Talk:Anger

Anger is not a method, it is an emotional reaction. Propagandists exploit anger for various purposes but those purposes are not well explained in this article.

"By provoke this feeling from a message, it becomes a propaganda tool."

One does not provoke feelings from messages, one provokes feelings from an audience. The obviously poor grammar by this self-appointed and prolific editor might offer readers a clue about the coherence of the writer's contributions.

incorporated suggestions ... Reddi

____

Sorry, but I am not an English professor and am not qualified to teach inexperienced writers the basics of construction in English language. I am, however, qualified to identify poorly constructed nonsensical language, and am contributing my skills to defend the integrity of SourceWatch. If Reddi can explain how Anger is an emotional reaction to "frustrate" or to "increase" I would let it stand, but as it is, the sentence is nonsensical. After the first several free edits, after Reddi's acknowlegement of knowing only "English and Bad English" but refusal to adjust collaborative habits to accomodate same's level of skill and after argumentive responses to sustained efforts to protect the project from damage by Reddi, I am curtailing my effort to supply Reddi with explanations for each non-sensical sentence deleted.

I encourage a couple weeks with some writing guides such as Strunk and White's, or use of MicroSoft's grammar editor, with particular attention to percentage of passive language. If a writer can't consistently write in the active voice, either the writer does not understand active construction or the writer does not understand the actions the writer is attempting to describe.

[snip English language]

[snip poorly constructed nonsensical language attack],

your skills to defend the integrity of SourceWatch? by removing information? that's not a defense, it's vandalism ...

It is not vandalism to remove incorrect information from a collection of information on disinformation. It is vandalism to repeatedly repost information after having been told the information is wrong.

It is vandalism to remove correct information ... or blanket delete info that others can be improve (not by you (as you seem to not want to do that), but by others)

vandalism is to repost information after one person calls the information wrong? IYO ...

Explain how Anger is an emotional reaction to "frustrate"? look it up [1]

"To frustrate" is a motive. Emotions don't have motives, the holders of emotions have motives. People who attempt to invoke emotions have motives. This is basic language construction. Writing guides, editors and the general public deman specificity in language, not vague and incorrect references to general associations. Anger is loosely associated with frustration, but only an evolutionary psychologist or perhaps other psychologists are qualified to speculate on the purpose of anger. All we are doing here is talking about how anger is used in propaganda.

Arguing with me about my accurate critiques is not collaborative. I have not the time to rewrite every nonsensical statement posted by Reddi, nor to get involved in a flame-war where Reddi dictates the rules of engagement. Any language I see on this site that would be rejected by an average newspaper editor or by an average college level english instructor is fair target for deletion. If it is not accurate, it does not belong on SourceWatch, and when the volume of innaccurate postings by one contributor becomes excessive, it is not by duty to repair each error.

IYO "accurate critiques" ....

not collaborative? look in a mirror ...

[snip "flame-war"] This is far from a flame war ... I've seen several of those and this is in no way close to that ...

X and X is "fair target for deletion"? and that is in the Disinfo standards? hmmm .... couldn't find that in the stds ...

[snip accuracy opinnion]

Or to "increase"? anger is used to invoke a greater reaction ... more than if it is just "non-biased" info (which does not cause anger)...

But that is not what you wrote. You wrote the nonsensical phrase "Anger is an emotional reaction to (verb)."

you can stop the "lessons" ... improve the content or don't (it's your choice) ...

[snip 'nonsensical']

I acknowledge that i'm not a English major and have some bad English skils, but that is not required to add info ...

Yes, some language skills are required of people who hope to participate in a collaborative project. Inexperienced flatlanders would never be invited on a hike up Mt. Everest. If the flatlander politely asked to go along to areas where they are qualified to travel, an obliging group might let a flatlander hike along to a base camp at a lower level.

[snip 'some language skills']

get over it ... they are not required to contribute ... ppl that are constructive improve the content donated [poor or not] (destructive ppl delete it) ... happens alot on other wikis ...

... and flatlanders go to the mountian all the time ...

[snip rest of poor "flatlanders on mountians" analogy]

A writers' poor skills are a poor excuse to readers for poor prose. If a writer lacks command of the medium, in this case English, whatever information the writer hopes to contribute is doomed because the poor language skills will taint the supposed information.

Also, information is required to add info, and Reddi has added very little original information. My review indicates Reddi adds mostly non-sensical, very poorly written and often patently erroneous prose. When it appeard the information was salvagable, I was willing to edit for improvement. When it became apparent I was being engaged in a game similar to an infant throwing a pacifier on the floor for the pleasure of watching a parent pick it up, I became parental and choose another way to relate.

"added very little original information"? again IYO ...

[snip 'big brother know what good for you' comments]

Your refusal to improve and just degrade the information is just kinda sad IMO ...

Your demand that I become your personal editor and your private language tutor is exploitive and unappreciative of what I have shown you so far and of what I have contributed do SourceWatch. Your sadness is probably related to an internal condition for which I bear no responsibility.

I don't "demand" anything ... we both want to edit disinfo, edit the content provide or not ... that is up to you ...

[snip 'private' and 'internal condition' snipe]

adjust collaborative habits? I'll keep adding information you can copyedit ... or not (that is up to you and other editors)

Reddi 12:00 8 Nov 2003 (EST)

If every one of your contributions requires extensive copy-edits, and if you persist in tampering with otherwise well-written prose, you can expect fewer edits and more deletions. That is my point - I am not here to provide Reddi free editorial services, I am here to serve SourceWatch.

"requires extensive copy-edits"? you forgot to add "IMO" to that ...

If i can expect more deletions and fewer edits, you can expect more reversion ... (and this will degrade into a edit war which I don't think either of us (nor disinfo) wants ...)

Serve SourceWatch and improve the content [not plain deletions; ala. removing content]

"after argumentive responses"? IYO ...

[snip 'curtailing efforts']

[snip 'learn the whole of the english language']

I will add "Rephrase an opponent's arguments" to the "propaganda techniques" listing. I encouraged Reddi to learn the basics of the English language; I have not, as I was innaccurately and libelously quoted encouraged Reddi to 'learn the whole of the english language')

add "Rephrase an opponent's arguments" then ... but your comments are generally summurized as that (and that's my overall impression of your complaints) ...

you have done that, IMO, repeatedly ...

Sincerely, Reddi [btw, learn to sign posts; and as you didn't frmt (ie. indention) this properly I hope I didn't miss responding to some points]

_____

The purpose of this site is not to argue but to present fair and accurate information. Traditions of other wikis do not supplant the stated purposes of this site. A review of the recent change log will indicate exactly what I have claimed - that when content is marginally useful and the contributor patient and respectful, I have attempted to improve content that is posted as very poor and innaccurate prose. But when content is patently wrong, consistently suffering of poor grammar and laden with redundant repitition of axioms and submitted by one user at a frenzied pace, I have chosen to delete copy. Mischaracterizing my efforts does not contribute to a collaborative process.

I do not plan to engage in endless you vs. me debates on these talk pages. If a person wants to discuss consistant standards and can do so in a reasonably intelligable manner, I might have something to say. Otherwise, I do better to implement widely recognized standards of language in areas of the site more vital to the mission. If there is more poor language than I can correct, deletion is a preferred solution, especially with a contributor who declares their motive to be "war". If a person suggests "war" is their preferred strategy, I expect others who have an interest in the site will intervene, and I generally trust their interest in protecting the integrity of language.