The Glade 4.0

I remember it quite well. He posted a picture of a puddle of blood with the camera lens like 6 inches away from it. It could have been a moderately severe traffic accident scene almost anywhere, for all anyone knows.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Actually, there were many photos that I posted, some of which were very clear images of rather large quantities of blood flowing in the streets of Baghdad. Your assumption that my pictures were dishonest was never actually backed up with any evidence to debunk the images as accurate.

I could find the images again, if you like, but they are not for the feint of heart. And I am fairly certain that the pictures were accredited to reporters that took them while in Iraq.

You can certainly continue to believe that the bloodshed in that country was not terribly high, but the facts simply disagree with you. Tens of thousands of people, at a minimum, were killed in Iraq merely in our initial invasion. Several city battles took the lives of a great many Iraqis and Americans.

So, while I appreciate the frustration at being unable to retrace steps to an old board, I have to say that you never made any real case that the pictures I posted were not accurate, nor did you ever debunk them as fakes, misleading angles, or anything of that nature. You simply denounced them via fiat.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

The point being Monte; that you used a simple google search and told everyone that it was good enough of a search, but now you cried foul when someone used a simple google search.

The implication being that you are being inconsistent in your criteria.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

They never had to be debunked because they weren't substantial to begin with. They were random photos from an unverified source. The only thing you did was literally post a link to the search results on google.

I didn't have to "denounce them via fiat" because you never made a compelling case in the first place as to their legitimacy. Were your technique legitimate, I could certainly do this:

http://images.google.com/images?q=obama ... =en&tab=wi



Focus: Obviously, those are photoshops and the blood wasn't necessarily, but just searching for that string in google and yielding an image doesn't mean that image has anything legitimate to do with what the user searched for.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

No proof was ever posted that the pictures were photoshopped. In fact, that was simply declared, and then accepted as truth.

I frankly see no reason to go back over this, I simply think it's unfair to characterize those photos as misleading when no proof of that was ever produced.

edit - for the record, I find the image you posted to be highly offensive and inflammatory.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Fair "certainty" doesn't mean anything. You need to find the actual source and at least post it for other members to judge. You just posted the search hits.



Wrong, wrong wrong! This is why I in particular find my blood pressure going up when trying to reason with you. I discussed nothing about the bloodshed with you. The bloodshed to me was immaterial. What was critical to me was that your research techniques lacked any sort of veracity. That's all I said; any implications furthermore were completely PROJECTED (there's your fun word) by you onto me. As DS pointed out, you called into question this very research technique in this thread as being illegitimate.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Obviously they didn't have to be photoshopped, but a mere Google image search does not lend any sort of veracity to the images. YOU JUST SAID THE VERY SAME THING IN THIS THREAD.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

They are meant as an example to demonstrate why this "research" technique which you have previously used is invalid. Much like you yourself pointed out in this very thread.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Forgive me, but my research techniques were no more or less valid than anyone else's here. I would direct you to the thread currently in progress where DFK uses his opinion that Obama is a liar to ignore anything the man says and maintain his false opinions about the health care plan Obama has proposed.

If we want a higher standard of evidence here, what do you propose? What sources constitute a valid source, and which do not? This *is* the internet, after all.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Ok, you completely are missing the point. You just said in this thread:



You yourself used this exact same method in 3.0 to verify the violence in Baghdad. Put aside the violence for a second. It's not the material we are discussing. What we are discussing is that you are trying to cite a source with a technique you yourself have just criticized when another poster used it. The topic could be anything: raising cattle, botany, ancient Greek Literature, whatever.

I don't propose holding you to any specific standard, except maybe you should hold yourself to the same standards you are trying to hold other posters.

Now, if you can't understand the point I've been trying to make after explaining it to you several times in several different modes, I'm going to consider this willful ignorance on your part. I honestly don't know how to speak it in any plainer language.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Hold on a second. That links to an article that has cited data from a study. Would you prefer I post the actual study? What is the effective difference, in the end? It's a link, like any other link someone might post.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

For **** sake man. I'm not talking about the **** article you posted. I'm talking about you calling into question someone else's use of google's image search as a questionable research tool (which by itself, it is) when you did the same thing yourself. Look at the **** part I **** bolded for **** sake.

Goddamn, I'll go back and **** edit it so there's no possible way you can **** confuse what I'm trying to explain.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

God, I still cannot believe. **** **** ... You can't possibly doing that unintentionally, I mean ... **** man!

