Texsox

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 08:56 AM) My point was if you report on the story and only report half of it, then you are doing a half-assed job and a disservice to your readers. Newspapers here sure seem to be strong and brave when it comes to revealing government secrets or blasting the Vatican, but God forbid (or Allah forbid?) they publish anything that insults Islam... Perhaps we are arguing two different points. I believe we both agree that the story is newsworthy and needs to be reported. I disagree that every media outlet needs to show the cartoon. To me it is the same as a beheading photo, or an accident where someone was dismembered. It is up to the media outlet do decide for their company to include the graphics or not.

43 degrees, 28 mph north wind My golf team? Practicing and playing 9 holes. Raider Tough

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 08:11 AM) A lot of different news companies run those beheading videos with disclaimers. Its a choice the company makes, but it shouldnt be made because of what terrorists want I agree. Alpha's point is everyone should do it and if they do not they are cowards, liberal etc. I am defending the above bold.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 9, 2015 -> 07:38 AM) Not quite the same as printing "racist" cartoons in a newspaper you 1) don't have to buy, 2) don't have to look at, and 3) isn't being force delivered to their homes. Also, equating this to racism? The only way this remotely the same as the scenario you put forth is if they're printing these cartoons, seeking out radical's houses, and delivering them to their doors, or hacking their computers/cell phones and making their browsers default website the newspaper in question. Alpha put forth that being asked to make a delivery in bad weather the same as reprinting a cartoon that by Alpha's own estimate will enrage hundreds of millions of people. I disagreed, that isn't even close. I was working with the example Alpha gave. You can report the news without reprinting the cartoon. Also, again my original question is this . . . Is it OK for your employer to knowingly put your life in danger if you are a receptionist, accountant, foreign office employee, for the Chicago Tribune and they reprint the cartoon? Only three people answered, SoxFn mentioned jobs that are already dangerous like law enforcement. Alpha who said his employer sends him on deliveries in bad weather. Is that the same thing? I said no. I say it isn't OK for an employer to knowingly put their employees lives at risk especially when they are working jobs that would not ordinarily involve death threats and there are alternatives that would result in the same result. By covering the story and not reprinting the cartoon the news is covered. Same as we do for violent crimes. No one is pushing to have the crime scene photos released.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 8, 2015 -> 05:50 PM) Where do you draw the line? Every time a terrorist tells you he is offended by something then you refuse to acknowledge it? We do not publish pictures of a beheading yet we cover the story. I don't believe every magazine, newspaper, etc has to include the cartoon while covering the news. Alpha's point was you can't cover the story without also reprinting the cartoon. I disagreed.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 8, 2015 -> 05:15 PM) Well, if you are a member of the military or police force, etc, than you are and will be put in severe danger. And you have knowingly signed up for a dangerous job. If you are the reporter at Vogue covering the Paris fashion scene does Vogue have the right to put your life in danger by publishing those cartoons? QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 8, 2015 -> 05:27 PM) The employer isn't necessarily putting them in danger. These cartoonists are drawing their own cartoons, they aren't being mandated to draw them. The newspaper has an identity, everyone knows what that identity is. People who work for TMZ know that they are dealing with the seedy side of Hollywood, people that work at Vogue magazine know they are dealing with fashion, people that work at hustler know they are dealing with porn, and the people at CH know that they deal with satire, and a lot of it has to do with religion. And it isn't the first time they have been attacked, everyone in that building understood the risks. I'm discussing if another news organization decided to republish the materials. Alpha said that CNN and others were wrong for not publishing the cartoons. So my point is more does Vogue have the right to publish those cartoons and put their fashion reporters live's in danger? Alpha believes that CNN, Fox, etc should all publish the cartoon if they are reporting on the story. I disagree. I think those other groups could report the story without the cartoons and the added life risking implications they may cause. I agree if you are working for certain publications, you must understand the risks.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 8, 2015 -> 04:59 PM) I get sent out on deliveries most days, plenty of danger there, Especially last few days with this snow. Now if they printed a racists cartoon on the delivery van and send you to an area where people would be offended by it?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 8, 2015 -> 04:55 PM) If they are a news reporting organization, shouldn't they be reporting the news? And if a cartoon is news, shouldn't they show and report on that cartoon? If there is a murder with a dismembered corpse, do we need to see the corpse for the news organization to report the killing? Bush decided that news organizations didn't need to show pictures of fallen soldiers arriving in flag draped coffins. Now answer my question. Does your employer have the right to put your life in danger?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 7, 2015 -> 04:50 PM) No, see that's the complete wrong way to look at it. The fact that the AP and other publications go along with that censorship nonsense is a factor here. It narrowed the pool of potential targets to this paper, a repeat "offender." If every publication said "f*** it, we don't care if .000001% of the global population gets offended by this publication," terrorists wouldn't know who to attack. edit: and the fact that certain publications are censoring the cartoons that caused this is beyond pathetic. Does your employer have the right to put your life in danger? It seems that each organization could and should make the decision for their own business and employees. Other wise if CNN publishes something Fox News should also. If a liberal talk show host says something, Rush should too. We wouldn't want any individuality in what gets published.

It's about deeply held beliefs. Some people will just label it religion and decide it doesn't matter or isn't important.

That is awesome. Plus I need an example like for one of my classes. We've already used the who is Paul McCartney

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 08:24 AM) Quietly rooting for the Cowboys. Can't stand their fan base but have to choose them over a dirty Detroit team and also over the Packers. Thank you. Tony Romo

He played for the wrong franchises. A Yankee / Red Sox bump would put him in.

I don't mind seeing names at the bottom of the ballot that don't belong. As long as the argument is so and so should be in and isn't I'm not as concerned as "how the hell did he get in?"

Oops -- Not really loving the Cowboys, but who can really cheer for Detroit? They Suh-k

Knowing that God love the Cowboys makes me tingle inside. Remember God blessed Texas with his own hand

Gee is the 7th letter in the English alphabetI posted too slow

f***, back to work after a mostly two week vacation

eh

Without knowing what swings and misses went with the signing, I'm pretty happy with what he accomplished. There seems to be more confidence in the direction of the team and the resources to go after it. Looking at pre and post 2005 I believe the WS has had lasting impact on the southside and how they believe they can win again.

Careful, defining what it means to speak "American" would be difficult.

Yet the posts go on and on

Thankfully it will be closed when pitchers and catchers report

Baines and Ventura both had HoF potential, both suffered physical ailments that ruined any chance of them reaching their full potential for a career. IF they both stayed healthy Sox history would have been much, much, different.

Hell, it may go to Halloween