[Jazmac]

I have to say people and the relatively civil discourse on this topic. It is what I was hoping could be accomplished in this forum. Thank you WPCentral. We do have super contributors that visit here. Thanks. You make me proud.

[Jas00555]

I have to say people and the relatively civil discourse on this topic. It is what I was hoping could be accomplished in this forum. Thank you WPCentral. We do have super contributors that visit here. Thanks. You make me proud.

In everyone's defense though, you kinda started it with the title of this thread. "Bing and Fox News team up. Bad idea?" which pretty much implies that there's something wrong with partnering with Fox News.

Or you just don't want Bing to grow, which if you're here, makes no sense.

[Reflexx]

In everyone's defense though, you kinda started it with the title of this thread. "Bing and Fox News team up. Bad idea?" which pretty much implies that there's something wrong with partnering with Fox News.

Or you just don't want Bing to grow, which if you're here, makes no sense.

Gotta agree with this.

The concept behind the thread was kind of inflammatory.

Not that it was INTENDED that way... but often these kinds of things aren't intended in a bad way. But an assumption comes that the general world view of everyone coincides with one's own world view can make that mistake easy. So if you're surrounded by people who all think that there's something inherently more wrong with Fox News than others, then a statement such as the OP's could come easily and naturally: completely oblivious to the fact that may be insulting to many.

[fatclue_98]

In everyone's defense though, you kinda started it with the title of this thread. "Bing and Fox News team up. Bad idea?" which pretty much implies that there's something wrong with partnering with Fox News.

Or you just don't want Bing to grow, which if you're here, makes no sense.

I didn't think the thread would evolve the way it did. My first reaction to the title was more of the business nature. When two companies join forces, their history together can sometimes define them for ages. That's what I thought the OP's question was about.

[Jas00555]

Gotta agree with this.

The concept behind the thread was kind of inflammatory.

Not that it was INTENDED that way... but often these kinds of things aren't intended in a bad way. But an assumption comes that the general world view of everyone coincides with one's own world view can make that mistake easy. So if you're surrounded by people who all think that there's something inherently more wrong with Fox News than others, then a statement such as the OP's could come easily and naturally: completely oblivious to the fact that may be insulting to many.

And not just Fox News, really anything political to a certain extent. If the OP had said CNN or MSNBC, I would've had the same assumption, especially based on his lack of context where he just said "is it bad?" then gave us a link.

Since he asked "is this bad?" , he's implying that there's something that could be bad. So he would've had to either A) think that Bing is bad and he's worried about the quality of Fox News B) dislike partnerships (which makes no sense) or C) think Fox News is bad and doesn't want Bing to suffer, which I think most people took it that way, which is a fair assumption based on the lack of context the OP gave.

[Jazmac]

In everyone's defense though, you kinda started it with the title of this thread. "Bing and Fox News team up. Bad idea?" which pretty much implies that there's something wrong with partnering with Fox News.

Or you just don't want Bing to grow, which if you're here, makes no sense.

Don't assume motives. I'm asking the question.

[Reflexx]

Don't assume motives. I'm asking the question.

You were told how it comes across. The language used creates an assumption.

It's like asking, "Is the 920's weight a problem?"

The weight is assumed to be an issue in the question.

If you don't want people to assume you could provide clarity.

[Jas00555]

Don't assume motives. I'm asking the question.

This makes no sense whatsoever. You can't ask a question, not give us context, then not like it when we take assumptions for ourselves because you didn't make your question clear.

Is is bad that Bing and Fox News are teaming up? If I don't assume what you mean by this, then I have no idea what the hell you're asking. Is it bad that Bing partnered with someone? No. Is it bad that they chose Fox News over other news stations? Not unless you're a huge fan of another news station.

To say "is this bad?" then not ask what's bad about it is asking an impossible question.

To give an example: Is it bad that this pencil is made of wood? Impossible to answer. Is it bad that this pencil is made out of wood because that makes it non reusable? That's an easier question to answer because there's a motive to it.

So stop being weird and vague and tell us, what do YOU think about this? What makes this seem possibly bad to you? Either answer this question and give us context (motive) or leave the conversation.

[fatclue_98]

This makes no sense whatsoever. You can't ask a question, not give us context, then not like it when we take assumptions for ourselves because you didn't make your question clear.

Is is bad that Bing and Fox News are teaming up? If I don't assume what you mean by this, then I have no idea what the hell you're asking. Is it bad that Bing partnered with someone? No. Is it bad that they chose Fox News over other news stations? Not unless you're a huge fan of another news station.

To say "is this bad?" then not ask what's bad about it is asking an impossible question.

