I know that it’s not a competition and I’m not suggesting that one group of victims is less valuable than the other. It’s just that it seems like events that fit the proper narrative get played up, and the ones that don’t get ignored.
It’s only Muslims killing black African Christians I guess we can’t work up any sympathy for them. As long as it’s Muslims killing for religious reasons they get a pass.
I agree that the left will jump on the parts of the NZ story that fit their narrative, yet they intentionally ignore the parts that don’t. Of course, black Christians in Africa get killed for their faith on a regular basis, apostasy is a capital crime in most Muslim countries, but the left doesn’t care about that because it doesn’t move the narrative forward. Hell Sunni/Shia killings have happened more frequently and don’t get this much play, let alone the attacks on Israeli civilians.
It’s all in service of the narrative, anything else gets ignored or suppressed.
I'm not saying the stories aren't factual, but can you find any news source that isn't right wing or Christian that is verifying these claims about Nigeria? I can't.
I’m not sure why that matters. Are you suggesting that the news sources are lying? Are you suggesting that truth is determined by your conception about the news sources religious or political leanings? Does the political/religious leanings of a news source consistently undermine its credibility or cause doubt?
Unwittingly you’ve hit the point of the post. If the stories are true, then why is the mainstream media suppressing them? If they are false, why isn’t the mainstream media debunking them? If either of those two things are true, then doesn’t it cast doubt on the credibility of the mainstream media?
The places that I have seen the story talked about have you been places that I do not trust such as CBN Or places that I don't know and therefore don't automatically trust them given that I don't know them. This strikes me as reasonable.
The reason I don't trust sources like CBN or Breitbart or Infowars is that they are not news organizations. They're propaganda shills of the worst sort. Well to varying degrees. Breitbart's probably not as bad as Infowars and CBN is probably as bad as the other two.
I imagine you agree that not every source of information is equally valid. Surely you agree that Infowars is just an awful organization and not reliable, correct? And I'm guessing that probably you have problems with Pat Robertson and his people and find them less than ideal or reliable, yes?
FYI, while many of the news organizations repointing on this were “christian” there seemed to be a spectrum of viewpoints as well as enough mentions in other sources to not simply dismiss the reports. Also, it’s been ongoing for long enough to take seriously.
Personally I’d consider both the BBC and Reuters to be pretty left leaning, but if they’ve covered the ongoing situation in Nigeria, I’d say that gives the story credibility.
Well, that's what I'm asking you. Have any reputable news organizations covered it? That's my question. You just suggested that BBC and Reuters have, but I have not seen that. Do you have a link?
I'd ask what you consider credible, but you haven't answered any other questions, so why would I expect you to answer that one. You haven't actually demonstrated that your decision to find the news organizations that have covered it as not credible anything but your prejudice.
It seems as if you think that what is going on here is a conversation. I hate to disagree, but a series of demands/questions by one person with absolutely zero back and forth is not a conversation.
As usual, you're welcome to comment, but don't expect me to simply do your bidding.
Did a quick search and found that Fox did indeed cover the story, though it may have been on their website rather than a TV report. The Daily Mail also covered it. (There was at least one or two others that I now don't recall.)
It seems rather a contrived argument to suggest that a source such as CBN should be dismissed simply because of Pat Robertson. The focus should be on the quality of the reporting. How does Robertson's involvement in the organization suggest one can't trust the news reporting of CBN?
This is more laughable when one considers I linked to about a half-dozen links that listed numerous examples false, subjective or terribly biased (to the point of corrupting the story) reporting in a comment at Dan's, which he deleted because it supported Trump's low opinion of certain news sources and reporters.
It should also be kept in mind that many of the sources Dan rejects are those that came into being because the traditional sources either can't be trusted for accuracy or they simply don't cover everything that many consider newsworthy, but may conflict with the worldview of the "mainstream" sources. There's no doubt that many of these report from a conservative or Christian perspective. But neither indicates the reporting is untrustworthy. Dan simply doesn't like the details they make sure people see.
