List of newspapers publishing the Muhammed cartoons

[CFLarsen]

The Danish School of Journalism has published a list (lists are nice!) of those newspapers/media that has published the Muhammed cartoons. At least 143 newspapers in 56 countries has published one or all of the 12 cartoons.

List here. (http://www.djh.dk/ejour/52/52Tegninger1.html)

Although it is in Danish, I think - with a bit of work - people can figure it out for themselves. Go see how your own country is doing.

[RandFan]

Go see how your own country is doing. Ok, let's see.

USA: Mindst 14 aviser, ingen af dem landsdækkende, har bragt enkelte eller alle tegningerne, og desuden har mange linket til netsteder med tegningerne (ifølge Editor & Publisher (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001993331) og USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20060208/d_mediamix08.art.htm), begge 8. februar). Fx har the Oregonian været kritiseret (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/public_editor/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1139608512165650.xml&coll=7) af læsere for ikke at ville give dem lejlighed til ved selvsyn at se, hvad striden handler om. Så efter nogle dage bøjede redaktørerne sig, og 10. februar er der lagt et link til alle 12 tegninger hos bladets Public Editor (http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/publiceditor/index.ssf?/mtlogs/olive_publiceditor/archives/2006_02.html#112047) (Læsernes Redaktør).
Valley Mirror (http://www.paradisepost.com/local/ci_3490282) i Sacramento bragte to tegninger allerede 12. november 2005. Andre aviser, der har bragt alle eller nogle i år, er Austin American-Statesman (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001958383), Daily Press (http://www.vvdailypress.com/2006/113940898034808.html) i Victorville, Californien, Dallas Morning News, Denver Rocky Mountain News, ugeavisen Human Events (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146#), New York Sun, Philadelphia Inquirer, Rhinocero Times (http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArti cle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137834160853&path=%21localnews&s=1037645509099) i Greensboro, Riverside Press-Enterprise, en unavngivet avis i Cheyenne (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001993331), Wyoming, San Francisco Chronicle's onlineudgave SF Gate, the Stranger (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=30432) i Seattle og Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/697dhzzd.asp) i Washington. Mange tv-stationer (bl.a. Fox News, ABC News og PBS NewsHour) har ladet tegningerne indgå i nyhedsdækningen, og også en håndfuld universitetsaviser har bragt nogle tegninger.
Flere aviser kritiserer, at nyhedsbureauet Associated Press har afvist at distribuere tegningerne (AP "won't distribute content that is known to be offensive, with rare exceptions") og ser heri en del af forklaringen på, at antallet ikke er blevet endnu større. Daily Press (http://www.vvdailypress.com/2006/113940898034808.html) i Victorville, Californien, citerer AP og svarer selv, at "what is offensive is that AP fancies itself to be the guardian of good taste for thousands of American newspapers rather than letting individual newspapers make that decision."
Philadelphia Inquirer valgte at offentliggøre én tegning i papiravisen (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/13805344.htm) og begrundede det 4. februar (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/13805804.htm) med ønsket om at fremlægge alle sider af en sag, så en informeret offentlighed kan diskutere på et oplyst grundlag. Under artiklen linker avisen til Brussels Journals netside (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698) med alle tegningerne.
SF Gate linker til tegningerne i den grundige artikel Something Is Rotten Outside the State of Denmark (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/02/08/cstillwell.DTL) 8. februar og gengiver én tegning i sin blog (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=2796).
På New York Press (http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2006/02/ny-press-kills-cartoons-staff-walks-out.html), en ugeavis i New York by, er redaktionens fire medlemmer gået i protest over at have fået ordre til at annullere en planlagt offentliggørelse af tegningerne. I guess this is good, right?

[plindboe]

Damn! Was just about to post this same topic. :D Would have thought of a catchier title though.

[CFLarsen]

Ok, let's see.

I guess this is good, right?

Why?

[Grammatron]

These cartoons have nothing to do with the state of my country.

[CFLarsen]

These cartoons have nothing to do with the state of my country.
Why not?

[CFLarsen]

Damn! Was just about to post this same topic. :D Would have thought of a catchier title though.
Like what? :)

[plindboe]

Ok, let's see.

I guess this is good, right?

I guess you're looking for a translation. I'm the worst translator in the world, but let me try;


USA: At least 14 papers, none of them national, have brought some or all of the drawings, and also linked to netsites with the drawings (Acc. Editor & Publisher og USA Today, 8.Feb). For instance the Oregonian have been criticized by it's readers for not giving them the chance to judge by themselves what the feud was about. So after a few days the editors caved, and the 10. Feb a link was provided to all 12 drawings to the paper's public editor. Valley Mirror in Sacramento published two drawings 12.Nov 2005. Other papers, which have published some or all this year, are Austin American-Statesman, Dayly Press in Victorville, California, Dallas Morning News, Denver Rocky Mountain News, The weekly paper Human Events, New York Sun, Philadelphia Inquirer, Rhinocero Times in Greensboro, Riverside Press-Enterprise, an unamed paper in Cheynne, Wyoming, San Francisco Chronicle's online version SF Gate, The Stranger in Seattle and Weekly Standard in Washington. Several TV-stations (a.o. Fox News, ABC News and PBS Newshour) have included the drawings in their broadcasts, and also a number of university papers have published some drawings.
Several newspapers critisize that the news agency Associated Press have rejected distributing the drawings (AP "won't distribute content that is known to be offensive, with rare exceptions") and views this as part of the reason that the publications are not wider published. Daily Press in Victorville, California, quotes AP and adds "what is offensive is that AP fancies itself to be the guardian of good taste for thousands of American newspapers rather than letting individual newspapers make that decision."
Philadelphia Inquirer decided to publisize one drawing in their paper argued the 4.Feb with the wish to provide all sides of an issue, so an informed public can discuss on an enlightened foundation. Under the article the paper links to Brussels Journals webpage with all the drawings. SF Agte links to the drawings in the thorough article 'Something Is Rotten Outside the State of Denmark" 8.Feb, with one drawing in it's blog. At New York Press, a weekly newspaper in NY City, four members have protested that they have been ordered to cancel a scedualled publification of the drawings.

