How about setting some reasonable qualifications for what's "In The News?"

**Tock** · 08-10-2007, 07:41 PM

It seems that some of what's presented in this forum as "In The News" is actually just lifted from from obviously biased rabidly right-wing webpages (such as www.LifeSiteNews.com and www.worldnetdaily.com).

I'm not against anyone publishing anybody's dirty laundry as long as it's genuine dirty laundy. But when it comes to unsubstantiated allegations and slander, well, that's just stupid BS.

Can we agree to some minimum level of legitimate news source to be included as a cite to accompany newsworthy threads? And agree to delete threads that don't meet said standards?

I'd like to suggest that any newsworthy thread in this forum be accompanied by a verifiable citation from:
1) the AP (Associated Press) or UPI (United Press International)
2) any newspaper's website that has a regular daily or weekly distribution of printed newspapers.
3) The website of any commercial TV or Radio Station licensed to broadcast by the FCC
4) foreign versions of the above 3 items

And, can we get a mod to delete threads that don't conform to these minimum standards, but instead are merely re-hashing of some religious or political propaganda website?

**Coop77** · 08-10-2007, 11:08 PM

I don't think this forum is read enough to actually moderate and enforce any such rules, but these would be good "unofficial" rules for regular posters to try and follow (wishful thinking). By the way, this should go for any "news" from any radical left or gay websites too.

**Tock** · 08-11-2007, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Coop77

By the way, this should go for any "news" from any radical left or gay websites too.

100% agree.

RA · 08-13-2007, 07:09 AM

"In the news" is for AR members to discuss current events. I think part of the problem is that some people have used it exclusively to tear away at a particular party and religion. I think if that wasnt the case things would run much more smoothly.

**kfrost06** · 08-13-2007, 09:01 AM

I agree with all the above post, I think we've all gotten carried away. Admittedly, it is at times fun but immature. No reason to get into a tit for tat news posting war.

**Tock** · 08-13-2007, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by roidattack

"In the news" is for AR members to discuss current events. I think part of the problem is that some people have used it exclusively to tear away at a particular party and religion. I think if that wasnt the case things would run much more smoothly.

Of course, some folks here have used this forum to tear away at a particular sexual orientation.

When I've seen this happen, I've presented news stories from the mainstream media to counter the negative stories that invariably originate from anti-gay Christian fundamentalist websites. Those religious websites opine that Republicans and heterosexuals are more "moral" than Democrats and gays, based on Bible scripture. To counter, I've supplied ample recent news stories of anti-gay religious Republicans involved in pederasty, adultery, rape, and other crimes. The intent was to show that despite the claims of some, Republicans like to engage in "whoopie" about as much as Democrats (or anyone else); and when it comes to sex, all men act like dogs.

I'd be happy if sexual orientation never came up. It seems to me, though, that some folks post misinformation from anti-gay websites, and pass it off as news. Speaking as one who's lost jobs for no other reason than for being gay, speaking as one who's had friends beat up by anti-gay creeps, this is a hot issue for me. It's difficult for me to pass up the opportunity to address anti-gay misinformation. When I do so in this forum, I'm pretty good at avoiding personal insults and sticking to facts (I hope so, anyway).
If someone passes off misinformation from a religious-based website as "news" (such as www.LifeSiteNews.com) I'll analyze it, and illuminate its actual origin and its flaws. Why anyone would want to post religious dogma on this news group in the first place, is beyond me.

I can understand how the recent tit-for-tat disagreements became tiresome. Lord knows I've got lots of better things to spend my time on, and as I've already mentioned, I'd just as soon this issue never came up.

RA · 08-13-2007, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

. Lord knows I've got lots of better things to spend my time on, and as I've already mentioned, I'd just as soon this issue never came up.

Thats where we should start. I agree we shouldnt tolerate someone who has an anti-gay agenda.

**Logan13** · 08-13-2007, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Tock

Republicans like to engage in "whoopie" about as much as Democrats (or anyone else); and when it comes to sex, all men act like dogs.

It still weirds me out when my grandma refers to all of the "whoopie" on TV these days. Let's try our best to disengage our rhetoric both for or against sexual orientation. It just turns into an argument and that obviously does not further the conversation.