Look, I don't care if you support what you're suggesting or not. You made a claim. I could find no reputable news organizations reporting it. Therefore, I asked what I believe is a reasonable question... Are there any reputable news organizations reporting on this?
I've already Googled and found nothing. But rather than just write you off as passing on nutty news, I was giving you some benefit of the doubt and asking if you had any reputable source.
I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt.
The aversion to answering questions is strong. I asked you some rational/reasonable question and you’ve answered precisely zero. You’ve now had two people give you examples of “reputable” sources ( without ever explanating what objective reasons you have for considering every news outlet that covered the story not reputable).
But you’ve accomplished what you wanted. You’ve laid the groundwork (in your mind anyway) to depart in high dudgeon without engaging in a conversation or answering questions.
Well done.
Think about this, both Art and I have been able to do what you can’t do. Does that mean we’re just more intelligent or less lazy?
Just did a google search with these words... "foxnews 32 christians killed nigeria"
Nada. I've tried "32 christians killed nigeria" and "muslim terrorists 32 christians killed nigeria" and other variations. Still nada.
Look, again, I don't care if you offer a link or not. I was concerned that this might be happening and tried to verify it with some reputable news source. Or even Fox News. But I can't verify it.
So, what do I do? Set it aside until I find some reputable source.
Just like I do with reports from unknown/unreputable sources that the Bat Boy was found in Philadelphia or that Area 51 has released photos of aliens.
Tell me this, fellas: Do you seriously think that Pat Robertson or anyone closely associated with him is in ANY way at all credible and not a total nut job?
I'm done. I thought I would give you a good faith effort to provide some data for your claim and you passed. Lesson learned.
You dismiss multiple news sources as not “reputable”, without even the merest hint of an objective reason. You ignore/dodge/don’t even acknowledge the existence of multiple questions. You get 4 “reputable” organizations that have coveted the ongoing killing in Nigeria. You whine because you can’t work the google. Then you have the chutzpah to blame others for your failings.
You’d have much more credibility if you actually provided evidence for your own claims.
Of course, you’ve acknowledged that you found evidence of the claim. You also acknowledged that you don’t like the sources of the evidence. You’ve provided zero objective reasons why the news reported is false (the veracity of the story isn’t determined by your unproven opinion of the source).
In essence your claiming that your inability to find a source you like proves the news as presented is false. Okay, prove your claim.
Are you suggesting that the news sources are lying?
No, I'm quite clearly saying that they are not reputable or not known to me and, thus, not something I'd trust, since I don't know them. That would be true if they happened to be left or right leaning. I know reputable news groups - BBC, NPR, WaPo, CNN, Fox News, etc. I don't see a single reputable news source reporting on this.
Question answered. Already, and again.
Are you suggesting that truth is determined by your conception about the news sources religious or political leanings?
Nope. I'm saying that there are reputable news groups out there and then, many more less reputable news source and even more places that aren't even news groups who report news as if it were news. CBN is not a reputable news source. They're big goofballs. Do you disagree?
Does the political/religious leanings of a news source consistently undermine its credibility or cause doubt?
Nope. Whether they are a reputable news source that reports on news and not merely passes on unverified stories as if they were news. They are regularly recognized as passing on truly nutty conspiracy level "stories" as opposed to reporting actual news with some attempt at objectivity.
If the stories are true, then why is the mainstream media suppressing them?
That is the question. ARE the stories true? And the reality is that legitimate news groups don't report every story so not reporting them does not equal "suppressing them."
If they are false, why isn’t the mainstream media debunking them?
Because one doesn't pay attention to wingnuts/conspiracy theorists/religious wackos. Giving them the time of the day offers a hint of credibility to them.
The MSM doesn't debunk stories about the bat boy or alien abductions, either.
If either of those two things are true, then doesn’t it cast doubt on the credibility of the mainstream media?
Nope.
