MSNBC Reporting on GA Security Threat

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Lynn Melrose" wrote in message
...
To get people to "Join the conversation."

To join what conversation? Time doesn't care about conversations here.
They only care about magazine sales. And what exactly was it that
non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to Time) by the photograph?

Negative. If you saw the ad, it was clear that it was steering people to a
website for an online discussion. Apparently, some people such as yourself
chose to be alarmed by a photo of a general aviation field.



Your head is in the sand.

No, it's not. You are acting as if Time yelled Fire in a crowded theater.

Everything you say about the reality of the
photograph is true, but none of that matters. Only the perception and the
implication in Time's statement are what are relevant, and they are very
different from the reality.

Perception is how the viewer sees it, how many people went into some kind of
mass hysteria about the photo? People are free to use the picture as an
opportunity to show that GA really isn't a big threat.

In article ne.com,
Andrew Gideon wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:

You have a very tough sell to try to convince anyone on this news group
that anything the news media report is accurate.

The NYTimes usually has the correct date.

- Andrew


There was a wonderful correction in the the Cleveland Plain Dealer...

Because of an editing error, a story on the front page yesterday
misattributed a quote from the speaker on an audiotape purportedly of
Saddam Hussein as coming from Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of
South Dakota. It was the speaker on the tape, not Daschle, who said,
"The evil ones now find themselves in crisis, and this is God's will for
them." The only solution for Iraq was for "the zealous Iraqi sons, who
ran its affairs and brought it out of backwardness . . . to return . . .
to run its affairs anew," the speaker on the tape said, referring to the
Baath leadership.

"Lynn Melrose" wrote in message
...
Negative.

"Negative" what? That's not an answer to my question. I will ask again:
"What exactly was it that non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to
Time) by the photograph?"

If you saw the ad, it was clear that it was steering people to a
website for an online discussion.

I did see the ad. If all they wanted to do was steer people to a website
for online discussion, why not just print a blank page with the text "Join
the discussion" and a URL?

Instead, they printed a picture (have you forgotten that a picture is worth
1000 words?), and text reading "Remember when only environmentalists would
have been alarmed by this photograph?"

Apparently, some people such as yourself
chose to be alarmed by a photo of a general aviation field.

Apparently, some people such as yourself are willing to believe practically
anything, so long as it does disturb your fragile feeling of calm and
well-being. The rest of us didn't "choose" to be alarmed. We saw exactly
what Time intended and didn't appreciate it.

You have continued to evade the very questions that go directly to the
meaning of the advertisement. Classic behavior of someone who simply
doesn't want to be confronted with the truth.

Your head is in the sand.

No, it's not. You are acting as if Time yelled Fire in a crowded theater.

Hardly. I don't feel Time yelled "fire" in a crowded theater. I feel that
they stood up, pointed to me, and yelled "murderer". There's a difference,
you know.

Perception is how the viewer sees it, how many people went into some kind
of
mass hysteria about the photo? People are free to use the picture as an
opportunity to show that GA really isn't a big threat.

Then why would Time take so much trouble to reinforce the idea that people
should be alarmed by the picture? Again, answer the question: "What exactly
was it that non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to Time) by the
photograph?"

I feel confident that the reason you keep evading the question is that you
cannot answer it without disturbing your tenuous grip on your soft and fuzzy
version of reality.

Pete

Lynn Melrose wrote:

And unless you knew the particular plant in question, who would you know that from
the photo, whether your IQ is 40 or 140?

That's completely superfluous. It doesn't matter at all whether the cooling
towers in the ad were or were not those of a nuke plant. What is important is
that absolutely 100% of the people who see that ad will assume that that's a
nuke plant.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Lynn Melrose" wrote in message
...
Negative.

"Negative" what? That's not an answer to my question. I will ask again:
"What exactly was it that non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to
Time) by the photograph?"

If you saw the ad, it was clear that it was steering people to a
website for an online discussion.

I did see the ad. If all they wanted to do was steer people to a website
for online discussion, why not just print a blank page with the text "Join
the discussion" and a URL?

For the same reason that nearly every other piece of advertising in a magazine
includes visuals, not just text on blank pages.

Instead, they printed a picture (have you forgotten that a picture is worth
1000 words?), and text reading "Remember when only environmentalists would

have been alarmed by this photograph?"

Apparently, some people such as yourself
chose to be alarmed by a photo of a general aviation field.

Apparently, some people such as yourself are willing to believe practically
anything,

I'm not willing to believe practically anything. Others in the thread are
willing to believe that Time somehow committing a crime and inciting hysteria.

so long as it does disturb your fragile feeling of calm and
well-being. The rest of us didn't "choose" to be alarmed. We saw exactly
what Time intended and didn't appreciate it.

