NationStates Jolt Archive

It was a legitimiate news article

I read it and I don't know why either.
I guess your not allowed to say...................................................anus.
To mods: please don't delete me for saying.....................................anus.

Did you have a source for that? I mean, because you didn't include one in the thread and as such it seemed pretty made up just to piss people off.

Did you have a source for that? I mean, because you didn't include one in the thread and as such it seemed pretty made up just to piss people off.

the source was democracynow.org and it SHOULD piss people off

I was thinking more along the lines of this:

This is where the word for word text of your post came from (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/19/1449229)

Which was taken, almost word for word, from this site, a Muslim news site. (http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-05/19/article02.shtml) Before someone infers it:Just because it's on an Islamic site, does NOT mean it is not true.

Rueters reports on itself here (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=514244&section=news)

And Forbes reports on it here, where they report that the army denies it. (http://www.forbes.com/iraq/newswire/2004/05/19/rtr1377809.html)

The more mainstream reports here, (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/international/middleeast/19REUT.html) here, (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/8703177.htm?1c) and here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37729-2004May18.html)

Then you add some comentary (which you did, but I think they prefer more.

And your right, people should be pissed. It's just in presentation.

I was thinking more along the lines of this:

This is where the word for word text of your post came from (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/19/1449229)

Which was taken, almost word for word, from this site, a Muslim news site. (http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-05/19/article02.shtml) Before someone infers it:Just because it's on an Islamic site, does NOT mean it is not true.

Rueters reports on itself here (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=514244§ion=news)

And Forbes reports on it here, where they report that the army denies it. (http://www.forbes.com/iraq/newswire/2004/05/19/rtr1377809.html)

The more mainstream reports here, (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/international/middleeast/19REUT.html) here, (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/8703177.htm?1c) and here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37729-2004May18.html)

Then you add some comentary (which you did, but I think they prefer more.

And your right, people should be pissed. It's just in presentation.

It was taken from democracynow.org under their headlines section

I was thinking more along the lines of this:

This is where the word for word text of your post came from (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/19/1449229)

Which was taken, almost word for word, from this site, a Muslim news site. (http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-05/19/article02.shtml) Before someone infers it:Just because it's on an Islamic site, does NOT mean it is not true.

Rueters reports on itself here (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=514244§ion=news)

And Forbes reports on it here, where they report that the army denies it. (http://www.forbes.com/iraq/newswire/2004/05/19/rtr1377809.html)

The more mainstream reports here, (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/international/middleeast/19REUT.html) here, (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/8703177.htm?1c) and here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37729-2004May18.html)

Then you add some comentary (which you did, but I think they prefer more.

And your right, people should be pissed. It's just in presentation.

It was taken from democracynow.org under their headlines section
The blue parts are links, the first of which is where you got your post. I think, and I'm guessing here, they want a short summary, a link, and then your commentary on the subject, as specific argument or insight that you feel is relivant. Maybe a slightly better articulation of why you feel Rumsfield should be fired (the argument against has been that it is the actions of people far removed from him and once he found out he did what he was supposed to. I'm not saying I buy that, but that is the argument you're up against. So you have to put this news into that context somehow, either refutting that he didn't know or that if he didn't know not knowing is a sign of neglagence.)

I was thinking more along the lines of this:

This is where the word for word text of your post came from (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/19/1449229)

Which was taken, almost word for word, from this site, a Muslim news site. (http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-05/19/article02.shtml) Before someone infers it:Just because it's on an Islamic site, does NOT mean it is not true.

Rueters reports on itself here (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=514244§ion=news)

And Forbes reports on it here, where they report that the army denies it. (http://www.forbes.com/iraq/newswire/2004/05/19/rtr1377809.html)

The more mainstream reports here, (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/international/middleeast/19REUT.html) here, (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/8703177.htm?1c) and here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37729-2004May18.html)

Then you add some comentary (which you did, but I think they prefer more.

And your right, people should be pissed. It's just in presentation.

