I'm just curious about the selective use of language.

Aneurhythmia wrote:I'm just curious about the selective use of language.

You consider boldfaced search results a 'selective use of language'?? Are you 'special ed'?

No, selective use of language like, "as it appeared on Google News roundup" and "the header still reads like it does in the screenshot."

I mean, it's clearly in the Google cache, no denying that. But why call search results a header or a screenshot of a roundup?

Aneurhythmia wrote:No, selective use of language like, "as it appeared on Google News roundup" and "the header still reads like it does in the screenshot."

What is inaccurate about either statement?

I mean, it's clearly in the Google cache, no denying that. But why call search results a header or a screenshot of a roundup?

Because that's what they are- you do a search of Google News, and you get a round up of headers, and then you decide if you want to click over to the actual article based on the header. What are you missing here? What would you call the screenshot, if you don't like my language?

Is this more of what you tried in the 9/11 thread, where you tried to derail the thread with irrelevant nonsense?

clocker bob wrote: Is this more of what you tried in the 9/11 thread, where you tried to derail the thread with irrelevant nonsense?

Well bob every time you respond to that stuff you derail it yourself with quotes and replies and stuff- derailed

choo choo charlie fell out and the cowcatcher's covered in blood

back to the story

clocker bob wrote:Because that's what they are- you do a search of Google News, and you get a round up of headers, and then you decide if you want to click over to the actual article based on the header. What are you missing here? What would you call the screenshot, if you don't like my language?

Search results are neither roundups nor headers. This is what a roundup with headers looks like: http://news.google.com/

clocker bob wrote:Is this more of what you tried in the 9/11 thread, where you tried to derail the thread with irrelevant nonsense?

I suppose you could call my curiosity about the presentation of information in a thread about propaganda, the selective presentation of information, derailing if you want. I might call making accusations derived from an entirely different thread derailing.

I give up

I'm curious about the selective use of language also-by the Washington Post. It sure looks like they changed things to support their own agenda. If Reuters did change their release, then it makes sense what they did. But, right now, it doesn't look that way.

You're better off worrying about that, rather than some highlighting to emphasize certain passages in the story they originally published, and then subsequently changed. They story is the changes, and why they occurred.

Aneurhythmia wrote:Search results are neither roundups nor headers. This is what a roundup with headers looks like: http://news.google.com/

You don't know what you are talking about. The list of results that come up oin your own link look exactly like the header displayed in the original screenshot. That is the format. The screenshot is of a header that turned up in a search of Google News. If you don't think it is that, what exactly do you think it is? Are you just being mental here?

clocker bob wrote:Is this more of what you tried in the 9/11 thread, where you tried to derail the thread with irrelevant nonsense?

I suppose you could call my curiosity about the presentation of information in a thread about propaganda, the selective presentation of information, derailing if you want. I might call making accusations derived from an entirely different thread derailing.

Okay, let's see if I can get you back on track, okay?

Questions for you:

Do you think the wording of the article changed?

Who do you think did it? The Washington Post or Reuters or somebody else?

If you think the wording changed, why was it done?

I will continue to answer your stupid questions about the 'presentation' of information. Please attempt to address the substance of this thread while you continue to waste time and space with pointless questions.

Mark Hansen wrote:I'm curious about the selective use of language also-by the Washington Post. It sure looks like they changed things to support their own agenda. If Reuters did change their release, then it makes sense what they did. But, right now, it doesn't look that way.

You're better off worrying about that, rather than some highlighting to emphasize certain passages in the story they originally published, and then subsequently changed. They story is the changes, and why they occurred.

Exactly. Aneu has wasted four posts trying to decide if he likes the look of a screenshot of a Google News header. At least that's my guess about what he's got stuck in his craw.