4 ms·

No, they're right. The title mislead me. The title suggests the EU decided something. Done. And then some European parliament came in and vetoed it. wtf? Inst

by fineman 11y ago

No, they're right. The title mislead me. The title suggests the EU decided something. Done. And then some European parliament came in and vetoed it. wtf? Instead, a correct title would seem to be "European parliament strongly rejected proposal to axe 'freedom of panorama' across the EU"...? The difference being "EU members' plan" vs "plan for the EU".

jkldotio 11y ago
Titles are titles: they need to be short and are only an indication of the content, not a full summary. I don't know where anyone is getting the idea that the title can always be perfect summary from. Some degree of ambiguity is therefore almost always given if you only have one, short, sentence to act as a title. It follows from this that out of tens of thousands of readers there will always be a few, perhaps even quite a few, for whom a title doesn't serve as a completely perfect summary. But rather than clogging up huge numbers of comment threads with completely pointless pedantry why don't you just read the actual article? I suppose I wouldn't complain so much if completely pointless interjections such as yours and the original one I responded to were at the bottom of the comment threads, but they are frequently at the top. It's IMO a total cancer on HN comment threads because it adds no value to have someone splitting pointless definitional hairs (not refuting a central point via a definitional argument as per PG's hierarchy of disagreement[0]) as the first comment. People roaring about their ignorance and apparent incapacity to read the actual article doesn't help any debate. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_D...
- fineman 11y ago
  Your bitching is longer than what you're bitching about. That's the cancer. And no, it's not pointless definitional games, the title is intentionally totally wrong. Black vs white. It's not like it's mostly right but not quite, it's almost as wrong as it's possible to be and still be using words. And it's not about pointing out mistakes, it's about calling out pointless clickbait to get it flagged and telling people how to spot it next time. You for one seem to think it's an honest mistake and a good article. > People roaring about their ignorance and [...] Oh, you don't say. Do they go on and on? Cluelessly unaware that everyone is looking at them? Wow.
  - jkldotio 11y ago
    >And no, it's not pointless definitional games Actually it pretty much is exactly that. You clearly didn't read the article or don't care about the article and only care about the headline. You aren't even discussing the article or the moral and legal points discussed within it, you are literally just concerned with the headline. >the title is intentionally totally wrong. Black vs white. The title isn't really a bad description of the article at all so to call it "totally wrong" is false. To call it "intentionally totally wrong" is, well, even more false. >It's not like it's mostly right but not quite, it's almost as wrong as it's possible to be and still be using words. I can't believe you'd actually seriously claim this, the title might be slightly ambiguous but to call it "as wrong as it's possible to be" is unequivocally a lie. The title in no way is "as wrong as it's possible to be". Are you a native speaker of English? I am not sure it's possible to make the statements you have made, at least in good faith, whilst being a native speaker. You have to be either a troll or a non-native speaker, with ants in your pants over something to do with the EU, because there is no other reasonable explanation for your wild claims. "European Parliament rejects EU plan to axe Freedom of Panorama" is simply not, as a title, "almost as wrong as it's possible to be and still be using words". Game over.
    - fineman 11y ago
      NO!!! You can't end the game! No! > The title isn't really a bad description of the article at all so to call it "totally wrong" is false. Totally wrong. It implies things were decided, and that they were overruled, and that there were multiple bodies involved. What really happened? A bill was proposed and voted against. > To call it "intentionally totally wrong" is, well, even more false. Yeah, nobody would ever write an intentionally misleading title for clickbait.
beedogs 11y ago
> Instead, a correct title would seem to be "European parliament strongly rejected proposal to axe 'freedom of panorama' across the EU"...? And I'm certain that title would just be edited back to the original title by the pedant moderators. Sorry, but you can't win this one.

by fineman 11y ago

jkldotio 11y ago

Titles are titles: they need to be short and are only an indication of the content, not a full summary. I don't know where anyone is getting the idea that the title can always be perfect summary from. Some degree of ambiguity is therefore almost always given if you only have one, short, sentence to act as a title. It follows from this that out of tens of thousands of readers there will always be a few, perhaps even quite a few, for whom a title doesn't serve as a completely perfect summary. But rather than clogging up huge numbers of comment threads with completely pointless pedantry why don't you just read the actual article? I suppose I wouldn't complain so much if completely pointless interjections such as yours and the original one I responded to were at the bottom of the comment threads, but they are frequently at the top. It's IMO a total cancer on HN comment threads because it adds no value to have someone splitting pointless definitional hairs (not refuting a central point via a definitional argument as per PG's hierarchy of disagreement[0]) as the first comment. People roaring about their ignorance and apparent incapacity to read the actual article doesn't help any debate. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_D...

fineman 11y ago
Your bitching is longer than what you're bitching about. That's the cancer. And no, it's not pointless definitional games, the title is intentionally totally wrong. Black vs white. It's not like it's mostly right but not quite, it's almost as wrong as it's possible to be and still be using words. And it's not about pointing out mistakes, it's about calling out pointless clickbait to get it flagged and telling people how to spot it next time. You for one seem to think it's an honest mistake and a good article. > People roaring about their ignorance and [...] Oh, you don't say. Do they go on and on? Cluelessly unaware that everyone is looking at them? Wow.
- jkldotio 11y ago
  >And no, it's not pointless definitional games Actually it pretty much is exactly that. You clearly didn't read the article or don't care about the article and only care about the headline. You aren't even discussing the article or the moral and legal points discussed within it, you are literally just concerned with the headline. >the title is intentionally totally wrong. Black vs white. The title isn't really a bad description of the article at all so to call it "totally wrong" is false. To call it "intentionally totally wrong" is, well, even more false. >It's not like it's mostly right but not quite, it's almost as wrong as it's possible to be and still be using words. I can't believe you'd actually seriously claim this, the title might be slightly ambiguous but to call it "as wrong as it's possible to be" is unequivocally a lie. The title in no way is "as wrong as it's possible to be". Are you a native speaker of English? I am not sure it's possible to make the statements you have made, at least in good faith, whilst being a native speaker. You have to be either a troll or a non-native speaker, with ants in your pants over something to do with the EU, because there is no other reasonable explanation for your wild claims. "European Parliament rejects EU plan to axe Freedom of Panorama" is simply not, as a title, "almost as wrong as it's possible to be and still be using words". Game over.
  - fineman 11y ago
    NO!!! You can't end the game! No! > The title isn't really a bad description of the article at all so to call it "totally wrong" is false. Totally wrong. It implies things were decided, and that they were overruled, and that there were multiple bodies involved. What really happened? A bill was proposed and voted against. > To call it "intentionally totally wrong" is, well, even more false. Yeah, nobody would ever write an intentionally misleading title for clickbait.

beedogs 11y ago

> Instead, a correct title would seem to be "European parliament strongly rejected proposal to axe 'freedom of panorama' across the EU"...? And I'm certain that title would just be edited back to the original title by the pedant moderators. Sorry, but you can't win this one.