|
|
Post by kav on Jun 12, 2022 15:12:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jun 13, 2022 6:10:26 GMT -8
You’re using Brietbart as a source and claiming no politics? Hilarious. And most of that info is suspect, unsupported, and misleading, but you don’t care as long as it supports your agenda. Typical useless, deflecting garbage reply attacking the source rather the topic itself. 
|
|
tacoman
Junior Member
Joined: June 2022
Posts: 35
|
Post by tacoman on Jun 13, 2022 6:56:55 GMT -8
You’re using Brietbart as a source and claiming no politics? Hilarious. And most of that info is suspect, unsupported, and misleading, but you don’t care as long as it supports your agenda. Typical useless, deflecting garbage reply attacking the source rather the topic itself.
That's not deflecting.  Sources are important. Brietbart isn't a respected news source. It's also far-right, so you can't claim to be non-political if you quote it. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jun 13, 2022 7:18:47 GMT -8
Typical useless, deflecting garbage reply attacking the source rather the topic itself.
That's not deflecting. Sources are important. Brietbart isn't a respected news source. It's also far-right, so you can't claim to be non-political if you quote it. It's about as useful as a new, 'anonymous' shill giving their opinion. 
If he has a problem with the point, then dissect the discussion point NOT the messenger.
And EVERYTHING can be labelled political if you want to use your umbrella method because every news source is biased politically in some way.
tldr?
Debate the message and not the messenger. Duh.
As if it needs to be spelled out in crayon.  |
|
tacoman
Junior Member
Joined: June 2022
Posts: 35
|
Post by tacoman on Jun 13, 2022 7:48:47 GMT -8
That's not deflecting. Sources are important. Brietbart isn't a respected news source. It's also far-right, so you can't claim to be non-political if you quote it. It's about as useful as a new, 'anonymous' shill giving their opinion. 
If he has a problem with the point, then dissect the discussion point NOT the messenger.
And EVERYTHING can be labelled political if you want to use your umbrella method because every news source is biased politically in some way.
tldr?
Debate the message and not the messenger. Duh.
As if it needs to be spelled out in crayon.  Do you believe Brietbart is a reputable news source? |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jun 13, 2022 7:55:22 GMT -8
Do you believe Brietbart is a reputable news source? It's entirely irrelevant in this discussion.
The National Enquirer is not a reputable news source but they also have managed to break some of the biggest news anyway.
The real question is, is the news I presented real or not?
Now, who are really? 
|
|
tacoman
Junior Member
Joined: June 2022
Posts: 35
|
Post by tacoman on Jun 13, 2022 8:04:48 GMT -8
Do you believe Brietbart is a reputable news source? It's entirely irrelevant in this discussion.
The National Enquirer is not a reputable news source but they also have managed to break some of the biggest news anyway.
The real question is, is the news I presented real or not?
Now, who are really?
So you believe reputation and credibility are irrelevant when quoting a news source? You believe all news sources are equal because a bad news source once broke a real story? |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jun 13, 2022 8:22:20 GMT -8
It's entirely irrelevant in this discussion.
The National Enquirer is not a reputable news source but they also have managed to break some of the biggest news anyway.
The real question is, is the news I presented real or not?
Now, who are really?
So you believe reputation and credibility are irrelevant when quoting a news source? You believe all news sources are equal because a bad news source once broke a real story? I didn't say that.
I said, debate the point on it's own merits and not on the merits of the messenger.
But your pretzel logic is flawed and twists words, which is typical of those who don't have their information straight but try to win over with emotion and popularity rather than reason or logic.
It's exactly what most biased news sources like the ones that you think are credible, do. 
Which is why people like you go for the messenger every time, because there is no other avenue for you to win.
In short, checkmate.
|
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Jun 13, 2022 8:43:17 GMT -8
It's entirely irrelevant in this discussion.
The National Enquirer is not a reputable news source but they also have managed to break some of the biggest news anyway.
The real question is, is the news I presented real or not?
Now, who are really?
