Here, let me repost the title of the Reuters article: Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip | Reuters

Requesting to have something pulled is basically the same thing as asking for it to be suppressed. Is the title of the Reuters article lying?

__________________

I think it's funny that we're all up in arms about wording instead of being up in arms about the situation.

__________________

In this case, the wording makes all the difference:


sup·press
verb (used with object)
1.
to put an end to the activities of (a person, body of persons, etc.): to suppress the Communist party.
2.
to do away with by or as by authority; abolish; stop (a practice, custom, etc.).
3.
to keep in or repress (a feeling, smile, groan, etc.).
4.
to withhold from disclosure or publication (truth, evidence, a book, names, etc.).
5.
to stop or arrest (a flow, hemorrhage, cough, etc.).

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

Actually, you proved my point more than yours. Congratulations. You're arguing semantics. Notice we're still talking about the wording and not the actual issue.

__________________

I keep trying to get them to see the light with posts like this, but for some it just does not compute.

__________________
Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.

Donald Trump

Words have meanings.

Like the headline: Obama Calls Libyan President to Thank Him After US Ambassador Murdered

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

The title doesn't represent the actual content of the article. The content of the article says that they asked that it be reviewed under the terms of service.

We call the title power tagging. A bit of sensationalism to get people to read the article.

Why use the cover instead of the content? That seems a bit intellectually lazy.

__________________

Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.

Nice try, but in this case, we're arguing over the word "suppression".

__________________

The thing that's being made a big deal about is the title of the thread. Comparing it to the title of an article is fair.

__________________

The title of both are sensationalist, but the title of the thread is based on the title of the article which neither reflect the actual content.

So while people may very well enjoy living their life by the headlines instead of the copy, they do so at the sacrifice of truth and reason.

__________________

Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.