Note:

I swapped the original article at the request of a mod to from a source deemed more reliable, but to avoid confusion when reading the comment section prior to this edit, here is the link to the original article. I chose the Relief Web source listed by some who commented. Cheers!

  • BossDj@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    OP 100% correctly cited the article. The quote ended there IN THE ARTICLE he was quoting from.

    So maybe the article should have included that extra bit. However, my point is you’re being a complete asshole and were wrong in your first post that accused him of altering the quote. You keep doubling down and moving the goalpost as to why you attacked him in the first place. Now, you’ve decided that he should have done more research.

    The kinder, more conversational behavior would have been along the lines of “Sorry I accused you of changing the quote, which you didn’t do. I was wrong. However, that quote sucks because…” And he might have said “oh damn, good catch. I still disagree though because…” And we could talk and not be shitty.

    • ???@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I mean at this point, these people basically want the whole report quoted in the article 🤣