CNN producer to Student: Stick to the script

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2018, 10:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Simply claiming someone has "comprehension issues" is not demonstrating it.

I said that, based upon Lucy's DW post, we did not have enough relevant information to decide who was lying.

Then your post #3 you attempted to add an inference I did not make.

"So, either this student is lying or CNN is.  Your assertion then is that this student, who survived a massacre, is lying to score political points?"

Why would you need to know that if your ONLY POINT was that "someone"--no favorites here--was lying?

Looks to me like "either this student is lying or CNN is" is a premise, not a conclusion or your main point. It is the basis on which you infer, or try to, that I imply or mean to imply the student is lying. (Which I guess would be really bad because he survived a massacre.) You are not trying to convince readers that "someone"--as in anyone--is lying. You are assessing the likelihood of who is. 

That is why I immediately ask, "Where are you going with this?"  And in post #22 you repeat your premise, again as a premise:
So either this kid and his dad are lying or CNN is lying.  Four or five years ago I would have trusted CNN, they just don't have much credibility anymore.

So if your ONLY point is that "someone must be lying," why the need to add that CNN, is "untrustworthy"? How is that "not favoring anyone"?  Especially in contrast to a student hero?

Funny--when I say there is not enough factual basis to make a judgment either way--without claiming anyone is "untrustworthy"--you need to know whether I am calling a student "survivor" a liar.  But after you EXPLICITLY say one party is untrustworthy, you claim a problem with my comprehension if I say that looks like favoring the other party, the "survivor." 

In short, your points were not simply to establish that "someone was lying"--which no one disputed or was interested in disputing--but to establish a likelihood of who was lying. 

But Fred, BPat, Dino, and Benton smelled a rat where you saw a hero. And your "untrustworthy" party turned out to be telling the truth.

Hence the surprise at your post #84, where we get: So when I said someone is lying I was correct. Fred and I could not help noting the Twisty McTwist.   Your NEW MAIN POINT is that all along you were only claiming SOMEONE was lying--AND YOU WERE CORRECT.  All the talk of survivors and CNN's lack of credibility has evaporated. Nothing to see here folks.

It's like you just spent three posts on Feb.3 arguing that someone must win the Superbowl and "incidentally" pointing out the Patriots are five time winners who survived a 20 point deficit in the last Superbowl and the untrustworthy Eagles have always lost. Then on Feb. when the Eagles win you remind everyone you were "correct," someone had to win. 

No one in this forum EVER just argues that "someone must win the Superbowl" because the point is so trivial and no one disputes it. But people are twisting your words if they suggest you were doing anything more than making a non-point with all your talk of credibility.

TL;DR

[Dill]

(03-01-2018, 10:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, reading comprehension fail.  I said someone was obviously lying, someone was.  This is why "discussing" anything with you or your two buddies is both futile and annoying, you deliberately argue points that weren't made or twist points that were.  This does not happen with Matt, Benton, 'Zona, Wyche or basically any other poster but you and your two buddies.  Sad. 

There is another, yet "sadder," way to frame this. 

I don't see Matt, Benton, Zona, Wyche or basically any other poster deliberately demean others or engage in nasty disputes in the numbers and with the frequency that you do--Dill, Dino, Fred, Lucy, Balls, Oncemore, and how many others I may have missed? 

How strange to argue something must be wrong with Dill Dino and Fred, if you--and you alone--regularly cross them with trivialities like spelling smack, personal insults and demands for retraction of statements made not to you but to other posters.  

Remember this latest disagreement started when YOU addressed my post with the implication I was calling a heroic student a liar.

And it ends the way our disputes usually do, with me patiently comparing what you actually said to what you claim you said or did not say, foregrounding the logical inconsistencies, occasionally raising the issue of civility.

[Dill]

(03-01-2018, 10:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: TL;DR

LOL that is what the bolded type is for, to help you get the gist, if you cannot follow the details.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2018, 11:11 PM)Dill Wrote: There is another, yet "sadder," way to frame this.

Hmm, I'm intrigued.  

Quote:I don't see Matt, Benton, Zona, Wyche or basically any other poster deliberately demean others or engage in nasty disputes in the numbers and with the frequency that you do--Dill, Dino, Fred, Lucy, Balls, Oncemore, and how many others I may have missed? 

I don't demean and belittle others, I demean and belittle you, Fred and GM.  

Quote:How strange to argue something must be wrong with Dill Dino and Fred, if you--and you alone--regularly cross them with trivialities like spelling smack, personal insults and demands for retraction of statements made not to you but to other posters.  

This is so laughably untrue as to be, well, laughable.

Quote:Remember this latest disagreement started when YOU addressed my post with the implication I was calling a heroic student a liar.

Yes, that's what I did in that post.  

Quote:And it ends the way our disputes usually do, with me patiently comparing what you actually said to what you claim you said or did not say, foregrounding the logical inconsistencies, occasionally raising the issue of civility.

Yes, that is exactly what happens.  I mean, you clearly always get the point being made and never misinterpret, deliberately or otherwise.  As this thread clearly illustrates.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2018, 11:16 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL that is what the bolded type is for, to help you get the gist, if you cannot follow the details.  

TS;DR

[Dill]

(03-01-2018, 11:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hmm, I'm intrigued.  

I don't demean and belittle others, I demean and belittle you, Fred and GM.  

This is so laughably untrue as to be, well, laughable.

Yes, that's what I did in that post.  

Yes, that is exactly what happens.  I mean, you clearly always get the point being made and never misinterpret, deliberately or otherwise.  As this thread clearly illustrates.

Demeaning is confirmed.

Otherwise, no interest in supporting points you've made here. No refutation of my points made earlier.
And we are far away from the theme of the thread.

If this is your final effort, I am satisfied to let the matter rest.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2018, 11:28 PM)Dill Wrote: Demeaning is confirmed.

It's never been a secret.   

Quote:Otherwise, no interest in supporting points you've made here. No refutation of my points made earlier.
And we are far away from the theme of the thread.

It's been done, you don't get it.  I can't teach my cat to drive, so I don't bother.

Quote:If this is your final effort, I am satisfied to let the matter rest.

I guarantee I'll make more posts, don't worry.

[GMDino]

(03-01-2018, 11:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't demean and belittle others, I demean and belittle you, Fred and GM.  

(03-01-2018, 11:28 PM)Dill Wrote:
Demeaning is confirmed.

Otherwise, no interest in supporting points you've made here. No refutation of my points made earlier.
And we are far away from the theme of the thread.

If this is your final effort, I am satisfied to let the matter rest.

Maybe we're not "others".  Maybe he thinks we're just voices INSIDE his head? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-02-2018, 12:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe we're not "others".  Maybe he thinks we're just voices INSIDE his head? 

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2018, 10:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: TL;DR

[Dill]

(03-02-2018, 12:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe we're not "others".  Maybe he thinks we're just voices INSIDE his head? 

A guy who sincerely wonders, no self-irony, why he demeans and belittles only some posters, not others.

What could their problem be? LOL We ARE inside his head.

[Dill]

(03-02-2018, 11:19 AM)fredtoast Wrote: TL;DR

I'm pretty sure he read at least this far:

(03-01-2018, 10:27 PM)Dill Wrote: "So, either this student is lying or CNN is.  Your assertion then is that this student, who survived a massacre, is lying to score political points?"

Why would you need to know that if your ONLY POINT was that "someone"--no favorites here--was lying?