You have continued to evade the very questions that go directly to the
meaning of the advertisement. Classic behavior of someone who simply
doesn't want to be confronted with the truth.

To the contrary, I pointed out that Time presented an opportunity to explain why
GA is NOT a threat. You seem to be more concerned with muzzling Time. Since
you seem committed into making this a personal attack on me instead of
restricting your comments to the arena of thoughts, my feelings are not so
fragile that a picture in a magazine can disturb them.



Your head is in the sand.

No, it's not. You are acting as if Time yelled Fire in a crowded theater.

Hardly. I don't feel Time yelled "fire" in a crowded theater. I feel that
they stood up, pointed to me, and yelled "murderer". There's a difference,
you know.

And if you were not a murderer, you would have a winnable case of libel on your
hands. Where was the "damage" specifically caused by this photo/ad?



Perception is how the viewer sees it, how many people went into some kind
of
mass hysteria about the photo? People are free to use the picture as an
opportunity to show that GA really isn't a big threat.

Then why would Time take so much trouble to reinforce the idea that people
should be alarmed by the picture?

Clearly, to provoke a response.

Again, answer the question: "What exactly
was it that non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to Time) by the
photograph?"

You say "according to Time," yet you are asking me. I do not speak for Time
therefore I can't answer for them. I would suggest that they were being
provocative. Is the best response from GA an explanation of why GA is not a
major threat, or GA trying to censor Time? A person unfamiliar with GA might
ask, "hey if GA isn't a major threat, why don't they just say that instead of
trying to shut-up Time? Sounds like they're trying to hide something."



I feel confident that the reason you keep evading the question is that you
cannot answer it without disturbing your tenuous grip on your soft and fuzzy
version of reality.

Then that would indicate you have a false sense of confidence.

"Lynn Melrose" wrote in message
...
For the same reason that nearly every other piece of advertising in a
magazine
includes visuals, not just text on blank pages.

Are you really that thick, that you think the photo was chosen simply
because it's pleasing to the eye?

It was chosen for the implied meaning, in context of the text on the page.

To the contrary, I pointed out that Time presented an opportunity to
explain why
GA is NOT a threat.

Huh? So now you are saying that the ad DOES imply that GA is a threat?
This is a complete reversal from your previous statements.

By the way, that's not an answer to the question "What exactly was it that
non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to Time) by the photograph."
Again, you have evaded the question.

And if you were not a murderer, you would have a winnable case of libel on
your
hands. Where was the "damage" specifically caused by this photo/ad?

The implication that airplanes near cooling towers are somehow harmful.
Frankly, if GA had sufficient legal resources, I'd think they'd have a
legitimate legal case against Time.

Then why would Time take so much trouble to reinforce the idea that
people
should be alarmed by the picture?

Clearly, to provoke a response.

Again, you are reversing your previous statements. How could Time provoke a
response unless they made the implication CJ, Larry, I, and many others have
inferred?

You say "according to Time," yet you are asking me. I do not speak for
Time
therefore I can't answer for them.

Of course you are speaking for Time. You are defending the ad as
non-inflammatory, claiming that it means something other than what the rest
of us saw that it means. Either you're just a run-of-the-mill troll, happy
to say "no it isn't" to practically anything that shows up in the newsgroup,
or you have an alternate theory.

If you're a troll, just fess up and let us drop the matter. If you have an
alternate theory, spit it out. Quit evading the question.

I feel confident that the reason you keep evading the question is that
you
cannot answer it without disturbing your tenuous grip on your soft and
fuzzy
version of reality.

Then that would indicate you have a false sense of confidence.

Could very well be. But we'll never know as long as you keep evading the
question.

Pete

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:11:10 -0500, Lynn Melrose
wrote in Message-Id:
:


To the contrary, I pointed out that Time presented an opportunity to explain why
GA is NOT a threat.

Using your reasoning, perhaps you'll take this opportunity to explain
why you are NOT a pedophile.

Where was the "damage" specifically caused by this photo/ad?

If there were no damage, why did Time agree to pull the ad in response
to complaints?

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Lynn Melrose wrote:

And unless you knew the particular plant in question, who would you know that from
the photo, whether your IQ is 40 or 140?

That's completely superfluous. It doesn't matter at all whether the cooling
towers in the ad were or were not those of a nuke plant. What is important is
that absolutely 100% of the people who see that ad will assume that that's a
nuke plant.

