Cheney Shill wrote:
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
very fact that you turned a non-ambiguous scenario into an ambiguous scenario is evidence that the process itself is far too ambiguous. It's not just you; I have not gotten 1 straight answer on this. Are we not supposed to be judging and reporting on the facts as they are, not as we think they should be?~~~~Pro-Lick
Reporting yes; judging no.
So we should "report" the facts as we think they should be, not as they are?
"Reporting facts" is a subtle variation from "reporting on the facts". We only report opinions and points of view which we attempt to consolidate into a neutral point of view. Reporting the facts themselves could very well be original research.
Ambiguity is a fact of life; learn to live with it!So is bias. Yet we have something called NPOV. So is rumor and hoax, yet we have verifiability. It appears there are contributors having learning issues living with policy.~~~~Pro-Lick
NPOV has plenty of room for ambiguity. If everyone saw things the same way NPOV would be redundant.
Ec