Lots of misspellings and poor translation, but I didn't want to spend too much time.

[plindboe]

Like what? :)

Nothing humorous, clever or anything like that, just thought that the simple title "56 countries have now published the cartoons!" would have been somewhat better. :p

[Thanz]

Go see how your own country is doing.
What criteria do you propose to evaluate how each country is doing? Is publishing the cartoons "bad" or "good"? If good, is a wider publication "better"?

[Grammatron]

Why not?

Why yes?

[CFLarsen]

What criteria do you propose to evaluate how each country is doing? Is publishing the cartoons "bad" or "good"? If good, is a wider publication "better"?
Go look at your own country.

[CFLarsen]

Why yes?

Don't answer a question with another question.

Why don't these cartoons have anything to do with the state of your country?

[Thanz]

Go look at your own country.
I am asking for your opinion here. I can look at my own country all I like, but I am curious as to what you think that information will tell me.

So I ask again, what do you see as "good" and "bad" in evaluating what has happened in my country?

[RandFan]

Lots of misspellings and poor translation, but I didn't want to spend too much time. Thank you. I'm disapointed in my country's response. We could and should have done better. :(

[Grammatron]

Don't answer a question with another question.

Why don't these cartoons have anything to do with the state of your country?

I don't think these cartoons are a good way to evaluate state of any country besides Denmark.

[Jas]

I don't think these cartoons are a good way to evaluate state of any country besides Denmark.

Denmark? I've never heard of such a pla....oh! You mean the 'Hotbed of Enlightenment!'

Silly me.

[plindboe]

Thank you. I'm disapointed in my country's response. We could and should have done better. :(

Indeed, I would have expected a firmer stance also from the US and UK in particular.

I wonder why the differences in reactions. Possibly due the current problems and concerns facing the european countries in regards to integration of muslims(which doesn't seem as apparent in the US). This concern and feeeling that our fundamental values are threatened means that we are perhaps quicker to take a firm stance, and say that our values are not negotiable. Though the lack of support from UK media indicates that this is probably not the sole explanation.

The Iraq war could be an important influence as well. Since the US and UK are the major players, they are viewed by many in the world as enemies of Islam, and it's only understandable that they don't want to give further credence to that idea.

[CFLarsen]

I don't think these cartoons are a good way to evaluate state of any country besides Denmark.
Why not?

[Thanz]

Why not?
Would you mind telling us what you think this information says about the state of a nation? I have asked for your evaluation criteria - why won't you provide it?

[CFLarsen]

Would you mind telling us what you think this information says about the state of a nation? I have asked for your evaluation criteria - why won't you provide it?
Go see what media has published the cartoons in your own country. That's all there is to it.

[RandFan]

Go see what media has published the cartoons in your own country. That's all there is to it."That's all there is to it"? :boggled:

[Luke T.]

Like what? :)

Islam's Dead Pool. :D

[CFLarsen]

"That's all there is to it"? :boggled:
That's all there is to it.

[Luke T.]

What is the quota of newspapers that must publish these cartoons to make us a Good Enlightened Country?

I mean, if you can give me an exact number, I'll get right on it, if that's all it takes to overcome South Dakota's abortion law and that war in Iraq thing to make Europeans feel good about us again.

[RandFan]

That's all there is to it.You mean like green smells loud? What the hell are you talking about? We've gone over this many times before. There are many variables. This proves nothing. Your logic is invalid.

[CFLarsen]

You mean like green smells loud? What the hell are you talking about? We've gone over this many times before. There are many variables. This proves nothing. Your logic is invalid.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow you.

What is my "logic"? What do you think I am "proving"?

[RandFan]

I'm sorry, but I don't follow you.

What is my "logic"? What do you think I am "proving"? You don't follow me?

Ok, but why do I feel 20 pages of disputing minutiae coming on?

Would you mind telling us what you think this information says about the state of a nation? I have asked for your evaluation criteria - why won't you provide it?
Go see what media has published the cartoons in your own country. That's all there is to it. ?

What does this mean? It must not be all there is to it because no one else knows what you are talking about. There could be many reasons for why these are or are not published. I wish they had been published and I'm disappointed but I can't reasonably draw conclusive conclusions from these facts.

[Grammatron]

Why not?

Because I do not see anything special about them.

What do you see so special about them that other countries must be evaluated based on the numbers of newspapers publishing them?

[CFLarsen]

You don't follow me?

Ok, but why do I feel 20 pages of disputing minutiae coming on?

I'm not disputing anything. You seem to have problems with my OP, though. I'm here to help you.

What does this mean?

It means what it says.

It must not be all there is to it because no one else knows what you are talking about.

Why do you think there is something hidden here? I don't get it.

There could be many reasons for why these are or are not published.

Probably.

I wish they had been published and I'm disappointed but I can't reasonably draw conclusive conclusions from these facts.

Why would you need to?

