As a debater, and as someone involved in local politics, one of the tricks one need's to learn early is to argue both sides. It isn't rare in debate to have to argue both affirmative AND negative. We shouldn't need 2 authors.
Well that explains a lot, after all politicians are well known for slinging mud at their percieved adversaries. And from the other perspective I've not seen you arguing both sides either.
Its easy, if you don't have a preconceived bias, which is not incredibly hard to achieve, if one can't make up his mind which side to come down on. Otherwise, you are right. If you already has his mind made up, there can be a bias, but it really depends on the author.
Everyone has a preconcieved bias and natural prejudice, usually directed by their upbringing and life experiences. It takes a strong personality and maturity to stand back and be truly objective, not something that I have seen evidenced by your posts in any way.
You don't see the difference between one group giving examples, and the others simply playing a "leave Brittney Spears alone"?
I'm sorry. If you don't see the difference, there is little hope for you.
Is this an attempt to justify your arrogant and offensive attitude? I have no idea who Racheya is, other than a member of the Tip.it team, however I will not stand back and watch behaviour of this nature that is completely out of preportion to the circumstances.
What do I, or others need to evidence? That the article was great? That I agree with everything she put in there? Actually the article was fine for a friendly and fun site to put forward about a game. Your evidence is bias towards expectations way beyond was was needed or required. As has previously been stated by others, this is not an article in the Financial Times or Guardian. In my opinion you (and others) need to have a serious reality check.
Another straw man, the initial 2 quotes were simply in response to the idea of dual-author articles, and were in no way relating to the current times article. Maybe you should try and learn more about a certain quote before using it out of context. Just a tip. As well, the 3rd quote you used was directly pointed out as applying ONLY to the parties described, not you. As such, you don't fit the defined parties, and thus, it doesn't apply to you. I thought that was fairly obvious.
@Racheya. ONCE AGAIN you 100% missed my point. Why bother explaining anything to you when you JUST DON'T GET IT.
My point wasn't that you were "on trial". Rather that you were inferring things which weren't stated, and then basing your argument on inferences, instead of actual facts. That is called a LOGICAL FALLACY.
Not to mention you refused to either show where my (alleged) quotes were from, etc, or explain yourself, and your false quotes.
"its just a discussion topic"...Geez. That type of argument is overused. In fact, it is nothing more then an excuse, where one claims that poor job was poorly done because "its just so and so" or "it doesn't matter".
I've written several guest articles so far, and scrapped everyone. Why? Because I wasn't happy with them.