To give an example: Is it bad that this pencil is made of wood? Impossible to answer. Is it bad that this pencil is made out of wood because that makes it non reusable? That's an easier question to answer because there's a motive to it.

So stop being weird and vague and tell us, what do YOU think about this? What makes this seem possibly bad to you? Either answer this question and give us context (motive) or leave the conversation.

This is a ridiculous proposition. That's like answering your own question. The OP asked a question, if YOU are confused about the query you reply "What do you mean?". There were enough responses to warrant an open discussion which basically means that you are the one who's welcome to leave the conversation.

[Jas00555]

This is a ridiculous proposition. That's like answering your own question. The OP asked a question, if YOU are confused about the query you reply "What do you mean?". There were enough responses to warrant an open discussion which basically means that you are the one who's welcome to leave the conversation.

Its not answering your own question. It's giving your opinion, giving context, telling us what part of the question he wants us to answer instead of just shooting off in random directions.

I suggest you read the entire thread again because it sounds like you haven't. If you did, you would know that the OP asked a potentially inflammatory question, didn't clarify what he meant, then commented how there was tons of civil discourse. I'm not confused about the question. I understand it, its just that it makes no sense because it lacks context.

[Jas00555]

You were told how it comes across. The language used creates an assumption.

It's like asking, "Is the 920's weight a problem?"

The weight is assumed to be an issue in the question.

If you don't want people to assume you could provide clarity.

^this

[fatclue_98]

^this

I will repeat, if you're unsure about something - you ask. If you wish to assume and start going off on tangents, that's your problem.

[Reflexx]

I will repeat, if you're unsure about something - you ask. If you wish to assume and start going off on tangents, that's your problem.

Repeating it doesn't make it better.

[spaulagain]

I have to say people and the relatively civil discourse on this topic. It is what I was hoping could be accomplished in this forum. Thank you WPCentral. We do have super contributors that visit here. Thanks. You make me proud.

I think people are misunderstanding this post. If I'm reading this right, you are impressed how civil our discussion has been considering the rather risky topic. Or at least the topic that evolved from the other posts.

[fatclue_98]

Repeating it doesn't make it better.

Sure it does. Don't you follow directions either? Lather, rinse and REPEAT. Repeating also helps with those people who suffer from poor reading comprehension skills.

[Reflexx]

Sure it does. Don't you follow directions either? Lather, rinse and REPEAT. Repeating also helps with those people who suffer from poor reading comprehension skills.

Poor reading comprehension would be not recognizing that the first post had an implies meaning.

The exact meaning would have to be assumed by the reader in order to answer the question. If the OP wanted clarity, it should have been in the first post, or at least clarified later.

[Jazmac]

Poor reading comprehension would be not recognizing that the first post had an implies meaning.

The exact meaning would have to be assumed by the reader in order to answer the question. If the OP wanted clarity, it should have been in the first post, or at least clarified later.

Exactly.
A lot of assumption going on. If its a good thing, say why you think so.

[Reflexx]

Exactly.
A lot of assumption going on. If its a good thing, say why you think so.

So, why didn't you say what you were thinking when you made the thread?

Why did you think it could be a bad thing?

It really appears that you had a clear implication, but instead of owning up to it you're going on about people assuming things. Putting it on others instead of taking a little responsibility for starting a topic that could be touchy. The very fact that you mentioned that you are happy that the thread was so calm shows that you knew there was potential for people getting rubbed the wrong way.

Let's be clear. You have every right to your opinion. But for goodness sake, if you're going to start the thread you should own it instead of pretending you're running for political office and being purposely unclear and evasive. It brings the whole discussion lower because you are insulting our intelligence.

If your opinion is that Fox News is bad, then whoop dee doo. Not a big deal. If you changed your mind after posting, then "my bad" is perfectly acceptable also.

People won't agree with each other on everything; but lets try to be a little more clear and honest in our discussions. The whole beating around the bush thing isn't cool.

[fatclue_98]

So, why didn't you say what you were thinking when you made the thread?

Why did you think it could be a bad thing?

It really appears that you had a clear implication, but instead of owning up to it you're going on about people assuming things. Putting it on others instead of taking a little responsibility for starting a topic that could be touchy. The very fact that you mentioned that you are happy that the thread was so calm shows that you knew there was potential for people getting rubbed the wrong way.

Let's be clear. You have every right to your opinion. But for goodness sake, if you're going to start the thread you should own it instead of pretending you're running for political office and being purposely unclear and evasive. It brings the whole discussion lower because you are insulting our intelligence.

If your opinion is that Fox News is bad, then whoop dee doo. Not a big deal. If you changed your mind after posting, then "my bad" is perfectly acceptable also.

