Bloggers Strike Again!

there is no LOW, LOW enough for the Liberal scum to sink to. just when you think you have seen the most scummy thing they have to offer, they top it with lie filled garbage.

they top it with lie filled garbage.

Correction - an Unbiased source as I was just admonished on another thread.

Liberal scum are people too.

yea, but they are not protected under the endangered species act yet.

They're breeding quite well.

Keep abortion legal!

Oh, my, this guy must've been in the navy--he knows his silhouettes. Or does he? My impression is a helicopter is a helicopter. The imagery was correct and rather imaginative.

My impression is a helicopter is a helicopter.

Sitting in the rear of a column of 150 fuel tankers...setting out across the berm...a helicopter is a helicopter except when the helicopter is a Hind...a flying tank that can absorb more damage from small arms up to and including 50 caliber APIT than a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and is armed with rockets and miniguns...and which BTW, is owned and operated by the ENEMY...then the difference is significant.

did any soviet-operated hinds engage us troops? or are you meaning those piloted by iraqis for a short time during gulf l?

not to mention ironic considering this very same "flying tank that can absorb more damage from small arms up to and including 50 caliber APIT than a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and is armed with rockets and miniguns" proved to be so vulnerable to afghani peasants who'd once seemed hopelessly doomed by their invaders' superior technology, overwhelming force, aggressive imperialism and unabashed hubris.

if nothing else, that russian chopper on the cover of 'time' musta been one of a modest number that lucked out, escaped the mujahideen and made it home.

it's a more than a lil unkind of you to make sport of those whom--through no fault of their own--weren't gifted with your uncanny ability to identify military helicopters solely by silhouette.

rather than harrassing that poor sap, why don't you amaze him by correctly naming all three of these?



i'm sure we can trust you to do so without referring to any source material other than your own memory. just as i'm sure we can count on your buddies here to refrain from assisting you in any way.

in any event--whether you succeed and show up the dummies at 'time'--it might not be too bad an idea to adjust your indignation quotient. someone made an error. happens alla time to us mere mortals.

one has to be pretty bored or bereft of any sense of proportion to consider it anything close to some sorta blogging milestone

My impression is a helicopter is a helicopter. The imagery was correct and rather imaginative.

To a layman, sure is.  just like to a layman, A dog is a dog is a dog.  But if you are a vet, you had better know the difference, right?  Or keep your professional opinions to yourself.

Some people are just too stupid to understand that their ignorance is a reflection on their professionalism.

and which BTW, is owned and operated by the ENEMY...then the difference is significant.

And then they scream "friendly fire scandal" when a soldier or sailor makes a mistake in the heat of battle.  Like these people are supposed to be perfect, even when the detractors, given the luxury of hindsight (pun intended) and an air conditioned office, cannot.

did any soviet-operated hinds engage us troops? or are you meaning those piloted by iraqis for a short time during gulf l?

The soviets (and now Russians) have sold those around the world, often to tin plated dictators like Chavez.  Many who could not keep them out of the hands of black marketeers to save their lives.  And almost all assuredly not on kissing terms with the US.

Which makes your snide comment not only seem juvenile, but also kind of ignorant.

 

Since when do reporters or editors care about accuracy when their sole objective is to promote their own political ideas?

I don't see it as that big a deal as the vast majority of the readership to whom they are writing wouldn't know an Apache helicopter from a Tinker Toy.

if nothing else, that russian chopper on the cover of 'time' musta been one of a modest number that lucked out, escaped the mujahideen and made it home.

See previous answer.  Luck has nothing to do with it.

Regardless, then you are in agreement with the implication of the author at Time, that it is not the Iraq's or Americans that are extracating the Americans, but foreign factors that some here like to ignore.  As long as it is not a democrat in the white house?

Interesting.

i'm sure we can trust you to do so without referring to any source material other than your own memory. just as i'm sure we can count on your buddies here to refrain from assisting you in any way.

Sure thing!  And I will publish my answers on the cover of time as soon as the editors relent and say that I am as good a reporter as their hatchet men.

in any event--whether you succeed and show up the dummies at 'time'--it might not be too bad an idea to adjust your indignation quotient. someone made an error. happens alla time to us mere mortals. one has to be pretty bored or bereft of any sense of proportion to consider it anything close to some sorta blogging milestone

Someone like you perhaps?

The original blogger pointed out a major faux pas at Time.  I merely reported it as an example of a reporter/artist/editor (your choice) that seems more interested in hystrionics than in factual reporting in a supposed non-biased news rag.  You seem to be on a vendetta to salvage the reputation of the clown who did it.  For personal reasons perhaps?

This was not to show that I was an expert in anything as is clear to anyone reading this blog (except you apparently).  This was another call for accuracy, not generated by the editors in the MSM (as it should have been), but by a member of blogdom who is doing their work.  That is all.  You apparently seem to think that writers for "un-biased" media outlets should be given a carte blanche to report any misinformation they want, and no one should call them to task for it.  Whatever floats your boat.

But I suggest you reread this article, and examine what I said.  And then please explain why this particular incident would bring you out of semi retirement to defend what is an example of either poor editing or sloppy journalism or biased reporting (you can pick which one for yourself). 

I am sure you still think Rather was right as well.  I am sure Rather is sleeping well knowing one person beleives him.

Since when do reporters or editors care about accuracy when their sole objective is to promote their own political ideas?

Not for a long time apparently. That is why bloggers have found their calling to point it out.  And let the rest of us know what their (MSM) true agenda is.

dolly parton need not concern herself bout whether you'll dance whenever given an opportunity to do so.

if done deliberately against expert advice, it barely qualifies as a faux pas.

"dewey defeats truman" is a major faux pas.

jezez H kree ist I have never seen so much bullshit on one article, docG correctly stated that time made a mistake using a soviet era Hind helo instead of any number of American helos, the subject should be closed at that point, people should be saying things like good catch doc, but instead we get fucking dissertations on the whys and where fores of the mind set of the common man who might or might not know the difference in the silhouettes of helos, what pure and unadulterated crap!

hardly dissertations. if the following was an accurate characterization:



there would be nothing to discus.

instead, what was in fact the sorta minor error always waiting to happen whenever artists working against a deadlne are assigned to illustrate any but the simplest concept somehow became:



as well as:



carrying with it...



not to mention it being :



topped with:



but...i'm the one who overreacted???

The one on the top is...a helicopter!

The one on the bottom left is...a helicopter!

The one on the bottom right is...a helicopter!

How'd I do cap'n?