That's how you answer questions. You all supposedly have "found" news links from reputable sources about these stories, but have yet to provide them. IF they were there, all you'd have to do is copy and paste a link. You two have opted not to do it to support a story that YOU offered.
Wow, Dan finally answers questions. It’s a freaking miracle.
Now, your answers don’t really provide any proof that your opinions align with reality, you simply spout your opinions as if they were fact.
You make various claims in your responses, without actually providing providing proof of your claims.
I’m impressed that for the first time in months, you’ve answered some or the questions asked, it took multiple attempts and you ignored and held out as long as you can.
If you can’t prove the sources you’ve found to be wrong, it’s not my problem.
As you tell me so often, you’re not going to do my work for me. So why should I treat you any differently than you treat everyone else? You’ve made claims, prove them. If you can’t then make excuses and run away. You’ve established what the climate will be, all I’m doing is asking for you to treat yourself the same way you treat me. As always, you’re welcome to comment. That’s the area where I have chosen to treat you better than you treat me.
I’ve raised 2 children, spent over a decade building houses with volunteers. and spent a lot of time evaluating the charity/mission endeavors I’m involved with against the current best practices. What is consistent through all of those things is that you don’t do things for others that they can do for themselves.
In that spirit, because I believe you are at least as capable as any of the volunteers I’ve led or any of the Haitians I’ve worked alongside, I’m going to empower you to do for yourself. I’m confident that you can prove all the stories you’ve already found to be false, and track down the stories about the ongoing slaughter (I don’t know if killing for religious reasons constitutes genocide), in Nigeria of Christians by Muslims.
I’m also going to note, that you’ve not once expressed any sympathy for your coreligionists or condemnation of the Muslims.
At this point, it doesn’t matter if you stay and choose to engage, or if you go on back to your home field, you have done an amazing job of illustrating the larger point that I’ve been making for a while. So thank you very much for that.
You make it impossible to take you seriously, Craig. I'm guessing that even if you really are "Craig," you are a promoter (one way or the other) of fake news and trollish behavior. Of course I answer your questions, I generally do. The reality is that I came here with ONE simple question: DO you have a legitimate news source that supports these claims?
Your answer is pretty obviously, No. But you do all this ridiculous dodging and refusing to answer that you simply support at least ONE of your stories.
You're a joke and I'm done with you. Don't return to my blog.
You may well spend time helping in Haiti, but your credibility is damaged by trying to hide behind poor people rather than simply answer a reasonable request to support your claim. You are a pimp, using poor people for some sick, twisted dodge.
This is without a doubt the funniest and most pathetic attempt to divert attention from the reality that you have absolutely nothing of substance to offer The fact that you demand things of others that you can’t do yourself is just one testament to your cowardice, as is you running back to your blog and telling us to leave you alone when you’re too scared to do what you demand of others. It’s all about control and intimidation with you and once your own standards are applied to you, you’re too weak to take what you try to give.
Your retreat back to the “if that’s who you really are” trope is just evidence that you’ve got nothing and can’t do what’s been asked so you’ll go back to this pile of bullshit. If I’m really not who I say, then I guess you’re an idiotic dupe who got taken in.
Seriously, practice what you preach, live up to the standards you demand of others, learn to use google, prove your claims, and grow a pair.
You were done before you started because you had nothing but vitriol and slander. You don’t give a rat’s ass about a bunch of black African Christians because they don’t help your narrative move forward. Just like you don’t give a shit about innocent Israelis killed by bombs and rockets.
You may claim to be a Christian, but you clearly worship yourself.
You’ll always be welcome to comment here, because that’s how believers roll.
I’d tell you to embrace grace, but you wouldn’t know grace if it bit you.
Even though Dan has taken flight, I'll add my thoughts:
---I am still not surprised at Dan's blatant hypocrisy with regard to what he regards as "reputable" news sources. The links I provided in comments he deleted included examples from outlets he named above. Yet he continues to regard them as "reputable".
