Pericles,

If I know someone's article is false, I would not publish it on my web-site, then display a disclaimer.

I simply do not publish a false article !! Full Stop. No disclaimer is even needed.

Conversely, the fact that an article on kidnappings is published with a disclaimer (whether or not clearly referring to a segment) DOES NOT MEAN the publisher disbelieve the veracity of the kidnap allegations !!

Is this simple logic not crystal clear ?

Earlier I mentioned to Google-search these 4 words : muslim kidnap coptic christian

There are lots of "smokes & fires" on kidnappings, not limited to 2 web-sites !!

I included 2 URLs in my earlier post, just in case there is someone who is too "donkey" to Google-search, or won't otherwise browse more than 1 web-site.

You have the distinction of being that someone !!

But worst, leaping into conclusion that: "...stories are so obviously manufactured", after browsing just ONE of two web-sites that I listed.

The bias and narrow-mindedness of FH's stooge are PROVEN, right here !!

Then you childishly point-scored on semantics of "feign" and "smoke".

Nevermind your spins and distortions, people are capable of reading about those kidnappings and decide for themselves.

Looks like I have reasons to downgrade your saddle to a "d@*&$y" one.

Please look in your OED whether the word "d@*&$y" also has thirteen definitions.
Perhaps one of them is even complimentary !!

( I wonder about Islamic Public-Relation representatives on OLO )

I'm intrigued GZ.

>>If I know someone's article is false, I would not publish it on my web-site, then display a disclaimer. I simply do not publish a false article !! Full Stop. No disclaimer is even needed.<<

Does this mean one of those sites was your own?

Where do you get the input - anonymous contributions? No need for fact checking, just measure the smoke content, and away she goes.

There are many similarly credible sites dotted around the Internet. Here's a good one. http://www.kkk.com/

And another. http://www.kkk.bz/

Oh look, here's another one. http://www.kkkk.net/

I like the last one best. "The Ku Klux Klan is a US Supreme Court recognized and protected Christian Organization... We are against terrorists, the immoral, and oppose all criminal behavior and activity."

There's a significant volume of smoke output in these three sites too, so they must be true, mustn't they?

Here's some of their smoke, specially for you GZ.

>>My friends, the truth is out there and the fact is there is an ongoing race war in the country and white men, women, and children, are the victims. Some mistakenly belief that acts of violence against whites are justified because of past slavery. But the raping of your wife, daughter or sister and the robbery and assault or murder of your son, brother, father or husband has nothing to do with slavery hundreds of years ago. Blacks still enslave other Blacks in Africa, but who is most often the victim of their savagery? white families butchered by the thousands.

Even now, as you are reading this, white children in any part of the world are being mauled, tortured, raped, and murdered! Ahhh- power in the hands of Negroes; Isn't equality great? Brothers and sisters, remember, though you may have as yet been personally untouched by the race war against whites - It is only a matter of time before your friend, loved one, or neighbor is at their mercy. <<

Wonderful, credible stuff.

Pericles,

It appears you do not comprehend English very well.

I think it has more to do with your deficiency in reasoning rather than my mother-tongue being non-English. ( I'm convinced my vocabulary is very simple. )

I repeat, if I know someone's article is false, I would not publish it. No disclaimer is even needed.
In other words, if I ever publish someone's article (with or without a disclaimer), that means I have checked the article's facts and accuracy beforehand.

So what has "anonymous contributions", "smoke content" and "credibility" to do with an article that has already been checked for veracity ??
Is this a looping logic in your muddled mind ??

If you do not believe an article, it does not even imply that article is false. The way you've jumped to a conclusion tells me there's a fair chance it could be that you are : biased, illogical, weak in comprehension and narrow-minded.

There is no need to point-score using KKK web-sites. Why didn't you listed pornographic sites instead ?

I am not interested in KKK at all. In fact I rarely hear about KKK in the past 25 years !!

