> Hi Aine,
> No offense at all, and you raise a good point.
> I pretty much read everything to get a balanced perspective.
> In my book, I'll quote Rush Limbaugh just as easily as I would
> Bill Maher. Readers of the book will see how it all fits
> together; but in cases (like above) where I only post one link
> it might give the impression that my views are 100% in line
> with his. They are not.
Rush and Alex, and even Bill Maher, are NOT fair and balanced. Not by any stretch. They have a political agenda to push, and they do it very well.
Jones in particular appeals to a, shall we say, certain segment of the population that will jump on any suggestion of conspiracy. For the record, I am a skeptic, but I'm in the "not evil, just wrong" camp. But you need to be careful. The conspiracy theorists won't hesitate to jump on that and use it shamelessly for their own purposes. But that's really getting off topic and we've got plenty of threads on that subject elsewhere, too.
It gives the genuine skeptics a really bad name and just makes them look like fools.
> I appreciate your suggestion, and I have edited the story to
> reflect a more neutral source (The Daily Mail).
> I feel we're getting a little off-track. The original point
> here is that we should not make derogatory remarks or threats.
> Calling skeptics of climate change "deniers" (invoking images
> of the Holocaust) or saying their houses deserve to be burn
> down are the types of comments that fall outside the bounds of
> civil discourse.
We'll see how it goes. :))