Well, it’s not a free country, you can’t say anything you want here, and your right to say such things is not protected. Never mind that you can’t seem to parse how a paid review is different from an unpaid review.
So no, you don’t have the first clue.
I'd say you're free to say what you want, but you're not necessarily free to say it wherever you want. Yes there's freedom of speech but not freedom of repercussions.
you can’t seem to parse how a paid review is different from an unpaid review.
In terms of bias, not necessarily any different at all. Paid can be unbiased (though there is certainly a question of conflict of interest which damages credibility) and unpaid can be very biased.
Well, it’s not a free country, you can’t say anything you want here, and your right to say such things is not protected. Never mind that you can’t seem to parse how a paid review is different from an unpaid review.
So no, you don’t have the first clue.
You know nobody proved that any reviews are paid.
Personally I think unfounded accusations of trolling should be a bannable offence. This place has gone to the dogs (except in the Mac threads where sanity - and legitimate criticism - prevails).
If there are trolls they will probably use terms like fan boy and post from non Apple devices. Let's the mods deal with that, they can tell.
Well, it’s not a free country, you can’t say anything you want here, and your right to say such things is not protected. Never mind that you can’t seem to parse how a paid review is different from an unpaid review.
So no, you don’t have the first clue.
What in anything I wrote indicates that I "can’t seem to parse how a paid review is different from an unpaid review"? When did I ever make one comment even vaguely related to reviews, of any kind, let alone whether they are paid or not? Please point out to me SOMETHING I said that forms the basis of your accusation?
Even I didn’t forget that, so you can pretty much tell you’re trolling.
Ok, you seem to have extremely limited logic and reasoning skills, so I will stop trying. There is clearly no point. But just so you're aware, saying that this article is biased, to the point of being laughable (which I very much stand by) has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether I know the difference between a paid review and an unpaid one. I don't expect you to understand this nuance, because you have demonstrated quite clearly that you're incapable, but I thought I owed it to you to point this out.
Even I didn’t forget that, so you can pretty much tell you’re trolling.
Even if you think he's trolling (I merely skimmed the thread after reading the article), the article is not an exact reporting of details. It reads more like an Op-ed with the emotive language.
pot, kettle. a better headline, if one were to be fair about not trashing apple, would be "Samsung wastes billions being petulant brats, and don't get the ice cream after all."
Even I didn’t forget that, so you can pretty much tell you’re trolling.
Even if you think he's trolling (I merely skimmed the thread after reading the article), the article is not an exact reporting of details. It reads more like an Op-ed with the emotive language.
poster "hmm",
I'm curious. My browser show a BLUE box with the word "Editorial" just before the title "Apple's failure to pay for favorable media coverage flies in the face of Samsung's payola". Does your's show something different? I ask because something seem to be coming over very different when some others reading it and what their expectations are when they do read it. I see this description "Editorial" and take it for it is. An Editorial . I read what you wrote about it being an article and sayings effectively "..but its read's as on Op-ed" as though you were surprised. Somewhere we have a disconnect between expectations of it being an article when in fact it is an editorial and was represented as so. At least in my browser.
I'm curious. My browser show a BLUE box with the word "Editorial" just before the title "Apple's failure to pay for favorable media coverage flies in the face of Samsung's payola". Does your's show something different? I ask because something seem to be coming over very different when some others reading it and what their expectations are when they do read it. I see this description "Editorial" and take it for it is. An Editorial . I read what you wrote about it being an article and sayings effectively "..but its read's as on Op-ed" as though you were surprised. Somewhere we have a disconnect between expectations of it being an article when in fact it is an editorial and was represented as so. At least in my browser.
I don't see that. Right now this is just one of my background windows. I'm viewing from firefox in Lion rather than from my phone. I am a bit zombified today due to little sleep, but no I still don't see a tag that states that. It may be that I didn't click on it from the front page. Anyway it's not a terrible article or anything, but I'm still not a fan of overly emotive language. That is kind of why I typically read the articles here rather than some of the more "tribal" mac sites. It varies though. Sometimes they're good. Sometimes they feel a little devoid of substance. Now I'm going to check the front page to see if I can find that tag, because I have seen other things tagged editorial.
Ahh that misses my point. Perhaps I should have said I found some to be more insightful than others. Would that make you happy? I can think of one of the mods on here that regularly points out more interesting references in his posts than some of the writers.