I cannot even imagine that KKK (as a threat to freedom & democracy) is worse than Islam religion which commands 1.2 BILLIONS believers !!

So, is your warped logic tricking you that KKK is going to jump out of 3 web-sites and eat us all up tomorrow ??

I'd be a lot more concerned with the way Islam quietly breeding its massive population of followers. Perhaps kidnaps for the purpose of brain-washing to convert to Islam will happen in Australia too. ( I hope such kidnappings have never occurred here yet ).

BTW, Is there a disclaimer on those KKK web-sites ? Perhaps not ?
According to your logic on disclaimer, perhaps you would regard articles on those sites as credible then, huh !?

( Disclaimer- My comments are in no way implying I have a web-site or have published an article

Despite your undoubted command of the English language, GZ, you still haven't mastered elementary comprehension. Perhaps that should be your next challenge.

>>I repeat, if I know someone's article is false, I would not publish it. No disclaimer is even needed. In other words, if I ever publish someone's article (with or without a disclaimer), that means I have checked the article's facts and accuracy beforehand<<

So you claim. But what level of credence should I place on your word?

And in terms of "truth", I can well understand that the people who wrote those pieces actively believe they were factual. But they are so clearly only one side of the story. The claims by the girls themselves were presented in a way that invited disbelief, even though they seemed, in context, to be saying "go away and leave me alone".

>>So what has "anonymous contributions", "smoke content" and "credibility" to do with an article that has already been checked for veracity ??<<

Everything. Since there is absolutely no indication anywhere on those sites that anything has been "checked for veracity", I am perfectly entitled to see it entirely in terms of smoke.

I'm supposed to simply take your word for it?

What independent and unbiased credentials do you present to support your word? None. You won't even deny that the sites are yours - how is anyone supposed to believe anything you say?

>>If you do not believe an article, it does not even imply that article is false<<

Equally, just because you believe it doesn't make it true. The judgment call that I make is usually "just how much does this person want me to believe this?", and I measure the content of the piece starting from this proposition.

Which is exactly why I used the KKK sites. To someone who wants to believe that Jews and black people are responsible for all the ills of the world, it makes compelling reading. They are therefore far more inclined to "believe" the garbage on the site than, say, I am.

Same goes for those sites you pointed out.

Pericles,

>>I repeat... I have checked the article's facts and accuracy beforehand<<
>>So what has "anonymous contributions"... to do.....??<<

If your comprehension is up to scratch, you would have realised my above comments were meant to be read in tandem as they dove-tailed to address your statement that contain a "circular" logic.
But instead, in your eagerness to debate, you split my context and argued each comment in separation. So your separate comments to the above statements are irrelevant (to my point).

My position is essentially :

<< ... people are capable of reading about those kidnappings and decide for themselves.>>

I have no doubt there are always some who believe and some who don't. It is a matter of judgement on the part of readers, especially for those who bother to read beyond 2 web-sites that I mentioned, without jumping to a conclusion.

My observation is your conclusion were not even about facts or the lack of, but rather what came off a bias and propensity of some sort.

May you talk about facts, credibility; Frankly I probably distrust you more than you dislieve those kidnappings. I can imagine when someone likes FH put a positive tune around those kidnappings you would be one quite naturally inclined to dance to the tune.

So your disbelief of what Muslims majority is capable of doing to non-Muslims minority does not surprise me.

Well that was a surprise, GZ, but thanks for the apology anyway.

>>My observation is your conclusion were not even about facts or the lack of, but rather what came off a bias and propensity of some sort<<

Fair enough, it is quite normal for us to judge other people by our own standards of behaviour. Totally understandable.

>>Frankly I probably distrust you more than you dislieve those kidnappings<<

You made the connection with the websites, so in normal circumstances it would be considered reasonable if you provided the supporting evidence. All I am doing is pointing out how flimsy that evidence is.

Think of it this way - I'm doing you a favour, pointing it out to you so that you might do something about it.

You choose to take an ultra-defensive posture, that's your prerogative.