Post removed

[exboyfil]

1. 36 calls but barely knew him?

Abbassi — an assistant imam at the Dal-Al-Uloom Al-Islamiyah of America mosque in San Bernardino, where Farook had regularly worshiped — told The Times he barely knew Farook. He said he told the FBI that his 36 calls with Farook all were very brief.

[GummyBearz]

2. Misleading title of the day award... the word blame is not even in that article

The title suggests the victim is fully aware of all the details and doesn't blame Farook (ie. she blames something else, such as gun control or religion). She in fact seems more confused about what happened when she was told it was Farook. Her confusion stems from the fact they were all congratulating him for having a child, which is the context for the "that doesn't make sense" line

[still_one]

4. you are right it is definitely a misleading title

[still_one]

3. It may not make sense, but it happened, and that the perpetrators have claimed sympathy and

allegiance to the Islamic state ISIL, and that pretty much says it all

[Sunlei]

5. Fiancé visa and 'mail order-online' brides need much more scrutiny by our trillion dollar NS.

I read she had listed fake address on visa papers, why didn't our homeland security catch that?

[Renew Deal]

6. Your subject line is not true

It is completely misleading.

[Democat]

7. The headline is wrong

She was in disbelief that he would shoot them. She didn't say he shouldn't be blamed.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. That's not at all what she said. Actual headline at the Times:

As details of San Bernardino shooters emerge, a possible extremist link is investigated

[ucrdem]

9. What she said is in double quotation marks, as is the article title.

This isn't LBN and there's nothing wrong with the subject line or citation. Why would you pretend there is?

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Because it is not what she said. I did not cite any DU rules, I'm talking about basic honesty.

Your headline totally alters the meaning of what she said and you do this all on your own, the Times does not. Why would you pretend otherwise? Many people on this thread have pointed this out. You are misusing one of the victims here, in my opinion, by adding meaning to her words which neither she nor the article use nor suggest.

The real question is why would you do that? What is your objective in this editorial action?

[ucrdem]

11. The headline is directly quoted. The thread title discusses a current event.

Neither thread title nor message text make reference to guns or religion. Direct quotations are indicated by double quotation marks. There's no conceivable violation of GD SOP. You might not like what she said but that is what the LA Times article has reported. Please cast your aspersions elsewhere.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. That is not true. The word 'blame' does not appear at all in the Times and there is no suggestion

that the victim says blaming the shooter does not make sense, she is expressing shock at who did this, not saying 'don't blame him'. It's not quoted, it is something you wrote. It is your editorial choice and many of your fellow DUers have pointed that out to you. Claiming that it is a direct quote is foolish because anyone can go read that link and see that it is not a quote. You wrote your own headline, you are exploiting this victim as if she was a puppet for you to speak through. I object to that.

[ucrdem]

13. You're mixing up LBN and GD. The headline is directly quoted in the message text.

You have an interpretation of the excerpt which I've meticulously quoted. Fine, let's hear it. But leave the pitchfork in the barn.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. I'm not talking DU rules I am talking about personal ethics, you say you are quoting but you are not

Here is what the Times says:
Swann-Paez's loved ones weren't allowed to visit her until 10 p.m. Nick Paez said he told his mother that her co-worker, Farook, may have been the shooter.

"That doesn't make sense," Swann-Paez said, according to her son. "They were congratulating him for having a baby."

Nothing about blame, nothing about saying it is not right to blame the shooter. LBN has nothing to do with it, there is no venue in which it is ethical to distort what a person has said by inserting your own bullshit language. It's wrong. You have been told by several people. Anyone reading this thread can see that I and the others are correct and that you have added language which changes the meaning of the victim's words to fit your own objectives.

[ucrdem]

16. What I've directly quoted is correctly indicated. You're mixing up GD and LBN thread title rules.

If you don't like what she's said, fine. But if you think she didn't really say it, take it up with the LA Times, because that's exactly what they posted on their website this morning, as you'll see if you follow the link I've provided.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. I am fine with what she said, but your title is not at all what she said, it is what you said.

She said nothing about not blaming him. You said that. Not her, not the Times, you. Where you do that makes no difference, there is no venue in which such an action is ethical, as many people here are telling you.

I have already quoted the excerpt with her quote entirely. Nothing about blame at all. You upend her intent and exploit her as a puppet to mouth your own rhetoric.

[ucrdem]

20. I'm not claiming it's what she said. What she said I've correctly quoted and cited. nt

[Yorktown]

15. Your use of the word 'blame' is misleading.

The article doesn't quote the victim as saying "blaming farooq makes no sense"

Which is why your OP's title injects meaning that is absent from the testimony.

[ucrdem]

17. GD thread titles are not headlines. You're thinking of LBN.

The headline is directly quoted at the top of the OP and linked at the bottom. The only citation information I've omitted is the time of post which for the record was 4:00 am.


http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-sb-shooting-20151204-story.html

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Your headline is not a direct quote. Why do you keep saying that? We can all read.

nt

[ucrdem]

23. GD thread titles are not headlines. The LAT headline is in double quotes at the top of the OP. nt

[Yorktown]

21. Your title says something different from what the woman said

[ucrdem]

24. What the woman said is directly quoted from the LAT article and so indicated. nt

[Yorktown]

26. But your TITLE erroneously ascribes words that woman is not reported as having said

Your title says she would not understand blaming the shooter.

That meaning is nowhere to be found in what this woman said as reported in the article

Conclusion: your title injects meaning which is absent from what the woman said.

In simpler terms: you put your words in the mouth of the witness.

Over and out, I can't be clearer.

