Would you please just spell out whatever it is that you're hinting at?
I'd really prefer if people would simply read the source text they're provided with. Because, well, it usually works, and it worked just now. After I forced Trekky to actually read the articles, he managed to find the inconsistency himself. Well, sort of. He highlighted the right line of text, at least. With a little bit more effort, he might even
process it.
I don't understand what you think there is to gain in me rewriting Snopes's article myself. I'd do a worse job than they did.
Because that's what was reported in the Daily Voice, which the article gets its information from.
If you ignore everything that happened in-between, sure. But ignoring everything that happened in-between to give it a fake sense of immediate reaction is patently dishonest.
Is that what is making you call it "fake news"? Because if so, I don't think you know what the term means.
Nice meme bro. It's a news story that's partly based on facts, which just happens to twist the details to deliver a certain narrative. And mollete's post here illustrates that
it worked. Now, if you have something constructive to add (n.b. not "lol if u think dis then u dont kno things"), go ahead!
I feel like you do this kind of thing all the time - communicate your point very vaguely, get defensive when whoever you're talking with doesn't read your mind, and spend the next several posts snarkily accusing them of being disingenuous while offering little to no clarification on your original point.
There's a small handful of people here who make up their mind about what an argument is (n.b. not just whether or not the argument stands up to scrutiny, but rather its very substance) without hearing it out. I'll always mock that, because it is deserving of nothing less. if Trekky truly read the article, which names Occupy Democrats by name and points out their actions, then a response along the lines of "I don't know who OD are or what they did" is just... strange.
You're not surrounded by a conspiracy of devious liars. If someone doesn't seem to understand your point, it's almost certainly not deliberate on their part.
Of course not. It's just a few people (I'm counting 3 in my head right now) who genuinely believe in what they say -- so much that they won't bother evaluating the other side's points, so instead they make assumptions, and in those assumptions they make critical mistakes. We've got the odd liar or two too, but hey ho.