| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Comments:
<0> Or, at least, close
<1> my statement is best summerised as "You said the BBC was fair, unlike some news outlets (for example, Fox News)"
<0> I'm just saying that your example was about an American news outlet.
<0> Asriel
<0> Focus.
<1> Which is now basically *exactly* what I said. You're recasting my argument as "UK vs America"
<0> Learn to get past this.
<1> No, because you're changing my words. If you want to quote me, quote me
<0> I'm recasting your argument literally as "BBC vs. an American news outlet"
<1> Don't rewrite
<0> That's what you said, that's what I said that's what it is.
<1> Yes, which is *not* what I said
<0> You said Fox News, and Fox News is an American news outlet.
<0> That fact is undeniable.
<1> It might be what you interpreted, but you don't get to rewrite a quote based on an interpretation
<2> ahhh, friday :)
<1> It's an american owned international news outlet
<0> American owned, American run, American focused, American
<1> my statement is best summerised as "You said the BBC was fair, unlike some news outlets (for example, Fox News)"
<0> I don't know what you think the difference is
<0> I'm not trying to summarize your statement
<1> That is a summary I'll accept, as it says what I said
<0> You're losing focus
<0> I'm not your spokesman
<1> Good, then withdraw your rewritten quote and use mine
<0> I'm saying that you made a claim about the BBC.
<0> No, I refuse to.
<1> Then don't use quotation marks
<3> basically jb ****s?
<0> Because doing so would give credit to your inability to focus.
<1> Then your argument fails, as you're misquoting me
<0> My argument doesn't fail, because this isn't my argument.
<0> This was your argument.
<1> And putting words I *did not say* isn't my mouth
<0> You said Fox News.
<0> You did that yourself
<1> Yes. Which you've rewritten as "American news outlets"
<0> You quoted yourself as saying "Fox News", right, Asriel?
<1> Which was not my intent. Hence, us my exact quote.
<1> That way, people can interpret my intent themselves
<0> No
<0> Because we're not propagandists, right?
<1> This is the point of quotation marks, and why they're critical
<0> You said Fox News.
<1> Rewriting quotes is a propoganda tool
<0> Ah
<0> [17:41] <1> my statement is best summerised as "You said the BBC was fair, unlike some news outlets (for example, Fox News)"
<1> And yet, your "rewriting" of my quote doesn't mention fox news at all
<0> You just rewrote your quote
<1> it just says "American news"
<1> I'm allowed to, I know my own intent
<0> Yes, Fox News and "American news outlet" are analogous
<1> No, they're not
<0> Yes, they are.
<1> Not in my mind
<0> Fox News is a subset of American news outlets
<1> Hence, if you want to quote me, *quote* me
<4> no, not at all.
<0> Okay
<1> If you want to rewrite, then you *cannot* quote me
<4> american news outlets ****. fox news ****s extraordinarily.
<0> Because you're apparently a ****ing idiot who lacks the ability to focus, you explain to me what an American news outlet would be, that Fox News isn't, and that other news organizations are, Asriel.
<0> That will put this to rest.
<1> You *cannot* rewrite another persons quotation and then use quotation marks
<0> How is Fox News not an American news outlet, in a way that other news organizations clearly are, Asriel?
<4> somewhat impartial.
<4> some american news outlets are somewhat impartial.
<4> fox news is not impartial in any way. at all.
<1> Because they broadcast internationally
<0> Everyone broadcasts internationally
<0> It all runs on satellites these days
<1> Not all news channels do that. Hence, they are more than just an "American" news channel
<0> Anyone in Mexico can tune in the lion's share of American national broadcasts
<1> my intent was not to characterise "american" channels in my quote, it was to pick up on a channel I think of as particullarly bad
<4> there's a big difference in saying "american news outlet" and "fox news". that's just my take.
<1> You then *rewrote* what I said to fit another interpretation
<0> I didn't say you were characterizing American news outlets
<1> Yet left it my quotation marks
<0> Or, if I did, I meant that you were characterizing SOME.
<0> Right?
<1> Yet used quotation marks. When it was *not* a quote
<0> Which Fox News clearly is.
<1> Ignoring all the logic, that's just gramatically incorrect
<1> You can't quote when you're not quoting someone
<0> Do you really believe that this is at all germane to the question you asked?
<0> Seriously
<1> Yes, because your modus operandi for arguments is to rewrite what people said
<1> And hope they don't notiuce
<0> No, it's not.
<1> Hence, if you want to quote me, please do
<1> But write *exactly* what I said
<1> with it's context
<4> nigglefight.
<0> Yah, NineVolt.
<1> Do *not* leave it in quotation marks and rewrite it, because I *did not say it*
<4> i'm surprised i'm not in on this one really :P
<0> Asriel, either you want to debate this issue seriously, or you want to evade it by focusing on satisfying your ego.
<4> can't we all just smoke a joint?
<5> looking in a mirror???
<0> If you can't put the argument ahead of your ego, then you can't argue anything intelligently, Asriel.
<1> I am debating it seriously. You're the one who is breaking both grammar and logic here
<0> Grammar and logic?
<1> It's factually incorrect to quote someone when the quote does not say what they said
<0> What the hell are you talking about
<1> This is high school report writing
<1> So fix your statement, and we can carry on
<5> JBlitzen btw, did you see the MetalStorm segment on Fox yesterday?
<1> You're the one refusing to rewrite your statement to be correct
<0> Okay, Asriel
<0> So you think that your tangential argument here
<0> Caused by my use of quotes
<0> Is valid and vital?
<0> Then point out, for me, the quotes in this text:
<0> [17:36] <1> I'm really not following your argument at all
<0> [17:36] <1> What conclusion are you aiming at? Just state it,, and I might agree up front
<0> [17:36] <0> Let me summarize it so far
<0> [17:36] <0> You said the BBC was fair, unlike some American news outlets
<0> [17:36] <0> And unbalanced, and whatever
<4> i think it is.
<1> Yes. Because in rewriting and yet leaving it in quotes, changes the intent of my phrase
<1> And yet leaves the quote with me
<0> Great, show me the quotation marks
<4> i mean, it's like changing "hitler" to "a german person"
<1> Giving my words meaning they never were intended to have
<0> Great, show me the quotation marks
<4> i mean, yes, hitler was a german person (or austrian by descent, whatever)
<1> [23:35] JBlitzenYou said the BBC was fair, unlike some American news outlets
<0> No quotation marks in that line
<1> Ok, no quotation marks. But clearly implied :)
<0> Not implied
<1> It was not what I said
<4> while it's not logically incorrect to just refer to him as 'a german person', it's misleading at least.
<5> so you lied???????
<1> Then there's no problem. Agree that it's not what I said, and we can carry on
<4> same goes with 'american news outlet'
<7> on a lighter note: http://www.noidea128.org/sourcefiles/15958.html getting view from pointer not working
<0> I didn't even attribute "some American news outlets" to you, Asriel.
<4> and 'fox news'
<1> [23:35] JBlitzenYou said the BBC was fair, unlike some American news outlets
<4> fox news is much more than your average american news outlet.
<0> There is no way to read that line and parse it such that it's a necessary conclusion that you said "some American news outlets", Asriel.
<0> And you know it.
<4> the category 'american news outlets' doesn't adequately convey the true negativity that is fox news.
<1> Clearly stating that I was talking about "american news outlets" When I wasn't
<0> You said Fox News, so I translated it to "some American news outlets", of which Fox News is one.
<1> Yes, but that's not what I said now, is it
<0> Because it doesn't matter
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#java
#linux
java arraylist into object
#linux
#linuxhelp
lindvdcss
#linux
#AllNiteCafe
ananın a.q
#linux
|
|