Orange Garbage fires McCabe 2 days before he retires to mess w his pension

[Dill]

(03-19-2018, 07:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, you don't like semantics now?  I am pleased to hear this.  What I specifically stated was that, not long ago, I would have automatically believed CNN but their recent credibility issues prevented that from occurring now.  So, not quite what you just claimed, unless you think I'm engaging in semantic.

Oh no, please get the post.  Let the people decide for themselves.  Power to the people, workers unite!

(02-23-2018, 01:14 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: he said they said
https://www.snopes.com/did-cnn-give-shooting-survivor-questions/
LOL Dailywire/Fox

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?

(02-23-2018, 01:25 AM)Dill Wrote: lol Wow. 
My "assertion" was that he said one thing and CNN said another. And the Snopes search suggested no definitive criteria for deciding one way or another.
No doubt, though, a student who survived a massacre could not lie.
Wonder where you are going with this. Do you have the definitive criteria Snopes didn't or are we just in for an angry framing of the incident?

(02-23-2018, 02:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So you think CNN is lying.  Yet another nail in the coffin of a once respected news source.  Sad.

(02-23-2018, 12:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: Unless the people at CNN survived a massacre too.
Then we are back to he said they said. 

You can be smartassed about it all day, it doesn't change the facts.  When two sides give completely different versions of events then simple logic tells you one side is not being truthful.  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.

Cutting to the chase

(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.

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

(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.