06 May 09
Originally posted by FMFI have absolutely no idea
I have absolutely no idea, generalissimo. Let me ask you, what colour is the sky in your world?
[b]Do you think that if I really wanted to doctor the article ...?
Er... but you DID doctor the article! Whether you REALLY WANTED to do it, or whether you JUST DID IT is immaterial.[/b]
just like you have absolutely no idea about Cuba, or what doctoring a text really is.
what colour is the sky in your world?
How is this relevant?
Er... but you DID doctor the article! Whether you REALLY WANTED to do it, or whether you JUST DID IT is immaterial.
I don't think I did. I think you misunderstood my intention.
06 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoYou DOCTORED the text in order to change its balance and tone. You yourself admitted in this a post:
I don't think I did [doctor the text]. I think you misunderstood my intention.
"I took only a few parts of the text [...] I took the parts I thought would be important..."
The stuff you thought would not "be important" was about the legality of the move, the constitutionality of the move, the compensation on offer, the support for the indigenous poeple being proposed, the fact that it was 20,000 people - who had NOT threatened violence against 30 families - who HAD threatened violence - the text was DOCTORED by you, beyond all semblence of balance.
You cut this stuff from the article and then... questioned the legality and constitutionality of the govt. move.
Deception 101. Courtesy of generalissimao, fascist space cadet.
06 May 09
Originally posted by FMFWhat's this "hoax" you keep wittering on about?
I don't have MUCH of an idea after a 72 hour stopover. But I have some idea. What's this "hoax" you keep wittering on about?
My point is that you go on and on about how I was dishonest and tried to deceive and mislead people because Im a right-wing extremist, and that somehow I was a racist (as well as other people you think were racists), even though its not true.
Without mentioning the fact that you're always being irrational and accusing people of things you actually do.
06 May 09
Originally posted by generalissimoWell, then. Why did you cut the text from the BBC article that didn't suit your agenda? It was a balanced article, talking about the interests of 20,000 Brazilians pitched against those of 30 families, about the legality and constitutionality of the move. Why did you cut this information from the text and then suggest with your doctored OP text that the development in Brazil was something other than what it really was? This is lowest of the low in forum behaviour generalissimo. You really do need to apologize and start afresh.
My point is that you go on and on about how I was dishonest and tried to deceive and mislead people...
06 May 09
Originally posted by FMFYou really do need to apologize and start afresh.
Well, then. Why did you cut the text from the BBC article that didn't suit your agenda? It was a balanced article, talking about the interests of 20,000 Brazilians pitched against those of 30 families, about the legality and constitutionality of the move. Why did you cut this information from the text and then suggest with your doctored OP text that the developm ...[text shortened]... of the low in forum behaviour generalissimo. You really do need to apologize and start afresh.
Well, thats not gonna happen.
19 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoNot intentionally?
I didn't doctor the info from the BBC (or at least not intentionally), I didn't change what was there, nor did I want to deceive anyone.
You kept paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.
You removed paragraphs 4 and 5.
Then you kept paragraphs 6 and 7.
Then you removed paragraphs 10, 11 and 12.
Then you included paragraphs 13 and 14.
And removed paragraphs 15, 16 and 17.
And you claim that you didn't change what was there??
Let's take a look at the material you removed, then:
But the authorities say they will be properly compensated. In March, Brazil's Supreme Court ruled that the area in the northern border state of Roraima should be maintained as a single continuous territory exclusively for use by the indigenous population. Around 300 police and soldiers are now reported to have begun an operation to remove any remaining rice producers and farm workers from the 1.7 million hectare reservation. There were said to be around 30 non-indigenous families in the reservation as the deadline approached, but the authorities say force will only be used if they meet with violent resistance. Some of the rice producers have been criticised for destroying farm buildings as they left the area. Late on Friday the authorities reported that there had been no violence as a result of the first day of the operation to remove non-indigenous residents from the area. While around 20 families of small rice producers were still in Raposa Serra do Sol, they were only there because of logistical problems, and would be given help to move their belongings, officials said. The authorities insist they will provide the necessary support [to the local indigenous population]. The reservation, which is in the far north of Brazil on the border with Venezuela and Guyana, is home to around 20,000 indigenous people. Officials say the operation to ensure the Supreme Court ruling has been obeyed could take some days to complete.
If your intention was not to deceive anyone, what WAS your intention. You called the thread "legalised robbery, by the brazilian government" and then selectively cut and paste text from a relatively short article, and in doing so removed information about:
** the legality of the Brazillian government's move, a fact that is not disputed in any credible way [you removed this point from the text)
** specifically the constitutionality of the move (you cut this)
** the compensation on offer (why would you call it "robbery" and then remove all mention of "compensation" from the text, one wonders...)
** the pledge of support for the indigenous poeple in answer to the criticism that the move was unsustainable (a key point, which you deleted)
** the fact that it was the interests of 20,000 people weighed against the interest of 30 families (a rather salient point for a proper understanding of this issue, surely? You removed it)
** the fact that the indigenous people had NOT threatened violence against 30 farms (didn't survive in your doctored version)
** the fact that the farmers, despite the legality of the move, had threatened violence and in some cases had carried out violent acts (which you removed from the original text)
All this information was removed from what was a balanced BBC news item.
If you don't realise and admit that your OP was deceitful, then one can only explain your actions by placing a question mark over your intellect. No offence intended.
19 May 09
Originally posted by generalissimoUpholding a constitutional decision to stop non-natives from farming in a reservation is robbery? Come again?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8030223.stm
Brazilian police and soldiers have begun an operation to remove non-indigenous residents from an Indian reservation in northern Brazil.
The operation follows a landmark ruling by the country's Supreme Court that the Raposa Serra do Sol reservation should be solely for indigenous people.
T ...[text shortened]... to live in the reservation, which he said had unfortunately been turned into a "human zoo."
Allowing people to build farms in a reservation kind of defeats the purpose of a reservation, don't you think? What about the "legalized robbery" which put them on these reservations in the first place?
19 May 09
Originally posted by FMFbelieve whatever you want to believe FMF, I won't spend any more time explaining myself, I don't have to.
Not intentionally?
You kept paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.
You removed paragraphs 4 and 5.
Then you kept paragraphs 6 and 7.
Then you removed paragraphs 10, 11 and 12.
Then you included paragraphs 13 and 14.
And removed paragraphs 15, 16 and 17.
And you claim that you didn't change what was there??
Let's take a look at the material you rem ...[text shortened]... in your actions by placing a question mark over your intellect. No offence intended.
19 May 09
Originally posted by generalissimoI do.
believe whatever you want to believe FMF
I believe, nay - I know - you...
You kept paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.
You removed paragraphs 4 and 5.
Then you kept paragraphs 6 and 7.
Then you removed paragraphs 10, 11 and 12.
Then you included paragraphs 13 and 14.
And removed paragraphs 15, 16 and 17.
And you claim that you didn't change what was there?
Which cuts/inclusions do you deny?
19 May 09
Originally posted by FMFAnd you claim that you didn't change what was there?
I do.
I believe, nay - I know - you...
You kept paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.
You removed paragraphs 4 and 5.
Then you kept paragraphs 6 and 7.
Then you removed paragraphs 10, 11 and 12.
Then you included paragraphs 13 and 14.
And removed paragraphs 15, 16 and 17.
And you claim that you didn't change what was there?
Which cuts/inclusions do you deny?
I didn't. I didn't change the article from the BBC.
Which cuts/inclusions do you deny?
I don't deny anything.