|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On November 08 2013 19:58 pms wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 19:55 DarkLordOlli wrote:
I'm telling you that your opinion is biased and is not a fact. But you say that it is a fact. Your arguments are terrible. That's the point here.
Your criticism of giving a certain perspective about a player is valid - and that's where it ends. Which arguments are terrible?
here, these ones
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=434683&user=pms
|
On November 08 2013 20:01 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 19:58 pms wrote:On November 08 2013 19:55 DarkLordOlli wrote:
I'm telling you that your opinion is biased and is not a fact. But you say that it is a fact. Your arguments are terrible. That's the point here.
Your criticism of giving a certain perspective about a player is valid - and that's where it ends. Which arguments are terrible? here, these ones http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=434683&user=pms
That link doesn't work man what's the deal
|
Austria24417 Posts
On November 08 2013 19:28 pms wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 19:23 NovemberstOrm wrote:On November 08 2013 19:19 pms wrote:On November 08 2013 19:14 NovemberstOrm wrote:
You can't call the article shit just because the perspective it's written from.
The article speaks the truth about how NaNiwa plays. Perspective? Could you be more specific? This article is just missing in so many aspects. It's not just "perspective" lol It's written from the perspective that NaNiwa is a lone wolf, he plays too win, his mentality about the game etc etc. It's not missing any aspects because that's how it was chosen to be written, it could have been written in different ways, just because it's not talking about how glorious NaNiwa is doesn't mean it gives you a right to shit all over it. This article: 1. Is missing some of the features that other articles have (the title given to each player, but not to Naniwa) 2. Is missing some of the facts about Naniwa (e.g., that he said that SC is his passion and he plays it because of it, not just because he wants to win) 3. Is missing the facts about Naniwa's road to Blizzcon (ironic, isn't it?) 4. Is biased (as you've nicely put it "It's written from a perspective") All in all, this article is an example of bad journalism and media bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethicsI'm just starting to realize more and more how bad this article sucks.
1) It's missing a title. Hokai.
2) Every article is missing facts about players. These guys have been competing, doing and saying things for years. We cannot include everything and you should know that.
3) These articles are not about how they got to Blizzcon.
4) Bias =|= perspective. Perspective is taking an element of Naniwa and writing about it. Which was done. You just didn't like it and that's why you're arguing.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
Hey guys imagine if Naniwa wins Blizzcon
|
On November 08 2013 20:00 ThePlagueJG wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 19:57 Mintie wrote:On November 08 2013 19:54 ThePlagueJG wrote:On November 08 2013 19:52 Mintie wrote:On November 08 2013 19:50 NovemberstOrm wrote:On November 08 2013 19:48 Dodgin wrote:
Some more ideas for titles:
Naniwa - The Token White Guy
Naniw[A] - Not An Evil Genius
Naniwa - The Foreigner original i know right Hate Me or Love Me, It's Still an Obsession: [A]Naniwa I really like this one!  Yeah, but imagine if instead of riffing and having fun, occasionally contributing and maybe putting my hand up for the next one, I just came in and was shitty about other peoples writing. How much better would that be. I'm sorry for liking your contrubution, wont happen again.
I don't think that was directed at you, but more in a general sense. I may be wrong though.
|
This article is alright, stop flaming it.
It has less hype but it is very professionally written and shows valid points and one might argue that it portraits a good picture of naniwa and even shows him as having a fighting chance (which I doubt).
Now compare this to MC's article... who has accomplished so much more and actually is funny and cares about his fans... and shows much more interesting, impressive games...
All articles are short and are missing vital points, but that's ok - they don't have to tell the complete story.
I think this article was fitting - well written and mostly to the point, while still making you want root for naniwa a little bit.
It makes sense to reflect a player's accomplishments and his recent performances in how much hype an article contains. And Naniwa is still a bit lacking there, even though it seems he has been in good form lately.
Let's see how he fares against Soulkey...
|
On November 08 2013 20:03 Zealously wrote:
Hey guys imagine if Naniwa wins Blizzcon
I would be drunk somewhere downtown and would probably forget what happened.
|
On November 08 2013 20:04 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 20:00 ThePlagueJG wrote:On November 08 2013 19:57 Mintie wrote:On November 08 2013 19:54 ThePlagueJG wrote:On November 08 2013 19:52 Mintie wrote:On November 08 2013 19:50 NovemberstOrm wrote:On November 08 2013 19:48 Dodgin wrote:
Some more ideas for titles:
Naniwa - The Token White Guy
Naniw[A] - Not An Evil Genius
Naniwa - The Foreigner original i know right Hate Me or Love Me, It's Still an Obsession: [A]Naniwa I really like this one! Yeah, but imagine if instead of riffing and having fun, occasionally contributing and maybe putting my hand up for the next one, I just came in and was shitty about other peoples writing. How much better would that be. I'm sorry for liking your contrubution, wont happen again. I don't think that was directed at you, but more in a general sense. I may be wrong though.
