Peter Duniho wrote:

"Lynn Melrose" wrote in message
...
For the same reason that nearly every other piece of advertising in a
magazine
includes visuals, not just text on blank pages.

Are you really that thick,

Are you able to hold a conversation without resorting to cheap personal
attacks? Needing to attacking me as a person does not make your position
stronger, Peter.

that you think the photo was chosen simply
because it's pleasing to the eye?

It was chosen for the implied meaning, in context of the text on the page.

I didn't say it was pleasing to the eye. You are inserting your words as if they
were my own. If you take a look at magazines, including Time, you will note
that many magazines include many pictures that are decidedly not pleasing to the
eye.



To the contrary, I pointed out that Time presented an opportunity to
explain why
GA is NOT a threat.

Huh? So now you are saying that the ad DOES imply that GA is a threat?
This is a complete reversal from your previous statements.

Incorrect, I did NOT say that.



By the way, that's not an answer to the question "What exactly was it that
non-environmentalists were alarmed (according to Time) by the photograph."
Again, you have evaded the question.

You keep wanting me to explain something "according to Time." Again, I do not
speak for Time, nor can I say anything "according to Time, so you are charging a
false premise to me.



And if you were not a murderer, you would have a winnable case of libel on
your
hands. Where was the "damage" specifically caused by this photo/ad?

The implication that airplanes near cooling towers are somehow harmful.
Frankly, if GA had sufficient legal resources, I'd think they'd have a
legitimate legal case against Time.

You would be thinking wrongly in that case.



Then why would Time take so much trouble to reinforce the idea that
people
should be alarmed by the picture?

Clearly, to provoke a response.

Again, you are reversing your previous statements.

My previous statements stand.

How could Time provoke a
response unless they made the implication CJ, Larry, I, and many others have
inferred?

Time presented a picture and a sentence, with an invitation to join a
conversation. They were not attempting to restrict that conversation to any
particular viewpoint.



You say "according to Time," yet you are asking me. I do not speak for
Time
therefore I can't answer for them.

Of course you are speaking for Time.

Incorrect. I am not connected to Time in any way.

You are defending the ad as non-inflammatory, claiming that it means something
other than what the rest of us saw that it means.

You can choose to imply what you want. That does not mean that you can expect
others, including myself, to imply the way you feel others should.

Either you're just a run-of-the-mill troll, happy
to say "no it isn't" to practically anything that shows up in the newsgroup,
or you have an alternate theory.

I have a different viewpoint than yourself. What is your evidence to say that I
say, "no it isn't" to practically anything that shows up in the newsgroup?
Citations please, from your favorite newsgroup archive. There are a lot of
things that 'show up' in a newsgroup, what percentage of topics have I said "no
it isn't?" Clearly your charges against me are unfounded.



If you're a troll, just fess up and let us drop the matter.

Your viewpoints are not an authority of what consitutes what is and is not a
troll. You may drop the matter if you so desire. When you cannot successfully
support your position, it is interesting that you need to resort to
name-calling.

If you have an
alternate theory, spit it out. Quit evading the question.

I have already answered your questions on my viewpoints (not Time's). You
respond by twisting my words and making baseless charges. Again, citations
please for your claim that I say "no it isn't" to practically anything that
shows up in the newsgroup.

I feel confident that the reason you keep evading the question is that
you
cannot answer it without disturbing your tenuous grip on your soft and
fuzzy
version of reality.

Then that would indicate you have a false sense of confidence.

Could very well be. But we'll never know as long as you keep evading the
question.

I answered your questions several times. You respond by putting words into my
mouth and telling me that I somehow evaded your questioning. It is unfortunate
that you are more concerned with personal attacks than defending GA against
charges of harm using logic.