3 ms·

I wrote: > AGAIN: You made a claim that the sermon was an isolated event. You have a basis for that claim? To recap that thread in the discussion: a. You c

by berntb 16y ago

I wrote: > AGAIN: You made a claim that the sermon was an isolated event. You have a basis for that claim? To recap that thread in the discussion: a. You claim AJ is a good news site. b. I point out that they have racist content in non-English editions; suspect agenda. c. You make claims about the racist content. d. I ask multiple times for references to that claim. e. Finally, you base that upon the English content?!?! It seems you just made up a fantasy about that original sermon? After that you claim I do bad rhetoric?!?! WTF?! Either you're drunk or trolling. >>Point being made is; you should definitely treat them as circumspectly as you are treating AJ. WTF?! I made that point in what you commented on, against you... I wrote: "And since you don't have references and are literally claiming the right to say a news source is good, despite not knowing their agenda or how they spin etc, it is fun when you disqualify sources." The rest of the comment looked like a total change of subject, I'm not going to read it. But I saw this ending: >>enough that it will be at the back of my mind now when using them as a source Again: (a) There might be be double messages to different languages/audiences and (b) Even if not, no one has a clue to the agenda/spin of Al J. I don't know if the web site is the same company? Try reading it with translate.google.com, then.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
berntb 16y ago
Oh my... These are the comments that have bounced most up/down in voting I've seen. (Possible worse are when complaining about meaningless language wars on HN.) I guess some can be ascribed to non-native English ability so I'm not understandable, but still: I argue against someone that made claims he obviously didn't have support for (a specific point about Al J's position about that sermon in the beginning -- and in the last comment he make a different statement.) How the Hell can that be voted up like that? I'll ascribe this to that intelligence and rationality isn't really that connected -- ideology gives brain damage. I hope it isn't part of a degeneration of HN.
- henrikschroder 16y ago
  Sorry for the meta-discussion, I only want to help berntb understand. > I argue against someone that made claims No you don't, because ErrantX only stated his opinion. In this thread, ErrantX has shown that he has watched, and is watching, several different news channels. From that experience he has formed the opinion that English Al-Jazeera is one of the best news channels around. You on the other hand seem to have no actual experience with English Al-Jazeera, and you are dismissing them outright. That is the opposite of intellectual curiosity, and that is why you are being downvoted. > I'll ascribe this to that intelligence and rationality isn't really that connected -- ideology gives brain damage. I hope it isn't part of a degeneration of HN. Now you're saying that everyone that disagrees with you is stupid, and since a majority of HN readers disagree with you, that they also are stupid. Really?
  - berntb 16y ago
    >>ErrantX only stated his opinion. Go back up, here is his first comment to the racist sermon asking for genocide: >>See, you have one incident - it's a bad one, sure, but definitely not representative of the channel. And, as it is, I accept their explanation for it That was a claim of facts. But he obviously has never seen any explanation for it. And had no idea if it was one or more incidents (it took me seconds to find another -- I have no idea how common it really is for Al J in Arabic). >>on the other hand seem to have no actual experience with English Al-Jazeera I know enough that no one really knows their agenda. (Well, except that they don't criticize the country they are sited in.) Edit: I might also add that ErrantX acknowledged that point. >>Now you're saying that everyone that disagrees with you is stupid How do you get that from "intelligence and rationality isn't really that connected"? (Edit: If you really don't get it, I'm writing the opposite.) I have been voted -30 or -40 here. That doesn't happen on HN if you are just wrong, which happens to everyone.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      > That was a claim of facts. In case it is not clear, that was my opinion. I appreciate that using "definitely" might have confused the issue - but I was only trying to imply the strength of my opinion (rather than as fact). And also; as I keep saying - I have no opinion on the Arabic version, it is my understanding the two are very separate channels. All my comments refer to English AJ, period. I think you really have no experience of AJ - either English or AJ, and possibly (though I hate to suggest this, and apologise if it is not the case) little knowledge of the region. And you've come to this conversation assuming a) I am the same and b) I am misguided. It would have been nice to have a proper discussion (indeed you have raised points I will be looking into for myself) Bottom line is; the middle east is a passion of mine (hence, rusty Arabic :)). And AJ, I find them a great general news source; their agenda is the same as any news agency (or, rather, they have slight agenda's and bias like all news agencies). But on comparison it is my opinion that AJ are better than most. I think that clears up the points I wanted to get straight.. > Either you're drunk or trolling. This was just uncalled for and, in light of it, I'm not interested in continuing our discussion, sorry.

