Are you suffering from Fox-o-phobia?

[Plane]

It has always been possible to determine what is going on, it is simply more difficult when news and opinion are conflated. A lot of people are too dumb to know the difference between fact and opinion and cause and effect. This is why our elections are cluttered with stupid 30 second spots of negativity that have little or nothing to do with reality.

I blame the importance of the "undecided" a small minority most of the time , people who are cronicly poorly breifed.

[sirs]

Especially since there was none, vs the clear efforts highlighted on your part

It's your credibility at risk here, not mine.

LOL.....right, because we need to ignore the far more blatant efforts on your part.  Credibility?  Try context.  And more importantly cut the deflection efforts.  It's very unbecoming of a leader who's credibility I never had questioned.......until now.

You could have simply said, "Sirs, you're right, I was wrong for tryuing to imply you're trying to push a predominant conservative bias.  My bad."

But no.  Apparently ego too great, the predisposition of what sirs must think, to hardened.  And you want to try to place my credibility "at risk"?  Keep defligging.  It's your credibility at risk here, not mine

Sure seems hypocritical to complain about others misrepresentations, when you don't admit to your own.

Admit would be required if they existed.  I explained them...at least your so-called examples of such.  Your latest was desperation on top of deflective desperation.  You on the other hand, apparently have 2 sides...one that you really didn't say it because of some qualifier "almost" attached.  But then with the far more blatant reference, you pull the "context" deflection.  then when provided the context, we went back to straight deflection, with the (dare I say) obvious hope that others would simply ignore what you clearly said

Your effort to paint me as the misrepresentation artest in this thread is pretty laughable.  and yes, its your credibility on the table not mine.  Perhaps it best you just stop typing in thie thread, unless its
a) an apology for gross mispresentation
b) an ACTUAL example of mine, not one concocted and so easily debunked

Your call

[BT]

I am so disappointed that you apparently have a double standard.

1. When did i ever say i believed Milbanks to still be a reporter. You mistated my position and misstated my clarification. Yet as far as page 7 you have me "admitting" i was wrong to something i was never wrong about.

2. Re: Misrepresenting my position on bias.

And you think the grotesque mutation of the MSM into largely a Democratic talking points machine, is no real biggie?  Pretty sad commentary


The question mark defense might have worked, but the next sentence showed your intent, which obviously was to misrepresent my position.

3. The Care Misrepresentation:

So, you either care or you don't Bt.  Your insidious efforts at defending the status quo, mispresenting me, and claiming MRC is merely some biased organizations, produces a conclusion that deduces precisely that it's apparently no biggie to you.  I could be wrong, which is why I prefaced it in question form

Minus any follow-up comments from yourself that claim yes, you do care (similar to my numerous quotes I've provided that demonstrate your continued mispresentation of my position), or some manner of correction to my conclusion, there is no misrepresentation on my part


Quote from: BT on November 20, 2010, 03:50:27 PM
But to answer your question, no i  don't care if you spam the boards with misapplied examples of bias backed up by obviously biased sources.

And thank you for proving my point and validating no misrepresentation on my part by how you apparently don't care (about bias in the MSM).


Three misrepresentations on your part.

You have what on me? Maybe one?

[sirs]

I am so disappointed that you apparently have a double standard.

Your flawed erroneous opinion aside, I already addressed your attempted examples.....multiple times.  I already conceded that no one believed Milbanks was a reporter.  So, unless you're trying to claim that I meant everyone excluding you....well, that merely demonstrates how you apparently know me, better than I.  I already addressed your rather cavalier position on MSM bias.  Again, no misrepresentation there, especially when you largely validated it with your ongoing "I don't care" spam deflection.  Strike 2.  And the 3rd was the weakest, effort, trying to use your spam defense.  3 supposed examples...all made moot

And left is the most grotesque example of them all
Sirs: Your rationalizations and so-called solutions aside, my comments were crystal clear
- "Bias in the press would be bad enough, if it were equal in its being perpetuated"
- "I must have missed the part where I was claiming that 1 bias is better than the other"
- "Media Bias is a bad thing when it leans so far in 1 direction, regardless of if that direction were right or left."
- "For instance, I wouldn't support a predominant RW bias either."

