Kat originall made an interesting observation and asked the following question. I created this thread to explore her thought rather than derail the thread where it was posted. Apologies Kat if you think this unwarranted: I would really have to question the content of the report rather than the source. Many people have used the words ad hominem here in the last few weeks. Would you say attacking a source because of where it is located rather than the basis of what is included is something akin? Being stuck in China, I have problems linking to the BBC. Often, I am forced to do links to sites that may re-print the BBC article I am seeking to quote and yet I have had people refuse to even look at the work becuse of the 'source'. I saw here within the last few weeks sombody refuse to follow a link based on the fact that it was a 'liberal' site but when I followed the link, it was to an article with an AP byline. Lately, my philosophy has become, 'Okay, does this link contain anything I can refute with either common sense or contrary evidence' rather than 'Oh, look where it's from, it must be tainted.' As a case in point, there is often a lot of information regarding the statistics on how many people have been 'killed by communism' in China. I did a search and found out that the 'general numbers' that most people use come from 'The Black Book of Communism', originally written in French and translated by the Harvard Press which seems to give it credence. I found information on the Maoist International Movement website that proves the 'numbers' in the 'Black Book of Communism' regarding China to be wrong by a factor of 10. If I link to that with http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/agitation/blackbook/blackb3.html [Broken] , do you immediately refuse to go there and see what is there? It may be interesting if you DO go because they display the emails exchanged with the Harvard translator of the book who states the American printers of the translation did not understand the european sign for per thousand and printed per 100 relative to the number of deaths over a period of time. Most sites printing the statistics have not been changed and still quote the old numbers. If I say for example there were '68 deaths per humdred' or '68 deaths per 1000', there is a vast difference in the result, wouldn't you agree? There are also problems with the numbers produced by the second most quoted source, Roderick MacFarquhar in the Oxford Press http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/bookstore/books/china/macfarquhar.html [Broken]. Even I hate the steriotypical 'commie jargon' of this site but I find it hard to refute what is being said when they provide admissions from authors and translators that the data they have published IS admitted to be wrong. So, do we dismiss out of hand any 'site' (which now seems to be a modified version of 'ad hominem') over the facts or opinions contained therein?