It was taken from democracynow.org under their headlines section
The blue parts are links, the first of which is where you got your post. I think, and I'm guessing here, they want a short summary, a link, and then your commentary on the subject, as specific argument or insight that you feel is relivant. Maybe a slightly better articulation of why you feel Rumsfield should be fired (the argument against has been that it is the actions of people far removed from him and once he found out he did what he was supposed to. I'm not saying I buy that, but that is the argument you're up against. So you have to put this news into that context somehow, either refutting that he didn't know or that if he didn't know not knowing is a sign of neglagence.)

Rumsfeld not only knew about it it was his IDEA

You're not getting it. I'll try and write an example:

(I'll try and do my best Zeppistan impression, but I think we all know it will come up short...so shut up....)

Well, it looks like more holes are springing leaks in the SS Rumsfield. According to blah [link] and [blah] link, it's not only Iraqi combatants that where mistreated in the Iraqi prisons, but our own press!!! As early as March Rueters and NBC journalists had reported abuses at the very same prison that now is the center of the controversy. The Army relieved itself of any guilt in the manner, stating that there was no proof. blah [link] Now that photos of the abuses are available the military can no longer deny that the abuses happen but are unwilling to admit that they did it to the allies own press. With reports of this magnitude, only two conclusions can be drawn:Rumsfield knew and condoned the treatment, or by not knowing is neglagent.

See, you put the information in the context of your argument, and site your sources so people don't think you made it up (they usually think the source made it up, but what can you do.)

If you copy and paste the worst version of that story with minamal commentary of your own, it's kinda Red Arrow thing. And he was axed.

That by far was the worst Zeppistan you could possibly do. Hopefully you get the idea.

You're not getting it. I'll try and write an example:

(I'll try and do my best Zeppistan impression, but I think we all know it will come up short...so shut up....)

Well, it looks like more holes are springing leaks in the SS Rumsfield. According to blah [link] and [blah] link, it's not only Iraqi combatants that where mistreated in the Iraqi prisons, but our own press!!! As early as March Rueters and NBC journalists had reported abuses at the very same prison that now is the center of the controversy. The Army relieved itself of any guilt in the manner, stating that there was no proof. blah [link] Now that photos of the abuses are available the military can no longer deny that the abuses happen but are unwilling to admit that they did it to the allies own press. With reports of this magnitude, only two conclusions can be drawn:Rumsfield knew and condoned the treatment, or by not knowing is neglagent.

See, you put the information in the context of your argument, and site your sources so people don't think you made it up (they usually think the source made it up, but what can you do.)

If you copy and paste the worst version of that story with minamal commentary of your own, it's kinda Red Arrow thing. And he was axed.

That by far was the worst Zeppistan you could possibly do. Hopefully you get the idea.

itll take me awhile to master the link thing--Im computer illiterate

itll take me awhile to master the link thing--Im computer illiterate
You do it this way:
You put a bracket([) then url=, then paste the URL from the top of your browser from the article you are refrencing, then a close bracket. After you type whatever you want the link to say here, the type [/url]

When you quote my posts, it appears the way I typed it in this box.

It's simple. Follow these simple instructions.

1. Copy the url from the site you want by highlighting it with your mouse and then pressing, at the same time, control and c.

2. In your post, when you get to the point where you want to put the link, type in thusly.

3. Type in a word or two, either in the sentence you were writing, or simply put a snazzy word like "clicky."

4. Open another set of brackets and type this: ( and then press control +v and then close the brackets). That closes the link. Then go on with the rest of your post. Good luck. Try it out and hit preview before you submit and see if it's working. It's not all that hard.

itll take me awhile to master the link thing--Im computer illiterate
You do it this way:
You put a bracket([) then url=, then paste the URL from the top of your browser from the article you are refrencing, then a close bracket. After you type whatever you want the link to say here, the type [/url]

When you quote my posts, it appears the way I typed it in this box.You beat me this time!

dammit. I should take Incertonia's classes at Stanford....

If you copy and paste the worst version of that story with minamal commentary of your own, it's kinda Red Arrow thing. And he was axed.

Oh wow. My hat is off to the mods.

itll take me awhile to master the link thing--Im computer illiterate
You do it this way:
You put a bracket([) then url=, then paste the URL from the top of your browser from the article you are refrencing, then a close bracket. After you type whatever you want the link to say here, the type [/url]

When you quote my posts, it appears the way I typed it in this box.You beat me this time!
Yeah, but yours made sense...