---His claim of being forthcoming is nonsense. One would be hardpressed to find a straight answer from him that wasn't preceded by any number or type of delay, such as first demanding questions of his be answered first, even if the questions of others are already on the table. Indeed, questions about a post of his...implicit or direct, for that matter...are often among the first comments. They routinely go ignored.
---The fact that Dan can't find the story covered by his "reputable" sources is entirely the point. That other sources are lesser known has no bearing on whether or not they're reputable, and we see often the sources upon which he relies have proven to be less than reliable, which is why so many smaller groups have formed in the first place.
It would seem that "reputable" is as well determined by what stories are covered, which are not and why, more so than how established and well known an outlet is.
I’d say that if you’re going to claim that a news source is not reputable, you should be able to prove that claim with objective evidence.
The percieved reputableness of a news source doesn’t diminish the truth of a given story. So, it then becomes necessary to provide evidence that the specific story isn’t true.
Dan can’t do either and resorts to ad hom attacks with no substance.
Not necessarily for public consumption, but I just posted a ton of stuff at Dan's latest blog post. You might want to get there before he deletes it all...a decidedly likely possibility as you know.
I've skimmed them and believe that you posting them there was probably a waste of time. Having said that, he did invite to to comment on that post. That post which was intended specifically for you to address this "false claim". So, while it is in character, his deleting of your comments would be directly opposed to the point of the post.
Of course, if he wasn't making false claims to bolster his complaint about your false claims...
29 comments:
I know that it’s not a competition and I’m not suggesting that one group of victims is less valuable than the other. It’s just that it seems like events that fit the proper narrative get played up, and the ones that don’t get ignored.
It’s only Muslims killing black African Christians I guess we can’t work up any sympathy for them. As long as it’s Muslims killing for religious reasons they get a pass.
There does seem to be a real effort to play this NZ situation for political points. It has so many advantages:
1. Muslims getting killed means that they're victims of hate, too, not just purveyors of it.
2. The shooter being a white guy always gives the left a tingle.
3. The shooter crapping on Trump, Candace Owens and conservatism is a major plus.
4. The shooter can still be called "right-wing" despite the facts of #3.
I agree that the left will jump on the parts of the NZ story that fit their narrative, yet they intentionally ignore the parts that don’t. Of course, black Christians in Africa get killed for their faith on a regular basis, apostasy is a capital crime in most Muslim countries, but the left doesn’t care about that because it doesn’t move the narrative forward. Hell Sunni/Shia killings have happened more frequently and don’t get this much play, let alone the attacks on Israeli civilians.
It’s all in service of the narrative, anything else gets ignored or suppressed.
I'm not saying the stories aren't factual, but can you find any news source that isn't right wing or Christian that is verifying these claims about Nigeria? I can't.
... not even Fox News.
I’m not sure why that matters. Are you suggesting that the news sources are lying? Are you suggesting that truth is determined by your conception about the news sources religious or political leanings? Does the political/religious leanings of a news source consistently undermine its credibility or cause doubt?
Unwittingly you’ve hit the point of the post. If the stories are true, then why is the mainstream media suppressing them? If they are false, why isn’t the mainstream media debunking them? If either of those two things are true, then doesn’t it cast doubt on the credibility of the mainstream media?
The places that I have seen the story talked about have you been places that I do not trust such as CBN Or places that I don't know and therefore don't automatically trust them given that I don't know them. This strikes me as reasonable.
The reason I don't trust sources like CBN or Breitbart or Infowars is that they are not news organizations. They're propaganda shills of the worst sort. Well to varying degrees. Breitbart's probably not as bad as Infowars and CBN is probably as bad as the other two.
I imagine you agree that not every source of information is equally valid. Surely you agree that Infowars is just an awful organization and not reliable, correct? And I'm guessing that probably you have problems with Pat Robertson and his people and find them less than ideal or reliable, yes?
I figured that out from your original comment.
