CNN Reports: Series of blasts rock Mumbai

[spacejamz]

This thread is going to be interesting for many reasons.

agreed

 

[werepossum]

Honestly, this is pretty silly. Mods, I think we all get that you're attempting to facilitate something positive here, but Corn's right - 99% of what happens here is speculation. To literally edit out people's words in exactly one case of such is a pretty bad precedent.

Just goes to show that it's impossible to do right by the members of the AnandTech Forums.

This. The chances of correctly guessing the responsible forces in this case are probably astronomically higher than any of us correctly guessing what is going to happen with the economy, personal freedom, SCOTUS, etc.

 

[darkewaffle]

I think it was the FBI. Duh!

 

[Fear No Evil]

/Facepalm.

 

[Jaskalas]

BTW, the first page is now an artwork in hilarity. Hey, I for one would own up to being wrong. We'd need to live in an alternate universe though.

At Least 17 Reportedly Dead After Explosions Rock Mumbai Markets

Although no group claimed responsibility, the explosions hit locations where a terror siege nearly three years ago killed 166 people. Wednesday also coincided with the birthday of the lone surviving gunman of the 2008 attack.

Three separate explosions, expected to be an act of terror, tore through a business district in India’s Mumbai Wednesday, leaving at least 17 people dead and 54 injured, authorities said. Less than an hour after the series of blasts, its Home Ministry confirmed a terrorist attack and placed the entire city on high alert.

Indian officials say they believe the responsibility of Wednesday's attack rests with the Indian Mujahideen, a group that works closely with Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Lashkar-e-Taiba is the group suspected to be behind the 2008 attack.

All three blasts happened from 6:50 p.m. to 7 p.m., when all the neighborhoods would have been packed with office workers and commuters.

 

[Infohawk]

As others have pointed out this no-speculation rule is quite ridiculous. Someone should start a thread in personal forum issues so we can all register our disgust.

the jews, duh.

Yeah or those savage buddhists again.

Although I did like EK's move to close down the Bachmann thread.

 

[dphantom]

Honestly, this is pretty silly. Mods, I think we all get that you're attempting to facilitate something positive here, but Corn's right - 99% of what happens here is speculation. To literally edit out people's words in exactly one case of such is a pretty bad precedent.

Just goes to show that it's impossible to do right by the members of the AnandTech Forums.

qft

 

[WelshBloke]

Those attacks, which targeted two high-end hotels, a busy train station, a Jewish centre and other sites frequented by foreigners, were blamed on the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group.

Thats the BBC. I doesn't say who blamed it on Lashkar-e-Taiba mind you.

I'd have to say that would be my first suspicion and I think a reasonable one.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

can't wait till thegreenbean and braznor enlighten us with their wisdom

 

[woolfe9999]

Although I did like EK's move to close down the Bachmann thread.

Why? The thread title was misleading, so change the thread title. Bachmann's signing of the pledge was a legitimate topic of discussion.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

As others have pointed out this no-speculation rule is quite ridiculous. Someone should start a thread in personal forum issues so we can all register our disgust.

Seriously? Anandtech now has a rule against speculating who is responsible for terrorist attacks?

 

[ProfJohn]

who would bomb a place like that? Those slum dog kids are sweet.

Militant gays who are upset that their movie lost to Slumdog.

 

[WelshBloke]

Seriously? Anandtech now has a rule against speculating who is responsible for terrorist attacks?

TBF there's a difference between genuinely speculating which group may have done it and going "OMG religion of peace... evil Muslims...turn the place to glass...derp derp"

 

[OCGuy]

We can't take educated guesses on breaking stories anymore? Someone should start a thread in PFI to get some opinions on this...I dont think it will hold water.

Who are we protecting by trying to be ultra-PC?

TBF there's a difference between genuinely speculating which group may have done it and going "OMG religion of peace... evil Muslims...turn the place to glass...derp derp"

AFAIK, there are no rules against saying anything you listed. Making up rules as we go will drive away participation.

 

[BoomerD]

can't wait till thegreenbean and braznor enlighten us with their wisdom

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2178126

 

[WelshBloke]

AFAIK, there are no rules against saying anything you listed. Making up rules as we go will drive away participation.

