• AdelleChattre (edited 8 years ago)
    +3

    Really? Because it seems to me it doesn't take much of an attention span to understand. You could get it in less time than it takes to make slapped-together ad hominem attacks like that.

    • joethebob
      +2

      Actually that wasn't an adhominem attack it was directly against the paucity of their sourcing, the self-stipulated tag as opinion, as well as a dearth of corroboration by anything resembling a respected news source.

      • AdelleChattre
        +2

        Six of one, half dozen of the other.

        • joethebob
          +3

          I forgot we are only allowed to criticize journalistic standard when it agrees with personal bias. Truth is in the eye of the beholder as long as it's you.

        • AdelleChattre (edited 8 years ago)
          +3
          @joethebob -

          No, you presented a false dichotomy. You can both pull reasons from a hat for disbelieving an article, and they can be ad hominem attacks on the source because you can't refute what it says, as is the case here. Now you've made a straw man argument, in which you pretend you've been told some nonsense you've cut from whole cloth, whilst projecting your blinkered party-line subjectivity-of-truth crap. That a bit overly dramatic, isn't it?

          Someone downvoted this article as 'factually inaccurate.' I wonder whether that person can back that up and point us to any factual inaccuracies. Or whether someone's been voting their gut, facts be damned.