And despite that we have Bt not just stating, but even defending
"It (bias) is either good or bad. Only a biased person would believe one type of bias is better than another. (with the implication of Sirs believing a conservative bias is better)
"One could almost surmise that you are encouraging news presenters to be more conservatively biased" (as close to an accusation as one could get with the "almost" defense)
"As far as your call for increased conservative bias, there aren't many options left when you take legislative action off the table yet decry the gross imbalance in the bias." (no getting around that even clearer accusation)

Black & White (or actually, red here), for all to see.  And you have the gall to keep trying to lay this on me.  Your hand was caught in the cookie jar Bt.  If you would have merely acknowledged you were wrong in misassuming my position regarding MSM bias, this thread would have had 3 pages at the most, and your credibility fully intact.

Apparently ego was a higher priority than credibility.  But at least now you're conceding that you did misrepresent, in your so called "scoring" of my supposed 3 to your 1.  Unfortunatly, I'm still pitching a shut-out, while your whopper stands out like Mighty Casey

[BT]

Your flawed erroneous opinion aside, I already addressed your attempted examples.....multiple times.  I already conceded that no one believed Milbanks was a reporter.

1. Yet at one time you asserted that i did believe him to still be a reporter without my claiming anything like that. You misrepresented what i posted. When faced with irrefutable evidence that the Post nor Milbanks considered Milbanks to still be a reporter you acknowledged that error but you certainly didn't acknowledge nor apologize for misrepresenting my position re: Milbanks. Apparently demanding retractions, corrections or apologies is for other people, your ego won't allow you to do that which you demand of others.

2. No response to the democrat talking points slur. That must be a concession.


3. I don't see how you can call my attitude towards bias cavalier. I said i was against it from either direction. You misrepresented that to mean that i didn't care about bias. Blatantly untrue. and a major misrepresentation of what i said.

Hitting enter and declaring victory is sophomoric at best. 

[sirs]

1 I already conceded, when originally I believed you had, so that was put to rest.  1 was in the form of a question, not claim, that you were nice enough to validate later on.  The last was desperation in trying to use anything to get the spotlight off the far more flagrant effort on your part, that you wouldn't address. (and for all to notice yet again, did it here as well, in not addressing it)

We've moved on.  You'll have to repair your credibility in another thread, I'm afraid

[BT]

We've moved on.

Really?

Who is we?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I blame the importance of the "undecided" a small minority most of the time , people who are cronicly poorly breifed.
===============================================================

Apparently the annoying and deceptive 30 second negative ads appeal to these people more than to others, and since 30 seconds makes for a cheap spot to run and create, that is why we see so many of these.

-------------------------
Sirs is a trip, isn't he?
 Infinite obfuscation and slander, followed by a "let's move on".
 

[Plane]

-------------------------
Sirs is a trip, isn't he?
 Infinite obfuscation and slander, followed by a "let's move on".
---------------------------------


Well I did read the exchange between BT and Sirs this thread, I didn't enjoy it .

That is a lot of process for a little product.

I would like to figure out a way to avoid such long niggling wrangles , but I havn't got it .

I guess that it is necessacery for us to each be his own scorekeeper, when one of us feels triumphant , does it matter that the opponent also does?

[sirs]

To be honest Plane, I didn't enjoy it either.  By page 4 it lost all focus on what the thread was all about, and I did contribute to that.  My bad

[Plane]

To be honest Plane, I didn't enjoy it either.  By page 4 it lost all focus on what the thread was all about, and I did contribute to that.  My bad

Every now and then your arguments will be perfect and your facts well established and your logic impeccable, yet your point of view will not be accepted anyway.

You have to accept the inevitability of this and accept that we are merely the luckyest generation yet for being able to express ourselves so openly and widely , we are all leading the horses to the water.


More specificly , I don't think that you and BT always understand terms the same way.