Originally Posted by saywhatkid
We disagree. No surprise there. If you want to consider an angry Liberal blogging about OWS as a reputable source for someone to back up their opinion, I will consider a Rush groupie's blog against it. Fair enough?
I wouldn't consider either of them reputable, not being an angry liberal or a Rush groupie.
However, I would expect any adult who can read would be able and willing to read both blogs and sift them for themselves, separating out the facts from the hype, and I would be open minded enough to read both to see what they said. Those who prefer an echo chamber obviously prefer echo chambers.
And the thing about disagreeing is- there are actually facts that are not a matter of agreement or disagreement.
It was blogs who caught the mainstream press using forged documents in more than one incident.
It was blogs who caught the mainstream press using photoshopped pictures, more than once.
It was blogs who caught Fox using a photograph of one crowd at an event and representing it as a crowd at a separate event.
It was blogs who caught the media cropping out details from their pictures that did not support the narrative.
I can also supp0ort my definition of trolling with multiple links to actual definitions. It's not 'my' definition- it actually is common usage.
Is your definition based on anything other than 'a troll is somebody whose opinions and sources I don't like?'