• 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 7 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.