It's interesting how the media will jump all over the news of Apple having to rebate $32 million to parents whose children made unauthorized in-app purchases, making this seem like a horrible turn of events for Apple. Or Apple's tussle with the assigned monitor in the eBooks case (at $1100 per hour, his fee comes to $11 million over five years). And yet, none do the simple comparison that would highlight the fact that, even at the low-end estimate of an incremental one million iPhones sold per month based upon China Mobile coming on board, that's an incremental $600 million in revenue to Apple, monthly! Surely this warrants more column inches of positive coverage for Apple than the FTC news or eBooks monitor tussle warrants column inches of negative coverage. This is an example of how you can tell the Apple ship is still seaworthy; when the reality of the aggregate negatives adds up to a tiny percentage of just one month's worth of one positive development in the Apple story. And yet the narrative remains negatively biased. Time to pick up some additional shares.
Ahh that misses my point. Perhaps I should have said I found some to be more insightful than others. Would that make you happy? I can think of one of the mods on here that regularly points out more interesting references in his posts than some of the writers.
sorry if I am being dense here, but I honestly do not understand your comment as a response to my inclusion to the definition of editorial. Since I don't see how the inclusion of the definition of editorial, "missing the point" of defining what an editorial is, I am going to assume this was offensive somehow. Did my inclusion of the definition somehow offend you?
It was not supposed to offend nor was I doing it to provoke an argument with you. Quite the opposite, actually. Not sure why but if the inclusion of the definition of editorial offend you, then I'm sorry you took it this way. It was not directed at you, especially since you seem to know the difference between article and editorial, per your own words "..the article is not an exact reporting of details. It reads more like an Op-ed with the emotive language.." You obviously know that difference and correctly identified DED's work as being editorial in nature (even if your Firefox browser did not label as such). So I am not sure, the cause for your subsequent response and why you feel the need to defend yourself, when there was no offense intended to be given.
or did I misunderstand your intent? You would not simply be trying switch paddles mid stream and switch one complaint for another until something sticks, are you? You would not be trying to intentionally offend DED, just for the sake of being offensive. right? Because that would not only be sad but some would probably call it trollish.
Surely this warrants more column inches of positive coverage for Apple than the FTC news or eBooks monitor tussle warrants column inches of negative coverage. This is an example of how you can tell the Apple ship is still seaworthy; when the reality of the aggregate negatives adds up to a tiny percentage of just one month's worth of one positive development in the Apple story. And yet the narrative remains negatively biased. Time to pick up some additional shares.
I grew up in Michigan, in what used to be car country. Now, granted, the companies were not doing well for a lot of my early years, but the media was all over the negative news and never emphasized the rare positive developments. Even now, if you only paid attention to the media, you wouldn't think that GM and Ford are still both in the top 5 car companies by revenue. Bad news sells better than good.
I think you've misinterpreted the CNET story. CNET actively sought to monetize its already favourable reviews by charging companies to republish those stories. It's a shady business scheme but it's a stretch to say that CNET has accepted bribes in exchange for positive reviews.
This is even worse.
At first I thought CNET was accepting bribes. But they appear to be approaching companies and asking for them.
I think you've misinterpreted the CNET story. CNET actively sought to monetize its already favourable reviews by charging companies to republish those stories. It's a shady business scheme but it's a stretch to say that CNET has accepted bribes in exchange for positive reviews.
This is even worse.
At first I thought CNET was accepting bribes. But they appear to be approaching companies and asking for them.
the politically correct term for this is "solicitation". Other people know it as, "the world's oldest profession".
My accusation of you as a troll wasn't based on one of your posts but on all your posts. I think you have made some intelligent and fair comments, but on the whole, you seem to be too negative on Apple without backing it up with strong arguments.
Even if someone was constantly against Apple, that wouldn't automatically make that person a troll.
That you are accusing him because "on the whole" (lol did you make stats on his comments?) he is negative of Apple, is utterly ridiculous.
Your kind of behavior is trolling actually. You are disrupting a discussion, attacking someone on their persona rather than on their arguments.
I've now blocked you, don't complain if others do the same and don't answer to your posts.
edit: I also find it funny when a guy who's been here for less than six months comes and accuses others who've been here for years to be trolls... If I were a moderator, I'd already have banned you.
edit2: anyway, congrats to everyone, me included, to have turned this discussion into trolling and stuff. How interesting...not
edit3: people should look out the word 'troll'. Many of you are mistaking 'having a different opinion' with 'being a troll'
We could spend all this time bashing scamsung, that would be funnier!
