<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Due to the sensitive nature of some of the comments ...rather insensitive comments I will not post the article but here is the link. The information was an....interesting read.

The Euro Press in review Best and Worst. </font>

So if posting country bashing (in this case your continued bias against all things French) is banned under the TOE, and posting say porno is banned under the TOE - one wonders how one gets on posting links to say country bashing or porno? Can I get someone in the forum leadership to provide me some direction on this as it would seem I am now very confused?

<font color=deepskyblue>The criticism of the article seemed to be spread fairly evenly, <font color=orange>Davros</font>. I didn't see that it concentrated on France in any one particular area. Since you cheekily replied to <font color=lime>MagiK</font> in another thread that you could not accurately comment on his motives, I find it odd that you feel you can do so now.

As for the article itself, I didn't see that it was "bashing" a country any more than any of several articles that have been referenced or linked to on C.E. criticizing President Bush and/or American policies.

And it was certainly as "even-handed" as the article used by your partner-in-pastry, <font color=orange>Good Sir Donut</font>, as a reference source for this thread.

You have every right to voice your opinions and/or criticisms of Bush and/or American policies & practices. But don't cry "FOUL" when you find the spotlight is then turned towards the other side of the pond. ;) </font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Not only that...but Davros didn't seem to notice where the info for the report was gathered from either [img]smile.gif[/img]

Nor the fact that I did not post the information. I just posted a link to it...and while posting a link to porno is one thing...posting a link to an op-ed piece is a completely different matter...AND I did say that some of the points made were of an insensitive nature to warn people who might be offended away.

All in all I think I did the right thing. But!!! if I did wrong as judged by the owners and Mods.....Hey, Ill live with their decision.</font>


Edit: Worded the first paragraph incorrectly so re did it to be more precise.

[ 01-01-2004, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Perhaps it is the distatsteful graphic in the header of the article, where the Eiffel tower has been seemingly "knocked" on to it's side.

That and the incitful (rather than insightful ;) ) reference to the French as previously at "war against" the U.S. which is hardly the case, even if used metaphorically. Disagreement and at "war against" are concepts similiar but far apart.

And I see very little comparison to the article Cerek refered too. Apples and oranges really.

A look at the U.S. "hawks" who would drive the world to war after war in the name of fighting terrorism does not equate to a shallow, one-sided look at a few select European news bits.

Oh and the article about the "hawks" doesnt contain imagery of any U.S. landmarks knocked sideways or any similiar imagery at all.

In short, the original link is to an article that so far has only bread complaints and contempt. It's lack of substance coupled with the style of writing, choice of words, and added imagery suggest little more than Euro-nation-bashing in the guise of commenting on supposedly "notable" news from the previous year.

Also I wasn't aware we it was ok to break the rules or possibly break the rules if we gave warning that we were breaking the rules. That pretty much makes the rules useless eh?

[ 01-01-2004, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

<font color=deepskyblue>Well, <font color=orange>Chewie</font>, I was referring to the tone of the two articles being similar as opposed to the actual content. That's what I meant when I said that this article was as "even-handed" as the one referenced by <font color=orange>Donut</font>. That article was also somewhat "shallow and one-sided" in it's editorial spin, so I still consider it to be "apples to apples".

As for this thread being in violation of the TOS, I'm certain the Moderators have taken a look at it already and - so far - have chosen not to do anything about it. However, since you and <font color=orange>Davros</font> feel so strongly that the rules have been broken, then I can only suggest you use the <font color=white>"Report This Post"</font> button at the bottom of the screen. That way, you can ensure that it be looked at again by them.

In fact, I would also be interested in hearing from a Mod regarding this thread, since both of you have implied they are ignoring the rules they promised to enforce.</font>

Whoa!!! The article I used was from The Daily Telegraph, one of the most right wing newspapers in the UK. Where was the bias?

The ideas listed have been put forward by Richard Perle, "a Pentagon advisor" and David Frum "a former Bush speechwriter".

Magik posts articles with the express intent to antagonise people. I have no prolem with this, or with him expressing his viewpoint. I only respond to him when he posts lies, or uses specious statistics.

I would respectfully ask you to read the article linked to by skywalker again Cerek. I've done so and cannot see it as being "shallow and one-sided". Also it isn't an editorial but a front page news article from one of this country's most respected broadsheet newspapers. (Personally I think it's a Tory rag!! ;) It is unstinting in it's support for the Conservative Party)

(Can't believe I'm defending the Torygraph!!! :D )

[ 01-02-2004, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

Here's an editorial from yesterday's Torygraph

I won't post the whole thing but the title of the piece is:


"Only stupid white men would believe Michael Moore"

Hardly liberal is it?