On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:16 AM, denstar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Looking for bias in general, and looking for a specific kind of bias, > are sorta different. >
No no no no no... I get that. I really do :) Looking for bias is (on the surface) objective. Looking for a specific kind of bias makes it seem like a witch hunt. And it may be a witch hunt. The "researchers" in question put themselves in the position of making it seem as such by stating that their objective was looking for liberal bias specifically. I wouldn't have any issue with a response to that study being, "They seem to be biased themselves, I'd question the results until I was able to ensure that the study was done in a subjective manner". But to state unequivocally that it's flawed contradicts much of what has been said in this thread. Without proof... it's only so much hot air. I'm not defending the study (or report... let's just call it a report) as being true or false. I'm simply pointing out that it's somewhat hypocritical to ask for "proof" in one venue, but to then turn around and in another venue make an accusation without... proof. -- I have failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my life. I love my wife. And I wish you my kind of success. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:277078 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
