> gMoney wrote:
> You are defending a journalists' staging, doctoring, or outright faking
> their photographs...as long as they have a good story to tell?
>
> Your bias is showing.

Your lack of science training is showing.

My "bias" is for facts, not for conjecture, supposition, and faulty
analysis.  I'm not defending anyone or anything, I'm pointing out the
facts and therefore implicit errors in your analysis.  If you consider
facts to be a bias then you're living in the right state.  The facts
are:

1.) We have no idea if this was staged.
2.) If it was staged we have no idea what the motivation was.
3.) Even if was staged to fool media customers (your factless
assumption and worst case scenario), it doesn't change the material
point of the story: civilians are dying.

In summary this photo is proof of nothing.  It's one data point that
may or may not indicate a trend.  But a trend one data point does not
make.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting,
up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four 
times a year.
http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly

Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:212895
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5

Reply via email to