Even if someone was constantly against Apple, that wouldn't automatically make that person a troll.
That you are accusing him because "on the whole" (lol did you make stats on his comments?) he is negative of Apple, is utterly ridiculous.
Your kind of behavior is trolling actually. You are disrupting a discussion, attacking someone on their persona rather than on their arguments.
I've now blocked you, don't complain if others do the same and don't answer to your posts.
edit: I also find it funny when a guy who's been here for less than six months comes and accuses others who've been here for years to be trolls... If I were a moderator, I'd already have banned you.
edit2: anyway, congrats to everyone, me included, to have turned this discussion into trolling and stuff. How interesting...not
edit3: people should look out the word 'troll'. Many of you are mistaking 'having a different opinion' with 'being a troll'
We could spend all this time bashing scamsung, that would be funnier!
1) You'd have banned him as a troll for thinking someone else might be a troll?
2) What does 6 months mean? If we're talking about a brand new account with little to no post history I would be able to see your point but we're talking 6 months and hundreds of posts, but more importantly his posts aren't snarky one-liners but in-depth and thoughtful enough to defend and explain his position. We need more of that around here, not less.
3) I see a lot more new posters getting upset for having replies of a differing opinion and the flaws in their logic or facts getting addressed back to them than I do non-trolls being called trolls.
4) I'm not a fan of these terms like Scamsung. They hurt an argument because they show a complete disregard at even attempting to approach a position fairly and objectively. When someone starts their conversation here with Crapple or iSheep do you expect their comment to be a worthwhile contribution to the thread?
Comments
I'd say you're free to say what you want, but you're not necessarily free to say it wherever you want. Yes there's freedom of speech but not freedom of repercussions.
You know nobody proved that any reviews are paid.
Personally I think unfounded accusations of trolling should be a bannable offence. This place has gone to the dogs (except in the Mac threads where sanity - and legitimate criticism - prevails).
If there are trolls they will probably use terms like fan boy and post from non Apple devices. Let's the mods deal with that, they can tell.
Well, it’s not a free country, you can’t say anything you want here, and your right to say such things is not protected. Never mind that you can’t seem to parse how a paid review is different from an unpaid review.
So no, you don’t have the first clue.
What in anything I wrote indicates that I "can’t seem to parse how a paid review is different from an unpaid review"? When did I ever make one comment even vaguely related to reviews, of any kind, let alone whether they are paid or not? Please point out to me SOMETHING I said that forms the basis of your accusation?
I’d think here, where this argument began:
Even I didn’t forget that, so you can pretty much tell you’re trolling.
I’d think here, where this argument began:
Even I didn’t forget that, so you can pretty much tell you’re trolling.
Ok, you seem to have extremely limited logic and reasoning skills, so I will stop trying. There is clearly no point. But just so you're aware, saying that this article is biased, to the point of being laughable (which I very much stand by) has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether I know the difference between a paid review and an unpaid one. I don't expect you to understand this nuance, because you have demonstrated quite clearly that you're incapable, but I thought I owed it to you to point this out.
Good luck.
‘Kay. Later, skater.
Even I didn’t forget that, so you can pretty much tell you’re trolling.
Even if you think he's trolling (I merely skimmed the thread after reading the article), the article is not an exact reporting of details. It reads more like an Op-ed with the emotive language.
Even I didn’t forget that, so you can pretty much tell you’re trolling.
Even if you think he's trolling (I merely skimmed the thread after reading the article), the article is not an exact reporting of details. It reads more like an Op-ed with the emotive language.
poster "hmm",
I'm curious. My browser show a BLUE box with the word "Editorial" just before the title "Apple's failure to pay for favorable media coverage flies in the face of Samsung's payola". Does your's show something different? I ask because something seem to be coming over very different when some others reading it and what their expectations are when they do read it. I see this description "Editorial" and take it for it is. An Editorial . I read what you wrote about it being an article and sayings effectively "..but its read's as on Op-ed" as though you were surprised. Somewhere we have a disconnect between expectations of it being an article when in fact it is an editorial and was represented as so. At least in my browser.
poster "hmm",
I'm curious. My browser show a BLUE box with the word "Editorial" just before the title "Apple's failure to pay for favorable media coverage flies in the face of Samsung's payola". Does your's show something different? I ask because something seem to be coming over very different when some others reading it and what their expectations are when they do read it. I see this description "Editorial" and take it for it is. An Editorial . I read what you wrote about it being an article and sayings effectively "..but its read's as on Op-ed" as though you were surprised. Somewhere we have a disconnect between expectations of it being an article when in fact it is an editorial and was represented as so. At least in my browser.