What would make you think I’d answer your questions if you aren’t going to answer the questions you’re asked.
FYI, while many of the news organizations repointing on this were “christian” there seemed to be a spectrum of viewpoints as well as enough mentions in other sources to not simply dismiss the reports. Also, it’s been ongoing for long enough to take seriously.
Personally I’d consider both the BBC and Reuters to be pretty left leaning, but if they’ve covered the ongoing situation in Nigeria, I’d say that gives the story credibility.
Well, that's what I'm asking you. Have any reputable news organizations covered it? That's my question. You just suggested that BBC and Reuters have, but I have not seen that. Do you have a link?
I'd ask what you consider credible, but you haven't answered any other questions, so why would I expect you to answer that one. You haven't actually demonstrated that your decision to find the news organizations that have covered it as not credible anything but your prejudice.
It seems as if you think that what is going on here is a conversation. I hate to disagree, but a series of demands/questions by one person with absolutely zero back and forth is not a conversation.
As usual, you're welcome to comment, but don't expect me to simply do your bidding.
I'd suggest www.google.com.
Did a quick search and found that Fox did indeed cover the story, though it may have been on their website rather than a TV report. The Daily Mail also covered it. (There was at least one or two others that I now don't recall.)
It seems rather a contrived argument to suggest that a source such as CBN should be dismissed simply because of Pat Robertson. The focus should be on the quality of the reporting. How does Robertson's involvement in the organization suggest one can't trust the news reporting of CBN?
This is more laughable when one considers I linked to about a half-dozen links that listed numerous examples false, subjective or terribly biased (to the point of corrupting the story) reporting in a comment at Dan's, which he deleted because it supported Trump's low opinion of certain news sources and reporters.
It should also be kept in mind that many of the sources Dan rejects are those that came into being because the traditional sources either can't be trusted for accuracy or they simply don't cover everything that many consider newsworthy, but may conflict with the worldview of the "mainstream" sources. There's no doubt that many of these report from a conservative or Christian perspective. But neither indicates the reporting is untrustworthy. Dan simply doesn't like the details they make sure people see.
Look, I don't care if you support what you're suggesting or not. You made a claim. I could find no reputable news organizations reporting it. Therefore, I asked what I believe is a reasonable question... Are there any reputable news organizations reporting on this?
I've already Googled and found nothing. But rather than just write you off as passing on nutty news, I was giving you some benefit of the doubt and asking if you had any reputable source.
I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt.
The aversion to answering questions is strong. I asked you some rational/reasonable question and you’ve answered precisely zero. You’ve now had two people give you examples of “reputable” sources ( without ever explanating what objective reasons you have for considering every news outlet that covered the story not reputable).
But you’ve accomplished what you wanted. You’ve laid the groundwork (in your mind anyway) to depart in high dudgeon without engaging in a conversation or answering questions.
Well done.
Think about this, both Art and I have been able to do what you can’t do. Does that mean we’re just more intelligent or less lazy?
Just did a google search with these words... "foxnews 32 christians killed nigeria"
Nada. I've tried "32 christians killed nigeria" and "muslim terrorists 32 christians killed nigeria" and other variations. Still nada.
Look, again, I don't care if you offer a link or not. I was concerned that this might be happening and tried to verify it with some reputable news source. Or even Fox News. But I can't verify it.
So, what do I do? Set it aside until I find some reputable source.
Just like I do with reports from unknown/unreputable sources that the Bat Boy was found in Philadelphia or that Area 51 has released photos of aliens.
Tell me this, fellas: Do you seriously think that Pat Robertson or anyone closely associated with him is in ANY way at all credible and not a total nut job?
I'm done. I thought I would give you a good faith effort to provide some data for your claim and you passed. Lesson learned.
This is absolutely amazing.
You dismiss multiple news sources as not “reputable”, without even the merest hint of an objective reason. You ignore/dodge/don’t even acknowledge the existence of multiple questions. You get 4 “reputable” organizations that have coveted the ongoing killing in Nigeria. You whine because you can’t work the google. Then you have the chutzpah to blame others for your failings.