So you believe reputation and credibility are irrelevant when quoting a news source? You believe all news sources are equal because a bad news source once broke a real story? I believe that the more your post count increases, the more your posts are annoying and without substance or agenda or interest. Play my daddy is bigger than your daddy with the condescending WC crowd, Clown. You are a a magnificent Roman mimic. " So you believe....blahblahblah...". WTF are you, 5 years old? Christ. |
|
tacoman
Junior Member
Joined: June 2022
Posts: 35
|
Post by tacoman on Jun 13, 2022 8:45:06 GMT -8
So you believe reputation and credibility are irrelevant when quoting a news source? You believe all news sources are equal because a bad news source once broke a real story? I didn't say that.
I said, debate the point on it's own merits and not on the merits of the messenger.
But your pretzel logic is flawed and twists words, which is typical of those who don't have their information straight but try to win over with emotion and popularity rather than reason or logic.
It's exactly what most biased news sources like the ones that you think are credible, do. 
Which is why people like you go for the messenger every time, because there is no other avenue for you to win.
In short, checkmate.
Yes, you did say that.
News sources are important. If you don't believe that you will never convince anyone of anything. Being critical of sources is not the same as attacking the messenger, so don't use that to cloud the issue.
Checkmate? So you are playing games?
|
|
tacoman
Junior Member
Joined: June 2022
Posts: 35
|
Post by tacoman on Jun 13, 2022 8:48:43 GMT -8
So you believe reputation and credibility are irrelevant when quoting a news source? You believe all news sources are equal because a bad news source once broke a real story? I believe that the more your post count increases, the more your posts are annoying and without substance or agenda or interest. Play my daddy is bigger than your daddy with the condescending WC crowd, Clown. You are a a magnificent Roman mimic. " So you believe....blahblahblah...". WTF are you, 5 years old? Christ.  |
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Jun 13, 2022 9:00:23 GMT -8
Sigh...there was no need to reinforce proof of you childishness.
What is next: NANANANANA?
You actually believe you are ready for the big boy debate, with Vintage? Clown.
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jun 13, 2022 9:01:49 GMT -8
I didn't say that.
I said, debate the point on it's own merits and not on the merits of the messenger.
But your pretzel logic is flawed and twists words, which is typical of those who don't have their information straight but try to win over with emotion and popularity rather than reason or logic.
It's exactly what most biased news sources like the ones that you think are credible, do.
Which is why people like you go for the messenger every time, because there is no other avenue for you to win.
In short, checkmate.
Yes, you did say that.
News sources are important. If you don't believe that you will never convince anyone of anything. Being critical of sources is not the same as attacking the messenger, so don't use that to cloud the issue.
Checkmate? So you are playing games?
No, I did not say that. 
News sources are NOT more important than the sources the 'news sources' get their information from. Duh.
I'm never going to try to convince someone a 'news source' is a good news source. That's playing checkers.
I am going to try to convince someone whether the facts in the news source are accurate or not. That's how you play chess. Duh.
You STILL haven't even touched on the topic of whether or not Gates, Clinton et all funded a campaign against Musk or not.
You're STILL arguing over which news sources are better.
Engaging with you is just a waste of time.
|
|
tacoman
Junior Member
Joined: June 2022
Posts: 35
|
Post by tacoman on Jun 13, 2022 9:36:19 GMT -8
Yes, you did say that.
News sources are important. If you don't believe that you will never convince anyone of anything. Being critical of sources is not the same as attacking the messenger, so don't use that to cloud the issue.
Checkmate? So you are playing games?
No, I did not say that.
News sources are NOT more important than the sources the 'news sources' get their information from. Duh.
I'm never going to try to convince someone a 'news source' is a good news source. That's playing checkers.
I am going to try to convince someone whether the facts in the news source are accurate or not. That's how you play chess. Duh.
You STILL haven't even touched on the topic of whether or not Gates, Clinton et all funded a campaign against Musk or not.
You're STILL arguing over which news sources are better.
Engaging with you is just a waste of time.
You said, "News sources are NOT more important than the sources the 'news sources' get their information from. Duh." I've never heard of the source cited in the Breitbart article. Is Foundation for Freedom Online (FFO) a good source? It sounds like it might be just another far-right website. Can you please find the FFO report and post it here so we can read and analyze it?
|
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Jun 13, 2022 9:59:05 GMT -8
Consistency in annoyance is still consistency. I'll give you that, Clown.
You are out of your league.
|
|
