After I wrote this, I went back and highlighted different statements as fact and opinion, to show how easy they are to differentiate.

>I did not say opinions are bad at all.*fact* and your analogy
>about educating someone about CF doesn't really hold water.
>When you are 'educating' someone, you are essentially saying
>that they are ignorant *opinion*.

People *are* ignorant. *opinion*
*How are you different? Because you have cool links to articles written by the creater of a cartoon? Is this the sort of "primary source" that you are going to use to 'educate people'? Alright, that was low, but it was meant as a joke.*fact* As far as the article goes, there is an inherent contradiction in it.*fact* If people know the people who are dumber than them, then by elimination, they would thus be able to recognize those smarter.*fact* I think that the actuality is that people are able to recognize people that they THINK are dummer than them, who may or may not actually be dummer.*opinion* Do these people you are trying to educate fit into the people you THINK are more ignorant then you, or are they more ignorant than you. I would say that 90% of the people in the world think that they have a better realization of the world then other people.*opinion* 40% of them obviously don't.*based on previous assumption, fact* What makes you a part of the 49.9% that do instead of the 40% that think they do and do not?*

Whether or not they will admit it doesn't change the underlying fact.*opinion* You are saying that what, it's ok for them to be ignorant? Or that me saying they are ignorant is wrong?

*I would say that it is alright to say other people are ignorant if you also admit your own ignorance, very arrogant and oddly enough, ignorant to only state other peoples ignorance.**opinion*


>There are certain things that most
>people are willing to admit they are ignorant about,(CF being
>on that list for most people) and certain things that people
>are not willing to admit they are ignorant about(their
>political views). *Opinion*

If your political view is that immigration is wrecking the economy, but the opinion of experts (economists) is that it has very little effect, then you *should* be educated.*opinion* Facts are overpowered.

*My political view is not that immigration is hurting our economy, but rather that it is hurting our country. *opinion* Much as the influx of new people essentially destroyed the Roman Empire.*opinion* This is not because the new people coming in are bad, or that these people are not hard working.*opinion* The new people coming into our country are hurting it precisely because they are not American.*opinion* Last summer, I spent three months working at a job where 90% of the people there were immigrants, so you can consider this a 'prime source' if you want.*fact*

Here is my argument.
After three months working with them, I spoke more Spanish than 90% of them spoke English, including several of them that had been in the USA for over 10 years.*fact*
What does this tell me? These people are making no attempts to fit into our culture and have no loyalty to our country.*opinion* In three months, I had made more of an effort to be inclusive than these people had made in 10 years.*fact* They feel that our country needs to adapt to them, and that the people of this country have nothing to make them worth getting to know or to make them worth putting any effort into. *opinion* A situation like this one is very similar to what caused the fall of the Roman Empire. *fact*


>Most people are more than willing to
>'discuss opinions' on political views, but are very opposed to
>being 'educated' about them.

Actually no, most people are willing to argue about their political viewpoint, very few (in the US) will discuss. It's a problem with our society. *opinion*

*I would probably put you into this category, as my origional post was nothing more than that you word your newsletter as 'discuss' instead of 'educate'.*fact* This makes it sound like they have nothing to contribute to a discussion. I repeat, the intention of my origional post was nothing more than to tell you that you will get better results in influencing peoples opinion if you approach them from a non-superior position of discussion, rather than an arrogant, superior one of educating them.*Fact*


If by 'The Man' you mean large companies with billions of dollars of advertising, then yes, I expect them to "oppress me with untruths", like say that Monsanto isn't one of the evilest things on the ####ing planet. *Fact, but only because it is an opinion expressed as an opinion* Tell me, if every news program is collecting large advertising dollars from a company that they are going to run negative stories about that company. And as far as alternative means of information, I don't consider going directly to the source (like that judge's ruling) an "alternative" means of information.*fact* The reports of the news though didn't mention that lying in a news program is totally legal, they said they were vindicated. *There are lots of things that are legal in lots of places, that doesn't mean it is in my best interest to do them, if these companies are completely heartless, that makes them more likely to serve their own best interests* Fact*

Let's look at the biggest spenders in advertising. Is it Monsanto? Though you do occasionally hear an advertisement for a Monsanto product, they are not what would be considered a big spender.*fact* Let's look at a few of the companies who spend the most money on advertising and should thus, by your theory have relative immunity to bad news stories.
I'll list some companies and how much they spent on advertising last year

http://adage.com/datacenter/article?article_id=110121
then click on the link

Pepsi - 1.47 Billion - Remember how fast news of the hypodermic needle spread across our country? Such high spending on advertising didn't slow that down at all.
*fact*
Nike- 608 Million - How much protection do they get from stories of their children workers in third world countries.
*fact*
McDonalds- 1.67 Billion - How blown out of proportion did the hot coffee get?
*fact*
Microsoft - 944 million - Any protection from stories about anti-trust?
*fact*
Walmart - 973 million - Any protection from stories about how badly they treat their employees?
*fact*
Any drug company - Big moolah - Any protection from the stories about how they are charging so much more here than in other countries?
*fact*
(These are all fact, from original sources, compared to your opinion, which was based on no sources)
The point is, it easy to make broad generalizations about it being possible for news agencies to report information falsely, but it is very difficult to state specific examples of companies that have recieved protection in this manner. Monsanto, not in the top 100 in advertising dollars spent in the last year, and still not crucified nearly as badly as any of these last companies. *fact*

I'm talking about providing summaries of scientific/legal expert
*like you did in this opinion essay?*
writings with the sources readily available for review a la Groklaw. That isn't alternative news, that is the way a news site (in today's age) *should* cover a story. *opinion*
*Perhaps true, but it is still alternative, aka non-mainstream, the one has nothing to do with the other.*fact*

alternative - Existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems*fact* *I'm not sure how you would call Groklaw a traditional or established means for the mainstream to get information*fact*

Ahh, so you can easily filter out that which is factual, from that which is only opinion without checking primary sources? I think not.
*opinion*

*It is pretty easy to determine what is fact and what is opinion.*opinion*

Fact vs opinion counter
Me - Fact - 19 Opinion - 10
You - Fact - 2 Opinion - 12

Bear in mind, I did this after I wrote this, so did not do my writing with this intention. Actually, your only two facts were facts because they were expressed as your opinion, which makes them factual whether they are true or not. For someone who wants to make a newsletter with the purpose of expressing factual information, this isn't a very good start.