Word Association (2024)

[craigt3365]

15 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Read the NY Times article. And really, all you have to do is consult your common sense. Hariri's staff knew nothing about an impending resignation. Hariri has a meeting with an Iranian official without fireworks. He goes to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis announce that there was a plot to assassinate Hariri. A plot that would work against Hesbollah's interests. Hariri makes his announcement from Saudi Arabia. How many dots do you need?

Lots more dots.  And that spokesman's announcement is hardly credible.  I hope you agree.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You honestly maintain that it's nitpicking say that there's a big difference between influence and control? Control can be anywhere from influence to command. Influence means to have an effect on.

I did not assert that the Lebanese didn't know the score. It was about the representation of the situation in the press. The difference between the Reuters article and the Times article is quite stark. 

Really, no point about Hariri being forced to resign? The Reuters article represents Hariri's resignation as a decision. The only people it quotes to question that are Iran and Hesbollah. If that's all the evidence that readers have to go on, they would probably question the accuracy of that assessment. I brought in the Times article to remedy the deficiency.  

And nice try at deflection. Where in either of these articles is the question of who pulls the alleged strings on leaders of other factions raised. It's not about them. It's about Hariri.

Before you maintained that I was quoting this local Sunni person to show that the "resignation" was a surprise to the community. That is clearly nonsense given that the person quoted said 'more transparent." In other words it was clear before and even clearer now.  And it would be truly bizarre for the times to conclude an article with a local person whose views don't jibe with what the reporter reckons to be the majority view of the community. On this count alone it seems you do need - maybe not mine, but somebody's - "pathetic lectures on journalism."

And you still haven't explained your accusation that I purposely omitted that last sentence of the article. In other words, that I lied. "Saad Hariri was never in control" Why would I purposely omit something that sums up the point I was making? The quote that the Times used to sum up the point that it was making.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for making my point regarding nitpicking once more. Honestly, I don't mind if you wish to insist on using this or that word, if it will spare me from another tedious off topic argument revolving around your interpretation and reading of my posts.

 

What you "assert" is not easily pinned down, since you do not seem to have much of an independent grasp on things, nor much of a point (other than arguing for argument's sake). Whether you accept it or not, both media sources and the Lebanese populace are quite aware of who's who when it comes to the country's politics. 

 

I have no idea why you assume that readers are totally clueless, or that they accept this or that comment made  (or quoted) in a given story at face value. If this represents how you treat such reports, then guess it explains quite a lot.

But on the other hand, if one isn't living under a rock, then the fact that the country is divided, with various factions representing foreign interests is trivial.

 

I think I have addressed all your repetitive queries in the posts above. You seem adamant not accepting them, but rather go in an endless loop. Have a ball.

 

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Read the NY Times article. And really, all you have to do is consult your common sense. Hariri's staff knew nothing about an impending resignation. Hariri has a meeting with an Iranian official without fireworks. He goes to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis announce that there was a plot to assassinate Hariri. A plot that would work against Hesbollah's interests. Hariri makes his announcement from Saudi Arabia. How many dots do you need?

 

Hezbollah's (or rather, Iran's) interest in maintaining Hariri's government centers on him serving as a buffer (or indeed, a fig leaf) from further sanctions which could be laid on the country. It also benefited from Hariri's subscribing to a policy of non-involvement in the Syrian civil war, not being actually applied with regard to Hezbollah. If Hariri was (either following his own volition or through Saudi Arabian pressure) to be less accommodating, then his usefulness would be diminished. That's not an assertion of actual events, but an alternative take as to the possibility of Hezbollah's considerations being effected by changing circumstances.

 

That Saudi Arabia got its own set of interests is a given, no one contends otherwise. Just that taking statements from whichever involved party at face value is a dodgy proposition.

 

Assassination plots and political backstabbing are quite normal when it comes to Lebanese politics.

[ilostmypassword]

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Thanks for making my point regarding nitpicking once more. Honestly, I don't mind if you wish to insist on using this or that word, if it will spare me from another tedious off topic argument revolving around your interpretation and reading of my posts.

