Submitted by MisterMovie50 t3_ygsgra in worldnews
chockedup t1_iuaa3k8 wrote
I'm reversing the order of two paragraphs,
>Last year, Diane Allen, a retired lieutenant colonel from the British Army, said the military needed its own Me Too moment, referring to the movement which saw people share their experiences of sexual harassment.
>...
>The whistleblower who told the Mail she was sexually assaulted by a man of a higher rank as she slept no longer serves in the navy. She was dismissed from service over a separate incident and given a suspended prison sentence for disclosing classified information that compromised security.
Sheppex t1_iubgcvf wrote
I am embarrassed to admit I don't understand the reasoning behind reversing the order of these 2 paragraphs, please could you expand further?
(General question) Is the second paragraph's second sentence meant to throw shade on the whistle-blower, infer that she was punished by the navy for whistle-blowing / rejecting the higher rank officer, or other reason for including?
chockedup t1_iubhl0v wrote
Reversing the sequential order made more sense to my mind as a reader, that's all. Regarding your other questions and/or observations, I don't know.
Tech_Itch t1_iuctb5k wrote
Those are completely separate paragraphs from different parts of the article. Combining them that way only makes sense if you're trying to falsely imply that Diane Allen is the "whistleblower" being talked about in the second paragraph and is therefore supposedly being dishonest for selfish reasons. That whistleblower is a different person.
Since most people won't read the article and might fall for your bullshit: There are multiple allegations of sexual misconduct from multiple people.
chockedup t1_iudjp53 wrote
>Since most people won't read the article and might fall for your bullshit:
My bullshit?
>Combining them that way only makes sense if you're trying to falsely imply that Diane Allen is the "whistleblower" being talked about in the second paragraph and is therefore supposedly being dishonest for selfish reasons.
That was not my thought at all, and I disagree with your interpretation. I've tagged you as a liar.
Tech_Itch t1_iudlreu wrote
>That was not my thought at all, and I disagree with your interpretation.
So what was your thought? How do you disagree? What other purpose could cherrypicking two unrelated paragraphs from a long article and arranging them in a misleading way possibly serve?
> I've tagged you as a liar.
chockedup t1_iudpet1 wrote
> What other purpose could cherrypicking two unrelated paragraphs from a long article and arranging them in a misleading way possibly serve?
If I was trying to mislead, then I would not have openly disclosed that I reversed their order! Among your other personal shortcomings, it seems you have flawed reasoning.
Tech_Itch t1_iudtf3a wrote
So what were you trying to say if you weren't trying to mislead? I suppose you're hoping that nobody reading your replies notices the fact that you keep avoiding saying what your point was in picking those specific paragraphs out of their context and reversing their order. How about instead of coming up with imagined flaws in me, you do that?
chockedup t1_iudxijh wrote
>So what were you trying to say if you weren't trying to mislead? I suppose you're hoping that nobody reading your replies notices the fact that you keep avoiding saying what your point was in picking those specific paragraphs out of their context and reversing their order. How about instead of coming up with imagined flaws in me, you do that?
I wrote that answer to another poster (Sheppex) in the same subthread.
On the subject of "imagined" flaws, upthread you said,
>Combining them that way only makes sense if you're trying to falsely imply that Diane Allen is the "whistleblower"
The two paragraphs in question clearly say they're two different people, "Diane Allen, a retired lieutenant colonel" and in regard to the whistleblower, "dismissed from service". "Dismissed" does not equal "retired"!
At best, your charge that I was falsely implying they were the same person was flawed reasoning on your part, at worst it was an intentional lie.
Tech_Itch t1_iudyut4 wrote
I'll quote your reply to the other commenter:
>Reversing the sequential order made more sense to my mind as a reader, that's all.
That's just a dodge, and it's obvious to everyone, which is why that comment is sitting at -7 when I'm typing this. What's the "sense" it's making to you?
I'm done with this discussion. It's already obvious to everyone with eyes that you're commenting in bad faith, and I'm tired of this.
chockedup t1_iue16b0 wrote
>I'll quote your reply to the other commenter:
>>Reversing the sequential order made more sense to my mind as a reader, that's all.
>That's just a dodge, and it's obvious to everyone, which is why that comment is sitting at -7 when I'm typing this. What's the "sense" it's making to you?
>I'm done with this discussion. It's already obvious to everyone with eyes that you're commenting in bad faith, and I'm tired of this.
I'm not commenting in bad faith, I've been abused by you.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments