Tea-Partiers Spit on "nigger" and "faggot" Congress Critters

[sirs]

I think his template has already been decided upon.  Common sense be damned

[Michael Tee]

<<If there is a lot of background noise and I want to shout something understandable at you I must speak up to be heard above the noise , if there is a microphone between me and you it will receive more of this energy than you will.>>

It's axiomatic that it will receive more energy but what is not axiomatic is that it will be able to convert that energy accurately into intelligible sound better than I or even at all.


     <<Now you need to decide something , pick one.>>

<<1.The shouts of the croud were unintelligable.>>

LOL.  Too bad you don't take the trouble to define your terms.  Intelligible is a highly subjective term on more than one level.  Intelligible to whom?  Intelligible from where?

<<[OR]>>

<<2.The shouts of the croud were understandable.>>

LOL.  Same mistake again, failure to define terms.  Understandable to whom?  Understandable from where?

I've also got a kind of uneasy feeling that maybe you should also be asked to define "unintelligible," giving an example, and also its opposite, "intelligible."

I'm also a little concerned that rather than deal with the points that I raised, which IMHO are virtually unanswerable, you immediately veer off on a whole new track, throwing out concepts like "understandable" and "intelligible" as well as the total quantum of energy received by the mike if closer to the source.  Your whole approach to this problem reminds me of a cornered squid squirting ink into the water so it won't have to deal with the predator at close grips.

Please don't turn this argument into another of your wild-goose chases - - just deal with the basic concepts here; five witnesses heard the word "nigger!" from the crowd and not just once or twice.  That should be the end of it.  They were lying or they weren't lying.  Choose one.

The mikes didn't pick up "Nigger!"  But the mikes didn't pick up any other word either.  Take your pick again:  (1) either the mikes couldn't pick up ANY word from the noise of the crowd (including "Nigger!") in which case the failure of "Nigger!" to appear even once on the tapes is meaningless; or (2) although the mikes couldn't pick up any word uttered by the crowd, if the word "Nigger" HAD been uttered, it WOULD have been picked up, so the absence of "Nigger!" on the tapes proves that it was never uttered, which in turn would prove that all five witnesses had lied.  (Of course, you'd have to wonder what kind of mike it is that cannot distinguish any word in the English language from the din of an angry mob, BUT allowing an exception in favour of the word "Nigger!"  You'd have to ask the engineer who designed the apparatus, how did you design your vidcam so that the only word in the English language that it could capture from the shouting of a crowd was the word "Nigger?"  I'd love to see his answer.

<<I am sorry but I can't let you have both.>>

Don't be so sorry - - since you haven't defined either one of them, you haven't really offered me anything.  When you figure out exactly what it is that you are offering, then you can apologize in advance for not "letting' me have both.

[Religious Dick]

I think this matter will be settled quickly enough.

It?s time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point.
And surely if those cameras did not capture such abhorrence, then someone from the mainstream media ? those who printed and broadcast his assertions without any reasonable questioning or investigation ? must themselves surely have it on camera. Of course we already know they don?t. If they did, you?d have seen it by now. THOUSANDS OF TIMES.

Rep. Lewis, if you can?t do that, I?ll give him a backup plan: a lie detector test. If you provide verifiable video evidence showing that a single racist epithet was hurled as you walked among the tea partiers, or you pass a simple lie detector test, I will provide a $10K check to the United Negro College Fund.

http://bigjournalism.com/abreitbart/2010/03/25/2010-a-race-odyssey-disproving-a-negative-for-cash-prizes-or-how-the-civil-rights-movement-jumped-the-shark/#more-40038

[sirs]

I'm also a little concerned that rather than deal with the points that I raised, which IMHO are virtually unanswerable,

LOL...outside of the tiny little FACT, that the accusation in the title remains UNVERIFYABLE.  But facts to folks like Tee is like Kryptonite to Superman

Please don't turn this argument into another of your wild-goose chases - - just deal with the basic concepts here; five witnesses heard the word "nigger!" from the crowd and not just once or twice.  That should be the end of it.  They were lying or they weren't lying.  Choose one.

Or choose the path or least resistance, that if anything was supposedly said, was said by Democrat plants in the crowd, trying to pull the same finger Tee's trying to pull. 

