brandon
Some truth included in this post.
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Sometimes I hate the lack of free thought in this forum.
Regardless of what I think of the RIAA, I really think this forum is pretty weak in terms of free thinkers.
A blatantly biased article is posted on the front page, and everyone just blindly agrees with it and goes on an RIAA bash. Does no one even realize that there's another side to the story we're not hearing? Even if in the end you still disagree with the RIAA's position, I would still like maybe the slightest hint of objectivity in reporting so that the sheep at BBR might have a shot at forming their own opinions, rather than being brainwashed.
Yes, I said it. BBR is taking away the free thought of its members.
Enjoy the ensuing fun! |
|
Bill03
Premium
join:2007-11-26
Richmond, VA
clubs:
| said by brandon  :A blatantly biased article is posted on the front page, and everyone just blindly agrees with it and goes on an RIAA bash. I think most people's ojections arise from the RIAA's tactics and their use of deceptive statistics. Not to mention the flawed detection techniques used to discover infringers.
IMHO. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to brandon
said by brandon :Regardless of what I think of the RIAA, I really think this forum is pretty weak in terms of free thinkers. A blatantly biased article is posted on the front page, and everyone just blindly agrees with it and goes on an RIAA bash. Does no one even realize that there's another side to the story we're not hearing? Even if in the end you still disagree with the RIAA's position, I would still like maybe the slightest hint of objectivity in reporting so that the sheep at BBR might have a shot at forming their own opinions, rather than being brainwashed. Yes, I said it. BBR is taking away the free thought of its members. Enjoy the ensuing fun! You are free to propose an opposing opinion. In fact, I would encourage it.
IMHO, I can't see any basis for bringing this lawsuit since the defendant Tanya Anderson actually won her lawsuit against the RIAA. Since she won, the RIAA is mad because they couldn't walk all over the legal system and demand payment for something the defendant didn't do. Worse, they cried foul when they were shown that their evidence was weak and yet they cost this poor woman money to defend herself in a case that should have never been brought in the first place. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to brandon
said by brandon :[...] I really think this forum is pretty weak in terms of free thinkers. [...] A blatantly biased article is posted on the front page, and everyone just blindly agrees with it [...] LMAO - That's it. That's your contribution to this thread - that you think it's "biased" and people don't think for themselves. I have to ask - did you come up with that all by yourself or did you have help from the Troll Union? |
|
brandon
Some truth included in this post.
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS | All by myself! |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19 | said by brandon :All by myself! I bet mommy is proud. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to brandon
said by brandon :All by myself! And I see still nothing to refute the article. |
|
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | reply to brandon
to Brandon:
Ok, ignoring ALL the opinion/slant here, the facts:
- Lawyer frequently defends individuals accused of infringement, by RIAA.
- lawyer Frequently posts on a blog, where he highlights baseless RIAA cases.
- RIAA litigates, and attempts to stop said lawyer from posting said blog.
When you manage to pull your head out of your a$$, get back to me.
Have a nice day..... |
|
brandon
Some truth included in this post.
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS
·AT&T Southeast
| said by a333 :to Brandon: Ok, ignoring ALL the opinion/slant here, the facts: - Lawyer frequently defends individuals accused of infringement, by RIAA. - lawyer Frequently posts on a blog, where he highlights baseless RIAA cases. - RIAA litigates, and attempts to stop said lawyer from posting said blog. When you manage to pull your head out of your a$$, get back to me. Have a nice day..... /sigh
What you say is true, but your use of the word "baseless" is biased.
What we don't know is any of the RIAA's side of the story. Thus, a biased article.
I'm not saying I agree with the RIAA. I'm saying the article is biased and everyone here just follows along, never questioning that we're not getting the whole story. |
|
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
3 edits | No, 'baseless' isn't biased. The said cases blogged about had no proof as to the guilt of his clients. Therefore, they WERE baseless. END OF STORY.
As to the RIAA's side, facts are facts. The RIAA wants to stop the said lawyer from exercising his right to free speech. That is illegal, either way you swipe it...
Besides, perhaps the RIAA should bother to publicize THEIR side of the story?? It is rather hard to get the RIAA's side of the story if they are so secretive about it. Perhaps they know that their lawsuit against this lawyer is baseless, and DOA.....?? Maybe that's why they aren't troubling the public with their side of the story....
No one's telling you to take in any of the article's slants/opinions. It is your job, as an educated and intelligent reader to filter out opinions in ANY source of news. That's the line between the ignorant and intelligent reader. Ignorant people take an article at its face value and don't bother to seperate fact from opinion. Intelligent readers construct their OWN opinions from the facts of the article. It seems that you're more likely trying to ignore the blatantly obvious facts posted in this article, which is rather sad... |
|
brandon
Some truth included in this post.
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS
·AT&T Southeast
| said by a333 :No, 'baseless' isn't biased. The said cases blogged about had no proof as to the guilt of his clients. Therefore, they WERE baseless. END OF STORY. Yes, because cases "blogged about" on a biased blog are CERTAINLY going to be unbiased. Fail.
said by a333 :As to the RIAA's side, facts are facts. The RIAA wants to stop the said lawyer from exercising his right to free speech. That is illegal, either way you swipe it... Besides, perhaps the RIAA should bother to publicize THEIR side of the story?? It is rather hard to get the RIAA's side of the story if they are so secretive about it. Perhaps they know that their lawsuit against this lawyer is baseless, and DOA.....?? Maybe that's why they aren't troubling the public with their side of the story.... No one's telling you to take in any of the article's slants/opinions. It is your job, as an educated and intelligent reader to filter out opinions in ANY source of news. That's the line between the ignorant and intelligent reader. Ignorant people take an article at its face value and don't bother to seperate fact from opinion. Intelligent readers construct their OWN opinions from the facts of the article. It seems that you're more likely trying to ignore the blatantly obvious facts posted in this article, which is rather sad... Let me spell it out for you because while you may think you can separate fact from opinion, you have no clue how to make inferences. I THINK THE RIAA IS IN THE WRONG. I AGREE WITH YOU AND THE ARTICLE ON THE RIAA'S TACTICS.
I also think the BBR article is a biased article and doesn't give enough facts for the "intelligent reader" to make his/her own informed opinion, and it bothers me that this is a continuing trend at BBR.
Are you done? |
|
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | How does the bias of the blogged on cases even have ANYTHING to do with the bias of the article? ALL blogs have some kind of bias. That's sort of the point, ya know...
I was merely addressing your statement that the said news article was biased, and did not give us the RIAA's side of things. That is unfair, given the fact that even the RIAA isn't bothering to post up THEIR side themselves. As a news reporter, you can only work with the facts you can access. In this case, only the lawyer's side of the story was accessible, hence the reason they were included in the article. And I'm not making any inferences of YOUR opinion, I'm highlighting the fact that you're constantly ignoring the lack of an RIAA side to the story. Without such info, the article is bound to be "biased" to you. In that case, you must work purely with the facts presented, and ignore any opinion/slant, as that's a part of any journalism, unless the journalist has a tabula rasa .
And I'm glad we can agree with the issue at hand. |
|
