CNN producer to Student: Stick to the script

[Dill]

(03-01-2018, 10:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Clearly reading is not a strong suit for you.  Miss the part of having no more credibility "above any other citizen".

I didn't favor anyone, again reading comprehension issues.  I said not long ago I would have believed CNN without hesitation.  Their credibility issues of late prevent me from doing that now.

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.

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.