It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who else is tired of this?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
It's always good to show your sources, because, lets just face it, we can't take everything we hear at face value, or we'd just be...ignorant.




posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
They have a free version of it for anybody interested is call Copernic, I have the profesional version. You are welcome to download the free one.

For mentioning this resource and for many other great posts:

You have voted marg6043 for the Way Above Top Secret award.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I had NO idea this was such a hot topic! Missed this thread entirely.

I ignored FredT's question because I naturally assumed it was the usual Bush-Bully harrassment. I am so SORRY! I honestly thought the Food Stamp Soldiers' plight was common knowledge. (With all due respect Valhall, your figures apply to families with one child - many soldiers have more than 1 child.)


"Twenty dollars a month is a lot of dough when a young enlisted person has a family barely making it on food stamps."

Medicare set to become political hot potato


"A lottery in which 40 soldiers in Iraq become millionaires, thus allowing them to get off food stamps."

Bush puts on $40M party hat


The Food Stamp Soldier story is an old one - and conservatives have a long history of trying to 'debunk' it.

"Last week's Time (still on newsstands) makes the latest attempt to debunk the idea that there are lots of soldiers on food stamps, one of John McCain's - and now Al Gore's - staple complaints. It's just a "cheap applause line," Time's Mark Thompson argues. There are only 6,300 soldiers on stamps, he notes, down from 11,900 in 1995.

But wait a minute: Three paragraphs later Thompson reports that a change ordered by Secretary of Defense William Cohen in the treatment of housing subsidies "could double the number of soldiers on food stamps." Gee, wouldn't that put the figure at 12,600, up from 1995. Thompson's piece debunks itself halfway through."

Food Stamp Soldiers: Time Self-Debunks


....and thank you Gools for such a valiant defense.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I thank everyone for their comments and postings to Gools thread.

I would also thank soficrow for now providing the links to back her assertion that I previously questioned.

Soficrow, do not take this or my past actions against you personal, per se'.
My whole motivation was to emphasize that as a ATSNN Reporter, assuming that what you assert is "common knowledge" is dangerous. Journalistic integrity must be upheld. I do believe that in the creation of ATSNN, that journalistic integrity was of utmost importance. Kind of along the lines of "simply report the facts" and allow the people (the ATS community, its members) to decide for themselves their own take and slant. Assumptions are dangerous and even more so when placed in a journalistic environment. I believe that the CNN situation with Mr. Jordon and the past CBS situation with Mr. Rather will illustrate my point well. I understand that you don't get paid the "big bucks" as they, but the issue of integrity of the position that you did willfully accept still demanded such.

I apologize for my seemingly brash nature and approach. It is simply the way I have always been since joining ATS. I just want you to understand why I questioned your assertion, and I think that after this thread, you do understand....at least I hope.





seekerof



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I thank everyone for their comments and postings to Gools thread.

I would also thank soficrow for now providing the links to back her assertion that I previously questioned.

Soficrow, do not take this or my past actions against you personal, per se'.
My whole motivation was to emphasize that as a ATSNN Reporter, assuming that what you assert is "common knowledge" is dangerous. Journalistic integrity must be upheld.




First - my apologies to you FredT for the mistaken identity.


Seekerof - FYI - I have lived my entire life with FAR greater than journalistic integrity.

In this instance, what we have is a "class gap" in knowledge. As I pointed out in another thread, the reality of Food Stamp Soldiers is common knowledge to the working class - but the privileged classes are ignorant of the situation, or unwilling to accept its veracity. Hence, the assertion must be proved and re-proved and verified and re-verified with each passing reference. Rather ridiculous in my estimation, and a complete waste of my time.

On the other hand, while the privileged feel perfectly justified in challenging working peoples' basic experiential knowledge - they scoff when asked to explain themselves, taking refuge in an elitist position and claims of "specialised" or "technical" knowledge beyond the comprehension of the more "common" elements of society. Any challenges of the privileged elites' "givens" routinely are ignored, or ridiculed.

