You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
As I posted on Gab earlier:
As one example of an error, the author -- like so many of us have -- misconstrues JA's "#hotard" comment as being a comment on the baby, but look at the context and you can see he's exchanging jibes with a friend (joewills).
To expand on that Gab... uh... whatever a Gab posting is (Gabbet? Gab-up? just a Gab?)...
As we can see, the #hotard hashtag is introduced by "joewills" with this comment:
@jimmycomet you are quickly becoming my favorite hash-tagger #hotard
To which JA replies:
hotard
...and we're off and running with the outrage machine (once Pizzagate starts).
So here's the problem. While the punctuation and grammar are somewhat ambiguous, I find the most intuitive reading of this exchange to be that JW is calling JA a "hotard" and JA is just calling him the same thing back, in fun. In support of this, note that JA had already made 3 previous comments, all apparently about the image itself. JW's comment introduced a direct dialogue between him and JA. I believe the "hotard" comment from JA was a reply in kind. Also, JA pings JW to JA's "hotard" comment with
That seems to me to indicate that he thought JW would get something from revisiting the IG page. I believe that that something is the jest of calling JW a "hotard" back. If JW's comment was intended as a labeling of the image, then what would JA's comment have added? Why bother pinging JW back to the page just to see that JA had been a copycat? A tit-for-tat makes more sense in that context.
There is a counter-case to be made, that both JW and JA were intending their "hotard" comment to apply to the image, not to each other. This is conceivable. However, it clearly isn't certain. Thus, this is not the best evidence to start off with at/near the start of the video.
The same applies to other items already mentioned ITT by others.
This video needs a good updating to remove bogus info and ensure that it leads off with strong stuff, not things which reasonable people may feel are not legitimate.
view the rest of the comments →
ZalesMcMuffin ago
You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
As I posted on Gab earlier:
To expand on that Gab... uh... whatever a Gab posting is (Gabbet? Gab-up? just a Gab?)...
Here is the source, for reference:
https://aceloewgold.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/hotard1.png
As we can see, the #hotard hashtag is introduced by "joewills" with this comment:
To which JA replies:
...and we're off and running with the outrage machine (once Pizzagate starts).
So here's the problem. While the punctuation and grammar are somewhat ambiguous, I find the most intuitive reading of this exchange to be that JW is calling JA a "hotard" and JA is just calling him the same thing back, in fun. In support of this, note that JA had already made 3 previous comments, all apparently about the image itself. JW's comment introduced a direct dialogue between him and JA. I believe the "hotard" comment from JA was a reply in kind. Also, JA pings JW to JA's "hotard" comment with
That seems to me to indicate that he thought JW would get something from revisiting the IG page. I believe that that something is the jest of calling JW a "hotard" back. If JW's comment was intended as a labeling of the image, then what would JA's comment have added? Why bother pinging JW back to the page just to see that JA had been a copycat? A tit-for-tat makes more sense in that context.
There is a counter-case to be made, that both JW and JA were intending their "hotard" comment to apply to the image, not to each other. This is conceivable. However, it clearly isn't certain. Thus, this is not the best evidence to start off with at/near the start of the video.
The same applies to other items already mentioned ITT by others.
This video needs a good updating to remove bogus info and ensure that it leads off with strong stuff, not things which reasonable people may feel are not legitimate.
Vindicator ago
Excellent analysis. This makes more sense.