredited to an amount of people, that party is definitely worthy to attack. People are not all stupid, they can't be that easy to "trust" others. So when you form some opinions/politics views/a controversial subject, you should not look down on the people. A caring heart, A thorough mind, A sound education, A manner should earn something from people at the first impression.. when two parties hold no same languages, no same looks, no same tradition...An open mind of listening (not talking not spreading the bad news, etc)earns more points......Am I not right?

Disclaimer: I'm not defending Fox (don't know them too much as well)

Actually, for me I don't see too much good debates these days (not only the subjects but also the contents and the language), comparing with 10 years ago I was on a forum. I have a feel that people in general tend to like simple and quick debates now (like their lifestyle: CARELESS) because of the change of the world...........

 

What we need here is a glorious Five Year Plan.

 

Portraying the Fox network in such a manner is not ad hominem - it is the TRUTH.

 

Reasonable people may discuss the center-right slant of the nighttime Fox News anchors, as well as the center-left slant of the CNN anchors and the hard-left slant of the MSNBC anchors. But if you truly believe that FNC is a conduit for Nazism, then you are beyond all hope...

 

A network that employs an extremist like Ann Coulter who says "Jews need to be perfected" in which she quotes Hitler says it all. To defend them in any way is utterly pathetic.

 

Now how about providing a link or two there to credible sources providing the full exchange in its proper and intended context . . . MOD EDIT>>>be nice, please<<<

 

I have posted links previously. MOD EDIT>>>be nice, please<<<

 

Lets not forget the topic folks. Its about eventual site changes.

Thank you kindly
Shangrila

 

Sorry about that. I didn't realize until after the fact where the statement was being posted. Anyway so far as site changes are concerned, the administrators and moderators seem to know what they are doing. This is one of the best run forums site I've ever seen. I have no complaints regarding day to day running of PF.

 

Would you care to supply a bit more context as regarding the Hitler quote? (I seriously doubt that Ann Coulter was defending Adolf Hitler.)

 

I understand the reasons behind limiting threads to size but would suggest that perhaps a minimum time duration be respected. For example the following thread was created on 2/3/2014 and is already closed because of it quickly reaching the "maximum number of posts" allowed for a thread.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=341669

The discussion was lively and unnecessary suppressed because of the interest in the thread. Perhaps a thread should be allowed to run at least a week before closure regardless of the number of posts. This allows for the rare exceptions such as the thread referenced.