Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so you are saying because the people YOU choose to follow didn't say anything about this story, then its not national or viral? Maybe that's more about the people you choose to follow. This story was reported by all national outlets and even on my local morning show in Philadelphia multiple times throughout the three hours it runs. So just because the people YOU have chosen to follow only apparently report on restaurants refusing gays and not a disable little girl that means it isn't being reported? If a tree falls in a forest and your twitter doesn't report it does that mean it never happened?
It was literally all over my social media.
I guess the people I associate with are just more compassionate.
Yes it is. No one individual is the measure of the public consumption of information.
I agree. What is your point? Who is basing this phenomenon off of one individual?
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenejen
So now how you are defining "network" is the only definition of "network," right?
Quote:
Network - 2. a group or system of interconnected people or things.
Very hard to skew that definition. But, the concept of them go lost on many....in this case, you.
Quote:
So KFC responded without any prompting by the public reaction to this story. Is that what you are saying?
No...
But what are you trying to say here? Are you ready to say that if only course of action was between the patron and corporate that nothing would have happened? Because you would then be opening yourself up to a logical fallacy. So let me stop you from doing so preemptively.
Quote:
So now Citydata's P&OC forum is the network and the only measure of public interest?
Don't believe I said that. But, that is the current arena in which this discussion is taking place. When I said "we can limit it to this forum" what I am saying is we can do just that.....
My argument applies to both society on grand scale and the vacuum here.
You obviously have no idea how a network works....
With social media...you see MUCH more than the posts of those you follow.
Yes, I have no idea how social media works. You're clearly the only person in the world that understands it. Although it was reported on TV, the Internet, forums, etc it didn't count because you didn't see it. Except you did. So obviously, it was reported.
I agree. What is your point? Who is basing this phenomenon off of one individual?
You.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChestRockwell
I have a few thousand followers on Twitter and I follow a couple thousand. And roughly 1k on FB. I just seen it today and it was shared by only 1 person in my feed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChestRockwell
Very hard to skew that definition. But, the concept of them go lost on many....in this case, you.
You get that even by that very limited definition online news sources together constitute a network, as do the collection of comments on any one of those news sources, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChestRockwell
No...
But what are you trying to say here? Are you ready to say that if only course of action was between the patron and corporate that nothing would have happened? Because you would then be opening yourself up to a logical fallacy. So let me stop you from doing so preemptively.
That's what you got from my statement? LOL No, that wasn't what I was implying. Read the post again. More slowly perhaps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChestRockwell
Don't believe I said that. But, that is the current arena in which this discussion is taking place. When I said "we can limit it to this forum" what I am saying is we can do just that.....
You don't get to pick and choose what metonymically stands for the network, anymore than you can metonymically stand for "public reaction."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChestRockwell
My argument applies to both society on grand scale and the vacuum here.
That's a sign of a bad argument totally lacking in nuance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChestRockwell
That would still only make one of us.
I don't understand why you can't simply admit that many, many others knew about this story, even if you didn't, and that you were mistaken to act as if this story wasn't being covered extensively and discussed accordingly. Or better yet spend some time adding some feeds that will keep you up-to-date on major public interest stories.
Now, if this was a homosexual......national and viral in less than a day.
What purpose did saying that serve? I'll go ahead and address the topic before I explain why I think adding that is childish, that being the absolute nicest thing I could say it was. Yes, it was wrong of KFC to kick her and her family out.
You only brought this up to have a go at liberals. And I'm fairly certain it works against you. If it's wrong to kick a girl out because customers are bothered by something that is out of her control, is it not also wrong to kick a gay person out for essentially the same reason?
Yes, I have no idea how social media works. You're clearly the only person in the world that understands it. Although it was reported on TV, the Internet, forums, etc it didn't count because you didn't see it. Except you did. So obviously, it was reported.
Anything that is newsworthy will be "reported". Will it be sensationalized?
Did this illicit the same response as the Red Lobster lying waitress?
What purpose did saying that serve? I'll go ahead and address the topic before I explain why I think adding that is childish, that being the absolute nicest thing I could say it was. Yes, it was wrong of KFC to kick her and her family out.
You only brought this up to have a go at liberals. And I'm fairly certain it works against you. If it's wrong to kick a girl out because customers are bothered by something that is out of her control, is it not also wrong to kick a gay person out for essentially the same reason?
You're wrong... I have a 4-year-old daughter. So this resonates with me very much.
And just for consistency....the "Liberals" that I am so called "having a go at" have NO issue using every other GUN TRAGEDY in this country that claims childrens lives to "have a go" at "gun nuts".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so you are saying because the people YOU choose to follow didn't say anything about this story, then its not national or viral? Maybe that's more about the people you choose to follow. This story was reported by all national outlets and even on my local morning show in Philadelphia multiple times throughout the three hours it runs. So just because the people YOU have chosen to follow only apparently report on restaurants refusing gays and not a disable little girl that means it isn't being reported? If a tree falls in a forest and your twitter doesn't report it does that mean it never happened?
