They are both partisan but Tarasova offered her own opinion, to which she is entitled, while the Korean blogger posted a lie about what she said, to which he or she is certainly not entitled. The blogger put words in Tarasova's mouth to build up their agenda.
The Judging Controversy Thread
- Thread starter Andre Smith
- Start date
kinda like what the IOC did?
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
Kinda???
It's already been documented in this thread that Google translate and other translate programs produced an incorrect translation that changed the meaning of what Tarasova said. You have no proof that the blogger maliciously lied and "put words in Tarasova's mouth to build up their agenda" versus just using an incorrect translation.
Tarasova's "opinion", on the other hand, had specifically incorrect statements mixed in with her "entitled" opinions, such as that Yuna Kim only has 8-10 crossovers in between jumps. That is untrue and matches the definition of a lie meant to build up an agenda, more so than the blogger. Who, btw, is just a random person on Tumblr, and not anyone of authority.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
Chill out. People uses resources available to them to try to understand writings out side their first language. It is not the first time this has ever happened since the invention of the dictionary. It is hardly a lie when multiple translations in multiple languages all lead to the same thing. It is not ideal, but what are people suppose to do in the absent of true trustworthy expertise? Of course now we have various independent party confirm the wrong translations, we can put these misunderstandings to rest. It still doesn't change the fact Tat need to bring up things like costumes of all things into the conversation. Of course she is welcome to it, she is entitled, just don't expect people are not going to react to any negativity.
It's already been documented that translation programs are garbage.
People on this site certainly ran with what the blogger said, didn't they? I don't see anyone taking their words back or as much as saying whoops.
That is not proof that the person on Tumblr deliberately and intentionally lied.
That is still not proof that the person on Tumblr lied. You haven't taken back your words on saying the blogger lied, or admitted that Tarasova's words included incorrect statements that weren't just opinions, so a refusal to say "whoops" can hardly be a surprise to you.
No they don't. Multiple automatic translations people posted were all equally senseless. They didn't lead to any "same thing", they are incapable of leading. People tried to read into them what they would; no one sane would say any of these machine-produced writings made any sense.
Besides, another poster copied and pasted my translation earlier so the correct version was available before people felt compelled to use google translate for a reason they alone understand.
Did I ever say that Tarasova's words included opinions only? Did I ever promise that interview would contain correct statements, and nothing but correct statements? What is there to admit?
jaylee, I'd rather not dignify Tarasova's comments with a response. It's best left alone and avoided.
Let's see. You said, "They are both partisan but Tarasova offered her own opinion, to which she is entitled, while the Korean blogger posted a lie about what she said, to which he or she is certainly not entitled."
You were contrasting Tarasova's "opinions" with the blogger's "lie." Yet I've pointed out that there is no definitive proof that the blogger intentionally lied, whereas Tarasova's "opinions" most definitely included incorrect statements that were not just opinions she was entitled to say--basically, a lie. You didn't change your position, yet you call out others for not retracting their posts based on the original incorrect translation. That's hypocritical.
I don't understand why you continue to pursue this hair-splitting and nitpicking in your posts. It's a waste of everyone's time.
K
Now, how about addressing the first part of that quote?
Can you at least admit that much?
Are you seriously making an argument that if Tarasova "lies" about something, it's OK for others to lie - oh, oh, "misstate" what she actually said? For real?
It is not my goal to make you understand anything; you are quite free to not respond.
No, you are wrong. He was not on the panel at 2013 Worlds. http://www.isuresults.com/results/wc2013/SEG003OF.HTM
Also, Yuna received level 4 for her step sequences in the SP and FS.
It is my position that the blogger lied since at that point of time the correct translation was already available on the net, and there was no reason for anyone to resort to machine translation. You quite free to entertain a different theory but it won't be better than mine.I♥Yuna;885731 said:K
Now, how about addressing the first part of that quote?
Can you at least admit that much?
I have never justified lies by anybody. I have no idea where you came up with that question, there is nothing in my post that makes that argument.
...so because a correct translation existed in a few places on the net, then this random blogger out there MUST have known it existed and accessed it--there is simply no way the blogger could have used any machine translation, therefore the blogger lied about what was said in the interview.
Worst theory ever.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Nadya said:
There are lots of things available on the net. That doesn't mean that this particular blogger saw it. To me, it is more likely that he saw one of the many mangled translations available and said, "Aha! Just as I thought! A big conspiracy and Mrs. Tarasova is all mixed up in it, along with the judges!"
Last edited:
