[nailer]

> There is no 'fact' to this story beyond an interpretation of events.

Yes there is. Either the boys surrounded and approached the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported, or they did not.

>> Do you think the boys surrounded and intimated the old man?

> that particular situation is not something you can clearly point to as fake news.

Yes it is. Things are real, or they are not.

You seem genuinely confused about the nature of reality.

Let's not continue communicating.

[TarpitCarnivore]

> Either the boys surrounded and approached the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported, or they did not

The video clearly shows boys standing around a man, with one of them face to face with him. That is right in the video, clear as day. That is very much a clear fact. What you seem intent on breaking down is whether or not this was seen as some form of intimidation tactic and I'm trying to explain to you that people can, and do, interpret personal encounters like that in varying ways.

You seem to be one who can't understand the way in which people are able to react and interpret actions of people different. You asked me my opinion of the situation and then proceeded to tell me that my perception of reality is wrong. I watch that video and I personally feel that they are being intimidating, how am I in a 'confused nature of reality'. I am watching people confront each other and reacting to the situation.

Your whole argument on this video boils down to "your personal feelings don't match mine, so you're wrong".

[nailer]

> > Either the boys surrounded and approached the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported, or they did not

> The video clearly shows boys standing around a man, with one of them face to face with him.

Did the boys surround and approach the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported?

Answer Y or N.

> > You seem genuinely confused about the nature of reality.

> how am I in a 'confused nature of reality'.

That is not the what I wrote. I've included the real quote above.

I say that you're confused about the nature of reality because you repeatedly say a documented fact is a matter of perception, and cannot say whether you believe it is true of false.

We are on Hacker News right now. If someone reported we were having this conversation on Ars Technica, that would be false. That is not a matter of perception or feeling. This is how facts work.

Do you the footage of the old man approaching the group of boys and standing very close to one of them is fake?

[Izkata]

Note this:

> > The video clearly shows boys standing around a man, with one of them face to face with him.

I suspect they've only seen the short context-less clip, not the actual video, and that's why they can't answer yes or no.

[nailer]

I suspect this too. Also

> If I walk up to you and stand in your face, and you tell me that it made you feel intimidated I don't have the right to go "Stop, you're wrong".

Makes me think they never watched the many videos of the old man doing this, not the boys.

But they said they watched the videos and it wouldn't be civil to say they're not telling the truth.

[TarpitCarnivore]

I honestly don't even know what you're arguing over anymore. You asked me questions, I answered them and offered context on my responses but yet you continue to tell me how I'm wrong.

[nailer]

>> Do you think the boys surrounded and intimated the old man?

>> Did the boys surround and approach the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported? Answer Y or N.

>>Do you the footage of the old man approaching the group of boys and standing very close to one of them is fake?

You have not answered any of these questions. Instead, you've either changed topic or made up your own questions and answered those.

The issue is not that I think your answers are wrong, it's that your answers don't exist.

[dang]

Please don't do tedious tit-for-tit flamewars on HN. You also crossed into incivility. That's not cool, and we've had to warn you about it before.

[nailer]

Hi Dan. Acknowledged re: tit for tat, I did try and end it earlier as you can see but got lulled back when the other poster misquoted me.

I was being very cafeful to be civil though - even though this is difficult with someone who won't give a firm opinion on something. I succeeded in that.

You haven't said I was uncivil before either - we've had a few discussions about articles I've written that have been on HN and you once disliked me criticising the Bay Area.

Email is in my profile if you'd like to discuss further.

Mike

[dang]

Please don't do tedious tit-for-tit flamewars on HN. They're not interesting except to the two people who are tangling with each other, and even then not intellectually interesting.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html