4 ms·

Yes, he did call on conservative leaning publications. Your vague memories are incorrect.

by mejari 10y ago

billfor 10y ago
December 2012: Several journalists reported that MSNBC hosts were meeting privately with President Obama to discuss the impending “fiscal cliff” fight. May 2013: NPR’s Ari Shapiro reported that President Obama was meeting privately with “lefty columnists,” but hastened to add that there was “nothing nefarious” about it. November 2013: President Obama met again with liberal journalists, as Obamacare struggled with the failure of healthcare.gov and other problems. March 2015: Politico’s media reporter, Hadas Gold, reported that “a group of journalists and columnists,” all on the left, met privately with President Obama, but the White House refused to say “who else was at the meeting or what was discussed.”
- mejari 10y ago
  Where have you copy-pasted this list from and what is it's relevance?
  - basurihn 10y ago
    I'm sure if you were at all open to his point, you could really figure it out.
    - mejari 10y ago
      Why bother posting the comment at all if you don't actually want to discuss it?
      - grzm 10y ago
        To be fair, your initial response was not particularly conducive to continuing the conversation. Why would they choose to respond to someone who is apparently antagonistic?
        mejari 10y ago
        Which initial response? My first comment in this thread was responding to a baseless comment about someone's own memory, so I didn't feel the need to put a lot of effort providing sources. My first reply to billfor was a question asking for clarification on his comment. I don't see in what way I'm being antagonistic. As to why would they choose to respond, I don't know, but they did choose to, so I don't see why asking for clarification is such a bad thing.
        grzm 10y ago
        Apologies for not looking far enough up the thread. I am referring to this comment: Where have you copy-pasted this list from and what is it's relevance? Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but this can easily be read as "you're just copy/pasting stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation". With contentious topics, extra care needs to be taken to ensure constructive conversation.
        mejari 10y ago
        It's very clear that it is copy-pasted from somewhere, just from the formatting of the text, so I was honestly wondering where it was from. As it is it's just an unsourced block of text without any commentary about what they meant to show by it or even if it is accurate. >this can easily be read as "you're just copy/pasting stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation". Good, because that is what I meant. Until they can show the source of that information and can explain why they posted it I have no way of knowing if it has anything to do with the conversation. >With contentious topics, extra care needs to be taken to ensure constructive conversation. I do not consider just copying blocks of text at someone without any attempt at elaboration a constructive conversation. I asked a valid clarifying question and I feel no need to beat around the bush. Nothing in my comment was unnecessary or aggressive. Read it literally, as that is the way it was written.
        grzm 10y ago
        If you no longer think the person you're engaging with is interested in constructive discussion, it does absolutely no good to make it worse by raising the level of antagonism. If you're interested in rehabilitating it, you need to make it abundantly clear that that's what you're doing. Otherwise, just leave it be. Given the nature of internet forums with text being the only medium, you do need to take extra care to ensure the best possible reading of your comments. I wasn't the only one to read your comment in a negative way (as another commenter posted as well), and your comment didn't elicit the response from 'billfor that you were looking for. The bar needs to be higher. Although it happens much too often, HN isn't intended for battle or point-scoring debate: it's intended for substantive, constructive discussion. Similarly, at this point I don't think I've done an adequate job in presenting what I've intended, so I'll leave it at that.

Yes, he did call on conservative leaning publications. Your vague memories are incorrect.

by mejari 10y ago

Yes, he did call on conservative leaning publications. Your vague memories are incorrect.

December 2012: Several journalists reported that MSNBC hosts were meeting privately with President Obama to discuss the impending “fiscal cliff” fight. May 2013: NPR’s Ari Shapiro reported that President Obama was meeting privately with “lefty columnists,” but hastened to add that there was “nothing nefarious” about it. November 2013: President Obama met again with liberal journalists, as Obamacare struggled with the failure of healthcare.gov and other problems. March 2015: Politico’s media reporter, Hadas Gold, reported that “a group of journalists and columnists,” all on the left, met privately with President Obama, but the White House refused to say “who else was at the meeting or what was discussed.”

mejari 10y ago
Where have you copy-pasted this list from and what is it's relevance?
- basurihn 10y ago
  I'm sure if you were at all open to his point, you could really figure it out.
  - mejari 10y ago
    Why bother posting the comment at all if you don't actually want to discuss it?
    - grzm 10y ago
      To be fair, your initial response was not particularly conducive to continuing the conversation. Why would they choose to respond to someone who is apparently antagonistic?
      - mejari 10y ago
        Which initial response? My first comment in this thread was responding to a baseless comment about someone's own memory, so I didn't feel the need to put a lot of effort providing sources. My first reply to billfor was a question asking for clarification on his comment. I don't see in what way I'm being antagonistic. As to why would they choose to respond, I don't know, but they did choose to, so I don't see why asking for clarification is such a bad thing.
        grzm 10y ago
        Apologies for not looking far enough up the thread. I am referring to this comment: Where have you copy-pasted this list from and what is it's relevance? Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but this can easily be read as "you're just copy/pasting stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation". With contentious topics, extra care needs to be taken to ensure constructive conversation.
        mejari 10y ago
        It's very clear that it is copy-pasted from somewhere, just from the formatting of the text, so I was honestly wondering where it was from. As it is it's just an unsourced block of text without any commentary about what they meant to show by it or even if it is accurate. >this can easily be read as "you're just copy/pasting stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation". Good, because that is what I meant. Until they can show the source of that information and can explain why they posted it I have no way of knowing if it has anything to do with the conversation. >With contentious topics, extra care needs to be taken to ensure constructive conversation. I do not consider just copying blocks of text at someone without any attempt at elaboration a constructive conversation. I asked a valid clarifying question and I feel no need to beat around the bush. Nothing in my comment was unnecessary or aggressive. Read it literally, as that is the way it was written.
        grzm 10y ago
        If you no longer think the person you're engaging with is interested in constructive discussion, it does absolutely no good to make it worse by raising the level of antagonism. If you're interested in rehabilitating it, you need to make it abundantly clear that that's what you're doing. Otherwise, just leave it be. Given the nature of internet forums with text being the only medium, you do need to take extra care to ensure the best possible reading of your comments. I wasn't the only one to read your comment in a negative way (as another commenter posted as well), and your comment didn't elicit the response from 'billfor that you were looking for. The bar needs to be higher. Although it happens much too often, HN isn't intended for battle or point-scoring debate: it's intended for substantive, constructive discussion. Similarly, at this point I don't think I've done an adequate job in presenting what I've intended, so I'll leave it at that.