I hope this is simply a grammatical misunderstanding… because if you’re just in the mood to argue I’d rather not waste my time.
A simple analogy:
Bob, what kind of ice cream do you want?
Would you rather have vanilla?
Would you rather have peach?
Would you rather have mint?No, it doesn’t matter WHAT you give me… if its not chocolate then I don’t want it
If all Bob had said is “it doesn’t matter WHAT you give me
” then you could easily interpret that to mean he has no preference. But that’s not ALL he said, he clarified the exact meaning of those words by completing the thought with “if its not chocolate then I don’t want it
Now, take a second glance at my exact words:
“It doesn't matter WHAT the music was…if it wasn't ETHIOPIAN then it was rather inappropriate for a video about ETHIOPIAN iconography
Are you making the connection here?
I'll break it down for you. You said…
Then you in the very same sentence say this…
Yeah, exactly: the SAME sentence… directly implying it is all one agreed and unified thought. If there were any conflicting ideas I would have used the conjunction “but.”
So the criterion for whether a source is authoritative is not its accuracy or the author's background or the journalistic quality, but the origin of its soundtrack?
Do you think CNN or the History Channel would do a piece on Native American dancing set to Jazz music? Regardless of the source, wouldn’t this cause you to question the “accuracy or the author’s background or the journalistic quality”?
a video's accuracy should be independent of such a stylistic choice.
So is it a “stylistic choice” to use Jazz music for a documentary on Native American dancing? No, at best it is obvious ignorance about history. This situation is no different. And having said that, I’m done with this thread.