Because I do not see anything special about them.

Fair enough.

What do you see so special about them that other countries must be evaluated based on the numbers of newspapers publishing them?

Where am I claiming that we must evaluate countries based on the numbers of newspapers publishing them?

[Grammatron]

Where am I claiming that we must evaluate countries based on the numbers of newspapers publishing them?

It's one of the implication of "Go see how your own country is doing."

Unless you meant something else by it; what did you mean by it?

[CFLarsen]

It's one of the implication of "Go see how your own country is doing."

Is it? That's not how I see it.

Unless you meant something else by it; what did you mean by it?

I've told you. It means what it says.

Now, you said it could be used to evaluate the state of Denmark, but not any other country. I'm still puzzled by that one.

Why is it special for Denmark but not for any other country?

What is the quota of newspapers that must publish these cartoons to make us a Good Enlightened Country?

I mean, if you can give me an exact number, I'll get right on it, if that's all it takes to overcome South Dakota's abortion law and that war in Iraq thing to make Europeans feel good about us again.

Who said anything about SD's abortion law and the war in Iraq? Who said anything about Europeans feeling bad about the US?

[Grammatron]

Is it? That's not how I see it.

Then elaborate on it as I am not the only person who saw it that way.

I've told you. It means what it says.
No it does not.

Now, you said it could be used to evaluate the state of Denmark, but not any other country. I'm still puzzled by that one.

Why is it special for Denmark but not for any other country?

It was published there.

[CFLarsen]

No it does not.

It doesn't?? What does it mean, then?

It was published there.

It was also published in other countries. That's what the list documents.

[Thanz]

Go see what media has published the cartoons in your own country. That's all there is to it.
That tells me how to get the raw data. I know how to do that already.

What I am asking for is your assistance in interpreting that data. How do you say I should evaluate it? What criteria should I use to determine "how my country is doing"?

[Grammatron]

It doesn't?? What does it mean, then?

I offered you my interpretation of it -- and btw, I wasn't the only one who came to the same conclusion -- and you disagreed. If you could reward that centance or elaborate on that sentance perhaps it would become clearer.

It was also published in other countries. That's what the list documents.

It was reprinted in other countries, yes. However, originally it was published in Denmark.

[RandFan]

It means what it says. That's the problem. It doesn't convey any information. So green smells loud. That means what it says also.

Why do you think there is something hidden here? I don't get it. My point is that there is nothing there. Hidden or otherwise. I'm just wondering if you meant to convey a message and simply failed to do so. Ok, oh well, "that's all there is to it" and green smells loud and that's that.

Thanks.

[CFLarsen]

Then elaborate on it as I am not the only person who saw it that way.

There is nothing to elaborate on - at least not for me. I've explained it. There is no hidden agenda here.

[CFLarsen]

That tells me how to get the raw data. I know how to do that already.

What I am asking for is your assistance in interpreting that data. How do you say I should evaluate it? What criteria should I use to determine "how my country is doing"?

That's entirely up to you. I'm not dictating you anything.

That's the problem. It doesn't convey any information. So green smells loud. That means what it says also.

Of course it conveys information. It lists those media that has publicised the cartoons.

My point is that there is nothing there. Hidden or otherwise. I'm just wondering if you meant to convey a message and simply failed to do so. Ok, oh well, "that's all there is to it" and green smells loud and that's that.

I didn't mean to convey a message, so I cannot possibly have failed doing that.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

[CFLarsen]

I offered you my interpretation of it -- and btw, I wasn't the only one who came to the same conclusion -- and you disagreed. If you could reward that centance or elaborate on that sentance perhaps it would become clearer.

I have already explained my stance several times. Why do you feel I need to explain it again? What is missing?

It was reprinted in other countries, yes. However, originally it was published in Denmark.

But other countries have also seen protests, e.g. Norway and France. In fact, the EU has issued a statement on this - the EU countries have made this a joint issue.

Ergo, you would have to evaluate the state of those countries as well.

[Grammatron]

There is nothing to elaborate on - at least not for me. I've explained it. There is no hidden agenda here.

Here's the thing, Claus. If you have posted this with a link and the subject line there would be no further conversation.

By choosing to write "Go see how your own country is doing" you've added -- by design or not -- that we are also to evaluate our country based on these cartoons.

[RandFan]

Of course it conveys information. It lists those media that has publicised the cartoons. Ok and?

I didn't mean to convey a message, so I cannot possibly have failed doing that. Bingo, that's my point. Green smells loud.

[Grammatron]

I have already explained my stance several times. Why do you feel I need to explain it again? What is missing?

See my post #41

But other countries have also seen protests, e.g. Norway and France. In fact, the EU has issued a statement on this - the EU countries have made this a joint issue.

Interesting that EU countries have had problems but US have not, though the cartoons were published in US as well.

Ergo, you would have to evaluate the state of those countries as well.
The countries with mass-protests or those publishing the cartoons?

[CFLarsen]

Here's the thing, Claus. If you have posted this with a link and the subject line there would be no further conversation.

By choosing to write "Go see how your own country is doing" you've added -- by design or not -- that we are also to evaluate our country based on these cartoons.

It could also simply be "Go see what media in your own country has published the cartoons". Which is the meaning of this thread: To point to this list of countries where the media that published the cartoons are listed.

Do with the list what you want.

Ok and?

That's it.

Bingo, that's my point. Green smells loud.

No, if I was claiming the equivalent of green smells loud, I would have tried to convey a message that didn't make sense.

