|re: Extra, extra, don't look at the headline|
|Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:27 am EDT 07/15/17|
|In reply to: re: Extra, extra, don't look at the headline - CCentero 11:34 pm EDT 07/14/17|
|I understand how it looks that way to you, even as that was not the intent nor the words I used.
Respectfully, I didn't question your knowledge, I questioned your analysis. I never once challenged you on the mechanisms of how a headline works. I simply believed that the headline writer did their best job at reflecting the point that Reidel was making. I have a different reading of that article than you do, and I had it well before this headline discussion got under way.
I never once questioned your credentials as a PR person. I simply believed that the Kagan's mishandling of the situation showed them to be bad producers. I suspected that it would be more of an issue for them than it turned out to be, but that's the thing about predictions: they're not always right. Still, I do believe that they showed poor producing skills in how they handled it, while I am glad that I was wrong about how bad it would look. I like the show, I wish them well.
If you go back and read the original posts, I'm sure you will see that nothing I wrote questioned your knowledge of the editorial process at a newspaper. I questioned your assessment of ryhog's knowledge of the editorial process at a newspaper. I questioned it primarily because I know that he knows because we've talked about this topic in the past on this board. Additionally, it struck me that you were taking a swipe at ryhog because you didn't like how he read the article, though I couldn't say whether that came from malice or confusion.
We're both seeing some version of the same thing in the other, because we don't read the article and the headline in the same way.. From my perspective, I didn't twist anything in the article. I read it exactly the way I told it to you. From where I sit, you're going into elaborate contortions to make your reading support your argument, and I'm being charitable to give your reading plausibility.
You see that we're doing the exact same thing to each other, with the exception that I take no offense from this conversation, whereas it seems that you do.
We're having an argument of analysis, not of knowledge or bonafides. Even when you've questioned my bonafides, I haven't questioned yours. Even when you've questioned my knowledge, I haven't question yours. If you get angry when we converse because you think I'm attacking your expert position, then that is something that is coming from you. I respect your authority, I'm questioning your conclusions.
You may not realize that I have essentially stopped communicating in conversations that you don't initiate, except for when I can be helpful, or when you take a possibly unfair swipe at someone that I think of as a message board friend (and only a very close friend). I like conversing with you when you're polite and don't say mean things, but if that's too much to ask, we can just stop exchanging messages.
As for the comparisons to Trump and Trumpism, I would only offer this advice: when you criticize someone's speech and then complain, "Nevertheless, you persisted", the comparisons write themselves. Whether that is a noble comparison or a derogatory one is up to you.
|Previous:||re: Extra, extra, don't look at the headline - CCentero 11:34 pm EDT 07/14/17|
|Next:||re: Extra, extra, don't look at the headline - ryhog 12:53 am EDT 07/15/17|
Time to render: 0.008864 seconds.