It's simple. Follow these simple instructions.

1. Copy the url from the site you want by highlighting it with your mouse and then pressing, at the same time, control and c.

2. In your post, when you get to the point where you want to put the link, type in thusly.

3. Type in a word or two, either in the sentence you were writing, or simply put a snazzy word like "clicky."

4. Open another set of brackets and type this: ( and then press control +v and then close the brackets). That closes the link. Then go on with the rest of your post. Good luck. Try it out and hit preview before you submit and see if it's working. It's not all that hard.

Ok thanks--and thanks Cannot think of a name too

If you copy and paste the worst version of that story with minamal commentary of your own, it's kinda Red Arrow thing. And he was axed.

Oh wow. My hat is off to the mods.

dont speak ill of the deats :evil:

If you copy and paste the worst version of that story with minamal commentary of your own, it's kinda Red Arrow thing. And he was axed.

Oh wow. My hat is off to the mods.MKULTRA is The Red Arrow.

Seriously though MKULTRA. People would think a good deal better of you if you were to actually debate these things instead of simply copy-paste.
This is a forum for discussion not keeping up on the news.
(Yes, I realize that some do use this to find stuff out, but it's primary goal is discussion, not the copy-pasting 20 times.)

If you copy and paste the worst version of that story with minamal commentary of your own, it's kinda Red Arrow thing. And he was axed.

Oh wow. My hat is off to the mods.MKULTRA is The Red Arrow.

Seriously though MKULTRA. People would think a good deal better of you if you were to actually debate these things instead of simply copy-paste.
This is a forum for discussion not keeping up on the news.
(Yes, I realize that some do use this to find stuff out, but it's primary goal is discussion, not the copy-pasting 20 times.)

but people need to be informed before they can debate--the masses are denied the non corporate truth--the articles I post are supposed to raise conscussness

If you copy and paste the worst version of that story with minamal commentary of your own, it's kinda Red Arrow thing. And he was axed.

Oh wow. My hat is off to the mods.MKULTRA is The Red Arrow.

Seriously though MKULTRA. People would think a good deal better of you if you were to actually debate these things instead of simply copy-paste.
This is a forum for discussion not keeping up on the news.
(Yes, I realize that some do use this to find stuff out, but it's primary goal is discussion, not the copy-pasting 20 times.)

but people need to be informed before they can debate--the masses are denied the non corporate truth--the articles I post are supposed to raise conscussnessYes, but you rarely initiate any debate. You simply toss it out there without so much as a peep from yourself.

If you copy and paste the worst version of that story with minamal commentary of your own, it's kinda Red Arrow thing. And he was axed.

Oh wow. My hat is off to the mods.MKULTRA is The Red Arrow.

Seriously though MKULTRA. People would think a good deal better of you if you were to actually debate these things instead of simply copy-paste.
This is a forum for discussion not keeping up on the news.
(Yes, I realize that some do use this to find stuff out, but it's primary goal is discussion, not the copy-pasting 20 times.)

but people need to be informed before they can debate--the masses are denied the non corporate truth--the articles I post are supposed to raise conscussness
You see, it didn't take me very long to find this story in the San Jose Mercury, the New York Times and the Washington Post. Granted, two of those required subscriptions that I didn't want to make. So the information is out there. You introduce the information, and then put it in the context of the discussion to take place, i.e. what you feel is the implication or meaning and why people should care.

If you copy and paste the worst version of that story with minamal commentary of your own, it's kinda Red Arrow thing. And he was axed.

Oh wow. My hat is off to the mods.MKULTRA is The Red Arrow.

Seriously though MKULTRA. People would think a good deal better of you if you were to actually debate these things instead of simply copy-paste.
This is a forum for discussion not keeping up on the news.
(Yes, I realize that some do use this to find stuff out, but it's primary goal is discussion, not the copy-pasting 20 times.)

but people need to be informed before they can debate--the masses are denied the non corporate truth--the articles I post are supposed to raise conscussnessYes, but you rarely initiate any debate. You simply toss it out there without so much as a peep from yourself.

well first you have to drop the bomb before you go in to kill the survivors