Interesting that EU countries have had problems but US have not, though the cartoons were published in US as well.

The US has certainly had problems: "Death to USA" has been part and parcel to the demonstrations.

The countries with mass-protests or those publishing the cartoons?

The EU has, as an organization of European Countries, issued the statement. It does not single out countries. Ergo, you will have to evaluate the state of those countries as well.

[Grammatron]

It could also simply be "Go see what media in your own country has published the cartoons".

So you agree people can interpret it differently.

The US has certainly had problems: "Death to USA" has been part and parcel to the demonstrations.

Yes, but not inside the USA.
The EU has, as an organization of European Countries, issued the statement. It does not single out countries. Ergo, you will have to evaluate the state of those countries as well.

So did the US. However, like I've said before, the response inside US has been vastly different.

Perhaps the cartoons themselves are not the problem?

[Upchurch]

Go see how your own country is doing.See how my country is doing in terms of what?

[Manny]

The US has certainly had problems: "Death to USA" has been part and parcel to the demonstrations.
Yes, but not inside the USA.Also, "Death to the USA" is apparently Arabic for "we're protesting something."

[CFLarsen]

So you agree people can interpret it differently.

Of course. Have I ever claimed that people can't interpret things differently?

Yes, but not inside the USA.

We haven't seen violent riots inside Denmark either.

So did the US. However, like I've said before, the response inside US has been vastly different.

Has it? How so?

Perhaps the cartoons themselves are not the problem?

What do you mean? What is the problem, then?

See how my country is doing in terms of what?

Read my post #44.

[Upchurch]

Read my post #44.
Ah, I see. You misspoke.

[CFLarsen]

Also, "Death to the USA" is apparently Arabic for "we're protesting something."
Perhaps. But they did shout it in the demonstrations against the cartoons.

[CFLarsen]

Ah, I see. You misspoke.
No. I was very clear: Here's a list (lists are good). Go find your own country to see what media published the cartoons.

No hidden agenda. No need to attribute something to me that I didn't do.

[RandFan]

No, if I was claiming the equivalent of green smells loud, I would have tried to convey a message that didn't make sense. And how does your's make sense? You admit that you have no point.

[CFLarsen]

Nothing humorous, clever or anything like that, just thought that the simple title "56 countries have now published the cartoons!" would have been somewhat better. :p
Lists are good. I like saying "List".

"List".

"List".

[Grammatron]

Of course. Have I ever claimed that people can't interpret things differently?

You did claim it had no other meaning aside from what it is.

We haven't seen violent riots inside Denmark either.

Just people being killed for making films.

Has it? How so?

Lack of protests would be one.

What do you mean? What is the problem, then?

I don't know, I asked a question.

[Manny]

Perhaps. But they did shout it in the demonstrations against the cartoons.Heh. Just making a little joke there. See, it apparently means "we're protesting something" because they shout it when protesting cartoons, when protesting America, when protesting their own government, when protesting the price of falafel...

[Grammatron]

No. I was very clear: Here's a list (lists are good). Go find your own country to see what media published the cartoons.

No hidden agenda. No need to attribute something to me that I didn't do.
You've just reworded your original post, if worded it like that to begin with there would be no further discussion.

Because "Go find your own country to see what media published the cartoons" is not the same as "Go see how your own country is doing."

[CFLarsen]

You did claim it had no other meaning aside from what it is.

No, I was stating what I meant with it.

Just people being killed for making films.

That was Holland, not Denmark.

Lack of protests would be one.

Think it would be a bad idea for Muslims to protest against the cartoons in the US?

I don't know, I asked a question.

I can't answer that, because I don't know the answer. You asked if maybe the cartoons weren't the problem. So, I ask you: What do you think is the problem?

And how does your's make sense? You admit that you have no point.

Other than to tell people that here's a list of media in various countries that have published the cartoons.

Is that not enough? I have a feeling you are expecting something more from me?

Heh. Just making a little joke there. See, it apparently means "we're protesting something" because they shout it when protesting cartoons, when protesting America, when protesting their own government, when protesting the price of falafel...

Perhaps. Is it completely unfair to draw the conclusion that, while protesting the cartoons, they are making the connection to the US as well? As you can see from the list, the cartoons were also published in the US.

You've just reworded your original post, if worded it like that to begin with there would be no further discussion.

Because "Go find your own country to see what media published the cartoons" is not the same as "Go see how your own country is doing."

I'm sorry if you don't agree with my intention of this thread.

[Manny]

Perhaps. Is it completely unfair to draw the conclusion that, while protesting the cartoons, they are making the connection to the US as well? As you can see from the list, the cartoons were also published in the US.Oh, it's not unfair at all. But that's not funny, son. It's a, I say, it's a joke. I made a funny and you're not laughin'.

[Upchurch]

No. I was very clear: Here's a list (lists are good). Go find your own country to see what media published the cartoons.Not so clear that you didn't need to reword your original statement. The above quote is a very different statement from "Go see how your own country is doing."

"what" is a question of actions. "how ...is doing" is an evaluation of actions.

If you must change what you originally said in order to convey your true meaning, does this not show that you had originally misspoke?

No hidden agenda. No need to attribute something to me that I didn't do.Where have I done this?

[CFLarsen]

Oh, it's not unfair at all. But that's not funny, son. It's a, I say, it's a joke. I made a funny and you're not laughin'.
I don't find violent demonstrations particularly funny.

But, to each his own.

[CFLarsen]

Not so clear that you didn't need to reword your original statement. The above quote is a very different statement from "Go see how your own country is doing."