I know that, I never even said anything bad about the article though, just that a title would be cool <_<
|
Canada16217 Posts
On November 08 2013 20:01 Dodgin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 20:01 opterown wrote:On November 08 2013 19:58 pms wrote:On November 08 2013 19:55 DarkLordOlli wrote:
I'm telling you that your opinion is biased and is not a fact. But you say that it is a fact. Your arguments are terrible. That's the point here.
Your criticism of giving a certain perspective about a player is valid - and that's where it ends. Which arguments are terrible? here, these ones http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=434683&user=pms That link doesn't work man what's the deal
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kcUTcDZ.jpg)
|
On November 08 2013 20:01 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 19:58 pms wrote:On November 08 2013 19:55 DarkLordOlli wrote:
I'm telling you that your opinion is biased and is not a fact. But you say that it is a fact. Your arguments are terrible. That's the point here.
Your criticism of giving a certain perspective about a player is valid - and that's where it ends. Which arguments are terrible? here, these ones http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=434683&user=pms
Here are my arguments:
On November 08 2013 19:28 pms wrote:This article: 1. Is missing some of the features that other articles have (the title given to each player, but not to Naniwa) 2. Is missing some of the facts about Naniwa (e.g., that he said that SC is his passion and he plays it because of it, not just because he wants to win) 3. Is missing the facts about Naniwa's road to Blizzcon (ironic, isn't it?) 4. Is biased (as you've nicely put it "It's written from a perspective") All in all, this article is an example of bad journalism and media bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics
It's my opinion that this article is an example of bad journalism, based on the above arguments.
Now, which of these specific arguments are terrible?
|
Austria24417 Posts
On November 08 2013 20:05 pms wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 20:01 opterown wrote:On November 08 2013 19:58 pms wrote:On November 08 2013 19:55 DarkLordOlli wrote:
I'm telling you that your opinion is biased and is not a fact. But you say that it is a fact. Your arguments are terrible. That's the point here.
Your criticism of giving a certain perspective about a player is valid - and that's where it ends. Which arguments are terrible? here, these ones http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=434683&user=pms Here are my arguments: Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 19:28 pms wrote:This article: 1. Is missing some of the features that other articles have (the title given to each player, but not to Naniwa) 2. Is missing some of the facts about Naniwa (e.g., that he said that SC is his passion and he plays it because of it, not just because he wants to win) 3. Is missing the facts about Naniwa's road to Blizzcon (ironic, isn't it?) 4. Is biased (as you've nicely put it "It's written from a perspective") All in all, this article is an example of bad journalism and media bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics It's my opinion that this article is an example of bad journalism, based on the above arguments. Now, which of these specific arguments are terrible?
All of them except possibly the first one, as I briefly explained above.
|
And.... then Naniwa gets roflstomped by Soulkey.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On November 08 2013 20:04 ThePlagueJG wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 20:03 Zealously wrote:
Hey guys imagine if Naniwa wins Blizzcon I would be drunk somewhere downtown and would probably forget what happened.
Not me, I hate Naniwa
/s
|
On November 08 2013 15:46 laegoose wrote:It does actually, because who loves lazy 15 minute macro with no action at all?
Only bad foreigner suckers with no multitasking do that.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On November 08 2013 20:08 Aunvilgod wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 15:46 laegoose wrote:His high-risk style doesn't make him any friends It does actually, because who loves lazy 15 minute macro with no action at all? Only bad foreigner suckers with no multitasking do that.
So most of them?
|
On November 08 2013 20:06 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 20:05 pms wrote:On November 08 2013 20:01 opterown wrote:On November 08 2013 19:58 pms wrote:On November 08 2013 19:55 DarkLordOlli wrote:
I'm telling you that your opinion is biased and is not a fact. But you say that it is a fact. Your arguments are terrible. That's the point here.
Your criticism of giving a certain perspective about a player is valid - and that's where it ends. Which arguments are terrible? here, these ones http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=434683&user=pms Here are my arguments: On November 08 2013 19:28 pms wrote:This article: 1. Is missing some of the features that other articles have (the title given to each player, but not to Naniwa) 2. Is missing some of the facts about Naniwa (e.g., that he said that SC is his passion and he plays it because of it, not just because he wants to win) 3. Is missing the facts about Naniwa's road to Blizzcon (ironic, isn't it?) 4. Is biased (as you've nicely put it "It's written from a perspective") All in all, this article is an example of bad journalism and media bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics It's my opinion that this article is an example of bad journalism, based on the above arguments. Now, which of these specific arguments are terrible? All of them except possibly the first one, as I briefly explained above.