How did you arrive at this number? Would your same sample also think this is a nuclear
plant? http://www.ucsusa.org/CoalvsWind/c02d1.html

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:11:10 -0500, Lynn Melrose
wrote in Message-Id:
:

To the contrary, I pointed out that Time presented an opportunity to explain why
GA is NOT a threat.

Using your reasoning, perhaps you'll take this opportunity to explain
why you are NOT a pedophile.

Where was the "damage" specifically caused by this photo/ad?

If there were no damage, why did Time agree to pull the ad in response
to complaints?

And exactly how did we get to pedophile, or for that manner change the conversation
to me? You seem preoccupied with attacking me, but have little defense to offer to
explain why GA is not a threat and why a general aviation plane could not be used to
get by the national guard force on the ground and harm any of the plant's systems.
Obviously they said that they pulled it, to make somebody happy. How long was the ad
slated to run? Time magazine has run numerous of similar "join the conversation" ads
about other topics, which only ran once or twice. Where were the actual damages? If
there is a lawsuit, what should damages be set for, and how should they be
quantified?

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Lynn Melrose" wrote in message
...
For the same reason that nearly every other piece of advertising in a
magazine
includes visuals, not just text on blank pages.

Are you really that thick,

Are you able to hold a conversation without resorting to cheap personal
attacks? Needing to attacking me as a person does not make your position
stronger, Peter.

that you think the photo was chosen simply
because it's pleasing to the eye?

It was chosen for the implied meaning, in context of the text on the page.

I didn't say it was pleasing to the eye. You are inserting your words as if they
were my own. If you take a look at magazines, including Time, you will note
that many magazines include many pictures that are decidedly not pleasing to the
eye.



To the contrary, I pointed out that Time presented an opportunity to
explain why
GA is NOT a threat.

Huh? So now you are saying that the ad DOES imply that GA is a threat?
This is a complete reversal from your previous statements.

Incorrect, I did NOT say that.



By the way, that's not an answer to the question "What exactly was it that
non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to Time) by the photograph."
Again, you have evaded the question.

You keep wanting me to explain something "according to Time." Again, I do not
speak for Time, nor can I say anything "according to Time, so you are charging a
false premise to me.



And if you were not a murderer, you would have a winnable case of libel on
your
hands. Where was the "damage" specifically caused by this photo/ad?

The implication that airplanes near cooling towers are somehow harmful.
Frankly, if GA had sufficient legal resources, I'd think they'd have a
legitimate legal case against Time.

You would be thinking wrongly in that case.



Then why would Time take so much trouble to reinforce the idea that
people
should be alarmed by the picture?

Clearly, to provoke a response.

Again, you are reversing your previous statements.

My previous statements stand.

How could Time provoke a
response unless they made the implication CJ, Larry, I, and many others have
inferred?

Time presented a picture and a sentence, with an invitation to join a
conversation. They were not attempting to restrict that conversation to any
particular viewpoint.



You say "according to Time," yet you are asking me. I do not speak for
Time
therefore I can't answer for them.

Of course you are speaking for Time.

Incorrect. I am not connected to Time in any way.

You are defending the ad as non-inflammatory, claiming that it means something
other than what the rest of us saw that it means.

You can choose to imply what you want. That does not mean that you can expect
others, including myself, to imply the way you feel others should.

Either you're just a run-of-the-mill troll, happy
to say "no it isn't" to practically anything that shows up in the newsgroup,
or you have an alternate theory.

I have a different viewpoint than yourself. What is your evidence to say that I
say, "no it isn't" to practically anything that shows up in the newsgroup?
Citations please, from your favorite newsgroup archive. There are a lot of
things that 'show up' in a newsgroup, what percentage of topics have I said "no
it isn't?" Clearly your charges against me are unfounded.



If you're a troll, just fess up and let us drop the matter.

Your viewpoints are not an authority of what consitutes what is and is not a
troll. You may drop the matter if you so desire. When you cannot successfully
support your position, it is interesting that you need to resort to
name-calling.

If you have an
alternate theory, spit it out. Quit evading the question.

I have already answered your questions on my viewpoints (not Time's). You
respond by twisting my words and making baseless charges. Again, citations
please for your claim that I say "no it isn't" to practically anything that
shows up in the newsgroup.

I feel confident that the reason you keep evading the question is that
you
cannot answer it without disturbing your tenuous grip on your soft and
fuzzy
version of reality.

Then that would indicate you have a false sense of confidence.

Could very well be. But we'll never know as long as you keep evading the
question.

I answered your questions several times. You respond by putting words into my
mouth and telling me that I somehow evaded your questioning. It is unfortunate
that you are more concerned with personal attacks than defending GA against
charges of harm using logic.