Forty Two wrote:Sendraks wrote:Forty Two wrote:Look -- it's not just the traffic. It's the kind of traffic.
Did you provide a breakdown to the type of traffic it gets? Apologies if I missed that.
In the link I provided, yes. But, you're just trolling, so it's no surprise you don't actually read the arguments against what you're saying before you post a retort.
Sendraks wrote:Forty Two wrote:You don't find it a well-trafficked or influential site. Fine.
More strawmanning.
so, what do you find? It is a well-trafficked, influential site?
If I strawmanned you, then tell me what you think.
Sendraks wrote:Forty Two wrote:Do you agree or disagree with the assertions made in the articles? Why or why not? is there something I said about the articles in the OP that you agree or disagree with? Why or why not?
Nah.
Sendraks wrote:Forty Two wrote:what would you consider a good publication that is worthy of citation?
Probably something that you'd never consider using as the basis of discussion.
Ba'dum tsh!
Sendraks wrote:Forty Two wrote:Your ignorance is showing. Try being a little better read. Next thing you'll admit to being ignorant of The Nation or The New Statesman.
I am indeed ignorant of the Atlantic, although I see no compelling reason as to why I should be aware of it. I'm not familiar with the Nation either, again, why should I be? The New Statesman I have heard of.
Why should you be?
So you wouldn't be a total idiot?
You never heard of The Nation? It's one of the oldest published political magazines in the western world. It's like saying you never heard of Scientific American, The Economist, or the Spectator. You may want to refrain from admitting that so publicly, and instead, give it a quick google and read something, so that you don't sound like such an unwashed provincial.
Sendraks wrote:Forty Two wrote:Oh, I'm wrong? O.k., so you DO consider it a viable feminist source?
Its a source.
O.k., so what is the problem with the Jezebel article being included in the OP on this topic? Is there one?
Sendraks wrote:Forty Two wrote:If I strawmanned you, then state your fucking position.
Nah. Why should I have to state my position as a response to your strawmanning.
You could just state your position for its own sake. If I strawmanned you, it's because you haven't stated your position. So, I withdrew my statement of my understanding of your position, and leave it to you to state your position clearly. If you don't want to, fine.
Sendraks wrote:The most effective way of dealing with idiotic strawmanning is to point out what it is and leave it at that. Anything more is a waste of energy.
Only if your goal is to do the troll dance and badger people instead of actually discussing the topic.
What's the problem with the Jezebel article? I don't want to strawman you, but you brought it up, so -- what's your argument? Do you have one? Or, is it just more douchey posting to rock the boat and piss on the thread?
Sendraks wrote:Forty Two wrote: You poo pooed the webtraffic analysis and its monthly views.
No I didn't.
O.k., I stand corrected.
Do you have a problem with the Jezebel article?
Do you have a problem with the site Jezebel?
What're you even arguing?
Sendraks wrote:Forty Two wrote: You've called it clickbait, and compared it to Cracked.
Because it is clickbait and Cracked is a good comparison of a clickbait site. They're designed to have high volumes of traffic through the use of hyperbole riddled headlines.
Is that what the article headline is here -- hyperbole? What's the problem with the article in the OP? Is there one?
Sendraks wrote:Forty Two wrote: Fine -- then tell me why you're bitching about my citation to Jezebel and The Atlantic in the OP?
Was I? I can't see that I was. Could you quote where I did?
I'll just ask.
Do you have a problem with the citation/reference of Jezebel and/or the Atlantic in the OP? If not, o.k. If so, what is the problem?
What's your position on the arguments made in the article? Why?
Do you disagree with something I said in the OP? If so, what, and why?
Sendraks wrote:Forty Two wrote:What's the problem?
You'd have to let me know what the problem was first.
I don't think there is one. Do you?
Sendraks wrote:Forty Two wrote: Don't you have some more White Knighting to do?
I've been wondering how long it would be before you delivered one of the choice phrases uttered by misogynists and MRA types the world over. Go go Captain Transparent Agenda!!!
More caponesque evasion.
Maybe just provide a list of topics you think I should be posting on. i'll see if any of them are of interest to me.