CanadianPirate
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2007
- 1,241
- 38
He took an aside to point out their popularity. The implied suggestion was that their popularity made them superior sources.
It would be like holding up a rebuttal for climate change and chasing it with "And from Fox news, no less!". Yeah, you found a click-baity article on Sportsnet. Quelle surprise.
I'd point out how this is a nice working example of confirmation bias, with a pro-trade person seeing only a point-counterpoint video and interpreting it as "pro Canuck" while ignoring the inflammatory article following it, and an anti-trade person seeing only the article, believing the video that preceded it was from "something else entirely", and not noticing that the auto-starting video begins by suggesting the Canucks won the trade. Alas, no one really cares to have their confirmation bias pointed out, the majority of people think they're immune, and confirmation bias being what it is having it shoved under their nose likely won't even register at all.
See it's funny this isn't how I read the situation at all. It seemed to me that iceburg was attempting to prove that hf boards is overly negative by saying that we are the only ones being negative towards the trade. The implication being because many people are biased against benning, hence "there's something rotten in the state of Denmark" quote. While Harold was saying that this isn't true and provided sources.
To me a more apt analogy would be saying that every single news source agrees that climate change is real and having someone else say no that isn't true and provide Fox News as an example. Even if you think the example is crap it still disproves the original argument.
And as an aside the author of the sportsnet article is dmitri fiplovic (sp) who is a former canucksarmy writer and knows the Canucks well. He isn't a media hack talking out his ass.
And now I'm tired of this weird semantic argument. Nice talking to you. Good night.