Aneurhythmia wrote:I missed the thing from the ombudsman. Sorry. But I assume the Post still changed their site to reflect the source, regardless of who composed the text.

You are still missing the question. Who instigated the change, and why? If Reuters posted the revised copy, then who got them to do it? You say 'reflect the source'- who changed the source?

clocker bob wrote:

aneu wrote: Why was it done? I don't know. There isn't evidence. There is conjecture. I could cast some of the conjecture as likely, and use that to determine my personal position, but I could never construe it as damning.

So you're lying here, too. If you are assessing the conjecture, then the only way to do that is by comparing the original and revised articles to see if the language might have changed for a valid reason

aneu wrote:Please clarify this. How am I lying? Am I lying about the difference between evidence and conjecture?

I'm not accusing you of not knowing the difference between evidence and conjecture! You said this:

aneu wrote:I haven't really kept up with whether Reuters has changed the information they're disseminating.

Which is a statement that you are not following the evolution of the article, yet, despite not following the evolution of the article, you are more than happy to dismiss conjecture about why the article evolved the way that it did. If you don't know the evolution of the article, why do you feel qualified to have an opinion on the conjecture made by those who do??

I didn't miss the who did it and why question. I answered it with "there isn't proof, only conjecture." I didn't dismiss the conjecture, just identified it as such.

Aneurhythmia wrote:I didn't miss the who did it and why question.
I answered it with "there isn't proof, only conjecture." I didn't dismiss the conjecture, just identified it as such.

Once it is established that there are two different wordings for the article, then any speculation about why it happened is conjecture. Who the hell said otherwise? The point is, you wasted six posts trying to figure out which article was which and what the screenshot meant. Nobody needed you to 'identify' conjecture, you meathead. You were so far out of it on this story, you were still babbling about 'the screenshot' this morning.

clocker bob wrote:you wasted six posts trying to figure out which article was which

Where did this happen?

clocker bob wrote:You were so far out of it on this story, you were still babbling about 'the screenshot' this morning.

But you skipped the part where I was talking about why I was interested in the screenshot and its context.

Aneurhythmia wrote:

clocker bob wrote:you wasted six posts trying to figure out which article was which

Where did this happen?

In this thread. Begin at the beginning.

clocker bob wrote:You were so far out of it on this story, you were still babbling about 'the screenshot' this morning.

aneu wrote:But you skipped the part where I was talking about why I was interested in the screenshot and its context.

No, you're lying again. I asked you three times to state whether you questioned the authenticity of the screenshot, because if that wasn't your objective, what was the point of your endless references to it? You said that you didn't question it, which was a lie, because earlier, you did question it.

Here's where you said you didn't question the authenticity of the screenshot:

Aneurhythmia wrote:
I never questioned the veracity of the "documents," if you'd thought about what I've already posted, you'd see that. I questioned the presentation of information, which is relevant to a discussion of propaganda. I already pointed that out, again, in earlier posts.

Which contradicts this:

aneu wrote:
Like, let's say somebody wiped the search terms from the grey bar and implied that the selected text was featured on the Google News main page, because to some people that may confer a better since of authenticity than something buried in a search engine cache or Malaysian news source.

You and your journey down the screenshot wormhole had no point, because you didn't know where you were going with it; you were just making noise for the sake of noise.

Alright, so ignore what I said about the CONTEXT of the screenshot, choice of language, the mechanism of propaganda, and the part where I labeled an example of off-base reasoning as such, and construct your own reality to talk to yourself about. Have fun.

Aneurhythmia wrote:Alright, so ignore what I said about the CONTEXT of the screenshot, choice of language, the mechanism of propaganda, and the part where I labeled an example of off-base reasoning as such,

You didn't say anything about any of these issues, because you couldn't- you're incapable of it. And this is not the thread for it, unless you feel like any thread that exposes propaganda must be re-directed down aneurhythmia's dead end road about the mechanism of propaganda, you bag of hot air. Just because aneurhythmia wants to ignore the substance of the thread doesn't mean he gets to. Go start your own thread on whatever masturbatory contextual crap you want, because you are a pothole in this thread with your jumbled arguments.

You're right. Propagandist tactics are only a problem for one side of the argument.
Enjoy your false skepticism.

