Replies

Oy! Give it a rest, already. Many of us never go to the Religion forum, and would thus not see this important warning. If we're really on Red Alert, I'd like to know about it. This knowledge would help me decide which cities I might want to visit in the next few weeks; which mode of travel I would choose; should I check my emergency kits? Fill up the gas tanks? Etc.

It's not fair for the government to tell us little people it's only a Yellow when it's really a Red.

HOGWASH.

Most sources I use have a qualification for distribution that includes using the whole document without editing it.

I respect such principles.

Even without that, I do so as a courtesy even when I don't for other reasons.

The other reasons are sufficiently valid in this case.

Your whining is out of place and extreme, IMHO.

You appear to be doing back flips to be offended. I hope you are not so easily offended by your family members.

If you are this eager to pick a fight, please go to DU and enjoy yourself. They seem to be wholesale of that ilk.

Perhaps you are unaware of your biases cloud the fact that

IN OUR ERA AND SOCIETY--INDEED--IN OUR WORLD,

INFORMATION tends to be a pretty important

commodity, factor, thing.

FURTHER, in our era, society, world,

COMPLEXITIES ABOUND SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO EXTENSIVELY IN A WIDE RANGE OF EXTREME MANNERS, TYPES, WAYS, RANGES

that only the arrogant believe they have a very good grasp on much very broad or even minimal in scope.

Actually, few people know very well the complexities going on in their own homes under their own noses.

Fewer still respond to them well.

I, for one, want my news to have all possible sources of info included in the reporting mix. Having been a quality reference librarian in charge of a very diverse university Special Collections dept, I have learned from tons of experience the serendipitous combinations of insight and results which even far out, extreme bits of data can result in.

And, as my boss said from extensive experience as one of the world's experts on the subject . . . it was the very flakey, far-out, extreme publications, broadsides, posters, pamphlets, groups which first fingered Hitler most accurately and predicted most accurately what he would become and do.

I believe the individual is best in place to sort out the complexities and sources and types of information ACCORDING TO THE INDIVIDUAL'S NEEDS.

I certainly don't want someone with rigid, narrow, brittle--and from my perspective--too often grossly ignorant and inexperienced biases censoring my information mix on FR or anywhere else.

My page down and scroll buttons work quite well. And that is all the censoring I want in my news mix. If someone believes something is newsworthy enough for whatever remotely logical reason to post it on FR, then I want the opportunity to scan the intro lines about it and make up my own mind. I don't have to agree with their reasons. I don't have to agree with their philosophy. I just want the opportunity to CONSIDER their perspective and the posts they think worthy to put in any category of news group on FR.

On average, I'd be fairly furious that someone's biases like yours censored, neutered or stole from me such a potential opportunity.

I think there's sometimes a gray area regarding what is news and what is specifically religious discussion.

If, for example, Quix had put the religious comments in post #1 instead of in the text of this basic news item, then I would agree that this would be unadulterated news.

During the 10 commandments/Roy Moore story, there was a news item that dealt with religious themes. It was a cross-over piece. The same with the pledge of allegiance and "under God."

An item really doesn't belong in the religion forum, in most cases, unless it is an overtly theological article.

If the Pope dies tomorrow, that would be a legit news item. If the Pope's theological directorate releases a treatise about Jesus' redemption, then it's theological.....religious forum material.