M
Master Blaster
Guest
I have watched (and to some limited degree participated) on this section of the Page for some time now and was wondering if anyone ever writes anything that is not a quote (or complete articles) of the media?
I had thought for some time about writing this post as the moderator and I have some history and I don't wish to be construed as condecending or rude by asking the question. I know that for most of the participants of this particular section of the Page, this is a wonderful means to detail information about our military organisation (or the lack of it) and in doing so, don't wish to waste time having to explain the details when the details are already available in the press articles.
My concern is that by relating these articles to this page, the information is given credence by it's repeating (the more you say it the more you will believe it). How much of this information is correct and how much is 'fill in' provided by the author without regard to the validity of the information transferred and how much of the real data ends up on the editor's 'cutting room floor'?
While most of the broadbased information is essentially correct, I believe that if you checked with the authors of many of the articles, they did not talk directly to the main parties involved but took inference and references forn secondhand information from 'reliable sources'. That puts an entirely different slant on information as it has already been 'translated' once or twice before being put to print by the authors.
It's common to accept PAFFO information in operational areas as the only info you're going to get that day unless you are willing (or allowed) to talk directly to the combatants without getting yourself spread across the countryside.
I guess the only thing that I may bring to the table in all of this is that while the articles are of great concern to me as a soldier/citizen/warrior/priest, I am sceptical about the accuracy of the information...and you should be too.
All the Best
Dileas Gu Brath
I had thought for some time about writing this post as the moderator and I have some history and I don't wish to be construed as condecending or rude by asking the question. I know that for most of the participants of this particular section of the Page, this is a wonderful means to detail information about our military organisation (or the lack of it) and in doing so, don't wish to waste time having to explain the details when the details are already available in the press articles.
My concern is that by relating these articles to this page, the information is given credence by it's repeating (the more you say it the more you will believe it). How much of this information is correct and how much is 'fill in' provided by the author without regard to the validity of the information transferred and how much of the real data ends up on the editor's 'cutting room floor'?
While most of the broadbased information is essentially correct, I believe that if you checked with the authors of many of the articles, they did not talk directly to the main parties involved but took inference and references forn secondhand information from 'reliable sources'. That puts an entirely different slant on information as it has already been 'translated' once or twice before being put to print by the authors.
It's common to accept PAFFO information in operational areas as the only info you're going to get that day unless you are willing (or allowed) to talk directly to the combatants without getting yourself spread across the countryside.
I guess the only thing that I may bring to the table in all of this is that while the articles are of great concern to me as a soldier/citizen/warrior/priest, I am sceptical about the accuracy of the information...and you should be too.
All the Best
Dileas Gu Brath
