From: hjkhjkhd@hhhh.com   
      
   "Martha Bridegam"  wrote in message   
   news:8%SWg.13094$e66.2863@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...   
   > Bayle wrote:   
   >> ROBBIE wrote:   
   >>> "Martha Bridegam"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:1syWg.11330$GR.455@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...   
   >>   
   >>>> You can cherry-pick   
   >>>> cases to support any position if you refuse to look at the full   
   >>>> picture.   
   >>> How is it that you can make a broad assertion on the British media but I   
   >>> cannot and cannot give examples?   
   >>   
   >> In the spirit of enquiry I would like to know how you could "look at   
   >> the full picture" ?   
   >>   
   >> What is the "full picture"? I can imagine if we lived in Britain and   
   >> watched TV for a few months and read the papers, maybe we might have a   
   >> first approximation to the "full picture", a hint at least. But how can   
   >> Robbie convey to us what it is like without examples?   
   >>   
   >> Are you Martha, relying on something else?   
   >>   
   >> And given the necessity and difficulty, especially in these   
   >> hypercharged days of partisanship, of finding an objective source and   
   >> given all of our emotional reactions, it's hard to see what that   
   >> something else could be.   
   >>   
   >   
   > I mean that citing one article out of context isn't convincing, and   
   > neither is citing ten articles out of context. I actually have been   
   > reading the Guardian for years, and thinking of articles I've read along   
   > relevant lines, I don't see the pattern he's talking about.   
   >   
   > /M   
      
   Waitaminnit - you ain;t saying the Guardian gives murdered white people   
   better positions in the paper than black people? Now you *are* talking shit.   
      
   ROBBIE   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)