ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
First, the profile on Al Jazeera gives you sufficient information to know where she is coming from (at least ideologically speaking) by listing some of the publications for which she has created content. Second, it's an opinion piece (and clearly labeled as such), in which one can usually adopt any tone one wants. That a tone may not be pleasing to some readers (and/or cause for complaints) is usually, though not always, an indication (of preference) about the reader, not so much about the piece. I suspect we tend to enjoy sarcasm, etc., more when it's in agreement with our views, less so in the opposite case. As some say, YMMV.

 kurtster wrote: 
Except for the normal Kurt-lather that makes up 90% of this post, I agree, in general, that some premastication from the person making the post often is what's needed to avoid these derailments. However, the derailment came with Mugro attacking the writer as well as the content. She wrote something that didn't agree with his take on the situation so naturally he asserted that she'd probably never been to Venezuela. That was not relevant and should never have been brought up. If she made good points, then whether or not she'd ever been there makes no difference. Clearly, setting foot in a country does nothing to improve a person's objectivity about that country... 

But having said that, yes (Richard) some writers' profiles do or should (Al Jazeera) include a snippet of biographical info explaining why the writer is qualified to cover a subject. Even so, as one of the many apathetic know-nothings here, I tend to read the content and file it away (often never to be used again) as important, valid, interesting, irrelevant, and/or propaganda, etc. without ever giving a shit about who wrote it. Only when I can't really make out the point of the piece do I try to figure out who the writer is and whether that person might have an angle (isn't a pure journalist) Then I may or may not comment on it. Not commenting (Mugro) does not mean I'm apathetic. (I'm talking about my ideal, not that I can ever really hold myself to it.)

The article itself had a baseline validity in that it offered a little insight, but I thought she was trying too hard to write a piece that followed her narrative. The whole cake thing was ridiculous and actually undermined the writer's point. I stopped reading when the sarcasm in the writer's voice got to be too much.

Death Toll Rises in Venezuela; Opposition Demonstrators Say They're Fighting a War of "Attrition" | venezuelanalysis.com

Venezuelan Beauty Queen Dies from Gunshot Wound Received During Protests | Global Voices Online

 RichardPrins wrote: 
I have made my point rather clearly and your replies have proven my point rather clearly.

 kurtster wrote: 
I provided a link to her blog (not her profile), the relevant quotes that deal with her visits, as well as the time they were mentioned, i.e. occurred. I think that's more than sufficient to make the case that someone's claim as to her supposed experience was just plain wrong. You may feel you need much more than that (and as a result will cast all sorts of aspersions), but that's not really my problem, is it?

 steeler wrote: 
Ah, Steeler. You are always the voice of reason. You should be president.

 RichardPrins wrote:
You are the only one (until after the fact) who knew of the author's history and blog.  It takes a real effort to find out this information which should have been included with the article that you posted.  Nowhere in the article does the author mention her prior firsthand knowledge or experience with Venezuela which is germane to Mugro's comment and in your slander of Mugro.  You insist on obfuscating this point to justify your unremorseful slandering to discredit Mugro and make you appear correct.

This makes you dishonest at best.

Perhaps if you had made that clear by commenting on the author's credibility and experience on the subject we would not even be discussing your slanderous behavoiur in the first place.  This is the whole point I tried to make a couple of days ago (and years ago) about you just slamming this place with your pastings without comment.  It provides you with the opportunity to attack and denegrate those who choose to comment on your pastings in ways you appear to be fishing for so you can discredit or mock those who might disgree with you.

Your ommissions are finally incriminating you as this is your modus of operation.  So why don't you man up and start stating things in your own words and support them with articles instead of the way you currently operate in these parts. 

 steeler wrote: 
I think this is the snippet that caught my eye....

You see, here in the land of RP, nothing is real, so people can pontificate and show everyone how smart they are for cutting and pasting stuff from the internet. We can argue endlessly about left and right, climate change and who/what created the world. It is a fun pastime. But at the bottom of all of that rhetoric, somewhere away from where you all live, there are real people having real problems. The people of Venezuela have been suffering for a long time, and I know for a fact that they don't have much time in between waiting in line at the grocery store hoping to buy milk to argue much about whether people who don't like Obama are racists.

 Coaxial wrote: 
That he is wielding In regard to posters here? 

 steeler wrote: 
Maybe it is the broad brush....

 Coaxial wrote: 
I recognize that and was suggesting that some of that attitude might be emanating from a deep well of frustration.  I also fully understand that some of his remarks have been condescending. 

 steeler wrote: 
No one has a problem with J's passion nor his posts regarding what is happening in Venezuela...It is his holier than thou, condescending attitude that is problematic. YMMV.

May I suggest taking a pause and a deep breath.

Mugro is a witness to a precarious and volatile situation that understandably holds his complete attention. He wants others to understand the torrent of emotions evoked by the passion play unfolding before him and to share the frustrations he feels as a ringside observer. His perspective is unique for those who post here.

Unfortunately, there are other passion plays unfolding in other parts of the globe. Kiev is burning. Aleppo looks like Dresden. Where to direct one's attention? How does one guard against becoming inured to the turmoil and despair?
 

 kurtster wrote:

So are you saying a person's blog profile should always include all the travels a person has undertaken, as opposed to mentioning it (where relevant of course) in their articles?

 RichardPrins wrote: 

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  Here is the profile listed with the article.  Your reading comprehension of my post is zero.

Profile

You are the one dealing in half truths and mispeak.

 kurtster wrote: 
Nope, all you have to do is go to the archive listed on the home page and select February 2010 (I believe that was clearly mentioned). I can't premasticate everything for you.

Deniers and conspiracy theorists have the fallacious habit of trying to deduce/infer stuff from what they claim is "missing".

Mugro wrote:
I don't get my news at the Mugro post, so you assume I am uninterested and uninformed. Thank you again for your utterly insulting tone and insinuations.

 Mugro wrote: 
WHOOSH!

 RichardPrins wrote: 
There was nothing in her profile with the article stating her having been anywhere near Venezuela.

One would have to google her to find that out, and then do a lot of clicking.  Your source left out that pertinent information.

More than once I have questioned you about reading deeper into your own articles and following provided links within them only to have you say that you don't have the time to do all that or something similar.

So I say foul.  Mugs offered an opinion, which you are trying to cry foul over.  Bullshit.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
I have never hidden my political opinion from anyone, as you well know. You, in fact, know everything there is to know about me. I don't live in the shadows. I post about my life, my work and my opinions. You, on the other hand, do not. That's your choice, of course. I have never hidden my opinions from the State Department either. I told them I was a Republican in my interview and they hired me anyway. Imagine that! Everyone that I work with knows my political perspective too. Some of them don't like it, I am sure.

However, make no mistake: the opinions expressed here are my own personal opinions and in NO WAY are the position of the State Department. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to restate that.

That being said, my bosses would likely laugh at such an article, for it doesn't represent the reality here.