Basically, I think the thread was removed (rightly or wrongly) because it was giving publicity to a certain agenda, by a certain agendee, where it is obvious from the lack of journalistic research, that it was baseless claim on loose information (one could almost suspect, it was 'fed' to them by a willing participant?)
This was already suggested in the previous replies.
I am quite happy for such threads to run because it gives us all a chance to point out the hyperbole and sensationalism of such threads.
What we need to ensure is that the threads don't get 'Coonaned'.
(A new phrase coined this week after the concentration of media power was approved - meaning, if the message doesnt' fit with the media owners agenda - don't publish)
I think in our newly litigious environment of PPrune DG, we need to continue to fight the fight, but without naming the names directly.
Let's face it - you all know who I am talking about right? But you can't prove it right? And neither can they. So let's continue to fight the crap with sound arguments - and also rescue the free publicity to the same old protagonsits by just calling them - "the same old protagonists"
On a completely different topic, did anyone else read the RAAA article on NAS implementation in the recent Australian Aviation magazine? An excellent article on a poorly rushed concept in my view. Does anyone have the text of it?
Last edited by Shitsu_Tonka; 14th Oct 2006 at 06:10.