You’d have much more credibility if you actually provided evidence for your own claims.
Of course, you’ve acknowledged that you found evidence of the claim. You also acknowledged that you don’t like the sources of the evidence. You’ve provided zero objective reasons why the news reported is false (the veracity of the story isn’t determined by your unproven opinion of the source).
In essence your claiming that your inability to find a source you like proves the news as presented is false. Okay, prove your claim.
And answer the questions you’ve been asked.
Or prove me right, I’m good either way.
Are you suggesting that the news sources are lying?
No, I'm quite clearly saying that they are not reputable or not known to me and, thus, not something I'd trust, since I don't know them. That would be true if they happened to be left or right leaning. I know reputable news groups - BBC, NPR, WaPo, CNN, Fox News, etc. I don't see a single reputable news source reporting on this.
Question answered. Already, and again.
Are you suggesting that truth is determined by your conception about the news sources religious or political leanings?
Nope. I'm saying that there are reputable news groups out there and then, many more less reputable news source and even more places that aren't even news groups who report news as if it were news. CBN is not a reputable news source. They're big goofballs. Do you disagree?
Does the political/religious leanings of a news source consistently undermine its credibility or cause doubt?
Nope. Whether they are a reputable news source that reports on news and not merely passes on unverified stories as if they were news. They are regularly recognized as passing on truly nutty conspiracy level "stories" as opposed to reporting actual news with some attempt at objectivity.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/christian-broadcasting-network-cbn/
If the stories are true, then why is the mainstream media suppressing them?
That is the question. ARE the stories true? And the reality is that legitimate news groups don't report every story so not reporting them does not equal "suppressing them."
If they are false, why isn’t the mainstream media debunking them?
Because one doesn't pay attention to wingnuts/conspiracy theorists/religious wackos. Giving them the time of the day offers a hint of credibility to them.
The MSM doesn't debunk stories about the bat boy or alien abductions, either.
If either of those two things are true, then doesn’t it cast doubt on the credibility of the mainstream media?
Nope.
That's how you answer questions. You all supposedly have "found" news links from reputable sources about these stories, but have yet to provide them. IF they were there, all you'd have to do is copy and paste a link. You two have opted not to do it to support a story that YOU offered.
Again, I'm done. Lesson learned.
Wow, Dan finally answers questions. It’s a freaking miracle.
Now, your answers don’t really provide any proof that your opinions align with reality, you simply spout your opinions as if they were fact.
You make various claims in your responses, without actually providing providing proof of your claims.
I’m impressed that for the first time in months, you’ve answered some or the questions asked, it took multiple attempts and you ignored and held out as long as you can.
If you can’t prove the sources you’ve found to be wrong, it’s not my problem.
As you tell me so often, you’re not going to do my work for me. So why should I treat you any differently than you treat everyone else? You’ve made claims, prove them. If you can’t then make excuses and run away. You’ve established what the climate will be, all I’m doing is asking for you to treat yourself the same way you treat me. As always, you’re welcome to comment. That’s the area where I have chosen to treat you better than you treat me.
I’ve raised 2 children, spent over a decade building houses with volunteers. and spent a lot of time evaluating the charity/mission endeavors I’m involved with against the current best practices. What is consistent through all of those things is that you don’t do things for others that they can do for themselves.
In that spirit, because I believe you are at least as capable as any of the volunteers I’ve led or any of the Haitians I’ve worked alongside, I’m going to empower you to do for yourself. I’m confident that you can prove all the stories you’ve already found to be false, and track down the stories about the ongoing slaughter (I don’t know if killing for religious reasons constitutes genocide), in Nigeria of Christians by Muslims.
I’m also going to note, that you’ve not once expressed any sympathy for your coreligionists or condemnation of the Muslims.