"what" is a question of actions. "how ...is doing" is an evaluation of actions.

I'm sorry, but I've made it clear what I meant. You can accept it or not.

If you must change what you originally said in order to convey your true meaning, does this not show that you had originally misspoke?

No.

Where have I done this?

Claimed that I misspoke. I didn't.

You may think I did. I didn't. My intention has not wavered. It has not changed.

[Manny]

I don't find violent demonstrations particularly funny.Try rescoring them to Yakety Sax (http://www.lowcarbcomedy.com/html/videos/therest/passionhill.htm).

[Upchurch]

Claimed that I misspoke. I didn't.

You may think I did. I didn't. My intention has not wavered. It has not changed.Your intention may not have changed, but the way you have worded it has. Do you understand this?

[CFLarsen]

Your intention may not have changed, but the way you have worded it has. Do you understand this?
Is your complaint that you think I have made a grammatical error?

[Upchurch]

Is your complaint that you think I have made a grammatical error?
No, my original complaint was that what you said made no sense or was, at least, incomplete.

My next complaint is your claim that I was incorrect that you had misspoke, which you had as seen by the fact that you had to change your wording to make yourself clear.

My last complaint is that you won't even admit to such a silly mistake.

[CFLarsen]

No, my original complaint was that what you said made no sense or was, at least, incomplete.

My next complaint is your claim that I was incorrect that you had misspoke, which you had as seen by the fact that you had to change your wording to make yourself clear.

My last complaint is that you won't even admit to such a silly mistake.

O......K.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think that warrants a string of posts.

I've made it clear what I meant. You can like it or not. Complaining about it in post after post is hardly constructive, though.

[luchog]

Ok, let's see.

the Stranger i Seattle


Too bad it's such a useless hack rag the rest of the time.

[Upchurch]

Complaining about it in post after post is hardly constructive, though.Perhaps not, but that is precisely what you do with the most inane stuff on this board. You hold everyone, except yourself, to a very exacting standard. You have a very different standard for yourself. I was merely holding you to your own standard for everyone else.

so:

Do you understand that your intention may not have changed but the way you worded it has? Do you understand that your original wording is not reflective of what we now know was your intnetion? Do you understand that this fits the definition of "misspeaking"?

[Jas]

D'ya think there's an exchange rate posted somewhere, in terms of degrees of enlightenment? I wonder how many cartoons cancel out blasphemy and sodomy laws?

Like:

3 cartoons null 1 blasphemy law
4 cartoons null 1 sodomy law
1 abortion law = 10 blasphemy laws
1 sodomy law = 8 blasphemy laws
1 gay marriage law (for) = -blasphemy laws
free speech = 3 blasphemy laws

etc.

And then, depending on how many 'Enlightenment points' that these add up to, your country is awarded a status. You could even colour code it, so the government could issue periodic announcements as to the state of enlightenment in your country:

RED = Hotbed of Enlightenment
ORANGE = Extremely progressive
YELLOW = Quite liberal

etc.

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps not, but that is precisely what you do with the most inane stuff on this board. You hold everyone, except yourself, to a very exacting standard. You have a very different standard for yourself. I was merely holding you to your own standard for everyone else.

You have admitted that you do not think I have made a grammatical error. So, I don't see how you can still claim that I "misspoke" by clarifying it further.

If I repeat my stance using the same words, you obviously won't understand it this time either. If I explain further, you accuse me of having misspoken.

That puts me in a no-win situation, doesn't it? Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

so:

Do you understand that your intention may not have changed but the way you worded it has? Do you understand that your original wording is not reflective of what we now know was your intnetion? Do you understand that this fits the definition of "misspeaking"?

I have already told you: I don't think this warrants more posts. You have even agreed with me that this serves no constructive purpose. So why continue?

What about the list? What do you think about it?

D'ya think there's an exchange rate posted somewhere, in terms of degrees of enlightenment?

Like:

1 abortion law = 10 blasphemy laws
1 sodomy law = 8 blasphemy laws
1 gay marriage law (for) = -blasphemy laws
free speech = 3 blasphemy laws

etc.

And then, depending on how many 'Enlightenment points' that these add up to, your country is awarded a status. You could even colour code it, so the government could issue periodic announcements as to the state of enlightenment in your country:

RED = Hotbed of Enlightenment
ORANGE = Extremely progressive
YELLOW = Quite liberal

etc.

I'm sorry, but I don't see your point. E.g., your use of "liberal". Are you using it in the American sense (left-wing leaning), or the European sense (rather far-right-wing leaning)?

If it is the former, are you indicating that (American) conservatives cannot be enlightened?

I also don't understand your reference to a status. In fact, I don't see all that much relevance of your post to this thread. Can you please clarify?

How is abortion relevant to this thread about which media has published the Muhammed cartoons?

[Jas]

Oops, I made a mistake in that post, let me fix it.

See above edit, that post didn't come out properly.

[Grammatron]

Claus, it doesn't tip you off that when people say that they don't completely understand what you are saying time and time again that perhaps they may be right?

[HarryKeogh]

How is abortion relevant to this thread about which media has published the Muhammed cartoons?

I agree. It's about as relevant as the price of tea in China or the legality of blowjobs in Arkansas.

[Jas]

I'm sorry, but I don't see your point. E.g., your use of "liberal". Are you using it in the American sense (left-wing leaning), or the European sense (rather far-right-wing leaning)?

If it is the former, are you indicating that (American) conservatives cannot be enlightened?