Well some of the members here are Muslim so it could be construed as trolling.

 

[Infohawk]

Why? The thread title was misleading, so change the thread title. Bachmann's signing of the pledge was a legitimate topic of discussion.

The title and the entire first post was based on the unsubstantiated premise that Bachmann was endorsing slavery.

As far as I can tell you were the only one making it into a larger issue of her and other politicians signing these pledges. That wasn't really the topic and it didn't seem like anyone else shared your interest in the topic. You could always start a another thread about the phenomenon but I'm not buying that the thread was actually about her signing of the pledge generally.

 

[WelshBloke]

Fixed.

 

[Red Dawn]

EK, is this standard applied to every single thread? I didnt participate in the Casey Anthony thread here, but something tells me more than one person commented on her being guilty.

When is it ok to start speculating? After the Indians say who they think did it? After someone is arrested? Or do we wait until they are convicted?

It is just a terrible rule that is impossible to enforce impartially.

Be careful, your comments could be considered Moderator Callouts which, unlike the rule regarding misleading Thread titles or specualtion, is a rule that's actually written and posted and it's usuall stringently enofrced. I'd suggest you take your complaints to this forum to avoid getting into trouble.

 

[OCGuy]

Be careful, your comments could be considered Moderator Callouts which, unlike the rule regarding misleading Thread titles or specualtion, is a rule that's actually written and posted and it's usuall stringently enofrced. I'd suggest you take your complaints to this forum to avoid getting into trouble.

RD, I was only responding to him directly because of this:

Please try to humor me.

Unless he meant "just go with it this time", not "respond to my comments"......which means I misunderstood him if that was the case.

 

[Red Dawn]

RD, I was only responding to him directly because of this:



Unless he meant "just go with it this time", not "respond to my comments"......which means I misunderstood him if that was the case.

Well it seems a lot of your and others objections to his moderating has become the topic of this thread and it's not the place for it and as a result the thread has already become completely derailed.

 

[Bowfinger]

The title and the entire first post was based on the unsubstantiated premise that Bachmann was endorsing slavery.

As far as I can tell you were the only one making it into a larger issue of her and other politicians signing these pledges. That wasn't really the topic and it didn't seem like anyone else shared your interest in the topic. You could always start a another thread about the phenomenon but I'm not buying that the thread was actually about her signing of the pledge generally.

Did you and I read the same thread? His very first sentence said it was about her "suck[ing] up" and his commentary seemed mostly focused on that, her ignorance of history, and the suggestion she seemed more than a bit crazy. I didn't interpret it for a minute as suggesting she literally endorsed slavery, just that she was too clueless or uncaring to see how her actions could be offensive to many people.

I agree his title was a bit of a stretch, but asserting it was an outright lie is an emotional overreaction to the actual facts (IMO). He only said she was "hinting" that blacks were better off. That is certainly a reasonable inference of the actual wording about black children being more likely to have both parents. The underlying presumption in that statement is having both parents is better than one, right? The kids were better off with both parents, right? Hint, hint.

 

[Infohawk]

This is an interesting direction for P&N although it clearly marks a radical change if the rule is applied across the board. I would like it if shuts up conspiracy theorists and other extreme bullshitters, but we'll have to see how it's applied. My suspicion is that OCguy is right that this it impossible to enforce properly. I really hope this isn't just some uber-PC move to protect a certain religion when other religions and groups are similarly attacked all the time on this forum.

Ah, I think then we just have a disagreement in nomenclature. You're asking that we not assume facts not in evidence - not that we not speculate at all. That's certainly a rule that would be nice to have.

Don't you always have to assume facts if you're speculating? I'm not sure I see a distinction.

 

[Doppel]

Speculation rule baffling to me. If one speculates that Pakistanis were involved in a terrorist attack like this in Mumbai chances are very much on their side.

 

[Infohawk]

Did you and I read the same thread?

No the presumption was that she was suggesting black people were better off under slavery when a more reasonable and literal interpretation is that she is saying how sad it is that black families have declined since the end of slavery. There was no evidence for Homer's nonsense that she was sending a "fuck you" message to the black community. One could also argue it was a "we're with you" message to African-Americans who also dislike gay marriage. His entire thread was bogus speculation about Bachmann's motives.