Seattle Times Gamesmanship: Count the Security Checks

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

TurdBuffer said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

TurdBuffer said:

The 11 steps you did list aren't all "security" checks, including the first two interviews. Can't you recognize advocacy journalism aka propaganda when you read it?

So you think those interviews are just questions about what their favorite foods are?

Enlighten me, Boobs: What are the questions asked in the interviews?

Here: I'll give you lots of space to list them all.

You'll immediately believe they are "security-related" questions because the Times wants you to believe that, when you have no clue what is actually asked. Get the point yet?

If you can't see that the Times wants people to parrot "20 separate security checks" refugees go through to allay people's fears, I can't help you.

I don't give a fuck what the Times thinks.

I think it's likely that they are security-related questions because there is no other logical topic for those interviews. I admit that I don't know what is being asked, but common sense suggests that interviews as part of a security vetting process would contain security-related questions.

If you want to think differently, that's fine. You should investigate the Bowling Green Massacre while you're at it.

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

TurdBuffer said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

TurdBuffer said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

TurdBuffer said:

The 11 steps you did list aren't all "security" checks, including the first two interviews. Can't you recognize advocacy journalism aka propaganda when you read it?

So you think those interviews are just questions about what their favorite foods are?

Enlighten me, Boobs: What are the questions asked in the interviews?

Here: I'll give you lots of space to list them all.

You'll immediately believe they are "security-related" questions because the Times wants you to believe that, when you have no clue what is actually asked. Get the point yet?

If you can't see that the Times wants people to parrot "20 separate security checks" refugees go through to allay people's fears, I can't help you.

I don't give a fuck what the Times thinks.

I think it's likely that they are security-related questions because there is no other logical topic for those interviews. I admit that I don't know what is being asked, but common sense suggests that interviews as part of a security vetting process would contain security-related questions.

If you want to think differently, that's fine. You should investigate the Bowling Green Massacre while you're at it.

So, let's not assume. How about facts instead of the old "common sense" trope? Shouldn't we prefer facts to insinuations and speculation? The Times doesn't know either, but that doesn't stop them from numbering 20 items as though they are 20 separate security checks. There really isn't much to argue here.

The article never says that. It lists steps in a vetting process (these are facts, btw). Some of them are security checks and some of them aren't.

Fuck off.

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

TurdBuffer said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

TurdBuffer said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

TurdBuffer said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

TurdBuffer said:

The 11 steps you did list aren't all "security" checks, including the first two interviews. Can't you recognize advocacy journalism aka propaganda when you read it?

So you think those interviews are just questions about what their favorite foods are?

Enlighten me, Boobs: What are the questions asked in the interviews?

Here: I'll give you lots of space to list them all.

You'll immediately believe they are "security-related" questions because the Times wants you to believe that, when you have no clue what is actually asked. Get the point yet?

If you can't see that the Times wants people to parrot "20 separate security checks" refugees go through to allay people's fears, I can't help you.

I don't give a fuck what the Times thinks.

I think it's likely that they are security-related questions because there is no other logical topic for those interviews. I admit that I don't know what is being asked, but common sense suggests that interviews as part of a security vetting process would contain security-related questions.

If you want to think differently, that's fine. You should investigate the Bowling Green Massacre while you're at it.

So, let's not assume. How about facts instead of the old "common sense" trope? Shouldn't we prefer facts to insinuations and speculation? The Times doesn't know either, but that doesn't stop them from numbering 20 items as though they are 20 separate security checks. There really isn't much to argue here.

The article never says that. It lists steps in a vetting process (these are facts, btw). Some of them are security checks and some of them aren't.

Fuck off.

You always say that when you lose.

Since we're trying to keep it factual, please show me where the Times is claiming there are 20 separate security checks in that article.