I also don't understand your reference to a status. In fact, I don't see all that much relevance of your post to this thread. Can you please clarify?

How is abortion relevant to this thread about which media has published the Muhammed cartoons?
See above edit, I didn't read over that post before hitting send.

As for the rest of your questions, I'll answer them whenever you deign to answer mine in the other thread.

[Upchurch]

You have admitted that you do not think I have made a grammatical error. So, I don't see how you can still claim that I "misspoke" by clarifying it further.Your error was not grammatical in nature. Your sentence structure was fine. You word choice conveyed something other than what you had intended. Thus, you misspoke.

If I repeat my stance using the same words, you obviously won't understand it this time either. If I explain further, you accuse me of having misspoken.

That puts me in a no-win situation, doesn't it? Damned if I do, damned if I don't.Not at all. It isn't just that you chose a different wording. You chose a different wording that changed the meaning of the sentence.

"Go see how your own country is doing." <> "Go find your own country to see what media published the cartoons."

I have already told you: I don't think this warrants more posts. You have even agreed with me that this serves no constructive purpose. So why continue?

What about the list? What do you think about it?Just a "yes" or "no" to each question would be fine.

To reiterate (only spell-checked this time):

Do you understand that your intention may not have changed but the way you worded it has? Do you understand that your original wording is not reflective of what we now know was your intention? Do you understand that this fits the definition of "misspeaking"?

[Thanz]

You have admitted that you do not think I have made a grammatical error. So, I don't see how you can still claim that I "misspoke" by clarifying it further.
It is not a grammatical error in that the sentence has poor construction. But it is an error if what you meant was "see WHAT has been done in your country" but say "see HOW your country is doing". One is a factual inquiry, the other evaluative. See how your country is doing is a perfectly understandable sentence. It just doesn't mean what you apparently intended it to mean.
If I repeat my stance using the same words, you obviously won't understand it this time either. If I explain further, you accuse me of having misspoken.

That puts me in a no-win situation, doesn't it? Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
Well, no. Nobody is going to damn you for misspeaking. All you have to say is: "Sorry, I misspoke. I meant just look and see what the media in your country has done." and people would say "Okay. Thanks."

Instead, you play word games and insist that this is what your sentence meant all along. On a plain reading your sentence does not mean what you say you meant it to mean. Get it?

Admitting that you made an error is a good thing. It enhances, rather than detracts from your credibility.

[CFLarsen]

Oops, I made a mistake in that post, let me fix it.

See above edit, that post didn't come out properly.

Take your time. Let me know when you are done.

Claus, it doesn't tip you off that when people say that they don't completely understand what you are saying time and time again that perhaps they may be right?

If I used obscure English, sure. But I cannot for the life of me see where I have used less-than-clear English. Add to that, I have used different wording to explain my stance.

This, unfortunately, is seen as if I am admitting to some kind of error.

All I did was post a list of countries that had published the Muhammed cartoons. People don't want to address that. I can't do much about that.

I agree. It's about as relevant as the price of tea in China or the legality of blowjobs in Arkansas.

The latter was very relevant to the thread it was posted in. I do fail to see the relevance of bringing up abortions in this thread though.

See above edit, I didn't read over that post before hitting send.

It might be a good idea to do that in the future.

It doesn't change much, though: I still don't see why you bring up abortion in this thread.

As for the rest of your questions, I'll answer them whenever you deign to answer mine in the other thread.

I would be happy to answer any questions you have in that thread. I have to admit that I find your attitude a bit childish, though: I have not made any references to abortion in this thread, so I think it is fair to ask you why you bring it up here.

Making it dependent on whatever happens in other threads is...well...childish. Vindictive, even. Certainly not worthy of a skeptic.

Your error was not grammatical in nature. Your sentence structure was fine. You word choice conveyed something other than what you had intended. Thus, you misspoke.

I'm sorry, but I haven't conveyed different meanings. You may think I did, but if you ignore my assurances that I didn't, you only show that you are not playing it straight here. Your agenda is something else.

Sorry if I am not playing.

Not at all. It isn't just that you chose a different wording. You chose a different wording that changed the meaning of the sentence.

"Go see how your own country is doing." <> "Go find your own country to see what media published the cartoons."

I disagree, and I have made it clear what my stance was. It has not changed.

Just a "yes" or "no" to each question would be fine.

To reiterate (only spell-checked this time):

Do you understand that your intention may not have changed but the way you worded it has? Do you understand that your original wording is not reflective of what we now know was your intention? Do you understand that this fits the definition of "misspeaking"?

This leads nowhere. It certainly doesn't focus on the issue of this thread.

It is not a grammatical error in that the sentence has poor construction. But it is an error if what you meant was "see WHAT has been done in your country" but say "see HOW your country is doing". One is a factual inquiry, the other evaluative. See how your country is doing is a perfectly understandable sentence. It just doesn't mean what you apparently intended it to mean.

Again, I have made it clear several times what I meant.

Well, no. Nobody is going to damn you for misspeaking.

Upchurch is.

All you have to say is: "Sorry, I misspoke. I meant just look and see what the media in your country has done." and people would say "Okay. Thanks."

Instead, you play word games and insist that this is what your sentence meant all along. On a plain reading your sentence does not mean what you say you meant it to mean. Get it?

Admitting that you made an error is a good thing. It enhances, rather than detracts from your credibility.

I am not playing word games. I have explained what I meant, several times. It seems that, no matter what I do, people want me to lose.

If I repeat my words, people won't understand. If I try to explain what I mean, people take that as an admission that I made a mistake.

