[glenstein]

>"I don't believe it because I'm missing context"

I genuinely don't understand where the mistake is, even in in your paraphrased version which is intended to caricature. Yes, I really do think that missing context is a good reason to refrain from believing something, and you should too. I find it bizarre that that is disputed.

I actually went into a fair amount of detail about what specifically was contextually inadequate here, all of which you didn't engage with.

It's hard to understand what the tweet is suggesting unless you read the entire thread, one related twitter thread, and chase down an implied history of allegedly questionable BBC reportage the UN is complicit in, and join the author in making assumptions about what it all means. I stated all of this already.

And in additional to all the previous stuff I said, it's not obvious that a difference between traditional and simplified characters prove what you're asked to believe it proves, that it must have come from Taiwan. I'm assuming there's another thread somewhere that goes into detail about how Taiwan uses different characters in other documents, which is the basis for believing different characters here prove that its a forgery?

It's not about the effort involved in comparing the characters, it's about the underlying logic for the argument, which is assumed to have been proven elsewhere but not referenced.

[fps_doug]

> It's hard to understand what the tweet is suggesting unless you read the entire thread

You linked to one tweet, which directly started talking about the traditional vs simplified characters. I don't see how there is much context missing.

[glenstein]

Again "I don't believe it because I'm missing context" is a perfectly legitimate way to engage with something that's missing context. You appear to have abandoned that point to instead emphasize that there is indeed sufficient context (so I guess having enough context does matter to you, after all.)

I don't know if you're confusing me for somebody else, but I didn't link to any tweets. And as I've now said twice, which has been ignored twice, the thread alludes to numerous unmade arguments about the reliability of the BBC, the UN, Le Monde, and a reporter as background to motivate the inference that their reporting is unreliable.

And it makes an assumption about what is proved or not proved by traditional vs simplified characters (different = Taiwan), and that underlying assumption isn't backed up with an argument, and there's no reason to agree with that assumption without further context. A reader is supposed to already agree that that's how it works or else go scrolling through twitter timelines and searches to find where that argument is made.

Perhaps when you ignore all of this in your reply, and remind me that it's "directly started talking about [sic]" traditional vs. simplified characters, I can repeat this all again and hope the fourth time is the charm?

[fps_doug]

> I don't know if you're confusing me for somebody else, but I didn't link to any tweets.

sigh.. Correction: the link to the tweet form the guy you replied to that you seemed to refer to.

> And as I've now said twice, which has been ignored twice, the thread alludes to numerous unmade arguments about the reliability of the BBC, the UN, Le Monde, and a reporter as background to motivate the inference that their reporting is unreliable.

I clicked the link again. I don't see any of that. It starts with claims about 1) a cursor (which I ignored) and 2) the issue with the characters, which is further elaborated on in a couple follow-up tweets. Then your comment mentions all these news outlets and I don't understand how that connects to the claims about the characters, or makes them taken out of context. It looks like a pretty stand-alone claim/issue that should be something to quickly do research on if you care about the topic, nothing taken wildly out of context.

> I can repeat this all again and hope the fourth time is the charm?

Sure, if that makes you feel better.