At this point, it doesn’t matter if you stay and choose to engage, or if you go on back to your home field, you have done an amazing job of illustrating the larger point that I’ve been making for a while. So thank you very much for that.
You make it impossible to take you seriously, Craig. I'm guessing that even if you really are "Craig," you are a promoter (one way or the other) of fake news and trollish behavior. Of course I answer your questions, I generally do. The reality is that I came here with ONE simple question: DO you have a legitimate news source that supports these claims?
Your answer is pretty obviously, No. But you do all this ridiculous dodging and refusing to answer that you simply support at least ONE of your stories.
You're a joke and I'm done with you. Don't return to my blog.
You may well spend time helping in Haiti, but your credibility is damaged by trying to hide behind poor people rather than simply answer a reasonable request to support your claim. You are a pimp, using poor people for some sick, twisted dodge.
Shame on you. Repent.
Now, I'm done.
This is without a doubt the funniest and most pathetic attempt to divert attention from the reality that you have absolutely nothing of substance to offer The fact that you demand things of others that you can’t do yourself is just one testament to your cowardice, as is you running back to your blog and telling us to leave you alone when you’re too scared to do what you demand of others. It’s all about control and intimidation with you and once your own standards are applied to you, you’re too weak to take what you try to give.
Your retreat back to the “if that’s who you really are” trope is just evidence that you’ve got nothing and can’t do what’s been asked so you’ll go back to this pile of bullshit. If I’m really not who I say, then I guess you’re an idiotic dupe who got taken in.
Seriously, practice what you preach, live up to the standards you demand of others, learn to use google, prove your claims, and grow a pair.
You were done before you started because you had nothing but vitriol and slander. You don’t give a rat’s ass about a bunch of black African Christians because they don’t help your narrative move forward. Just like you don’t give a shit about innocent Israelis killed by bombs and rockets.
You may claim to be a Christian, but you clearly worship yourself.
You’ll always be welcome to comment here, because that’s how believers roll.
I’d tell you to embrace grace, but you wouldn’t know grace if it bit you.
I re read my original post, I didn’t actually make a claim. But you’ve never let reality intrude on you trying to impose your will on others.
Even though Dan has taken flight, I'll add my thoughts:
---I am still not surprised at Dan's blatant hypocrisy with regard to what he regards as "reputable" news sources. The links I provided in comments he deleted included examples from outlets he named above. Yet he continues to regard them as "reputable".
---His claim of being forthcoming is nonsense. One would be hardpressed to find a straight answer from him that wasn't preceded by any number or type of delay, such as first demanding questions of his be answered first, even if the questions of others are already on the table. Indeed, questions about a post of his...implicit or direct, for that matter...are often among the first comments. They routinely go ignored.
---The fact that Dan can't find the story covered by his "reputable" sources is entirely the point. That other sources are lesser known has no bearing on whether or not they're reputable, and we see often the sources upon which he relies have proven to be less than reliable, which is why so many smaller groups have formed in the first place.
It would seem that "reputable" is as well determined by what stories are covered, which are not and why, more so than how established and well known an outlet is.
I’d say that if you’re going to claim that a news source is not reputable, you should be able to prove that claim with objective evidence.
The percieved reputableness of a news source doesn’t diminish the truth of a given story. So, it then becomes necessary to provide evidence that the specific story isn’t true.
Dan can’t do either and resorts to ad hom attacks with no substance.
Not necessarily for public consumption, but I just posted a ton of stuff at Dan's latest blog post. You might want to get there before he deletes it all...a decidedly likely possibility as you know.
I've skimmed them and believe that you posting them there was probably a waste of time. Having said that, he did invite to to comment on that post. That post which was intended specifically for you to address this "false claim". So, while it is in character, his deleting of your comments would be directly opposed to the point of the post.
Of course, if he wasn't making false claims to bolster his complaint about your false claims...
It seems as though there had been a rash of attacks on churches in France, yet the MSM is silent.
Post a Comment