I was just about to say this. These days, so many pedes are posting stuff about the netherland that is NOT current and is NOT related to the current situation.
Anons should be MORE discerning that the general public, not just as discerning as the general public.
But that does not detract from the facts on hand and doesn't make the Story False....
pedes are posting stuff about the netherland that is NOT current and is NOT related to the current situation.
Absolute BULLSHIT....Like I said a 10-second search will show you exactly what's happening in the Netherlands with lots of images(Very Similar)..Yes, this may be an Old photo from 2019 but that does not make the Story/situation False...nor does it detract from the facts on hand...
"I was just about to say this"
ACKshwally, this is the third time you have made the same damn comment on the same thread. We get it. This image is from a different protest in the same country and basically looks the same as what's going on now. You've proved you are a super sleuth. I'm sure purkiss, one of the best post-ers on GAW, will continue to refine, thanks to your persistence.
The above was the first comment I posted. Then, I posted under Purkiss' own comment, to bring it to his attention.
You're probably right, 3 comments might be a bit overkill. But I don't know if each person reads each and every comment in a thread. Normally the OP will, I suppose.
My primary reason for responding to 3 separate comments is to address the person making the specific comment, not just the entire thread. If it's a general thread comment, then I comment directly under the post, in the first-tier of comments. How do you choose where to comment, and why?
My general stance: I dislike it when I see false or misrepresented information being posted on GAW or other forums/channels (sites whose central purpose is to advance the front in the Information War), particularly so when it's done through consistent sloppy practice, as opposed to a random mistake, which anyone who posts has done. But should I perhaps just forget about mal-posting, and ignore it when wrong, mistaken, misleading or even fake information comes in?
As to Purkiss being one of the best post-ers on GAW, well, I'd say he's one of the most prolific, but that's not necessarily the best, IMO. Pretty much most of Purkiss' content I see elsewhere in areas I browse, but I acknowledge that he brings a lot of good info to the board.
And, ACKshwally, I have engaged with Purkiss directly a number of times; to point out when he fails to give any credit to the source, when members of the board come away thinking HE is the source and give him all sorts of praise (which he habitually fails to correct) when the content is something he's simply posted from elsewhere, uncredited. He used to do this a LOT.
Our exchanges have alway indicated - stated in Purkiss' words himself - that he simply forgets and/or is simply in too much of a rush to give proper source, (which I personally consider a relevant and important detail, but maybe that's just me?) and I've certainly accepted that his motives are genuine (whereas some might not, when it happens again and again and again). Moreover, happily, I have noticed improvements in his practice. Whether that 'refinement' is due to my input or not, well, that's up for grabs.
I have always engaged with him in good faith, and I thought he had a LITTLE respect for my contributions. I'm sorry to see his sarcastic and defensive comment above, when all I did was point out to him that the photo is of a different, significantly older incident.
Along with his protestations of his sincere motives (which I don't really doubt), he is usually receptive when someone points out sloppy or poor practice. Seems like his particularly reactive in this case.
Me? I just write paragraphs and paragraphs and bore people to death.
This photo is from 2019 https://www.anp.nl/blog/48/boerenprotesten-ogen-fotografen
Guess they have protested before.
I was just about to say this. These days, so many pedes are posting stuff about the netherland that is NOT current and is NOT related to the current situation.
Anons should be MORE discerning that the general public, not just as discerning as the general public.
But that does not detract from the facts on hand and doesn't make the Story False....
Absolute BULLSHIT....Like I said a 10-second search will show you exactly what's happening in the Netherlands with lots of images(Very Similar)..Yes, this may be an Old photo from 2019 but that does not make the Story/situation False...nor does it detract from the facts on hand...
"I was just about to say this" ACKshwally, this is the third time you have made the same damn comment on the same thread. We get it. This image is from a different protest in the same country and basically looks the same as what's going on now. You've proved you are a super sleuth. I'm sure purkiss, one of the best post-ers on GAW, will continue to refine, thanks to your persistence.
Thanks Gawker.
The above was the first comment I posted. Then, I posted under Purkiss' own comment, to bring it to his attention.
You're probably right, 3 comments might be a bit overkill. But I don't know if each person reads each and every comment in a thread. Normally the OP will, I suppose.
My primary reason for responding to 3 separate comments is to address the person making the specific comment, not just the entire thread. If it's a general thread comment, then I comment directly under the post, in the first-tier of comments. How do you choose where to comment, and why?
My general stance: I dislike it when I see false or misrepresented information being posted on GAW or other forums/channels (sites whose central purpose is to advance the front in the Information War), particularly so when it's done through consistent sloppy practice, as opposed to a random mistake, which anyone who posts has done. But should I perhaps just forget about mal-posting, and ignore it when wrong, mistaken, misleading or even fake information comes in?
As to Purkiss being one of the best post-ers on GAW, well, I'd say he's one of the most prolific, but that's not necessarily the best, IMO. Pretty much most of Purkiss' content I see elsewhere in areas I browse, but I acknowledge that he brings a lot of good info to the board.
And, ACKshwally, I have engaged with Purkiss directly a number of times; to point out when he fails to give any credit to the source, when members of the board come away thinking HE is the source and give him all sorts of praise (which he habitually fails to correct) when the content is something he's simply posted from elsewhere, uncredited. He used to do this a LOT.
Our exchanges have alway indicated - stated in Purkiss' words himself - that he simply forgets and/or is simply in too much of a rush to give proper source, (which I personally consider a relevant and important detail, but maybe that's just me?) and I've certainly accepted that his motives are genuine (whereas some might not, when it happens again and again and again). Moreover, happily, I have noticed improvements in his practice. Whether that 'refinement' is due to my input or not, well, that's up for grabs.
I have always engaged with him in good faith, and I thought he had a LITTLE respect for my contributions. I'm sorry to see his sarcastic and defensive comment above, when all I did was point out to him that the photo is of a different, significantly older incident.
Along with his protestations of his sincere motives (which I don't really doubt), he is usually receptive when someone points out sloppy or poor practice. Seems like his particularly reactive in this case.
Me? I just write paragraphs and paragraphs and bore people to death.
Have a nice day.