Aneurhythmia wrote:You're right. Propagandist tactics are only a problem for one side of the argument.
Enjoy your false skepticism.

You moron. I asked you to prove a case that anything in any document linked to this thread was not authentic, and you failed. Not only did you fail, but you later lied about your efforts to derail the thread, you jackass.

There is ample space for a discussion of 'propaganda tactics' on this forum, should you wish to have that discussion. When this thread is moving along quite well examining the evolution of the article, you proceeded to try and force your asinine discussion into the middle of the thread, buttmunch. And now you lie over and over about what you wrote- let's review:

Your first timewasting post:

Aneurhythmia wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Here's the screenshot of the Post article, as it appeared on Google News roundup:

What's up with the selective bolding?

My reply:

clocker bob wrote:

Aneurhythmia wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Here's the screenshot of the Post article, as it appeared on Google News roundup:

What's up with the selective bolding?

If you find the article as a result of a search string, the words in the search string appear as boldface in the search results.

Your second timewasting post:

Aneurhythmia wrote:So why aren't the search terms showing in the grey bar?

That's your second insinuation that there was something not authentic about the screenshot, moron. Later, you lied and wrote that you never were pursuing this angle.

I gave you the courtesy of another reply, and asked you if in your fried brain, you could return to the topic:

clocker bob wrote:

Aneurhythmia wrote:So why aren't the search terms showing in the grey bar?

Dude, I don't know- I didn't personally archive the screenshot. If you're implying that it's fake in any way, click this link:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=u ... 8&filter=0

And look for the result from the Washington Post and see if the header still reads like it does in the screenshot. I did an hour ago.

Do you have a comment on the actual story, or do you want to discuss fonts next?

Like an autistic mental patient, you continue to insist that something is wrong with the screenshot ( although you can't say what ):

Aneurhythmia wrote:I'm just curious about the selective use of language.

I reply again:

clocker bob wrote:

Aneurhythmia wrote:I'm just curious about the selective use of language.

You consider boldfaced search results a 'selective use of language'?? Are you 'special ed'?

And you jabber on some more- timewasting post five:

Aneurhythmia wrote:No, selective use of language like, "as it appeared on Google News roundup" and "the header still reads like it does in the screenshot."

I mean, it's clearly in the Google cache, no denying that. But why call search results a header or a screenshot of a roundup?

You don't even know what a header is, you freak.

clocker bob wrote:

Aneurhythmia wrote:No, selective use of language like, "as it appeared on Google News roundup" and "the header still reads like it does in the screenshot."

What is inaccurate about either statement?

I mean, it's clearly in the Google cache, no denying that. But why call search results a header or a screenshot of a roundup?

Because that's what they are- you do a search of Google News, and you get a round up of headers, and then you decide if you want to click over to the actual article based on the header. What are you missing here? What would you call the screenshot, if you don't like my language?

The idiot babbles on:

Aneurhythmia wrote:I suppose you could call my curiosity about the presentation of information in a thread about propaganda, the selective presentation of information, derailing if you want. I might call making accusations derived from an entirely different thread derailing.

You claim again that the screenshot is misleading:

Aneurhythmia wrote:The word "header" has a specific definition. If I wanted it to mean any damn fool thing I wanted, I could construe it to support all kinds of theories. Like, let's say somebody wiped the search terms from the grey bar and implied that the selected text was featured on the Google News main page, because to some people that may confer a better since of authenticity than something buried in a search engine cache or Malaysian news source.

Mark Hansen wrote:Bob, I think he's grasping at straws here. Aneu's arguments don't make any sense, and aren't really relevant to the main point of your posts here.

clocker bob wrote:If his questions are not part of some effort by him to dispute the veracity of the articles, then why is he asking them?

And then after seven posts of stupid questions, what was anusheads's point? He had none, apparently. He claims he was discussing propaganda tactics, by focusing on a screen shot that he doesn't question the veracity of! So, if you are studying propaganda tactics, why make a series of pointless accusations about a screenshot if it is not propaganda?? What a total shitbrain Anushead is.

Aneurhythmia wrote:I never questioned the veracity of the "documents," if you'd thought about what I've already posted, you'd see that. I questioned the presentation of information, which is relevant to a discussion of propaganda. I already pointed that out, again, in earlier posts.