Proabivouac wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 12, 2018 3:32 pm
So, bearing in mind that I am not attorney litigating against BBC, you expect me to produce a research paper with at least five examples of miscaptioned photographs to support a single post which summarized my anecdotal experiences reading BBC news over the years, and if I do not produce this for you I am a "liar." I did search my gmail for a conversation I had about this with a colleague but after some half an hour have not yet been successful in finding it, maybe it predated my gmail account – it was about a small California town which had been picked up from a wire and illustrated with a stock photograph of a different California location, which I recognized since I am from California and had been there. Beyond this, I am not prepared to embark upon the full scale research project and indictment that you demand, not the least because no one is paying me to do so, and even I did this would be no guarantee that you would shut up. As the WMF correctly discerned, your goal is to cost people money by wasting their time.
You made these assertions, and so it's up to you to support them. If you find the task of providing evidence to support your public utterances too onerous then I suggest that you do not make them. Don't start whinging about about awful it is that you're being expected to support the statements you make. If you made those assertions knowing that you were unable to support them, then you being dishonest. The pathetic best you can do is to come up with one example where you think you remember that a website illustrated a story about a town with an incorrect picture, but can't remember, or find your notes, or refuse to say, or whatever, when and where. So in other words your case that the BBC does these things as a continuing practice is that we should just believe you that they did it once because you can't be bothered to do the research to support what was obviously at best a wild generalisation and at worst a plain lie.
Meanwhile, a very simple question that you could answer with no new research at all you continue to evade: You claimed to be a retired academic scholar who had published dozens of papers and served as a trustee for various scholarly journals, later amended to learned societies which publish said journals. Far from asking you to substantiate this claim, I asked only what your field was. You responded in classic Essjay style, stating that you won't answer because it might help others track you down and kill you. You still have not answered, most likely because, as with this "Renée" crap, it's just part of your latest online persona.
"Evade" -- no. I'm refusing to answer. There's a difference. The business about killing is just something you made up, not something I said -- not the first time you've played that little trick.
You began dogging me across threads when I posted in the social justice warrior thread that socioeconomic justice is completely different from the sexuality and gender issues which drive liberal activists. I believe that your real motivations are to be found in the latter. Certainly that's the post which lit your flame. You said to yourself, "he is socially conservative, I must troll him!" So you picked an arbitrary fight over a single comment about BBC, the central claim of which isn't even in dispute. And you made up shit about your background in the service of this arbitrary argument. That is the simplest explanation.
No, when you claimed to be a communist: that is to align yurself with one of the two totalitarian movements which brought catastrophe, death and evil to millions of people across the world. You then proceeded to support your position intellectually by a view of history which is so simplistic as to be laughable and wrong in almost all the caes where it can be examined. Be socially conservative if you wish, I don't care. But you align yourself with mass murderers on the basis of intellectual garbage, and you make up stuff about organisation you don't like and you then complain about being challenged on it. Well, if you don't want to be challenged, don't write rubbish.