- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 61,715
- Reaction score
- 25,963
That factoid was already discussed last fall, and there was nothing contemporaneous about it when Supereem posted it on August 18th (it happened in 1986) that wasn't relevant to Charlottesville, and the backlash against Trump for the "false equivalence" of his public comments on the matter. There is no reason to create a discrete thread for material that has already been exhumed; a historical event that is only being cited recently in the context of another thread's events. Otherwise, why is that being posted? What is grounding it? It's not current, and it's not relevant without that more recent anchor. It made its first run right before the election back on September 4th, 2016, after Snopes took care to fact check the story printed by The American Mirror:Understood. Thanks for the response.
@Madmick, can you clarify your reasoning on the above for us? As I and other people have been having threads merged a lot lately, it seems some of us are clearly out of synch on the forum guidelines now. Why did Trump's diversity award get merged into the Charlottesville megathread, but your own two threads on Charlottesville not get merged? As in what quality did your threads possess that made them distinct enough in your eyes? It would be nice to know so that we can craft our threads more carefully in the future.
And also, could you clarify why you took offensene to the thread not being current? Is merging/dumping threads on historical events something that you will do regularly from now on, or was there something special about this case?
http://www.snopes.com/trump-received-ellis-island-award-in-1986/
Pertaining to my two threads on "Charlottesville". I did not make a thread about Charlottesville. I made a thread about the claims by Alex Jones that Soros was funding the protests that were breaking out across the country including in Durham and Chicago-- with a more recent, specific allegation leveled at Charlottesville. That merely broached the topic. If you read the thread you can see the discussion focused squarely on that question, and what evidence there is towards it, not Charlottesville or the details of the events that took place there. It's a Soros-Antifa thread. Charlottesville was just the most recent example where this topic became a point of interest thanks to Jones's comment, and spurred the discussion for the separate topic of professional protesters, and their funding.
I'm not sure what the second thread is you're talking about.
@Madmick, what game are you even talking about. You were never even mentioned in the thread. You seem mad about something.
Not at all, but I'm communicating to you that I'm not going to dither in a game where you try to create a new thread for a topic that already exists (in which you have posted repeatedly, and for which you have tried spamming threads in the past) while offering a thinly veiled pretense for dragging out a headline rather than posting updates to the story with links in the appropriate thread.
Your OP concerns a very specific story: about Wasserman-Schultz and her IT worker Amran. You make a deliberate effort to pre-empt an incoming/merge dump (that you know is appropriate) with this comment:
While creatively acrobatic, all you have served to do is to create a thread that still preoccupies itself with that specific story about Wasserman-Schultz. Ergo it doesn't require a discrete thread. It isn't about a wider discussion on MSM suppression of stories.KlnOMega said:Topic of the thread: Why the fuck is MSM so silent on this. In an article about the arrest, NYT even notes that they have been completely silent on the topic
Furthermore, it fails in the context of the facts of the thread itself.
For example, you said the New York Times hasn't covered the story, but in the OP itself there is coverage of the story dating back to the last major break (the arrest in the airport) on July 28th. I Googled for numerous other conservative sources, including The Hill and The Wall Street Journal, for example, and their coverage has been no more significant. Conversely, it mentions that the body covering the story the most closely is Tucker Carlson's The Daily Caller. Uh...that is the MSM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller
Meanwhile, Tucker's current residence is also covering the story in updates:Wikipedia said:The Daily Caller was founded by Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel. After raising $3 million in funding from businessman Foster Friess, the website was launched on January 11, 2010. The organization started with a reporting staff of 21 in its Washington office.
By 2013, the site was receiving over 35 million views a month according to Quantcast, surpassing rival sites such as The Washington Times, Politico, and Forbes.[8] The site has an active community, with over 200,000 comments made each month.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-it-aide-expands-with-4-count-indictment.html
That is among the heart of the MSM.
So your proposition for why the thread should be discrete is hollow. This isn't about the MSM. It's about the NYT, and your grievance that they aren't covering a specific story to your satisfaction despite that you cannot accurately define this grievance. It's impossible to prove a negative.
This is simple, really: if you want to talk about Wasserman-Schultz and her IT guy, then post in the thread about Wasserman-Schultz and her IT guy. Complain about the lack of coverage there. Don't make 10 threads for the same topic.