Re: . . . or just ask the the U.S. government
[ QUOTE ]
You are making an assumption that is the reason he resigned. How do you know that? I believe it taints his comments considerably.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then you obviously still don't understand, after it's been explained to you (and all the other 'bias' kooks) ad nauseum, why this is illogical. A worker quits in protest and you claim that the protest is invalid or dubious based on nothing more than the fact of the protest, which you imagine creates an incentive for unfair or unreasonable bias. You're using the logical inference that follows from the fact of a premise to defeat the fact of a premise. (I.e.: "he quit saying he didn't like it. Since he didn't like it, his reason for quitting is tainted.") It makes no sense.
The same thing applies to your attack on IslamOnline on the grounds that it reports news critical of the U.S. in Iraq. It's no better than saying "if I disagree with a paper's editorial standpoint, that makes the paper unfairly biased so that anything in it can be attacked as presumptively invalid due to 'bias.'"
|