"The Dawg House." Topic

The Abyss Awaits….

Won't take long.
Once you are in, the walls … just call out to you.

Awwwwooooo!

Any bets on who is next? LOL. For a game we could set up a pool.

Robert

Well that didnīt take long.

Let's just drop the "News Source " rule. We don't have such a rule regarding historians, so why is there one regarding news sources?

because experience shows that it leads to flame wars

I've often thought that many of the new source comments that have led to a DH'ing (regarding UK sources at least) have been pretty close to the truth :)

There is a problem when the UK 'dead tree' press is sensationalizing certain things.

Tango's post about the recent film of the queen's salute is a perfect example which has nothing at all to do with wargaming, modelling or anything.

Hardly a paper in the uk is not up to some sort of public hysteria rabble rousing with a political bint.

As David says, some of the latest dawghousing is a bit bizarre for reasoning it as an attack on news sources. It could be considered as quoting other news sources.

The thread should just have been nuked, perhaps the dawghouse offence is something different because the article quoted is itself an attack on an individual. Something I have seen is manipulated to become an offence.

Did anyone report Tango?

Would it have made any difference if they had? Surely you know he has a special position on this forum and cannot be criticized or restrained in any way.

True that.

"Hardly a paper in the uk is not up to some sort of public hysteria rabble rousing with a political bint."

That as well but the lads are just as bad.

We don't have such a rule regarding historians, so why is there one regarding news sources?

Generally, people on the boards don't go around name-calling historians. They dispute the histories written by them by offering other facts and different interpretations.

There's nothing in the news source rule that says you can't have that type of dispute with an article by any news source.

"Would it have made any difference if they had? Surely you know he has a special position on this forum and cannot be criticized or restrained in any way."

Since Tango has been Dawghoused numerous times for a variety of infractions I'd say you need to rethink your hyperbole…

Bill.
As I keep saying, punish Bad Behavior. Period.

Anyway.
There is no one in there who should be surprised. They all know the rules, and disagreeing with them does not give leniency.

I'm trying to take the advice of an ancient Chinese saying … "Even a fish would be safe if it kept it's mouth shut … " … Of course, I think many of my incarcerations were not warranted. But if you know any cops or watch cop shows on TV. Everyone in jail/prison says they are innocent …

"I've often thought that many of the new source comments that have led to a DH'ing (regarding UK sources at least) have been pretty close to the truth :)".

Facts, and the truth are dangerous things.

I don't think the 'news source' rule works when applied to the British press.

It is a known, generally acknowledged, and uncontroversial situation that certain papers are known for certain editorial positions. For example, to suggest that the Guardian has a left-wing stance would not be challenged by anybody in Britain no matter what their personal political leanings. It is not a secret. The paper does not try to hide it!

Why do we have to pretend on TMP that this situation doesn't exist?

Why do we have to pretend on TMP that this situation doesn't exist?

You don't. You just have to refrain from calling a left-wing news source "those left-wing s".

That seems easy enough! So why do so many end up breaking the rule?!!

Dunno. Current news directly affects peoples' lives? Even though events from the remote past can have implications you your life, it is probably easier to divorce your emotions from the actions of people who are long dead, and thus less likely to repeat them. So, if a news agency reports favorably on something you think is detrimental to the Common Good, you might react not only to what they did but also an assumption that they are going to do it again. And possibly to the potential "sheeple" who "believe that rag" that you will run into today.

So, say in contrast to historians, I feel I am very unlikely to meet anyone who read Herodotus today, until I see my wife and daughter in the bar after work. Thus, what he wrote and how he wrote it don't affect me much during the day.

Well it's a packed house now