3 ms·

The first part of your reply is irrelevant smearing, isn't it? You don't dispute the accuracy or relevance of the quotes, but instead bring up websites on which

The first part of your reply is irrelevant smearing, isn't it? You don't dispute the accuracy or relevance of the quotes, but instead bring up websites on which they can be found in search engines, and then make vague handwaves about "motives" - as if this has any impact at all. To be clear, although it's also irrelevant, my motive in this thread has been to explain the long since flagged and dead comment about why George Soros specifically is not the best person to call for strict regulation of tech firms. I don't know what quote they got, or in what context they used it Why don't you open the link I helpfully provided and find out then? The relevant part of the quote is the part you removed: "We are committed to making sure that anyone who chooses to migrate—regardless of motivation—is able to do so safely and with dignity". This quote demonstrates my point that Soros supports the latter, and so your point that it's not equivalent to something else doesn't matter.

croon 9y ago
>> I don't know what quote they got, or in what context they used it > Why don't you open the link I helpfully provided and find out then? My point was that they're a terrible source for finding out what context they used when framing their own article, given their obvious slant. > The first part of your reply is irrelevant smearing, isn't it? You don't dispute the accuracy or relevance of the quotes, but instead bring up websites on which they can be found in search engines, and then make vague handwaves about "motives" - as if this has any impact at all. Another commenter had already specifically dissected that quote, so it felt redundant. And looking at the sites flagging for a problem with that quote WAS extremely telling.
- test87587578 9y ago
  But the quote was not part of the Daily Mail article itself. It was the official response from Open Society Foundations. The Mail is obligated to publish this response as is, not allowed to modify it or remove essential parts.

croon 9y ago

>> I don't know what quote they got, or in what context they used it > Why don't you open the link I helpfully provided and find out then? My point was that they're a terrible source for finding out what context they used when framing their own article, given their obvious slant. > The first part of your reply is irrelevant smearing, isn't it? You don't dispute the accuracy or relevance of the quotes, but instead bring up websites on which they can be found in search engines, and then make vague handwaves about "motives" - as if this has any impact at all. Another commenter had already specifically dissected that quote, so it felt redundant. And looking at the sites flagging for a problem with that quote WAS extremely telling.

test87587578 9y ago
But the quote was not part of the Daily Mail article itself. It was the official response from Open Society Foundations. The Mail is obligated to publish this response as is, not allowed to modify it or remove essential parts.