[Michael Tee]

<<It?s time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. >>

Note how this schmuck, Breitbart, attempts to set the rules of the game before it starts.  Notwithstanding the word of Lewis and the others with him that the crowd was yelling "Nigger!" - - evidence which would be perfectly acceptable in any court in Canada or the U.S.A., Breitbart has automatically ruled all of that out as evidence.  He doesn't want "evidence," he wants "hard evidence."

What is "hard evidence?"  Breitbart tells us:

<<Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point.>>

I have a few problems with that:
1.  I didn't see one, let alone two, cameras "wielded" by anyone in his entourage;
2.  If there were such cameras, I challenge Breitbart or anyone else to prove that they were equipped with sound recording equipment in good working order;
3.  If equipped with sound recording equipment in good working order, I challenge Breitbart or anyone else to prove that they were turned on and rolling during the time that Lewis was being called "Nigger" by the mob; and,
4.  (this is the killer problem) - - What makes Breitbart think that the two cameras "wielded" by the members of his entourage were in any way superior to the professional sound-recording equipment of the media that recorded the event, which totally failed to pick out one single word from any demonstrator over the din of the crowd?

<<And surely if those cameras did not capture such abhorrence, then someone from the mainstream media ? >>

You have your answer already, schmuck.  The mainstream media's cameras were incapable of distinguishing one single word from the general din, unless the words, like "Kill the Bill," were chanted in unison by the mob.  NOBODY, neither the five witnesses in Lewis' party, nor any of the demonstrators, is claiming that "Nigger!" was chanted in unison.

<<those who printed and broadcast his assertions without any reasonable questioning or investigation ? >>

Is this ass-hole serious?    EVERYONE WITH LEWIS WAS QUESTIONED.  THREE TOMS WORKING AS TEA PARTY ORGANIZERS WERE QUESTIONED.   How the hell does Breitbart know who else was questioned? 

<<must themselves surely have it on camera. Of course we already know they don?t. If they did, you?d have seen it by now. THOUSANDS OF TIMES.>>

Typical Breitbart.  When every media tape of the event has been shown incapable of picking out one single word from the whole fucking mess, it's not that the cameras are incapable of distinguishing single words in all that din, it's that the word "Nigger" just wasn't uttered.  So what about the other words that the people in the crowd were shouting?  Why didn't we hear "Traitor?"  Why didn't we hear "grandchildren?"  Why didn't we hear "November?"  Why didn't we hear one fucking word of anything any demonstrator ever shouted into that din?

No, Breitbart "reasons" that cameras which as we have seen ourselves from their tapes were incapable of picking out one single word from anyone in the whole fucking crowd, COULD have picked out "Nigger" if "Nigger" had been shouted out, but the fact that they didn't pick it up proves that it was never uttered.  What kind of fucking moron can believe that crap or take it seriously?

<<Rep. Lewis, if you can?t do that, I?ll give him a backup plan: a lie detector test. If you provide verifiable video evidence showing that a single racist epithet was hurled as you walked among the tea partiers, or you pass a simple lie detector test, I will provide a $10K check to the United Negro College Fund.>>

Now who could refuse an offer like that?  Breitbart, who won't accept the evidence of five eyewitnesses present at the scene, and good in any court in the land, WILL accept lie-detector evidence which no court of law anywhere in Canada or the U.S. will admit.  Funny that nobody, least of all Breitbart, ever asked George W. Bush or any of his minions to take a lie detector test when they assured the nation that Saddam had WMD that threatened us all - - one would think that in such a controversial matter, with war and peace at stake, the matter would have been important enough for a lie detector test to settle - - but in this incident, with nobody's life at stake, Breitbart is willing to wager on a lie detector test.  Naturally Lewis will not take the lie detector test - - lie detectors have been shown to be fallible and subject to operator error in so many tests that no court accepts them  Breitbart accepts them without reservation.  Tells ya something about Breitbart, alright.

[BT]

Breitbart has as much right to set a challenge as you do to slur a group.

[Michael Tee]

<<Breitbart has as much right to set a challenge as you do to slur a group. >>

Nice strawman.  WHERE did I ever question his right to challenge anything?

I have as much right to challenge the underlying premises of his so-called "challenge" as he has to set it up.

