You don’t see how you can be more specific, and then you proceed to be more specific. I knew you could do it. Clarification sometimes requires a bit of back and forth conversation.
People have described the incident differently. Some claim that no contact was made. Some describe the contact as being minor. Others describe the contact as being forceful. We are all entitled to our own opinion of what we saw in the various videos.
Open communication suffers when some people insist that everyone think, and speak, as they do.
Yes I am, but “their arms touched as she reached for the microphone” is not an opinion.
Much in the same way that some people think there’s only one acceptable way to describe the Earth while others think describing it as flat is a valid alternative opinion.
Seems strange that I have to paraphrase your own words to get your opinion, but ok.
I notice that nowhere in this post do you explain why your earlier posts say “assault” and then later you simply say “contact”. My question to you was why the discrepancy between the two and do you still believe that Acosta assaulted the woman? I was asking about your opinion, not the opinions of others who are not you.
Is this a trick question? I believe it’s safer for me to use terms introduced by others. This thread is about whether, or not, the video was altered. Since the original video still exists, I feel that’s a red herring. The primary questions are whether contact was made, who initiated it, and how forceful it was. People’s opinions of what actually happened still differ.
I don’t see a discrepancy. There have been many terms used to describe the interaction between Acosta and the woman. You pick the ones your prefer, and I’ll do the same.
So your excuse is that you refuse to take responsibility for the words you choose to use? You gave two different versions of what happened-which version is more accurate in your opinion?
Everyone is, or should be, entitled to their own opinion. You may disagree.
Remember the white and gold dress vs the blue and black dress controversy? A photograph of a dress on the Internet prompted a short-lived, but lively discussion. What color was it? Some people saw a white and gold dress in dark shadow. Some people saw a blue and black dress washed out in bright light. People relied on their own personal interpretation of what they saw.
Excuse me? I was already issued a warning for stating my opinion. I was also held responsible for another member’s rule breaking. I’m not stepping into your trap. Better luck next time.
You don’t appear to even have an opinion to disagree with; I’m simply calling out your slanted and biased presentation for how it differs greatly from being factual.
“Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it’s nothing. It’s just bibble-babble. It’s like a fart in a wind tunnel, folks.”
-Harlan Ellison
The attempt to make this a “matter of interpretation” is not going to succeed; the press-conference video is simply too clear. Anyone who looks at it can see that the claim you made back in post 70 (one still being made by others on the right):
------ is frankly and plainly false.
But this is of a piece with the White House attempt to push the sped-up version of the video. There’s a general orientation on the right that facts do not matter. Why not alter the video?–no one will notice, or if they notice, no one will care was apparently the reasoning at work.
We saw in the recent midterm election that many Americans are finding this claim to be unattractive. We will see that conviction grow, and be even more manifest in 2020.