You presented a biased opinion without declaring said bias. You omitted important information that allows posters to judge the balance of the articles. Did you lie? No. Were you frank? No. I'm not the only poster who thought the title could be misleading. No, it isn't. The blogger lives in the US of A.
Go through the page and find me titles that aren't "misleading" by your silly interpretation of the definition. Jesus H., is it too much to ask you to read the article? Come to your own conclusions. Why the fuck do I need to hold your cock and lead you to the urinal to piss? I made a fucking post with two editorials. Guess what? They have opinions. Bias is assumed. Get over it and post why you disagree with the contentions made rather than having a silly, semantic argument. I'm a patient guy, but holy fuck are you annoying. Link? And The Telegraph is a UK paper. Hence "From the UK". I don't think you're a QC, so you should stop trying to play one. If for some reason you are find a new profession because you're really bad at it.
Now you're playing the man, not the ball. Poor form. To Ronan's post? It's in this thread; you responded to it.
You've accused me of not being frank and being misleading. Who has the poor form again? And as for your accusation, isn't that what you're doing to poor Mr. Gardener? You've haven't even addressed his points; instead you've attacked him personally. Perhaps it's because you can't? How about "playing the ball" DUB? He agreed it was a view from the right, not that it was misleading. Seriously, you're really bad at this.
You asked me to explain how I find the thread title misleading. All I've done is try to clarify how I find it misleading. I haven't made made any comment about the blogger, other than that he is from the right of politics. I don't see how that's a personal attack on him. I disagree due to this post.
I've got some time to kill so I responded to one of the articles Disagree. He's definitely out of touch with white middle class Americans. Michele still remains popular with people though LINK Agree. I'm not in the majority though. I think people's opinion of him will change by the end of the year though. His approval numbers are picking up. Agree. It's been too much of politics as usual and the party divide is getting wider Agree. It's getting out of hand. Somewhat agree. I don't approve of the bailouts Disagree. Health care costs are ridiculous. It's the number one cause of bankruptcy. Something had to be done Disagree. He gave BP a chance to handle it on their own and stepped in when needed. From the same WSJ poll. Disagree. He scored a big home win with the Russian spy swap. Personally, my foreign friends have a more favorable view of the U.S. They are not alone either. LINK Agree. I think we're going to have to buckle down in Afganistan and see the war through. It's going to take years to turn that country around. Disagree. This is just stupid. He's appologising for the wrecking ball of cowboy diplomacy. It's working too. He got the freaking Noble Peace Prize too.
You have done nothing but bitch and moan about a throwaway (but correct) title to a thread. You seem to be up in arms that this person may have his own opinions, with which you seem to disagree. You have accused me of all kinds of underhanded things as well as this person not being able to see beyond their own bias. Again, at no point did you address any of the points of the articles. You simply looked at this writer's background and dismissed him. Should I do the same with every opinion writer I confront? For example, I disagree with Paul Krugman, but I read his articles and find that he often makes interesting points. In other words, I use the writer's words and ideas, not their viewpoint. You do a disservice to the writer by dismissing them out of hand. You would be better off not commenting on them. Because someone "could" agree with your insane and grammatically incorrect point of view, doesn't mean they "do" agree with you. I look forward to your comments on all the other "misleading" titles on this board as well as the points discussed in the two articles I posted. I'm afraid you're more interested in shooting the messenger than dealing with the message, however.
It's no more misleading than the labeling a story about the Hillside Strangler "American men rape and torture women", or a story about the KKK "A view from America". But go ahead and play dumb.
Correction. The story about the Hillside Strangler could be titled "An American rapes and tortures women" and would be completely correct. And what part of the KKK not being a view from America do you disagree? It's a small segment, it's ignorant, but it's "a view". There's no way I'll try to play dumb when there are professionals playing at an MVP level like you out there.
For what it's worth, I don't think the thread title was intellectually dishonest. I don't think it's required that all biases be listed when providing an opinion. You can assume biases, if you want, based on the person/people involved but the opinion stands on its own. Biased or not, it either makes useful points to the reader (in the judgment of each individual one) or it doesn't. The only thing one could call "misleading" in my opinion is that the "from the UK" part. The implication is that this is a view from outside the US...but even if it was printed in a UK paper, it was (apparently) written by someone inside the US. So is it really a view from someone outside the US looking in? But I don't think that was intentionally misleading.
I believe he is up in arms as you say because you deliberately imply in your thread title that "this person" (singular) who is merely parroting word for word what he heard on Fox, is expressing a view that is shared by his countrymen. That is dishonest and has been debunked already in this thread. "A view from Fox News repeated verbatim by a British guy living in Washington" seems more accurate.
It would be correct, but still misleading as they were a 2-man team. "2 Americans rape and torture women" is how someone wanting to not give the wrong impression would phrase it. It is a view from a hate-group in America. It is not a view shared by Americans in general, or even in large numbers. Just as your Fox-lover expresses "a view plagiarized from Fox News by a British guy living in Washington", not a view shared by large numbers from the UK. If I travel to DC and post should I title my thread "A view from the White House"?
I not sure that I understand why maxiep's being attacked here. Any view is biased. No view is universal. There's nothing wrong with the title. As for whether it's "from the UK" or not... Democracy in America was published by a Frenchman from notes taken over the better part of a year in the USA. This opinion piece seems to be written by a Brit on a UK website while he's living in the US. I'm not sure it would really matter that he flew back to London before typing it up... it's still an outsider's perspective. It seems pretty obvious that some of the people attacking maxiep don't agree with the content of the piece, and they're worked up about it. Unfortunate. Ed O.
I agree it wouldn't matter...he still wouldn't be an "outsider" if he made the observations about the US while living in the US.
You take physical presence to be that important? Really? I think being an outsider is more about culture and mindset than where you happen to be sleeping. And do you deny that Tocqueville's work was that of an outsider? He spent nine months in the US and Canada and based his work on that. Ed O.
I take what society you are immersed in to be pretty important in determining what society you are part of. I don't take physical presence at time of writing to be important, obviously, since I said if he flew back to London to type it up, it wouldn't change anything. I don't think someone who is watching the political process from within the US (which means, consuming US views from the media and people around him) is providing an outsider perspective to the US political process.
Nor is it representative of the view of "the UK", as he obviously meant to imply. Just the view of someone who used to live there, but doesn't now. It could just as easily be referred to as an opinion piece taken straight from Fox, as that is what it appears to be.
