My “argument” has never been anything beyond establishing the fact that The Texas Observer is a reputable source with a clean fact check record. I already provided evidence backing that up for you four separate times. You are not here in good faith, demonstrated by the fact that you’re deleting all your comments and lying about what you said in an attempt to make yourself sound more reasonable, and now you’re just flat out sealioning.
Can you show me evidence of where you’re shouting about this? Why should I believe your shouting is coming from a reputable source? I can’t find a single other person making the requests for evidence that you’ve made in this thread, etc. Ad inf.
Yes and your blatant misrepresentation of your own comments doesn’t help your case either. Neither do all your self-deleted comments after being called out for your BS.
It’s local news and like most local news isn’t covered elsewhere.
They’re looking for someone to confirm their biases, not actually looking for the truth. It’s pretty clear by their responses that all they’ll accept is someone stating that they’re a far left org.
I pointed out that it’s an openly left-leaning news site, and they just completely ignored me. Possibly because I at the same time asked them to explain what exactly made it “propaganda,” and they’ve been avoiding doing that like the plague.
Dude. Your behavior here is really weird. People are responding to your unhinged flailing and trying to explain why the one source we currently have appears to be reputable. They are giving you reasons to believe that this source is very likely to be telling the truth while you wait for confirmation from other sources. You appear to have gone from a possibility you’ve identified (the possibility that this article is all made up) and inflated the probability of that being true to crazytown levels.
You seem to see conspiracy in the lack of a second source. There is a much more mundane explanation for the lack of that source you desperately need: this story just broke today (Friday). It takes a reputable source more than an hour or two to do their own research and verification and write their own article. Give it time. Yes, verifying news through multiple sources is a good thing. Yes, when there is more published about this, we will be better equipped to judge the accuracy of this article. But you seem to think journalism happens automatically and instantly.
Another source would help your argument.
It would make me sad that it happened, but why is there no other source?
My “argument” has never been anything beyond establishing the fact that The Texas Observer is a reputable source with a clean fact check record. I already provided evidence backing that up for you four separate times. You are not here in good faith, demonstrated by the fact that you’re deleting all your comments and lying about what you said in an attempt to make yourself sound more reasonable, and now you’re just flat out sealioning.
Is asking for more evidence when a really small group is the only source for a really attention grabbing story actually sea lioning?
We’re done here. Bark elsewhere sealion.
Any other source. Please. Ask yourself why there’s not any other source.
Please.
Please. Ask yourself why a publication with an unblemished five year record would choose for this to be the combo breaker.
Please.
If you think this is true, shout it from the mountains.
It’s incredibly attention grabbing and needs to be headlines tomorrow.
We are, we upvoted it. Your harping on about another source is just noise. Go away.
You seem incensed so why don’t you take the lead?
Can you show me evidence of where you’re shouting about this? Why should I believe your shouting is coming from a reputable source? I can’t find a single other person making the requests for evidence that you’ve made in this thread, etc. Ad inf.
Because Brownsville is a city of less than 200k people? Do you know about the treatment center in Rochester, MN that was declared a public nuisance? Find me a new source please, I don’t trust the Post Bulletin for vague unspecified reasons
Because it’s a story that just broke about a kid in a small town.
Give it some time to filter out more. In the meantime we have a credible source providing us with this, which already counts for everything.
Yes and your blatant misrepresentation of your own comments doesn’t help your case either. Neither do all your self-deleted comments after being called out for your BS.
It’s local news and like most local news isn’t covered elsewhere.
They’re looking for someone to confirm their biases, not actually looking for the truth. It’s pretty clear by their responses that all they’ll accept is someone stating that they’re a far left org.
I pointed out that it’s an openly left-leaning news site, and they just completely ignored me. Possibly because I at the same time asked them to explain what exactly made it “propaganda,” and they’ve been avoiding doing that like the plague.
Please. I’ll shut up and be horribly ashamed if you find me another source for this story.
Dude. Your behavior here is really weird. People are responding to your unhinged flailing and trying to explain why the one source we currently have appears to be reputable. They are giving you reasons to believe that this source is very likely to be telling the truth while you wait for confirmation from other sources. You appear to have gone from a possibility you’ve identified (the possibility that this article is all made up) and inflated the probability of that being true to crazytown levels.
You seem to see conspiracy in the lack of a second source. There is a much more mundane explanation for the lack of that source you desperately need: this story just broke today (Friday). It takes a reputable source more than an hour or two to do their own research and verification and write their own article. Give it time. Yes, verifying news through multiple sources is a good thing. Yes, when there is more published about this, we will be better equipped to judge the accuracy of this article. But you seem to think journalism happens automatically and instantly.