4 ms·

You're ignoring what I am saying, seemingly because you are focused on mocking me. As such I'll make a final attempt to explain myself, but it seems likely that

You're ignoring what I am saying, seemingly because you are focused on mocking me. As such I'll make a final attempt to explain myself, but it seems likely that communication will be thwarted yet again. There was solid and easily locatable evidence that supports the premise of the article in question. The article did not use that evidence, and instead based its premise upon an irrelevant quote that did not support its argument. Thus the article is fundamentally flawed: it arrives at its conclusion by making a leap from one disconnected idea to a second; there is no chain of reasoning to follow. Worse than simply making a leap in its reasoning, it misinterprets a disjoint quote and passes it off as support for its argument. This method of pseudo-analysis will occasionally render correct segments of analysis. That doesn't matter. The pseudo-analysis is still flawed, unreliable, and devoid of value.

deramisan 19y ago
I have already conceded that the article could have cited better sources, but my point remains: you could have as well. You implied that the article author did not know as much as you did. You suggested that they were not only not citing sources that didn't help the argument but also making factually inaccurate claims. In so doing, you took an implicit position of authority on the matter by claiming (as a user with insider knowledge) that the author was wrong. That was wrong, which makes you equally (or more so) guilty of unsound reasoning and misleading or misguided argument. If you claim to know better and are wrong, doesn't that make your statements even more misguided than someone who raises 'concerns' about an issue and says it quote "sounds like Gmail' and turns about to be justified in these concerns? The article clearly raises the entire question as a 'concern' as stated in the headline. Your statements were much closer to being assertions of fact based on expert opinion. Could the article have cited better sources? Yes. Does that mean the article author didn't know what he was talking about? No, and the article turned out to be correct. Could you have cited better sources yourself? Yes. Did it turn out that the article was right and you were wrong? Also yes. You tell me. Seriously. You tell me: what is worse: (1) failing to site the right source but writing truthful content, or (2) implicitly claiming expert status and writing false content defaming an accurate source.

deramisan 19y ago

I have already conceded that the article could have cited better sources, but my point remains: you could have as well. You implied that the article author did not know as much as you did. You suggested that they were not only not citing sources that didn't help the argument but also making factually inaccurate claims. In so doing, you took an implicit position of authority on the matter by claiming (as a user with insider knowledge) that the author was wrong. That was wrong, which makes you equally (or more so) guilty of unsound reasoning and misleading or misguided argument. If you claim to know better and are wrong, doesn't that make your statements even more misguided than someone who raises 'concerns' about an issue and says it quote "sounds like Gmail' and turns about to be justified in these concerns? The article clearly raises the entire question as a 'concern' as stated in the headline. Your statements were much closer to being assertions of fact based on expert opinion. Could the article have cited better sources? Yes. Does that mean the article author didn't know what he was talking about? No, and the article turned out to be correct. Could you have cited better sources yourself? Yes. Did it turn out that the article was right and you were wrong? Also yes. You tell me. Seriously. You tell me: what is worse: (1) failing to site the right source but writing truthful content, or (2) implicitly claiming expert status and writing false content defaming an accurate source.