3 ms·

Again, this is not relevant. It seems extremely biased to reject his opinion just on the basis on who quoted him. Noam Chomsky is frequently quoted in Russian p

by ailef 3y ago

Again, this is not relevant. It seems extremely biased to reject his opinion just on the basis on who quoted him. Noam Chomsky is frequently quoted in Russian propaganda outlets. Should we disregard everything he says? By they way, you conveniently glossed over all the other points, where even the same person *you* quoted admitted the huge problems with the current narrative.

_kbh_ 3y ago
> Again, this is not relevant. It seems extremely biased to reject his opinion just on the basis on who quoted him. Noam Chomsky is frequently quoted in Russian propaganda outlets. Should we disregard everything he says? It was a comment on how you seem to pick sources really. > By they way, you conveniently glossed over all the other points, where even the same person you quoted admitted the huge problems with the current narrative. What problems are these? its hard to tell.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > What problems are these? its hard to tell. You said: > If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"' Then ailef proposed this quote as the “full context”: > > Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by David R. Marples. Marples called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven", but also acknowledged that Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," that "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable," and that "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones." The pertinent part seems to be “the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable”.
- ailef 3y ago
  I've shown you that your own source is highlighting these problems, but you chose to deliberately ignore them. It's really hard to continue this conversation assuming you are replying in good faith, so I'm not going to.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Noam Chomsky is frequently quoted in Russian propaganda outlets. Should we disregard everything he says? Mostly, yes. Not because of that, but its not really an example of the bias you discuss producing the wrong result.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > Not because of that, but its not really an example of the bias you discuss producing the wrong result. So your reply is a non sequitur?

by ailef 3y ago

_kbh_ 3y ago

> Again, this is not relevant. It seems extremely biased to reject his opinion just on the basis on who quoted him. Noam Chomsky is frequently quoted in Russian propaganda outlets. Should we disregard everything he says? It was a comment on how you seem to pick sources really. > By they way, you conveniently glossed over all the other points, where even the same person you quoted admitted the huge problems with the current narrative. What problems are these? its hard to tell.

avgcorrection 3y ago
> What problems are these? its hard to tell. You said: > If you want some rigorous examination of the events, ones that aren't described by academics as' "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"' Then ailef proposed this quote as the “full context”: > > Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by David R. Marples. Marples called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven", but also acknowledged that Katchanovski "has raised some new evidence that suggests new investigations into the sniper massacres are much needed," that "the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable," and that "his paper does provide evidence that there were several separate groups of snipers, including anti-government ones." The pertinent part seems to be “the official version of events is indeed deeply troublesome and his gathering of new material is commendable”.
ailef 3y ago
I've shown you that your own source is highlighting these problems, but you chose to deliberately ignore them. It's really hard to continue this conversation assuming you are replying in good faith, so I'm not going to.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Noam Chomsky is frequently quoted in Russian propaganda outlets. Should we disregard everything he says? Mostly, yes. Not because of that, but its not really an example of the bias you discuss producing the wrong result.

avgcorrection 3y ago
> Not because of that, but its not really an example of the bias you discuss producing the wrong result. So your reply is a non sequitur?