Haha, ok. In the end, I'm at work and don't have time to ask you for each single argument "why do you think this argument is terrible?", just to hear from you "because you are a giant fan of Naniwa".
|
|
|
|
|
Austria24417 Posts
On November 08 2013 20:09 pms wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 20:06 DarkLordOlli wrote:On November 08 2013 20:05 pms wrote:On November 08 2013 20:01 opterown wrote:On November 08 2013 19:58 pms wrote:On November 08 2013 19:55 DarkLordOlli wrote:
I'm telling you that your opinion is biased and is not a fact. But you say that it is a fact. Your arguments are terrible. That's the point here.
Your criticism of giving a certain perspective about a player is valid - and that's where it ends. Which arguments are terrible? here, these ones http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=434683&user=pms Here are my arguments: On November 08 2013 19:28 pms wrote:This article: 1. Is missing some of the features that other articles have (the title given to each player, but not to Naniwa) 2. Is missing some of the facts about Naniwa (e.g., that he said that SC is his passion and he plays it because of it, not just because he wants to win) 3. Is missing the facts about Naniwa's road to Blizzcon (ironic, isn't it?) 4. Is biased (as you've nicely put it "It's written from a perspective") All in all, this article is an example of bad journalism and media bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics It's my opinion that this article is an example of bad journalism, based on the above arguments. Now, which of these specific arguments are terrible? All of them except possibly the first one, as I briefly explained above. Haha, ok. In the end, I'm at work and don't have time to ask you for each single argument "why do you think this argument is terrible?", just to hear from you "because you are a giant fan of Naniwa".
On November 08 2013 20:02 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 19:28 pms wrote:On November 08 2013 19:23 NovemberstOrm wrote:On November 08 2013 19:19 pms wrote:On November 08 2013 19:14 NovemberstOrm wrote:
You can't call the article shit just because the perspective it's written from.
The article speaks the truth about how NaNiwa plays. Perspective? Could you be more specific? This article is just missing in so many aspects. It's not just "perspective" lol It's written from the perspective that NaNiwa is a lone wolf, he plays too win, his mentality about the game etc etc. It's not missing any aspects because that's how it was chosen to be written, it could have been written in different ways, just because it's not talking about how glorious NaNiwa is doesn't mean it gives you a right to shit all over it. This article: 1. Is missing some of the features that other articles have (the title given to each player, but not to Naniwa) 2. Is missing some of the facts about Naniwa (e.g., that he said that SC is his passion and he plays it because of it, not just because he wants to win) 3. Is missing the facts about Naniwa's road to Blizzcon (ironic, isn't it?) 4. Is biased (as you've nicely put it "It's written from a perspective") All in all, this article is an example of bad journalism and media bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethicsI'm just starting to realize more and more how bad this article sucks. 1) It's missing a title. Hokai. 2) Every article is missing facts about players. These guys have been competing, doing and saying things for years. We cannot include everything and you should know that. 3) These articles are not about how they got to Blizzcon. 4) Bias =|= perspective. Perspective is taking an element of Naniwa and writing about it. Which was done. You just didn't like it and that's why you're arguing.
|
On November 08 2013 20:09 pms wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2013 20:06 DarkLordOlli wrote:On November 08 2013 20:05 pms wrote:On November 08 2013 20:01 opterown wrote:On November 08 2013 19:58 pms wrote:On November 08 2013 19:55 DarkLordOlli wrote:
I'm telling you that your opinion is biased and is not a fact. But you say that it is a fact. Your arguments are terrible. That's the point here.
Your criticism of giving a certain perspective about a player is valid - and that's where it ends. Which arguments are terrible? here, these ones http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=434683&user=pms Here are my arguments: On November 08 2013 19:28 pms wrote:This article: 1. Is missing some of the features that other articles have (the title given to each player, but not to Naniwa) 2. Is missing some of the facts about Naniwa (e.g., that he said that SC is his passion and he plays it because of it, not just because he wants to win) 3. Is missing the facts about Naniwa's road to Blizzcon (ironic, isn't it?) 4. Is biased (as you've nicely put it "It's written from a perspective") All in all, this article is an example of bad journalism and media bias: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics It's my opinion that this article is an example of bad journalism, based on the above arguments. Now, which of these specific arguments are terrible? All of them except possibly the first one, as I briefly explained above. Haha, ok. In the end, I'm at work and don't have time to ask you for each single argument "why do you think this argument is terrible?", just to hear from you "because you are a giant fan of Naniwa".
It's okay, dude. Why don't you read my article to calm yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
