tarikja

The shortness of your ping is nothing you need to be ashamed of.

Not much at all I'd say. It moved only 1,5m in 22 years. Compare that with taking two steps and then measuring the change in temperature from the place you started. If the environment is warming up/ changing in temperature, it is probably not due continental drift. (Focusing on a timespan relatively to a human life; there probably will be some natural temperature shifts once Australia meets the equator in some million years or so)

lol, that brings back old xfire memories

Today there is going to be a demonstration in Cologne by Turkish Erdogan supporters. Now there also have been announced some counter-demonstrations by right-wing AND left-wing extremist. It seems like everyone is against everyone else. lol, I don't know what to make up of this.

Aww Yeah! http://webm.land/media/d3CH.webm (Accretion disk around a black hole)

Re-read the original question stated by WaeV. It might give you an idea why i put 'believe' in that sentence. The quotation marks show my antipathic position to the use of this word. If that wan't obvious enough for you. And I hardly think that you 'share the sentiment' as you have stated a completely converse opinion yourself. The German Press Council at work. Pointing out about bad journalism as intended. Because banning those would be censorship, wouldn't it? The newspaper 'BILD', mentioned in that article, may even ring a bell for you? Yea, it doesn't. But if you look closely I said something along the lines of "competition encourages quality reports".

The Hateful Eight Damn, what a bloodbath. But a good one!

I "believe" that every news station, which presents itself as one at least, has the responsibility to give an objective and true report about current events. There is something called the Press Codex in Germany of which I sadly couldn't find a translation on the fly (IPSO?). It does not oblige journalists to any guidelines but is more of a quality seal considering journalism and therefore basically necessary for any reputable newspaper. Yet, the thematic range in which a new station is reporting is self-determined but should be perceptible. E.g.: 'News station New York' (<- I made that one up) is not obliged to report about, for example, water shortages in Africa because its thematic range does solely include occurrences happening in or affecting 'New York'. There are also limiting factors like for example airtime in a news broadcast with world wide focus. The editor(s) have to decide on what they report in their limited airtime. Since the newscast is resident somewhere, there can be a reasonable stronger focus on local events. Now since there isn't a monopoly on news reporting, the range of coverage (and therefore quality) can be compared to other newscasts. And at last I might add that an true objective overlook about (world) events is still a personal responsibility. No news station/intelligence service is obliged to clear or enhance your own state of knowledge.

It is hard discussing news with individuals who apparently have no access to well-researched and objective reporting. ._.

You might want to ask yourself what 'official' means. A source does not need to be official, it needs to be real. If everything official is real then North Korea does in fact really have a demigod as head of state, for example. Yes, I have. I was and am following the coverage and reporting in German and so I know that the official sources have been very careful with what information they publish(ed). Don't project yourself onto others. The keyword is 'information'. The officially released information were along the lines of "There is a shooting occurring." and "The police is currently on duty to make affected public spaces secure again.". At no point there was an official linking between the occurrence and the (public/medial?) assumption (important!: assumption =/= information) of a terrorist action. In fact the police spokesman/ official sources (and therefore the (competent) media sources too) made very clear that the "motive of the perpetrator is unclear" and therefore the act can not be called terror or amok.

That's some hard tunnel vision you (two) got there.

Very interesting....is their an unwritten criteria the rest of us are unaware of that determines when information within a news report is considered valid before official reports are released? Yes there is. Put simply, it is called 'giving source'. Otherwise it is speculation. In this case, the original claim is/ was pure speculation. It has no source, it disagrees with the rest of the article and is apparently an official statement that is published before 'official reports are released' ergo paradox. The statement is also very untypical to the nature of analytic and investigative police work if you were familiar with that. I recommend a Reporting 101 course. It really seems that accurate. Like marginally accurate. Or inaccurate if you want to be that accurate.

That's a very dystopian view about news and reporting and I hope you don't support such conditions. But just when I think it can't get worse you never fail to surprise me.

Either way, that statement is wrong or at least not yet proven to be right. It's even disproving itself in the next sentence: Unless that statement has also been 'updated'.

'Anecdotal' does not really mix well with 'frequent' though (2 in the last two weeks). And neither does 'politically charged misinformation' with blood, bodies and shells; you know, the hard evidence/ actual information found at a scene.

:l Did you add that part yourself? Because that is not what the article says.

It is quite ironic if you follow this firearm violence debate back to its beginning. I've had my fun in creating this diagonal discussion. And I might add: The discussion was never unrelated to the threads topics as you seem to lament.

This sounds like the usual "Guns don't kill people"-argument. You might want to look up the definition of 'police' if you think wielding guns is their job. There is a distinction between the police and the military. Well, looks like they are aware of the issue at hand. k If you wish to not be part of a discussion because you don't see the connections/ think highly, then so be it. I'm not forcing you to something or anything. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and blablabla...

A firearm problem does not suddenly disappear as soon as you give the aggressor a badge.

Not exclusively. Those frequent shooting-related news from the US are also pretty demonstrative.

If it is undriveable then it's probably not a vehicle. Maybe you can claim that thing for being art and call it a day?

I am currently on a killing spree! Mosquitoes ain't getting none of me!