So while I am prepared to accept your apology, no, I don't think I accept your explanation. I don't think your 'rules' work both ways, which they must to be true. IMO - much of the dynamic here is simple harassment, camouflaged as a kind of psycho-Socratic pseudo-method, but in truth ignoble, and without respect for true integrity.



.




[edit on 12-2-2005 by soficrow]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   

as posted by Soficrow
So while I am prepared to accept your apology, no, I don't think I accept your explanation. I don't think your 'rules' work both ways, which they must to be true. IMO - much of the dynamic here is simple harassment, camouflaged as a kind of psycho-Socratic pseudo-method, but in truth ignoble, and without respect for true integrity.


As such, soficrow, you are entitled to see and perceive my explanation as you wish. The point was and is:

Your journalistic integrity was called into question based on an assertion that was not backed initially.
Your reply, as indicated above, was your error in "assuming" under "common knowledge." That within itself was the error, was the mistake. In short, my questioning of your assertion was bottomline valid, whether you wish to see it that way or as some other unsubstantiated take and twist.

As to "my rules," you may simply wish to enquire among your fellow ATSNN Reporters on this and see who exactly those rules belonged to and who should have been adhering to them. This is coming from a used to be ATSNN Reporter himself and is quite familiar with which I am refering to.





seekerof



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by Soficrow
So while I am prepared to accept your apology, no, I don't think I accept your explanation. I don't think your 'rules' work both ways, which they must to be true. IMO - much of the dynamic here is simple harassment, camouflaged as a kind of psycho-Socratic pseudo-method, but in truth ignoble, and without respect for true integrity.


Your journalistic integrity was called into question based on an assertion that was not backed initially.





I was not aware that my "journalistic integrity" was questioned - I was bombarded and harassed, and ignored the question as frivolous. I was not told the issue was being addressed in another thread. If there is a standard process regarding journalistic evaluation here, I would certainly appreciate being informed as to what it is and how it works.

...I came in to ATSNN cold - no coaching, guidance, no personal contact or help, no handbook or assistance with editing, advisement of editorial policy or anything beyond what's posted in the "submission requirements" thread. My pieces came in edited and proofread. All things considered, I think I've performed more than admirably.





Your reply, as indicated above, was your error in "assuming" under "common knowledge." That within itself was the error, was the mistake.




The reality of Food Stamp Soldiers is common knowledge to the working class - and frequently referred to in news reports - but the privileged classes are ignorant of the situation, or unwilling to accept its veracity. Hence, the assertion must be proved and re-proved and verified and re-verified with each new passing reference.

So where does it end? When does it stop? Are we all to turn cartwheels on the whim of the seniors? Frankly, from this side it just feels like common hazing, a juvenile game. ...and I already reference my pieces up the wazooo - half the time they read like legal documents, in self defense.

I'm certainly prepared to go the extra mile when I'm presenting information that's way outside the box - but for common knowledge?





In short, my questioning of your assertion was bottomline valid,




IMO - so is my questioning of your assertion.




As to "my rules," you may simply wish to enquire among your fellow ATSNN Reporters on this and see who exactly those rules belonged to and who should have been adhering to them.




Again, if there are "rules" a) Why wasn't I informed when I was made a reporter? and b) Why are they 'secret' and applied arbitrarily?



.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   

as posted by soficrow
The reality of Food Stamp Soldiers is common knowledge to the working class..

Being that I am of the working class, your assertion is again mistakenly made on assumption, soficrow, for I was not entirely aware of this, and if I was not, how many others are you assuming "common knowledge" for also? Anyone ever told you to never assume, even if you think and feel otherwise?



I was not aware that my "journalistic integrity" was questioned - I was bombarded and harassed...

