palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
What substance is their to refute? Where did they get their statistics? Where is the proof? It's not there. You have to take the source's word for it, and the fact is, THEY'RE BIASED.
Bias is irrelavent to whether or not the statement is true.
Unless you have been there personally, two times; once to inventory cars before the war and again to inventory them recently, you have to accept the source's word for it.
The original source offers no "proof" that the report on the power grid is factual or not, you have to take their word unless you have been there personally and checked out the grid of the entire nation.
And unless you can prove that the story on the cars is untrue, "THEY'RE BIASED." doesn't cut it. Everyone is biased to one degree or another. Information is either true or it is not. Should I point out that your source is expressing their bias by titling the article in such a way as to give one the impression that the entire nation is about to be without power? Deep in the article, one learns that the individual provinces are about to disconnect the capital from the grid because it is a drain on thier systems. If they weren't biased, they would have reported that baghdad is suffering, but not necessarily the rest of the grid.
You might note early in your article that even they admit that increased demand is one of the prime factors and they offer no proof at all to suggest that sabotage is a more important factor than rising demand even though they print it first among the list of causes.
If you can't prove it untrue, accept it and stop your whining.