People won't agree with each other on everything; but lets try to be a little more clear and honest in our discussions. The whole beating around the bush thing isn't cool.

Your way or the highway, huh? Your interpretation (I'm being kind) is the only valid one and the OP needs to apologize with a "my bad" and he's also "beating around the bush" as well as ducking like a politician. Guess what? Opinions are like A-holes, everybody's got one. When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.

[Reflexx]

Your way or the highway, huh? Your interpretation (I'm being kind) is the only valid one and the OP needs to apologize with a "my bad" and he's also "beating around the bush" as well as ducking like a politician. Guess what? Opinions are like A-holes, everybody's got one. When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.

You have a problem with asking for clarity?

I'm stating that the original post has an opinion implied in it.

If that's not what was meant, then clarification should be done.

Posting a leading question aand then commenting about "assumptions" is unproductive and evasive.

If you have an opinion, own it. If you change your mind, then "my bad" is fine.

I guess clarity makes you nervous for some reason.

BTW... You're attempt at being an internet tough guy looks pretty silly.

[spaulagain]

Your way or the highway, huh? Your interpretation (I'm being kind) is the only valid one and the OP needs to apologize with a "my bad" and he's also "beating around the bush" as well as ducking like a politician. Guess what? Opinions are like A-holes, everybody's got one. When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.

Wait, what? He's asking for clarity on the meaning of the post since it has a loaded question. Most of us have carried on a conversation here based upon our opinions that were brought up by the natural discourse of the thread. If the OP doesn't like that, or doesn't understand it. Shouldn't he clarify what he was asking for? He doesn't have to, but then again we don't have to stop our current line of discussion either.

Aren't you the one that suggested we ask for clarity from the OP...

This is a ridiculous proposition. That's like answering your own question. The OP asked a question, if YOU are confused about the query you reply "What do you mean?". There were enough responses to warrant an open discussion which basically means that you are the one who's welcome to leave the conversation.

[fatclue_98]

Wait, what? He's asking for clarity on the meaning of the post since it has a loaded question. Most of us have carried on a conversation here based upon our opinions that were brought up by the natural discourse of the thread. If the OP doesn't like that, or doesn't understand it. Shouldn't he clarify what he was asking for? He doesn't have to, but then again we don't have to stop our current line of discussion either.

Aren't you the one that suggested we ask for clarity from the OP...

Yes, after he was blasted for implying things that weren't in the text of the thread. All of a sudden, clarity is being demanded or an apology given. Can't have it both ways.

[fatclue_98]

You have a problem with asking for clarity?

I'm stating that the original post has an opinion implied in it.

If that's not what was meant, then clarification should be done.

Posting a leading question aand then commenting about "assumptions" is unproductive and evasive.

If you have an opinion, own it. If you change your mind, then "my bad" is fine.

I guess clarity makes you nervous for some reason.

BTW... You're attempt at being an internet tough guy looks pretty silly.

I don't have a problem with it, but apparently you do. Now you're pounding the drums of civility and wanting clarity. Give it up. You want the OP to admit to things he never said but you won't admit you jumped the gun and let your imagination fly. I'm out.

BTW, I don't need to be an internet "tough guy". When I'm wrong, so be it. You should try the same instead of coming off as a whiney little kid who needs to get his way and win every argument.

[Jas00555]

Yes, after he was blasted for implying things that weren't in the text of the thread. All of a sudden, clarity is being demanded or an apology given. Can't have it both ways.

Regardless of whether we could have it both ways or not, the OP has given us neither.

[Reflexx]

I don't have a problem with it, but apparently you do. Now you're pounding the drums of civility and wanting clarity.

The only person who has been uncivil this entire thread is you.

I didn't just suddenly become civil. The entire thread as been full of people being civil... well, except for you.

As for wanting clarity... that came about because the OP was impressed at the civility of the thread and his belief that people are making "assumptions" here.

Well, if you are going to look down on assumptions, then you should clarify. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of talk and a way of copping out.

If you don't like clarity, then accept that you are creating a thread that REQUIRES assumptions.

Give it up.

Give what up? Discussing on a discussion forum?

You want the OP to admit to things he never said

I just asked for clarity.

but you won't admit you jumped the gun and let your imagination fly. I'm out.

Are you even reading the thread?

How did I "jump the gun?" What gun was there to jump?

Perhaps you're reading your own posts.

BTW, I don't need to be an internet "tough guy". When I'm wrong, so be it. You should try the same instead of coming off as a whiney little kid who needs to get his way and win every argument.

Read the thread again.

What is it that you want? You want me to censor my opinion because you said so? Because you said that if you wanted my opinion you'd give it to me?

You might want to think about your behavior. It looks like it could be embarrassing for you to call others childish.