You've got a good point - which is why I've tried it without my SD card inserted. You can make new bookmarks, but it won't store an image. The image it does show is a picture of an SD card with a '?' next to it. Similar for any images of history items. It will try to use cached images when possible, so clear that and you'll see what I have. (I hope)
Until 4G actually meets the speeds I can get currently (20 Mbps down, 5 Mbps up), I'm not sure I see the point in trading providers. I do hope this leads to improved service due to improved competition and the like, though.
In hindsight, I probably should have looked around the rest of the site to see what I was else linking against. I verified the pics against the source video, so it didn't even cross my mind.
Anyways, that's the end of my piece here on this. If the above process makes me a bigot, so be it.
Same evidence, different source. I had a coherent response regarding "throwing the baby out with the washwater" with regards to sources and information. Short: Disagreeing with a source's perceived bias isn't grounds for an indiscriminate throwing out of any evidence or ideas said source may have. It does change the level of scrutiny required, however.
You're still using ad hominem regardless of your squirming around the issue otherwise. I'm automatically a bigot, even though you know precisely nothing about me (other than I choose poorly when linking to a site). You apply this label to me, and that allows you to toss out any evidence I supply. Never mind the fact that there are multiple other sources such as the original video with timestamps of the stills or the Dept of the Army incident report with exactly the same evidence. This is what's wrong with politics in general. The attitude of "I don't agree with you, therefore anything you have to say is irrelevant" is the poison in the well of the political process. To go on record, I'm absolutely not a fan of either of the major US political parties. They're both too far to the extremes for me, but it doesn't mean I'm going to indiscriminately throw out any idea either has. I'm actually going to evaluate them on the merits, which so few people seem to do these days.
No, you're definitely still using an ad hominem fallacy, regardless of your attempts to justify yourself. You're not addressing any of the evidence, but rather addressing a perceived bias.
The site definitely has an axe to grind, and I'm certainly not condoning or supporting the commentary on this, but it does clearly illustrate shots from the video that certainly look like people carrying weapons. Don't let your bias against a source destroy any useful value. Take it with a grain of salt, yes. However, examine each case on the merits. I'd wager we wouldn't find much else of value here, but that's no excuse to throw the baby out with the washwater.
Example: I think the major political parties in the United States are a bunch of whack jobs pushing their own agendas rather than what's good for the country in general. That doesn't mean I'm going to across the board ignore every idea the have to say without evaluating it because of a "consider the source" attitude. Again, it means taking careful evaluation of the idea or evidence, but throwing things out indiscriminately because you don't like a potential source is exactly what's wrong in politics.
I wonder what your response would have been had I simply cited the times in the video of the weapons shots, rather than just linking somewhere that had the times and the stills...
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
