Monday, April 24, 2006
Uninformed and Ignorant |
Those two words best describe what Sittingnut has to say about the 'Trinco Report' that the CPA published in it's website.
Here's a summery of what's been said. Sittingnut has called the Trinco report biased, and he claims the report was plagiarised from something D B S Jeyaraj wrote. Perhaps the report is biased, but all Sittingnut has done is make his anti-NGO bias as clear.
If Sittingnut had gone to Trinco, and had inquired into the situation there, then put forward his own report, and then called the CPA report biased, we would have had an argument on our hands. But being the armchair critic that he is, he trashes the report without ever bothering to find out what happened in Trinco.
Instead sittingnut chooses do a few things that are solely indicative of his ignorance, his inability to analyse a situation, and paint in vivid colors his own bias.
He attacks the individuals who took part in preparing the report. He wonders if other people were invited to be a part of the team. Well Sittingnut, you could have gone to Trinco and done your own report. You didn't bother. The situation in Trinco didn't affect you enough. But if you wanted to, you could have. Why wait for the CPA or anyone to send you an invitation?
More than the CPA has shown an anti-military bias in the report, Sittingnut has shown and anti-NGO bias in his analysis of the report. He begins with the assumption that all the individuals are pro-LTTE and anti-government. Beyond this an argument with Sittingnut becomes as productive as an argument with Maduluwawe Sobitha.
But the stupidest thing that Sittingnut did is accuse the report of plagiarism. D B S's story came out on the 21st of April (23rd in some places). The report in question was drafted before the 19th and the first draft was circulated and discussed on the 19th. If Sittingnut had bothered to write and emal to CPA he would have found this out, but he didn't.
In the end, Sittingnut's arguments are nothing but hot air.
Yes there are many things in the report that should be criticised. There are many omissions that need to be noted. But Sittingnut is not interested in analysing the report. He just wants to bash the NGOs. That's all he's doing.
Here's a summery of what's been said. Sittingnut has called the Trinco report biased, and he claims the report was plagiarised from something D B S Jeyaraj wrote. Perhaps the report is biased, but all Sittingnut has done is make his anti-NGO bias as clear.
If Sittingnut had gone to Trinco, and had inquired into the situation there, then put forward his own report, and then called the CPA report biased, we would have had an argument on our hands. But being the armchair critic that he is, he trashes the report without ever bothering to find out what happened in Trinco.
Instead sittingnut chooses do a few things that are solely indicative of his ignorance, his inability to analyse a situation, and paint in vivid colors his own bias.
He attacks the individuals who took part in preparing the report. He wonders if other people were invited to be a part of the team. Well Sittingnut, you could have gone to Trinco and done your own report. You didn't bother. The situation in Trinco didn't affect you enough. But if you wanted to, you could have. Why wait for the CPA or anyone to send you an invitation?
More than the CPA has shown an anti-military bias in the report, Sittingnut has shown and anti-NGO bias in his analysis of the report. He begins with the assumption that all the individuals are pro-LTTE and anti-government. Beyond this an argument with Sittingnut becomes as productive as an argument with Maduluwawe Sobitha.
But the stupidest thing that Sittingnut did is accuse the report of plagiarism. D B S's story came out on the 21st of April (23rd in some places). The report in question was drafted before the 19th and the first draft was circulated and discussed on the 19th. If Sittingnut had bothered to write and emal to CPA he would have found this out, but he didn't.
In the end, Sittingnut's arguments are nothing but hot air.
Yes there are many things in the report that should be criticised. There are many omissions that need to be noted. But Sittingnut is not interested in analysing the report. He just wants to bash the NGOs. That's all he's doing.
Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home
|
i can see why you failed to link to the (now rather old)relevant post in my blog and only linked to the blog as a whole. are you afraid that if your readers checked it they will find more than enough valid questions raised against the report? :-) are you afraid that then they will see who is really uninformed and ignorant? :-) you of course failed to answer any of those questions, instead you make some very rookie arguments and statements. which i will dispose of shortly. it seems that the only counter argument that you can find is this If Sittingnut had gone to Trinco, and had inquired into the situation there, then put forward his own report, and then called the CPA report biased, we would have had an argument on our hands. But being the armchair critic that he is, he trashes the report without ever bothering to find out what happened in Trinco. now how do you know i was not in trinco? is that one more instance of people assuming without and any basis, like those who wrote the report? if you read the threads in moju or in my blog you may have gathered that i do have sources and property in trinco and what makes you think i checked on them from colombo? i know, you just assumed. and you call yourself a journalist :-) i however do not make use of my visit or eyewitnesses in my arguments bc others cannot verify them as i have stated in my blog. you of course see no problem in advancing unverifiable facts to support arguments. your boast about trinco is just that: unverifiable evidence, and you don't seem realize that or seem to even know the difference . and you call yourself a journalist :-) its the same kind of unsubstantiated claims that shows the the cpa report as biased. you may read the detailed analysis there. no amount of silly statements by you will make that analysis go way. only well made answers and arguments. so answer the questions raised if you facilities are up to it. or ask some one else to help you.. otherwise you know what you are. as for plagiarism (see may argument regarding plagiarism here) you made an argument stating that jeyaraj published on 23rd in my blog and at moju . but after i pointed out that the post was time stamped on 21st, the same day as cpa report (a fact you conveniently do not mention here) you go into details about a private draft circulation. what a pathetic argument is that ? what does that prove? do you know when jeyaraj drafted his statement? do you know whether he circulated it too? :-) what matters in the end is the verifiable facts, and that is publishing date. emailing cpa does not alter this or the following argument for plagiarism if you can read, read my plagiarism evidence and you will see that it does not rely on timeline at all but the text itself. you can see the fully detailed argument my blog here is the short form there are identical sentences in both jeyaraj and cpa report(identical to the letter) which means they are cut and paste jobs. however in jeyaraj there is more context and lot of details regarding the content of those statements in the surrounding statements. cpa report does not. you can see examples in my blog. which means jeyaraj has the original until someone explain away those examples there is enough evidence to accuse cpa of plagiarism. you certainly failed to explain those examples. you lost the argument and i see you have acknowledged that i am not offended by your acknowledgment of defeat. after all to call someone physically or mentally challenged( and use a very trite way to do it, just google that expression to see how unoriginal it is) just bc you lost makes everyone realize the truth about you. so thank you. :-) |
|
# posted by
 : December 18, 2006 5:57 PM |
|
Ideas of the Morquendi are shadowed with his dark psyche. This dark psyche is contained with his fear to JHU/JVP and at whole his bias toward the Sinhala nationalism. |
<< Home