Oh well.

Does anyone want to discuss the list of media publishing the Muhammed cartoons?

[Upchurch]

Upchurch is.Not at all. I'm trying to help you with your misunderstanding. I apologize if I am being tough on you, but you don't respond to anything else (and you barely respond to being tough).

So, how about it? At what point in my quesiton line do you not understand?

[CFLarsen]

Not at all.

Not at all?

Allow me:

Ah, I see. You misspoke.

The evidence is there. There is no need to discuss this further.

Do you want to discuss the list of media publishing the Muhammed cartoons?

[Upchurch]

I'm sorry, but I haven't conveyed different meanings. You may think I did, but if you ignore my assurances that I didn't, you only show that you are not playing it straight here. Your agenda is something else.Communication is a two-way street, Claus.

I can say, "I like cookies." and know exactly what I mean by that. However, unless you understand what I mean by that, I haven't conveyed the information, no matter how much I meant it.

If I later say, "I like baking and that is what I always meant when I said 'I like cookies.'" It doesn't change the fact that "I like cookies" does not convey "I like baking." It also doesn't matter how much I assure you that I like baking.

I disagree, and I have made it clear what my stance was. It has not changed.I agree that your stance hasn't likely changed, but your wording most definitely has.

[Jas]

The latter was very relevant to the thread it was posted in. I do fail to see the relevance of bringing up abortions in this thread though.
Er, but you still haven't explained why you brought them up though.

It might be a good idea to do that in the future.

It doesn't change much, though: I still don't see why you bring up abortion in this thread.
My post had nothing to do with abortions.

I would be happy to answer any questions you have in that thread.

Then why haven't you?

I have to admit that I find your attitude a bit childish, though: I have not made any references to abortion in this thread, so I think it is fair to ask you why you bring it up here.

The post had nothing to do with abortions (although the word was in it.) Like I said, see my edit.

Making it dependent on whatever happens in other threads is...well...childish. Vindictive, even. Certainly not worthy of a skeptic.

Vindictive? Not worthy of a skeptic? I would think that part of being a skeptic is to apply the same standards to oneself as you would to another.

So yes, I do make it dependant on what happens in other threads, because past performance lets me know what sort of crap someone is will pull to avoid admitting that they made a mistake.

I love that when people disagree with you, you accuse them (or insinuate), that they aren't skeptical enough. You're not infallible, Claus.

[Upchurch]

Not at all?

Allow me:

Ah, I see. You misspoke.

The evidence is there. There is no need to discuss this further.How is "Ah, I see. You misspoke." damning you?

Do you think that someone recognizing your mistakes equivalent to damning you?

[CFLarsen]

I agree that your stance hasn't likely changed, but your wording most definitely has.

So.......what is your complaint? That I dare use other words to explain my stance?

That is a point of criticism? That is my error?

This means that you can point your finger at anyone, simply by asking them to clarify their stance. And think that you are morally justified to so do.

Er, but you still haven't explained why you brought them up though.

I did not bring up abortions in this thread. You did.

My post had nothing to do with abortions.

Liar. You brought up abortions in this thread. Why?

Then why haven't you?

Point out what questions I haven't answered in that thread.

The post had nothing to do with abortions (although the word was in it.) Like I said, see my edit.

OK, so you admit to bringing up abortions in this thread. Only, you want to claim that you didn't.

Vindictive? Not worthy of a skeptic? I would think that part of being a skeptic is to apply the same standards to oneself as you would to another.

Why would it be skeptical to demand answers in an unrelated thread, before you would deign to answer questions in this one?

So yes, I do make it dependant on what happens in other threads, because past performance lets me know what sort of crap someone is will pull to avoid admitting that they made a mistake.

I have no intentions of playing your vindictive game. I posted a link to a list of media that had published the Muhammed cartoons. I don't see you addressing that at all.

I love that when people disagree with you, you accuse them (or insinuate), that they aren't skeptical enough. You're not infallible, Claus.

I most certainly am not. I do ask that people show when I make mistakes, though. Not merely asserting that I do.

Do you want to discuss the list of media publishing the Muhammed cartoons?

How is "Ah, I see. You misspoke." damning you?

Do you think that someone recognizing your mistakes equivalent to damning you?

Can you make up your mind, please? Is this a damning point or not?

Do you want to discuss the list of media publishing the Muhammed cartoons?

[Upchurch]

So.......what is your complaint? That I dare use other words to explain my stance? That is a point of criticism? That is my error?
No, Claus. As I have said before, your error wasn't just that you used other words to explain your stance. Your error is that you had to change the meaning of your original statement in order to bring it inline with your stance.

This means that you can point your finger at anyone, simply by asking them to clarify their stance. And think that you are morally justified to so do.Okay, I guess that means that you don't understand how your original statement is different from your revised statement. Would that be fair to say?

Can you make up your mind, please? Is this a damning point or not?Claus, I wasn't damning you when I realized that you had misspoken. Pointing out another's mistake is not damning them.

If you have a damning point in this thread, it is that you refuse to acknowledge any mistake, even one so trivial and inconsequential as a misleading choice of wording.

[Jas]

CFLarsen, if the only way you can attempt to weasel out of statements you have made is to be deliberately obtuse and play word games, then have a nice life. Sigh. Jas, you know better than that.

[CFLarsen]

No, Claus. As I have said before, your error wasn't just that you used other words to explain your stance. Your error is that you had to change the meaning of your original statement in order to bring it inline with your stance.

But I didn't. I have been consistent all along.

