8/29    So do we have general agreement that censoring certain threads simply
        because the source URL is a major newspaper you don't like is a bad
        idea or are we just going to start censoring all URLs from all
        sources on all topics and destroy any value the motd has for everyone?
        I vote for the former but if we want to get into destroying links just
        because, I'm willing to sink to that level too as necessary.
        \_ Berkeley, home the free speech movement, home of censorship.
           I like hearing divergent points of view. Censorship sucks.
           \_ There are divergent points of view and there are liars that pass
              themselves off as journalists and fair-and-balanced commentators.
              \_ And then there are idiots that insist on making the
                 decision for everyone else.  Grow up, son -- there are other
                 points of view.
                 \_ We report, you decide.
        \_ The best way to uncover life's little lies and insanities is to
           shine a light on them, not cover them up.  There was a copy of Mein
           Kampf in my high school's library, very informative reading it was.
           If you think someone's a crook you don't erase him from history,
           you put him on display for all to see.  Hopefully the anonymous
           censor may grow to see this one day.
             -- ilyas
        \_ People who delete links because of their source are 1) fascist
           or 2) are Moonies.
        \_ The real solution is for those w/ opinions to create public readable
           files w/ a list of news organizations and their views. if psb tells
           me not to read the wash post but to read the atlantic, i'll listen...
           why? because he's way smarter than all of us. -psb #27 fan.
           or 2) still rebelling against mommy and daddy.
           \- i guess WashPost is ok, but i dont read any daily newspapers.
              i'm more interesting in explanations than facts. and those
              come from aggregating facts and adding some thinking.
              the atlantic now and then has interesting articles [like on
              on modern piracy] but when it comes to political stuff, often
              i wish the articles were shorter. in cases where i know of
              better sources [like on foreign policy] i didnt read the
              atlantic much, but they do have some interesting articles on
              domestic issues [like their article on early admissions to
              college]. atlantic is pretty cheep. worth reading: NYT if someone
              else pays, e'ist [worth paying for], NYker if can get cheep,
              maybe atlantic if have time, intenational securty is sort of
              specialized by pretty good, NYRevBooks [a little pricey, ideal
              if you can split a sub]. maybe TLS and LRB online. i dont read
              much online. --psb
              \_ I prefer to combine thinking and facts myself.  Just having
                 reliable sources of facts is nice.
                 \- the selection of the facts presented, either intentionally
                    or incidentally, affects the impression made. secondarily
                    some prose is a pleasure to read and some a chore. the
                    aticles in the e'ist tend to be short. so does usa today.
                    in the case of the e'ist the articles are short because
                    they dont need padding [like telling you iraq is in the
                    middle east]. the articles in USA Today are short because
                    they dont say anything. a lot of the graphs you see in
                    time and newsweek are useless ... like they give you
                    absolute numbers when what you want are indexed changes
                    etc. the thinking for yourself comes from evaluating
                    different explanations. e.g. just facts about say the
                    "howard dean phenonomon" ... how old he is, where he is
                    from, his poll numbers, is positions on various issues
                    collpaosed to "for/against" dont mean much. asking is he
                    mcgovern or carter or mccain or something new might be
                    more interesting [borrwing from the current lexington]--psb