Full Body Scans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

PS: To whichever mod renamed my thread: That was uncalled for.

---

Uh, wow. I agree.
The media introduced these as "nude scanners" and now just changed them
recently to Full Body Scanners, to make it more friendly to the public. This
just shows the manipulative nature...

To change the thread title is full blown censorship.
(wait, what exactly was the thread title before?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Sure, no newspaper in their right mind would print a completely biased article.

---

haha, what?

There are certain topics that are reported with a major bias by pretty
much all of the newspapers. Lissabon contract comest to my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

PS: To whichever mod renamed my thread: That was uncalled for. The main idea of the thread is that the full body scans break child porn laws in Britain, and the title was also an excellent attention grabber. My claims are not unfounded, as I have presented many sources in my thread to prove my point. Shame on you for trying to send my thread to the bottom of the stack just because you disagree with me. If this website wishes to have a free and open forum for discussion, with free speech for all the participants, then mods cannot be changing the names of people's threads in order to neutralize them. Thats called being a forum tyrant.

---

Unfortunately for you the "child porn" red herring of your original post was left on the beach to dry in the sun as the thread became a fuller discussion of the pros and cons of these devices and whether they constitute any threat whatsoever to privacy, liberty and decency.

Changing misleading titles of active threads to more accurately reflect the content of the discussion is just called being a mod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dajo

haha, what?

There are certain topics that are reported with a major bias by pretty
much all of the newspapers. Lissabon contract comest to my mind.

---

Certain topics? Like what? Maybe a certain newspaper could have a slight bias by choosing what to report on and how big of a deal to make out of it, but they always present both sides of the story. It's their job. They'd lose a tremendous amount of credibility otherwise. I wouldn't even consider it a newspaper if it didn't.

Quote:

---

PS: To whichever mod renamed my thread: That was uncalled for. The main idea of the thread is that the full body scans break child porn laws in Britain, and the title was also an excellent attention grabber. My claims are not unfounded, as I have presented many sources in my thread to prove my point. Shame on you for trying to send my thread to the bottom of the stack just because you disagree with me. If this website wishes to have a free and open forum for discussion, with free speech for all the participants, then mods cannot be changing the names of people's threads in order to neutralize them. Thats called being a forum tyrant.

---

I've noticed a trend with most of your posts. Do you think the world is out to get you? You seem very paranoid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Certain topics? Like what? Maybe a certain newspaper could have a slight bias by choosing what to report on and how big of a deal to make out of it, but they always present both sides of the story. It's their job. They'd lose a tremendous amount of credibility otherwise. I wouldn't even consider it a newspaper if it didn't.

---

yeah..

Read "Manufacturing Consent" by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky
and see that all of the big news stations have a major bias and why it
has to be the case. You have to do independent research or travel the world,
to even see it. All of them are major corporations. Of course they have
interests.

There is a documentary based off of the book, I haven't seen it yet though:
http://video.google.de/videoplay?doc...2395226827730#
But I recommend the book. There's tons of good information, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Unfortunately for you the "child porn" red herring of your original post was left on the beach to dry in the sun as the thread became a fuller discussion of the pros and cons of these devices and whether they constitute any threat whatsoever to privacy, liberty and decency.

Changing misleading titles of active threads to more accurately reflect the content of the discussion is just called being a mod.

---

And exactly where was this "red herring" exposed? As far as I can see, I'm the only person in this thread who has documented sources for my points, while everyone else resorts to making playground insults, rhetorical questions, and ad hominems. The topic and title of this thread were both justified. My first source even regarded the fact that these scanners break Britains child porn laws, which was where i intended to go with this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Certain topics? Like what? Maybe a certain newspaper could have a slight bias by choosing what to report on and how big of a deal to make out of it, but they always present both sides of the story. It's their job. They'd lose a tremendous amount of credibility otherwise. I wouldn't even consider it a newspaper if it didn't.



I've noticed a trend with most of your posts. Do you think the world is out to get you? You seem very paranoid.

---

No, I don't think the world is out to get me. In fact I tend to get along with people really well, until they start attacking me. However, I do believe it to be unjust for a mod to try and neutralize my thread by changing the title, which never was off-topic or misleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

And exactly where was this "red herring" exposed? As far as I can see, I'm the only person in this thread who has documented sources for my points, while everyone else resorts to making playground insults, rhetorical questions, and ad hominems. The topic and title of this thread were both justified. My first source even regarded the fact that these scanners break Britains child porn laws, which was where i intended to go with this thread.

---

You proved that England needs to revise its child porn laws.