Opinion on Issues

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Who’s Lying?

leave a comment »

Alam mo, napapag-isip mo ko kung bakit gagawin mo lahat maipilit lang ‘to:

Ella's Lie allegation

Isa-isahin natin, ha?


Yung sinabi mo dati:
Ella's Founder dare, ellaganda.com

Ipinakita ko sa yo yung mismong nakalagay sa post ko:

The Beting Laygo Dolor:

Opiniononissues' post on PCIJ

Ipinakita ko sa yo na unlike what you claimed na ni-refer si BLD as founder, yung nakalagay sa summary is “who started”.

Ipinaliwanag ko sa yo na me malaking pagkakaiba yung founder at who started kasi yung founder, mas specific, mas madalas itong ginagamit sa technical at legal na aspeto.

The phrase “who started” on the other hand, can encompass a lot of things, mas general sya.

A founder can automatically refer to someone who started something butthe converse of it will not always necessarily be true. Someone who started something can’t always be considered a founder.

This has already been discussed in detail in my other blog entry.

With your most recent update, you have already replaced founder, with started. OK na sana eh. Yun nga lang, talagang pinilit mo pa na:

Ella's PCIJ Lie bintang Accusation, ellaganda.com



Papanong naging lie?

Eto ha? pakitingnan:

lie 2 (l)
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahy]
Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.


A false statement daw DELIBERATELY stated as being true.

A false statement daw made with DELIBERATE INTENT to DECEIVE;

Pakitingnan nga ulit nung statement:


Opiniononissues' post on PCIJ

Can you see what’s right below the summary?

The link, the source.


Here’s what you’ll see when you click on the link:

Preciousanne blog content on PCIJ, ellaganda.com


a. Note that the statement is but a recap of what’s in the content.

b. Note that the link is placed right below the gist so the reader can check the content and the source.


Since you’ve been doing news correspondence and you’ve been writing for so long, aren’t you supposed to know that putting the source and links after each summary is the very essence of verifiability and attribution? In the principles of reporting, you acknowledge the source and present their actual statement so the reader can further check and verify the source, if they want to.


Did I lie?

I presented the actual content alongside the gist. You can check it right there.

I presented the actual link and the source. You can verify it right there.

Where’s the intent to deceive?

Where’s the lie?


You, on the other hand, claimed this:

Ella's Hindi opinyon accusation, ellaganda.com

Huh? Where’d I even mention anything about PCIJ that remotely justifies your accusation? Where’d you even get that idea?

The only reference to PCIJ in my post is that one sentence above which I showed you. One sentence. The word PCIJ was just even used once.

Can you point out where there was any mention of any PCIJ post or aticle?

Did you even see any mention of Daily PCIJ ?

If I understand it correctly, PCIJ is the center for investigative jounalism, and Daily PCIJ is its online publication.

Did I even refer to any PCIJ post, much less a Daily PCIJ post?

That one sentence statement that happened to mention PCIJ is from another source as you can see clearly from the link indicated.

Not only did you accuse me of using a post nowhere visible in my outline, you even went as far as saying I imputed that that post in Daily PCIJ was a favor.

Ain’t that a quadruple whammy?

1. I imputed..?   Where? Any statement on PCIJ aside from that one sentence I showed you?

2. The post in Daily Pcij?   Can’t see any such mention of it nor any link to it in my outline.

3. Daily PCIJ?    Again, no such mention, reference or link to Daily PCIJ in said outline.

4. As a favor?    How? By whom? For whom? Where was there any discussion of that?

You amaze me with the way you can inject malice to a simple sentence in one sweeping generalization.


You said:

Ella's Black propaganda accusation, ellaganda.com

Again, that accusation.


Black propaganda?

A post with details actually gleaned from your blog and links verifiable over the net, presnted in an outline form, sans opinion, sans conclusion, you call it black propaganda?

You said: Idinamay ang PCIJ, “a well respected , two-decade-old institution of professional investigative journalists”.

Papanong idinamay? May sinabi bang masama laban sa PCIJ? Kinuwestyon ba yung kapasidad nito bilang institusyon? Pakituro nga kung saan nakalagay sa nag-iisang sentence yun.

Again, as a basis of your claim, you allude to a PCIJ post I never mentioned, included or referred to in my outline.

Makes me think why you’re hurling all these invented accusations, supposedly defending PCIJ’s integrity, when there’s nary even an attack towards it.


Dinagdagan mo pa to with:

Ella's mention of Ms. Sheila Mangahas and Ms. Malou Coronel, ellaganda.com

Ano ba talaga, ate, me sinabi ba kong masama tungkol ke Ms. Sheila Coronel o Ms. Mangahas? Was there ever any mention of anything in my post questioning their reputation?

Pakita ko ulit, sa yo, ha? Baka kasi nakakalimutan mo, eh.


Eto lang yung simpleng nakalagay:


Opiniononissues' post on PCIJ

Sige nga, paturo naman kung saan kinuwestyon ko yung kredibilidad nila?

Saka teka nga…

Eh di ba, mangilan-ngilan sila? Bakit ba naman talagang yung unquestionable reputation lang ni Ms. Sheila Coronel at Ms. Malou Mangahas yung binanggit mo?

What about the others?

Et al, yun di ba?

(Don’t mind the last 2 sentences, wag mo na seryosohin, just teasing. I’m just trying to lighten the mood because you’re too defensive about PCIJ and the 2 people you mentioned when nowhere in my post did I ever mention anything questioning their credibility.)

Just thought I’d let you know that I find your reaction to that one simple sentence way off-base. You injected too many assumptions, addressed too many supposed accusations when you can’t find all those things you said anywhere in my post.

I do not know if you’re just doing selective focusing, I do not know what your purpose is, I do not know what reasons you hold for forming those assumptions.

I do not know why you threw all those accusations and I do not wanna assume.

All I know is on the PCIJ issues you raised, I need to emphasize this: I only drafted one simple sentence. Nothing more, nothing less.

All the other accusations, assumptions and meaning you put into it are but yours , whatever you reason is.


Written by issuesopinions

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 06:53:15 +0000 at 6:53 am

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: