331–340 of 407 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on if they start excluding organizations and lining up softballs from cranks.
This is exactly the strategy the WH is starting to employ. Look at Russian tactics against the press in 2006-2007 and you can predict the WH next move. They are stealing from their playbook. Revoke. Replace. Erode.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an esoteric use of "shadow government". It's typically used to mean a secret cabal that holds the real power.
I took him to mean "shadow" as how it's used in the term "shadow cabinet" in parliamentary democracies, particularly the UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These press briefings provide direct, multilateral, and unmoderated access to the Presidential Administration by the Press Corps. They are incredibly important to holding the administration to account for policy. Can the administration spin their own narrative? Sure, but they can't directly control or audit the questions asked.
Depends on if they start excluding organizations and lining up softballs from cranks.
- Golf, what does it do for you?
- How does your golf game hold up next to Tiger’s?
- What has enchanted you the most from serving in this office?
- In this fatherless world, where did you learn to love?
- Are you ready to call yourself the ‘comeback kid’?
- You definitely have some impressive accomplishments….And more than a lot of presidents who manage to get reelected. My question is, is it enough?
- Have you given up on the Republicans?
- I’m wondering if you think that [Republican presidential candidates are] uninformed, out of touch, or irresponsible?
All actual questions press asked Obama: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/15/13-hard-hitting-questions-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why bother posting the comment at all if you don't actually want to discuss it?
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?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the next move?
Here are some examples: https://medium.com/@alexey__kovalev/message-to-american-medi... https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/you-thought-this-was-roc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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 aski…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on if they start excluding organizations and lining up softballs from cranks.
You mean softballs like: - Golf, what does it do for you? - How does your golf game hold up next to Tiger’s? - What has enchanted you the most from serving in this office? - In this fatherless world, where did you learn to love? - Are you ready to call yourself the ‘comeback kid’? - You definitely have some impressive accomplishments….And more than a lot of presidents who manage to get reelected. My question is, is i…
But limiting who can attend is only a move to signal they don't want hard questions and if you ask them you get banned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 aski…
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.
>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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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 aski…
1. Ask to clarify meaning when the meaning requires only superficial analysis. 2. Ask for sources. 3. Dispute illegitimate sources, while clarifying which sources are acceptable, without ability to see bias in "legitimate" sources. 4. Await response, assuming it will be hostile. 5. Respond with other hostile algorithm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 me…
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.