 

What you "assert" is not easily pinned down, since you do not seem to have much of an independent grasp on things, nor much of a point (other than arguing for argument's sake). Whether you accept it or not, both media sources and the Lebanese populace are quite aware of who's who when it comes to the country's politics. 

 

I have no idea why you assume that readers are totally clueless, or that they accept this or that comment made  (or quoted) in a given story at face value. If this represents how you treat such reports, then guess it explains quite a lot.

But on the other hand, if one isn't living under a rock, then the fact that the country is divided, with various factions representing foreign interests is trivial.

 

I think I have addressed all your repetitive queries in the posts above. You seem adamant not accepting them, but rather go in an endless loop. Have a ball.

 

Since when are we supposed to assume that readers are so familiar with the facts of the who controls what in Lebanon? How many readers would even know who Hariri is? More face-saving tripe.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Since when are we supposed to assume that readers are so familiar with the facts of the who controls what in Lebanon? How many readers would even know who Hariri is? More face-saving tripe.

 

Do make up your mind which nonsense argument of convenience you think you're trying to make. If that's not clear enough consult your previous posts.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

.

 

What you "assert" is not easily pinned down, since you do not seem to have much of an independent grasp on things, nor much of a point (other than arguing for argument's sake). Whether you accept it or not, both media sources and the Lebanese populace are quite aware of who's who when it comes to the country's politics. 

 

I have no idea why you assume that readers are totally clueless, or that they accept this or that comment made  (or quoted) in a given story at face value. If this represents how you treat such reports, then guess it explains quite a lot.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Do make up your mind which nonsense argument of convenience you think you're trying to make. If that's not clear enough consult your previous posts.

Apparently, the New York Times thought that the issue of whether Hariri's resignation was voluntary or forced was enough to make it the focal point of their article. If this were common knowledge for its readers, why would the Times go to all this trouble to make the case? Slow news day?  Obviously it's not common knowledge and there's quite a gap between "totally clueless" and "not familiar with". Once again, the Reuters article made no attempt at all to assess independently whether Hariri's resignation was voluntary. It simply cited what one might expect Hesbollah and Iran to say whatever the case was.  If the NY Times can operate under the assumption that its readers don't take it for granted that Hariri is under the Saudis' control, then I think it's eminently reasonable for me to bring this point up in relation to the Reuters article.

And who says I expect readers to take the quote at face value? Or the article itself? I gave a link. Presumably a reader could use that link. Or do you think that readers here are so clueless that they don't know how to use links? On the other hand your assertion that a quote wrapping up an article was not indicative of what the reporter thought was the prevailing opinion in that neighborhood and that it was not being used to reinforce points it made earlier, is genuinely bizarre

Maybe in the future the Times should consult you about what is and isn't necessary to tell its readers and about how to wrap up their articles. But before that happens. take in a few "pathetic lectures" about journalism.

 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Apparently, the New York Times thought that the issue of whether Hariri's resignation was voluntary or forced was enough to make it the focal point of their article. If this were common knowledge for its readers, why would the Times go to all this trouble to make the case? Slow news day?  Obviously it's not common knowledge and there's quite a gap between "totally clueless" and "not familiar with". Once again, the Reuters article made no attempt at all to assess independently whether Hariri's resignation was voluntary. It simply cited what one might expect Hesbollah and Iran to say whatever the case was.  If the NY Times can operate under the assumption that its readers don't take it for granted that Hariri is under the Saudis' control, then I think it's eminently reasonable for me to bring this point up in relation to the Reuters article.

And who says I expect readers to take the quote at face value? Or the article itself? I gave a link. Presumably a reader could use that link. Or do you think that readers here are so clueless that they don't know how to use links? On the other hand your assertion that a quote wrapping up an article was not indicative of what the reporter thought was the prevailing opinion in that neighborhood and that it was not being used to reinforce points it made earlier, is genuinely bizarre

Maybe in the future the Times should consult you about what is and isn't necessary to tell its readers and about how to wrap up their articles. But before that happens. take in a few "pathetic lectures" about journalism.

 

 

To reiterate a comment made earlier: get a life.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Morch said:

 

To reiterate a comment made earlier: get a life.

Just your endearing way of saying you've got nothing.