Again, you are entitled to take and perceive it as you wish. If you do not think that you are to have journalistic intergrity as an ATSNN Reporter, then that is your view. I disagree and will continue to do so. As to being "bombarded and harassed," you over-exaggerate and give yourself too much credit, because you are mistaken. You want a clear defintion and example of "bombarded and harassed," talk to Mr. Jordan and Mr. Rather. Make an assertion as a "real" reporter and see what happens. I neither "bombarded" you nor "harassed" you. You think so, then file a complaint and have the thread in question reviewed. Again, ask your peers, your fellow ATSNN Reporters, for their views on the matter. And again. have you?



All things considered, I think I've performed more than admirably.

Did I not recognize you for such?



I'm certainly prepared to go the extra mile when I'm presenting information that's way outside the box - but for common knowledge?

Out of line? I was out of line for asking the question? I was out of line for stating that you, an ATSNN Reporter, are accountable for sourcing assertions as said reporter? That you should have journalistic integrity? Then so be it, let me out of line then.




Again, if there are "rules" a) Why wasn't I informed when I was made a reporter? and b) Why are they 'secret' and applied arbitrarily?

Have you u2u'd any of your fellow ATSNN Reporters yet? Have you seen all the ATSNN related topic threads within the ATS archives? Have you read all the Bullpen topic threads? Are you implying that the nefty little title you carry under your online name (ie: ATSNN Reporter) means nothing? That you can simply post topics in the ATSNN Forum and make assertions that go unsourced/unsupported and all under the banner of "ATSNN Reporter" with no accountability? You may wish to re-read this thread and its comments, and as with polls, may find that the majority of members that did comment to this thread, agreed that assertions should be supported and/or sourced, and if not, should be given when asked in most cases.

My commentary to this particular subject is over. You will simply walk away from this believing what you have all along, no matter my explanation. I see no point carrying on trying to explain something to you that I am sure that you are already aware of and not willing to admit. I will simply end my part in this by saying that assumptions and assertions do not mix...they are like water and oil. That people do not believe each and everything they read, and that assertions beg to be questioned, and will be questioned.




seekerof

[edit on 12-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
If you do not think that you are to have journalistic intergrity as an ATSNN Reporter, then that is your view.




As I said, I have lived my life with FAR more than journalistic integrity.






you over-exaggerate and give yourself too much credit, because you are mistaken. ... I neither "bombarded" you nor "harassed" you.




I fielded numerous questions - and blew off numerous others as frivolous harassment. A judgment call on my part, in the interests of conserving my own resources.






You think so, then file a complaint and have the thread in question reviewed.





My complaint is that my journalistic integrity was questioned - but that I was not informed. ...that there are "rules" but no engagement - just accusations out of left field.






Again, ask your peers, your fellow ATSNN Reporters, for their views on the matter. And again. have you?




It is my understanding that we are all peers now.






I'm certainly prepared to go the extra mile when I'm presenting information that's way outside the box - but for common knowledge?

Out of line? I was out of line for asking the question? I was out of line for stating that you, an ATSNN Reporter, are accountable for sourcing assertions as said reporter? That you should have journalistic integrity?




There were numerous questions in the thread - I could not answer them all, and did not prioritize yours. ...so it's an issue of journalistic integrity? Get real. It was a stupid question, in the context of the other issues being addressed in the thread - and especially given that "Food Stamp Soldiers" has been a major public issue for years.






Again, if there are "rules" a) Why wasn't I informed when I was made a reporter? and b) Why are they 'secret' and applied arbitrarily?

Are you implying that the nefty little title you carry under your online name (ie: ATSNN Reporter) means nothing? That you can simply post topics in the ATSNN Forum and make assertions that go unsourced/unsupported and all under the banner of "ATSNN Reporter" with no accountability?




No. I am saying that this is a heck of a lot of crud over one question that I ignored in order to free my attention for other issues instead, especially given the fact that it has been answered and debated ad nauseum everywhere, for years. I choose my priorities - IMO - you're questioning my "journalistic intergrity" because I didn't drop everything and dance for you.

...No one has time for everything. When it comes down to making choices - and it always does - I'm not going to blow off real priorities just to do tricks at anyone's arbitrary command.


.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join