Do you want to discuss the list of media publishing the Muhammed cartoons?

Okay, I guess that means that you don't understand how your original statement is different from your revised statement. Would that be fair to say?

No.

Do you want to discuss the list of media publishing the Muhammed cartoons?

Claus, I wasn't damning you when I realized that you had misspoken. Pointing out another's mistake is not damning them.

Of course you were. You wanted to point your finger at me, regardless what I did. If I didn't admit to this error you imagined, I was a fault. If I did, I was at fault.

Do you want to discuss the list of media publishing the Muhammed cartoons?

If you have a damning point in this thread, it is that you refuse to acknowledge any mistake, even one so trivial and inconsequential as a misleading choice of wording.

You keep insisting that I did make a mistake, despite my repeated explanations that I haven't made a mistake. As is evident, no matter what I do, I have made a mistake (according to you).

No matter what I do, I will lose. Unless I confess to something I didn't do.

Am I correct?

Now, do you want to discuss the list of media publishing the Muhammed cartoons? I've asked you this several times, but you seem very reluctant to answer. I think it is obvious why.

CFLarsen, if the only way you can attempt to weasel out of statements you have made is to be deliberately obtuse and play word games, then have a nice life.Quote removed.

I note that you have no answers.

[Jas]

Neither do you.

Colour me shocked.

[Upchurch]

But I didn't. I have been consistent all along.Sigh... Let's try this again in a more generic form:

1) How is X doing?
2) What is X doing?

Do you understand that these questions are asking fundamentally different things? Do you understand that (1) is not the same question as (2) and that each involves different aspects of X?

Of course you were. You wanted to point your finger at me, regardless what I did. If I didn't admit to this error you imagined, I was a fault. If I did, I was at fault.Reading my mind now? I know where you can pick up an easy $1,000,000. ;)

Seriously though, Claus, you are wrong. If you had admitted you were wrong or, heck, even just inferred it by quietly accepting my "you misspoke" comment, I probably wouldn't have said another thing about it. If I had, I would have congratulated you for proving my opinion of you incorrect.

But it appears that my opinion is correct: you simply cannot admit to making a mistake, even a very trivial one.

You keep insisting that I did make a mistake, despite my repeated explanations that I haven't made a mistake. As is evident, no matter what I do, I have made a mistake (according to you).Only because the past cannot be undone. If you make a mistake, you can correct yourself, you can make up for it, you can even try to cover for it, but you cannot undo the fact that a mistake was made.

No matter what I do, I will lose. Unless I confess to something I didn't do.

Am I correct?You could try being honest with yourself, if not the rest of us.

Now, do you want to discuss the list of media publishing the Muhammed cartoons? I've asked you this several times, but you seem very reluctant to answer. I think it is obvious why.More mind reading?

I have ignored this quesiton because (1) I really don't care about who has republished the Muhammed cartoons and (2) I want you to understand how you have misspoken and not change the subject.

[Bjorn]

List of the strangest thread I've seen for a long time

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52909&page=1

Go see how your own country is doing.

:o

[Freakshow]

CFLarsen, if the only way you can attempt to weasel out of statements you have made is to be deliberately obtuse and play word games, then have a nice life. Sigh. Jas, you know better than that.Maybe she should, but it was FUNNY! :D

Glad I got to see it before the CFLarsen security detail got to the thread.

[CFLarsen]

You could try being honest with yourself, if not the rest of us.

Ah. So, I can confess to an error I didn't make, or I am dishonest.

Gotcha.

More mind reading?

I have ignored this quesiton because (1) I really don't care about who has republished the Muhammed cartoons and (2) I want you to understand how you have misspoken and not change the subject.

OK, you don't want to discuss the subject of this thread.

[Upchurch]

Ah. So, I can confess to an error I didn't make, or I am dishonest.No, you can admit to a mistake that you did make or you are dishonest. Allow me to help you understand how you have erred.

Two generic questions:

(1) How is X doing?
(2) What is X doing?

(1) is a fundamentally different question than (2). (2) is a question about the actions that X is making. (1) is a question about a (currently unspecified) quality or condition of some aspect of X. Questions (1) and (2) are not synonymous because they mean different things.

Your first question in the OP was, "Go see how your own country is doing." You'll note that it takes the form of (1) where X is "your own country" but it does not specify the aspect of X which is being questioned.

Your revised question was, "Go find your own country to see what media published the cartoons." This question is a form of (2) where X is still "your own country" and it specifies a subclass of actions.

Your revision was slightly more specific, but it also fundamentally changed the nature of the question from "how?" to "what?". If you truly wished us to find out what our own countries were doing, you were not really concerned with us finding out how our own countries were doing. However, you did ask how our countries were doing, which you have assured us was not your intent. Thus, you asked a question that was something other than what you had intended. Simply speaking, you misspoke.

It is a simple thing to do. Everyone does it. No one would hold it against you (unless you make a big production about denying the plainly obvious). There is no shame in it.

OK, you don't want to discuss the subject of this thread.Discuss what? According to your intended message of the OP, you were merely providing the information. You said earlier that you had no other hidden agenda or meaning behind it. RandFan already reported the information on my country. What more is there to discuss about it?

[luchog]

I've told you. It means what it says.
It's semantically null. It provides not discernable substantive comment.

Or, to use small words, it says nothing, therefore means nothing.

[plindboe]

This has got to be the most pointless discussion in the history of the internet.

[NoZed Avenger]

This has got to be the most pointless discussion in the history of the internet.


You are obviously too young to remember usenet.