by berntb 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

berntb 16y ago

Oh my... These are the comments that have bounced most up/down in voting I've seen. (Possible worse are when complaining about meaningless language wars on HN.) I guess some can be ascribed to non-native English ability so I'm not understandable, but still: I argue against someone that made claims he obviously didn't have support for (a specific point about Al J's position about that sermon in the beginning -- and in the last comment he make a different statement.) How the Hell can that be voted up like that? I'll ascribe this to that intelligence and rationality isn't really that connected -- ideology gives brain damage. I hope it isn't part of a degeneration of HN.

henrikschroder 16y ago
Sorry for the meta-discussion, I only want to help berntb understand. > I argue against someone that made claims No you don't, because ErrantX only stated his opinion. In this thread, ErrantX has shown that he has watched, and is watching, several different news channels. From that experience he has formed the opinion that English Al-Jazeera is one of the best news channels around. You on the other hand seem to have no actual experience with English Al-Jazeera, and you are dismissing them outright. That is the opposite of intellectual curiosity, and that is why you are being downvoted. > I'll ascribe this to that intelligence and rationality isn't really that connected -- ideology gives brain damage. I hope it isn't part of a degeneration of HN. Now you're saying that everyone that disagrees with you is stupid, and since a majority of HN readers disagree with you, that they also are stupid. Really?
- berntb 16y ago
  >>ErrantX only stated his opinion. Go back up, here is his first comment to the racist sermon asking for genocide: >>See, you have one incident - it's a bad one, sure, but definitely not representative of the channel. And, as it is, I accept their explanation for it That was a claim of facts. But he obviously has never seen any explanation for it. And had no idea if it was one or more incidents (it took me seconds to find another -- I have no idea how common it really is for Al J in Arabic). >>on the other hand seem to have no actual experience with English Al-Jazeera I know enough that no one really knows their agenda. (Well, except that they don't criticize the country they are sited in.) Edit: I might also add that ErrantX acknowledged that point. >>Now you're saying that everyone that disagrees with you is stupid How do you get that from "intelligence and rationality isn't really that connected"? (Edit: If you really don't get it, I'm writing the opposite.) I have been voted -30 or -40 here. That doesn't happen on HN if you are just wrong, which happens to everyone.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    > That was a claim of facts. In case it is not clear, that was my opinion. I appreciate that using "definitely" might have confused the issue - but I was only trying to imply the strength of my opinion (rather than as fact). And also; as I keep saying - I have no opinion on the Arabic version, it is my understanding the two are very separate channels. All my comments refer to English AJ, period. I think you really have no experience of AJ - either English or AJ, and possibly (though I hate to suggest this, and apologise if it is not the case) little knowledge of the region. And you've come to this conversation assuming a) I am the same and b) I am misguided. It would have been nice to have a proper discussion (indeed you have raised points I will be looking into for myself) Bottom line is; the middle east is a passion of mine (hence, rusty Arabic :)). And AJ, I find them a great general news source; their agenda is the same as any news agency (or, rather, they have slight agenda's and bias like all news agencies). But on comparison it is my opinion that AJ are better than most. I think that clears up the points I wanted to get straight.. > Either you're drunk or trolling. This was just uncalled for and, in light of it, I'm not interested in continuing our discussion, sorry.