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I'm sorry, but this discussion has become very, very heated on your end, and probably lies outside the new moderation standards. I don't want to continue it, mostly because I would prefer to not be anywhere near you if the hammer drops.

If you would like to continue discussing this in a rational manner, I suggest you stop using expletives, and speak a little more reasonably and respectfully.


Edit - I honestly don't understand why you are freaking out like this.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I really don't care at this point. I patiently explained it to you over several posts and you are still hitting foul balls into the upper deck. I'm questioning whether or not you are intentionally doing so.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I guess I need to go through your objections point by point. Perhaps that will clear up your current confusion.

First, I posted direct links to pictures, and then also posted links to searches in order to illustrate how many more pictures were out there. We both agree than none of us can actually go back and comb that thread, so it's kind of pointless. However, I did feel that the pile on over that issue, here, was unfair.




I wasn't talking to you.



How so? I posted pictures of baghdad streets with running blood and large pools of the stuff. How was that lacking veracity. Were any of those photos shown to be fakes? Did anyone prove that there was any photo shopping done? Was any evidence what so ever produced that debunked the photographs I posted and linked to?

If not, why are you claiming that they lacked veracity?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

The burden of proof for veracity of evidence doesn't lie on him. It relies on the presenter of the evidence (in this case, you).

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Because all you did was post the search hits that returned with the string "bagdhad[sic] blood streets". This is no more valid than search technique you just told someone else was invalid.

No one had to "debunk" the photos you linked as fake or photoshopped. They may very well be of blood and on the street, but nothing links them necessarily being of Baghdad violence. Anyone could render a picture of such a thing and label it with the appropriate tags as demonstrative tool and Google would find it.

It's up to you to verify those pictures were actually took in Baghdad, that the pictures resulted from war violence, not a traffic accident or some other event etc. The most important part is there's all sorts of context that a Google Image Search isn't concerned with; it just matches tags and text and then returns the image.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Furthermore, let's say Google's Image Search is some sort of infallible evidence finder. Even were this the case, you chastised someone for using it when you yourself have just used it. That's probably the more pressing issue.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

@DFK - Which I presented. The veracity was right there. At that point, the burden rests on others to show that the evidence was faulty or fake. No one did that. I mean, they said it was faulty, but they didn't actually provide any evidence to show that was true.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

There was no veracity presented. That would have existed in 3.0 and I strictly remember you not even bother replying once I called into question your google search image as used for research as an exclusive way to find valid evidence.

If you are talking about that article you posted in this thread, what on earth does that have to do with the bagdhad[sic] blood stree search?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Yes, that's true, but then there would be evidence of that, wouldn't there?

Look, when you blow people up with bombs, it's not like the blood just vanishes. It's a liquid, and it does what liquids do until it congeals. So, when a lot of people die, there is a lot of blood. Where does that blood go when there is a high quantity?

He called my statement hyperbole, and then I went out and found pictures that showed that it *wasn't* hyperbole.

At that point, it's really the responsibilty of those who somehow *don't* think blood flowed on the streets of baghdad to show that those pictures, which clearly say otherwise, are false, fake, or inaccurate.

You can do that by just saying "that's not real", but that's not a terribly compelling rebuttle.

If you think that the image site is somehow compromised, then show your work. But that still isn't a compelling argument as to why those specific photographs are fake.

Now, I am beginning to understand your overall point.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

What did you present?

You presented evidence, I remember that: you linked a GoogleImage search.


That was it. That proves neither veracity nor applicability.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Nope. That isn't where the burden of proof lies.


You presented evidence. Your opponent said, "demonstrate the veracity and applicability of this evidence." You have functionally said, "that's your job."

That is incorrect.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

You didn't provide photos that actually demonstrated the streets "literally running with blood". A puddle of blood in the street somewhere in Baghdad doesn't mean the streets "run with it" unless by that you mean "any blood in the street at all". If that is what you mean, then the entire claim is nothing but an appeal to emotion using predjudicial language since tht could happen any time there is a car accident or a criminal assault with a knife.

The photo you provided showed a puddle of blood about 6 inches from the camea lens. There were no edges to it nor any object nearby to provide a size comparison. It didn't prove anything. It isn't surprising you couldn't find such a picture since the claim is absurd. Anything that killed enough people to produce rivers of blood in the streets wouldn't leave much of Baghdad either.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."