inside football??

[IanG]

Do you understand the meaning of sniping? It's a phrase you've used on both threads in a manner that indicates you do not. Depending on the reference used a fairly standard definition is "one who shoots at people from a concealed place". You used the term on the "Caro" thread and I let it slide. Now you've raised it incorrectly again. Posting a comment on a thread on the main board is hardly a concealed place. If you think it is you would have been fairly poor at "Hide and Seek" as a child.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sniping
"3. To make malicious, underhand remarks or attacks."

As for the gibberish about not countering any argument I find it laughable that you are so intent on defending journalism that you couldn't see the irony in quoting the ethical principles that "have" to be adhered to. Posting a link to quote these ethical standards and conveniently ignoring the ones that don't suit your point of view. Start at number 12, in particular with reference to Caro.

You're still not actually refuting anything.

Belittling other posters- read your sarcastic opening comment to my first response in the Caro thread and ask yourself if you could possibly be considered to have done the same.

Thats laughable coming from you who has done nothing but belittle others from the moment you entered the debate and not only in the original thread but in other threads as well.

"Just to spell it out to you" - your whole argument is based around a "code of ethics" yet you seem to fail to understand that by not officially declaring you have a soft spot, an alliance, an allegiance, a membership - call it what you will, is completely unethical.

Who? Caro? She's declared publically that she's a Richmond supporter.

 

[RFC not KFC]

It does read like you enjoy taking unnecessary pot shots - your not alone on here I guess, but the vehement nature is the surprise. Move on from grass knoll is my kindly suggestion............

find another poster to offer your suggestions to is my suggestion...............

 

[RFC not KFC]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sniping
"3. To make malicious, underhand remarks or attacks."

You're still not actually refuting anything.

Thats laughable coming from you who has done nothing but belittle others from the moment you entered the debate and not only in the original thread but in other threads as well.

Who? Caro? She's declared publically that she's a Richmond supporter.

How was the first post on this thread malicious or underhanded?

If I haven't refuted anything why do you continue to reply? It's nice that you want to hold the other poster's hand and help him respond.

I'm not the one quoting ethics as an illogical argument. There is nothing in the ethics that says a journalist cannot hold a club membership.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Do you understand the meaning of sniping? It's a phrase you've used on both threads in a manner that indicates you do not. Depending on the reference used a fairly standard definition is "one who shoots at people from a concealed place". You used the term on the "Caro" thread and I let it slide. Now you've raised it incorrectly again. Posting a comment on a thread on the main board is hardly a concealed place. If you think it is you would have been fairly poor at "Hide and Seek" as a child.

As pointed out in subsequent posts, I think that you need to learn some of the other common defintions of the term "sniping", especially in the context of a debate.

As for the gibberish about not countering any argument I find it laughable that you are so intent on defending journalism that you couldn't see the irony in quoting the ethical principles that "have" to be adhered to. Posting a link to quote these ethical standards and conveniently ignoring the ones that don't suit your point of view. Start at number 12, in particular with reference to Caro.

This is what I mean by sniping. If you go back to my post I was talking about the ethical principles that members of a particular journalist union are expected to uphold. I also stated that plenty of journos don't uphold all of those standards. The irony is that you and others berate them for it, but then scoff if one does something that could be construed as a professional choice that allows them to better uphold those standards. Knowing this full well you choose to constantly misrepresent and ignore inconvenient parts of my posts. I would be very interested to see where I have "conveniently ignored" the standards that don't suit my POV.

Belittling other posters- read your sarcastic opening comment to my first response in the Caro thread and ask yourself if you could possibly be considered to have done the same.

Try justifying your position instead of just belittling your opponents. I have spelled out my argument (perhaps with some sarcasm mixed in) and I still haven't seen your response.

"Just to spell it out to you" - your whole argument is based around a "code of ethics" yet you seem to fail to understand that by not officially declaring you have a soft spot, an alliance, an allegiance, a membership - call it what you will, is completely unethical.

Is this in reference to Caro? If so, she has made her allegiances known.

I've got to get back to my grassy knoll before someone finds me out here.

Perhaps that is not such a bad idea.

 

[Phar Ace]

find another poster to offer your suggestions to is my suggestion...............

;D

 

[IanG]

How was the first post on this thread malicious or underhanded?

You were ridiculing the argument in a drive by way which is regarded as a common sniping tactic in online debates.

If I haven't refuted anything why do you continue to reply? It's nice that you want to hold the other poster's hand and help him respond.

Cause I can't quite let go as yet, especially given the fact that you obviously can't debate without ridiculing the opposing argument.

I'm not the one quoting ethics as an illogical argument. There is nothing in the ethics that says a journalist cannot hold a club membership.

Thats just pedantry.

 

[RFC not KFC]

You were ridiculing the argument in a drive by way which is regarded as a common sniping tactic in online debates.

Cause I can't quite let go as yet, especially given the fact that you obviously can't debate without ridiculing the opposing argument.

Thats just pedantry.

You may be a qualified member of the "Online Football Forum Debating Society" and adhere to their strictly enforced code of higher ethics. Looks like my membership of this esteemed society could be in jeopardy. Oh me, Oh my.

 

[IanG]

You just dig yourself deeper with every post.

 

[AngryAnt]

 

[RFC not KFC]

You just dig yourself deeper with every post.

Look up then because sooner or later my spade will be coming through your ceiling.

 

[ZeroGame]

I wonder if we should have an amnesty on PRE where jounalists can reveal themselves on a promise that we will not ridicule them about it*

There certainly are a few posters getting very precious about the criticism of jounalists with a less than stellar reputation





* for a week

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Anyone that has followed the Race, Religion and Politics board for any amount of time knows that I'm no journo. I just find it odd that some on here (and now one in particular) are so hung up on the idea that there are journos out there with ethical standards that they attempt to abide by. I also think cheap shots and ridicule aren't much of a way to make one's point.

I think I have stated my point enough.

 

[RFC not KFC]

Anyone that has followed the Race, Religion and Politics board for any amount of time knows that I'm no journo. I just find it odd that some on here (and now one in particular) are so hung up on the idea that there are journos out there with ethical standards that they attempt to abide by. I also think cheap shots and ridicule aren't much of a way to make one's point.

I think I have stated my point enough.

I find it odd that some can't differenciate between understanding the point above and disagreeing that it is a valid argument as to why a journalist shouldn't buy a membership.

The only thing I agree with is that you have stated your point.

 

[ROLLS ROYCE]

Must be a great job where you can change your opinion weekly and not be accountable for statements you make in the recent past.

Yep....sounds like 95 per cent of posters on PRE. :hihi :hihi