Pedro and Sea Ray, please take this commentary private. I'd like to leave this thread for discussion about the original topic.
Does this sound like "information"?
Hysterical, sarcastic, and scientifically illiterate comments are hardly appropriate at time of major disaster. The enormous earthquake in Japan has likely taken many, many lives and destroyed a nuclear power plant facility consisting of multiple reactors. The extremely capable Japanese are working rapidly to address their severe problems. Some "meltdown" of the reactor cores has likely occurred, but the crucial containment vessels are performing admirably.
Now, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but that sounds like ol' fashioned editorializin'.
But then again, I haven't crossed over into the land where reporting is propaganda and propaganda is information. Yep, mermaids and unicorns.
Just a note, the "points system" on the Peanut Gallery board is cosmetic and really just a joke, the Admin of the board, Ochre, has a negative 65000 or so.
Go Gators!
I really have no idea what you're trying to do here. It looks like you took a portion of a post from this thread (where I briefly surmised what a true expert said about news reporting and information of a nuclear nature) and are trying to imply that I wrote it at the thread on the Japan disaster.
Are you trying to say that the Redszone member who wrote it, Guacarock, is not qualified to speak on the issue of journalism reporting? Are you saying his being honored for an Associated Press Managing Editor's Award on science reporting focusing on nuclear-related topics, mostly bombs, but also energy generation, is not enough of a qualification to say what he said:
( http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...t=88023&page=4 )?
I don't understand your intention of posting what you posted, but I think that compared to Guararock, most of us are amateurs here (or anywhere) when it comes to putting thoughts on paper when compared to this person, someone whom I've never met or seen before. But, I know a very respected award when I see one, and that one he received is one that's very difficult to obtain and shouldn't be disrespected, especially by those of us who aren't in the journalism business.
As far as your other quote from the gentleman's post who offered the links to federal sites, praise to the japanese people, empathy over the disaster that has taken place, better reporting avenues for what was going on along with better explanations into the science and terms that were being heard at the time, along with a couple of words in response to what some poster at "oregonlive" had said (that's why I gave the source, so you, as a responsible reader, can use whenever you're curious about the "context" of something you see, and his "Hysterical, sarcastic, and scientifically illiterate comments are hardly appropriate at time of major disaster" comment was directed towards their posts, not anyone at redszone), along with countless links where you and I can help the Japanese people,....I really have no idea what you're attempting to say. If you find all of those links to be propaganda, then I just don't understand what world you're living in. To give to the Red Cross and the United States Agency for International Development ( http://www.usaid.gov/ ), two of the links on the site, is generally considered to be humanitarian gestures.
So, yes....that is considered good information to give to others.
Last edited by Kingspoint; 03-22-2011 at 02:53 AM.
And all Dom Hefner was saying, as I interpreted it, was that the media reporting was probably accurate and/or that the people in some of the links cited were underacting. Again, just the opposite of the opinion you state above.
All of this raises a question to me though. Why must all of this information be shared on a Reds message board that prohibits political discussions? It is obvious that nuclear power is insanely controversial, and that at the very least some of the authors that people linked to were pushing political agendas. There are literally thousands of places on the internet where this can be discussed, without burdening Mods who are mostly here to talk about Reds baseball which is, I think, supposed to be a distraction from real life.
Wow, Kingspoint, dissemble much? Did I mention the Red Cross? Did I mention Guacarock? No.
I don't care about any of that other stuff. You posted commentary and then claimed your were just "informing" people.
That's the very same question I have and one that any people pro-politics on RedsZone have yet to adequately address.Originally Posted by top6
I can't speak for KingsPoint but how can you discuss the Japanese situation and not talk about the nuclear threat? Seems to me it's inevitable.
In my opinion, discussing the dangers of this power plant is no more political than discussing the dangers of saccharine or drinking tap water.
In this case KP posted precious little opinion of his own and sought to inform what the dangers are including his own since he lives on the west coast.
Obviously the folks who want to talk Reds baseball and get away from real life will tend to hang out in forums other than the non baseball chatter.
That's my point as well. The problem stems from the original subject. Another example is the thread discussing a referendum on the ballot in SF. It all depends upon one's definition of political. IMO the Japan thread was not political in the least but the SF thread was very much so.
...dunno
Why go to a Reds board to discuss Wonder Woman or American Idol?
With the workload of the MODs in mind, my suggestion would be to accept that a non sports chatter section will be everything under the sun and make it less restrictive rather than more so. If you're going to further limit subject matter then you'll only give MODs more to look out for and you'll end up with more locked threads. Put another way, most sites' non sports sections are not a burden on the MODs because they don't stretchout the definition of politics to extremes. They let a lot of that stuff go. The more limits you impose, the more work you make for the MODs
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |