No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that I've noticed that news involving the war, straight-on news, tends to be wrong on the first few days out of the gate.
You may or may not have heard about the religous documentary involving schoolkids, 'warriors for god' and the big cardboard cutout of George Bush. Many people believed that the kids were praying to George Bush when in fact, days -later-, it turned out that they were praying for George Bush. That's the kind of example I was talking about.
Also, IIRC, there was a case of a missing female soldier a month or so ago. Everyone thought she had been kidnapped when, allegedly, she had just got drunk and or lost.
You: Articles of this style are *usually* ass-wrong.
Me: What style?
You: Style as in 'Something fucked up involving the war on terra'.
Me: Are you saying that articles that criticize the war are "*usually* ass-wrong"?
You: No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
I call bullshit. That's exactly what you said. "Articles of this style (style="something fucked up in the war") are usually ass-wrong." That may or may not have been what you meant, but that's not my problem--I was responding to what you said, and I won't apologize for misinterpreting you because I didn't. The very best interpretation is that you communicated poorly; frankly I think you're back peddling.
I'm saying that I've noticed that news involving the war, straight-on news, tends to be wrong on the first few days out of the gate.
Oh great. And to back up this outrageous allegation, you provide two pieces of anecdotal evidence, neither of which has anything even tangentially to do with "the war" and neither of which has anything to do with the actual reporting or news stories but with people's fucked-up perceptions of them.
Let's pretend for a moment that I have forgotten the adage that "the plural of anecdote is not data" and act as if you have actually attempted to provide proof of your claims, and let's look at the examples you used:
I challenge you to find me a legitimate news story that claims that those children were worshipping GWB. There were people who saw that weird-ass cardboard cutout at the "religious camp" and who wondered out loud what the President had to do with God, there were people who looked at those children gazing lovingly up at that graven image and cried foul, but there wasn't a news story that claimed that children were being taught to worship the President. If you know of a counter example, bring it on.
Ditto for the soldier who went missing. Find me a legitimate news story that announces that she was kidnapped; I read the stories with some interest when they were fresh and they said "she was last seen at such-and-such a place, with so-and-so people, and no one's reported a missing American to the local police." Dry and factual. There were words like "speculated" and phrases like "no possibility ruled out", but anyone who "thought" she was kidnapped was stupidly leaping to conclusions.
In other words, it wasn't the news that was "ass-wrong"; it was the idiots who didn't bother to pay attention to what was actually said.
You: No it's not! And if you attempt to prove anything related to what I said by repeating my actual words, then you suck and I win and I don't even have to talk to you any more, nyaah nyaah!
Your attitude is just stunning. Arguement with meaningful content: Apparently it really is only for eggheads.
What a perfect example of ignorance and hysteria. I feel so bad for that man. I can only imagine how he felt being treated this way just because he happens to be bilingual. Then to read that he'll never speak a foreign language in an airport again...so sad. Why should he have to change to accomodate the stupid?
Ha. Everyone knowns that in the new america, you stole your land from some indians you killed, and if your brown skinned AND speaking a funny forren lingo, youre up to no good, and not a real merrican. Once they clean out the foriegn darkies, they can start going after the domestic brown people.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-03 06:30 pm (UTC)Because that's usually how these stories work out.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-03 06:37 pm (UTC)But no. Read the article.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-03 06:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-03 07:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 01:06 am (UTC)It usually ends up an entirely different kind of fucked up.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 03:52 am (UTC)What? Are you saying that articles that criticize the war are "*usually* ass-wrong"? Can you provide any evidence of this?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 05:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 06:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 12:56 pm (UTC)You may or may not have heard about the religous documentary involving schoolkids, 'warriors for god' and the big cardboard cutout of George Bush. Many people believed that the kids were praying to George Bush when in fact, days -later-, it turned out that they were praying for George Bush. That's the kind of example I was talking about.
Also, IIRC, there was a case of a missing female soldier a month or so ago. Everyone thought she had been kidnapped when, allegedly, she had just got drunk and or lost.
Let's recap here. with direct quotes:
Date: 2006-10-04 01:57 pm (UTC)Me: What style?
You: Style as in 'Something fucked up involving the war on terra'.
Me: Are you saying that articles that criticize the war are "*usually* ass-wrong"?
You: No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
I call bullshit. That's exactly what you said. "Articles of this style (style="something fucked up in the war") are usually ass-wrong." That may or may not have been what you meant, but that's not my problem--I was responding to what you said, and I won't apologize for misinterpreting you because I didn't. The very best interpretation is that you communicated poorly; frankly I think you're back peddling.
I'm saying that I've noticed that news involving the war, straight-on news, tends to be wrong on the first few days out of the gate.
Oh great. And to back up this outrageous allegation, you provide two pieces of anecdotal evidence, neither of which has anything even tangentially to do with "the war" and neither of which has anything to do with the actual reporting or news stories but with people's fucked-up perceptions of them.
Let's pretend for a moment that I have forgotten the adage that "the plural of anecdote is not data" and act as if you have actually attempted to provide proof of your claims, and let's look at the examples you used:
I challenge you to find me a legitimate news story that claims that those children were worshipping GWB. There were people who saw that weird-ass cardboard cutout at the "religious camp" and who wondered out loud what the President had to do with God, there were people who looked at those children gazing lovingly up at that
graven imageand cried foul, but there wasn't a news story that claimed that children were being taught to worship the President. If you know of a counter example, bring it on.Ditto for the soldier who went missing. Find me a legitimate news story that announces that she was kidnapped; I read the stories with some interest when they were fresh and they said "she was last seen at such-and-such a place, with so-and-so people, and no one's reported a missing American to the local police." Dry and factual. There were words like "speculated" and phrases like "no possibility ruled out", but anyone who "thought" she was kidnapped was stupidly leaping to conclusions.
In other words, it wasn't the news that was "ass-wrong"; it was the idiots who didn't bother to pay attention to what was actually said.
Re: Let's recap here. with direct quotes:
Date: 2006-10-04 02:39 pm (UTC)Oh. My. Gawd.
Date: 2006-10-04 03:30 pm (UTC)You: No it's not! And if you attempt to prove anything related to what I said by repeating my actual words, then you suck and I win and I don't even have to talk to you any more, nyaah nyaah!
Your attitude is just stunning.
Arguement with meaningful content: Apparently it really is only for eggheads.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-03 07:58 pm (UTC)Shame!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-03 08:57 pm (UTC)Keep track of these people, for when the time comes, it is they who will tell the Stazi about you.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 06:36 am (UTC)Articles that criticize the war are usually ass-wrong my flabby white ass.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 12:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 03:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 05:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-04 05:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-03 09:58 pm (UTC)Once they clean out the foriegn darkies, they can start going after the domestic brown people.
Date: 2006-10-04 02:38 am (UTC)