[ucrdem]

28. The thread title summarizes the excerpt. The headline is quoted in the OP. GD is not LBN.

I understand that you want your interpretation to be front and center but this is what the woman said per the LAT.

[Takket]

27. Your post is intentionally misleading

Stop digging yourself a deeper hole. You headline neither reflects the quote of the victim nor the content of the article.

[ucrdem]

29. The thread title summarizes the excerpt.

Your interpretation is yours and you're entitled to it, but please stop shooting the messenger.

[Yorktown]

35. The thread title does not summarize the excerpt, it interprets it.

The word "cannot understand blaming Farooq" is NOT in the testimony of the witness.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. You are not the messenger you are the author, your own added verbiage is what everyone on the thread

is criticizing.

[Yo_Mama]

22. You inserted the "blaming Farouk", which utterly changes her meaning.

From the actual quote given in the article, she appears to be expressing astonishment that he would be one of the shooters, but not stating that it doesn't make sense to blame him. There is a pretty big difference.

[ucrdem]

25. Possibly but "expressing astonishment" is your interpretation.

Others have their own interpretations. As for the OP, I summarized the excerpt in the thread title and fully quoted and cited it in the message text.

[DLevine]

30. Misleading title. nt

[ucrdem]

31. What would you suggest?

[obnoxiousdrunk]

32. Misleading...

[Cal Carpenter]

33. Whatever point you were trying to make with that headline

is lost because of your editorializing.

Are you 'allowed' to embellish? Of course.

And we're 'allowed' to point out that it is dishonest. It is obvious that she meant it didn't make sense to her that he would do such a thing, not that it didn't make sense to blame him. You are attributing a different meaning to the quote.

This is what your thread will be about now because of the title you put on it.

I don't know what you are trying to do here but refusing to back down about the error in your title is silly.

[ucrdem]

34. One more point: all the deceased are my neighbors

and "does not comport with my preconceptions" is not the same as "misleading."

[Bluenorthwest]

37. So be clear. Are you suggesting this is a false flag or what? Say what you mean.

You are the one that suggests it is not right to blame Farook. Why do you think that?

[ScreamingMeemie]

38. No, the shooting victim said it didn't make sense. Not that blaming Farook

didn't make sense. There's a big difference.

[ucrdem]

39. The referent of "that" is "Farook may have been the shooter."

That's how pronouns work.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. This thread should make you ashamed. Seriously, this is rancid. This woman was shot and can speak

for herself and has. Who are you to add or take from her own words?

[ucrdem]

43. I've correctly quoted and cited what was reported in the LAT.

You seem anxious to give both my words and the shooting victim's a construction neither have. Why?

[Bluenorthwest]

48. No you have not. And you have not answered a single question I have asked you, and I am not the one

floating a bogus line of verbiage, you are. You are the one who brought the victim's words here editorialized for your own agenda. Explain why you felt entitled to do that. I think it is vulgar, crass and hyper dishonest. Many posters seem to agree with me, none with you.

[ucrdem]

51. There's no editorializing in the OP.

And there's very little discussion of it either. Why not focus on the message instead of the messenger?

[ScreamingMeemie]

59. As an editor, I say with confidence that your work would be returned to you.

Doubling down on this is silly.

[GusBob]

40. Bullshit post misleading

Just fix it already Jesus

[ucrdem]

42. What do you suggest?

[GusBob]

44. Something more accurate and truthful

Which I think you are incapabable of doing or understanding

So forget it

[ucrdem]

45. Can you make a suggestion?

[GusBob]

47. Yes sure

But I don't want to get a hide

[Rex]

50. Don't change it, some here obviously didn't make it out of the 9th grade.

Reading comprehension...it is not just for kids anymore!

[Rex]

49. Um...the OP merely paraphrased what she said and how is it not accurate?

See actually said it AND inferred blame! Wow...I thought people here could read and comprehend easy concepts. How wrong I was!

[Bluenorthwest]

57. That is the opposite of a paraphrasing.

The OP injects several aspects. First 'blame' then the idea that is is 'wrong' to blame the shooter. What he typed is his own creation.

[Rex]

46. Wow you are catching hell over wording! LOL!

Some here cannot handle reality very well....geez how do these folks live day to day? You paraphrased what she said and got swarmed!

Just wow...

[ucrdem]

52. Thanks Rex

Appreciated...

[Rex]

55. When you are right, you are right.

I don't care who the poster is! Well done...that is perfect use of paraphrasing and inference. If people here don't like it or don't know what those two terms mean...they can look it up! There is no rule that I know of against editorializing an article! GROW UP PEOPLE!

I still wonder what is going to happen to the baby...such a horrible way to start off life imo. Poor child.

[ucrdem]

58. It's pretty horrible.

People here have been through a lot already so nothing shocks them but once the camera crews leave I think reality is going to hit hard. Also, a lot of family rely on those services which are inevitably going to be interrupted and probably curtailed to pay for new security measures.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Nope, not a paraphrase at all, it is an interperatation stated in editorial tone.

Her words had nothing to do with 'blame' or with any attitude being 'wrong'. The OP added all of that.

Definition of paraphrase: express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.


What this OP does is alter the meaning of the speakers words entirely. Adds both the notion of 'blame' and the opinion that it is 'wrong' to blame. None of that is present in the original. None of it. It is all interjected by the OP. The victim speaks of herself and the event, not of how others are wrongly blaming the shooter. Others do not enter into the victim's words at all.

[Rex]

54. Wrong, but that is okay.

You can pretend it is not, but it is and you know it is.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. I'm right. You offer no support for your accusation. I know what paraphrase means.

You and the OP are alone out on that ledge and all you do is accuse and joke. When you have no argument to make, snark, and that's what you and the OP are doing. Vapid.