I don't see that. Right now this is just one of my background windows. I'm viewing from firefox in Lion rather than from my phone. I am a bit zombified today due to little sleep, but no I still don't see a tag that states that. It may be that I didn't click on it from the front page. Anyway it's not a terrible article or anything, but I'm still not a fan of overly emotive language. That is kind of why I typically read the articles here rather than some of the more "tribal" mac sites. It varies though. Sometimes they're good. Sometimes they feel a little devoid of substance. Now I'm going to check the front page to see if I can find that tag, because I have seen other things tagged editorial.
ed·i·to·ri·al
[ed-i-tawr-ee-uh
ed·i·to·ri·al
[ed-i-tawr-ee-uh
Ahh that misses my point. Perhaps I should have said I found some to be more insightful than others. Would that make you happy? I can think of one of the mods on here that regularly points out more interesting references in his posts than some of the writers.
ed·i·to·ri·al
[ed-i-tawr-ee-uh
Ahh that misses my point. Perhaps I should have said I found some to be more insightful than others. Would that make you happy? I can think of one of the mods on here that regularly points out more interesting references in his posts than some of the writers.
or did I misunderstand your intent? You would not simply be trying switch paddles mid stream and switch one complaint for another until something sticks, are you? You would not be trying to intentionally offend DED, just for the sake of being offensive. right? Because that would not only be sad but some would probably call it trollish.
I'm confused. sorry. Whats your intent here?
Surely this warrants more column inches of positive coverage for Apple than the FTC news or eBooks monitor tussle warrants column inches of negative coverage. This is an example of how you can tell the Apple ship is still seaworthy; when the reality of the aggregate negatives adds up to a tiny percentage of just one month's worth of one positive development in the Apple story. And yet the narrative remains negatively biased. Time to pick up some additional shares.
I grew up in Michigan, in what used to be car country. Now, granted, the companies were not doing well for a lot of my early years, but the media was all over the negative news and never emphasized the rare positive developments. Even now, if you only paid attention to the media, you wouldn't think that GM and Ford are still both in the top 5 car companies by revenue. Bad news sells better than good.
This is even worse.
At first I thought CNET was accepting bribes. But they appear to be approaching companies and asking for them.
I think you've misinterpreted the CNET story. CNET actively sought to monetize its already favourable reviews by charging companies to republish those stories. It's a shady business scheme but it's a stretch to say that CNET has accepted bribes in exchange for positive reviews.
This is even worse.
At first I thought CNET was accepting bribes. But they appear to be approaching companies and asking for them.
the politically correct term for this is "solicitation". Other people know it as, "the world's oldest profession".
My accusation of you as a troll wasn't based on one of your posts but on all your posts. I think you have made some intelligent and fair comments, but on the whole, you seem to be too negative on Apple without backing it up with strong arguments.
Even if someone was constantly against Apple, that wouldn't automatically make that person a troll.
That you are accusing him because "on the whole" (lol did you make stats on his comments?) he is negative of Apple, is utterly ridiculous.
Your kind of behavior is trolling actually. You are disrupting a discussion, attacking someone on their persona rather than on their arguments.
I've now blocked you, don't complain if others do the same and don't answer to your posts.
edit: I also find it funny when a guy who's been here for less than six months comes and accuses others who've been here for years to be trolls... If I were a moderator, I'd already have banned you.
edit2: anyway, congrats to everyone, me included, to have turned this discussion into trolling and stuff. How interesting...not
edit3: people should look out the word 'troll'. Many of you are mistaking 'having a different opinion' with 'being a troll'
We could spend all this time bashing scamsung, that would be funnier!
1) You'd have banned him as a troll for thinking someone else might be a troll?
2) What does 6 months mean? If we're talking about a brand new account with little to no post history I would be able to see your point but we're talking 6 months and hundreds of posts, but more importantly his posts aren't snarky one-liners but in-depth and thoughtful enough to defend and explain his position. We need more of that around here, not less.
3) I see a lot more new posters getting upset for having replies of a differing opinion and the flaws in their logic or facts getting addressed back to them than I do non-trolls being called trolls.
4) I'm not a fan of these terms like Scamsung. They hurt an argument because they show a complete disregard at even attempting to approach a position fairly and objectively. When someone starts their conversation here with Crapple or iSheep do you expect their comment to be a worthwhile contribution to the thread?