Oh, George.Follow

Omega isn't the only one who got 'that' vibe from you. Just sayin'.

Wow. I really don't understand some women. Must be all that "he's only mean cause he likes you they get feed as kids or crazy just attracts crazy.

Wow. I really don't understand some women. Must be all that "he's only mean cause he likes you they get feed as kids or crazy just attracts crazy.

People like to fuick famous people. Don't over-complicate it. The gender of either person doesn't really enter into it.

Notorious, then.

Drew Peterson (cop suspected of murdering his third wife, recently convicted of murdering his second wife) managed to have a girlfriend during the whole trial. You'd think "on trial for murder of spouse and suspected of murdering other spouse" would be a deal breaker but I guess it's no "used a Groupon at the restaurant for our first date".

Violent guy is alpha, Groupon guy is beta. Evolution at its finest.

Well obviously if you don't marry him, you're safe... duh.

Because that is opinion. What she did say is factual stuff that happened.

You draw your own conclusions, but rarely are they the same conclusions others come to.

He rarely draws his own conclusions. They're usually a week late, though.

Sure, but it's not facts that in any way support her denial of the claim made by Scheibe that she was not allowed to call an attorney or eat or drink for a very long time.

Read it again. Then read it slowly. Don't inject any assumptions, just read what is literally written in the article. All that's there is one fact: That they provided the media with the 911 call, and the conclusion that "Apparently, Ms. Scheibe may have misspoken about the facts of her interview as she had access to her phone and was provided with food."

What's missing is how the one fact supports that conclusion. It doesn't. Not by itself. I get that we can make assumptions and fill in the blanks, but we really should not do that, and it's incredibly sloppy journalism to require us to do so.



That's because most people don't realize just how often they are influenced into taking positions via insinuation, innuendo, and implication, rather than taking them based on actual facts and logic. This is another example, which may be relatively harmless, but is still annoying. It's not this specific case that is at issue, but the trend of reporting which basically trains people to read into articles that which is not actually present. And that's leads us to the kinda of stories where everyone reads it and concludes X, until someone like me comes along and points out that the article doesn't actually say X at all. And then hilarity ensues as everyone (that's a good number of posters on this board) insist that they weren't being lied to or manipulated by the media.


Read only what's actually there, not what someone wants you to assume. That's all I'm saying.

Edited, Dec 11th 2013 5:34pm by gbaji

I call TROLL!

Which explains why I've on many occasions had to point out to people when they make assumptions about news articles that aren't actually supported by the statements in the articles themselves? Oh wait. It doesn't. Smash, if what you say were true, this wouldn't happen and we wouldn't be talking about it.


Clearly, people do allow vague language and innuendo in articles to color their perception of the "facts" of the story. Happens all the time. But you know that. See, all you have to do to disprove my claim is quote the facts stated in the article which support the refutation of the claim in question. Should be easy, but you can't do it. Want to know why? Because the article never actually provides such a thing. Yet, even after I pointed this out, posters insisted that it had. Strange, don't you think?

Was I wrong in this thread to point out that Git's assumption about the information in the article in question was wrong? No. I don't think so. This was an incredibly clear case of an article written specifically to make people believe one thing, even when all the facts said the exact opposite.

The proof, of course, being that someone read the article and then posted a thread about it stating something not just incorrect, but clearly stated in the article body to be false. Fact is that most people don't actually read for content. They skim the words and form opinions. And guess what? Writers know this. So I'll point it out when I see an example of this happening.