Nobody has to slur the Tea Parties.  They slur themselves by their disgraceful conduct.  They brought weapons to town-hall meetings.  They shouted down speakers so the meetings couldn't go forward.  They wave signs threatening gun violence with Browning semi-automatic pistols.  They yell "Nigger" and "faggot" at elected representatives.  Slur, my ass.  That's known as fair comment on those crypto-fascist ass-holes.

[BT]

They yell "Nigger" and "faggot" at elected representatives.

Not proven. And who profits ?

Thus Breitbarts challenge.

[Michael Tee]

<<Not proven. >>

It's proven to anyone who'd take John Lewis' word, which I of course would.  And the word of the other eye-witnesses present at the scene.

<<And who profits ?>>

Who profits from a lynch mob?  Sometimes a mob is just too fucking dumb to calculate "who profits?"  They're haters, and they need to express their hate, and the instant gratification they get from yelling "Nigger!" at the first black man to cross their path eclipses any thought of profit or loss.  Obviously the Democrats profit from this ugly display of racist hate.  But so what?  You didn't seriously expect anyone  in that mob to think through the consequences of his action, did you?  You can bet your ass that no one in that mob was exactly an A-student.

<<Thus Breitbarts challenge. >>

Even Breitbart knows better.  That's no challenge.  He's grandstanding for the Neanderthal knuckle-draggers who make up the angry mobs.  Throwing them some red meat.  He knows the only evidence of the slurs is the testimony of the five eye-witnesses, Lewis for sure having an excellent reputation and none of the others being known as liars.

[BT]

He knows the only evidence of the slurs is the testimony of the five eye-witnesses, Lewis for sure having an excellent reputation and none of the others being known as liars.

Are you saying none of the others have been known to play the race card to their advantage? I'd research that claim carefully, if i were you.

 

[Michael Tee]

<<Are you saying none of the others have been known to play the race card to their advantage? I'd research that claim carefully, if i were you.>>

Once again changing the goal-posts in mid-game.  The issue is NOT have any of them "played the race card" whatever the fuck THAT is supposed to mean.  The issue is, are these upstanding, truthful men or are they fucking liars?

If you have any evidence at all that any of the eye-witnesses are untruthful, BT, now is the time to bring it up.  If you have any good reason to suspect their veracity, this is the time.  Obviously, you don't and you are just blowing smoke.

I have always greatly admired and respected John Lewis.  Unlike any of the scumbags in that mob, he has put his life on the line many times for a great cause, and was beaten almost to death by a white racist mob in your beloved Dixie.  I remember watching the news when it happened.  You can call him a liar, and your confederates in that racist mob can call him a "nigger," but none of your defamatory twaddle has any more effect than pigeon shit falling on a statue of Winston Churchill - - he remains Winston Churchill, and you remain nothing but dirty birds.

[Universe Prince]

The issue is, are these upstanding, truthful men or are they fucking liars?

Or are they simply mistaken? Once again, Michael Tee tries to make the issue a black-and-white, either/or scenario when it really isn't one.

[Plane]

(2) although the mikes couldn't pick up any word uttered by the crowd, if the word "Nigger" HAD been uttered, it WOULD have been picked up, so the absence of "Nigger!" on the tapes proves that it was never uttered, which in turn would prove that all five witnesses had lied.

Yes exactly.

I expect it is possible that I could be proven wrong(and you right) by someone who was there and had a tape of the event .

All that is required is that the recording microphone be closer to the shouter than the shoutee and there is not a way that the words intelligable to the shoutee could be unintelligable to the microphone closer to the sorce.

Since the subjects of our discussion were surrounded by reporters this is very likely indeded to be the case if you are right.

As for the nature of sound energy and microphones and human ears this seems like a case for Mythbusters.

Is there indeed a srt of sound that human ears are sensitive to and microphones are not? I am a mere Electrician and not by profession a sound engineer, this might be a good question to put to a pro.


But from my limits I will assert my opinion , you cannot shout over a microphone at someone on the other side of the mike anything that will be intelligable to the person and unintelligable to the mike.

[Michael Tee]

<<Yes exactly.>>

Huh?  My paraphrase of your argument, designed expressly to expose its absurdity, through the use of sarcasm, becomes your "Yes exactly?" 

Perhaps then you could explain to me how mikes which have demonstrated their inability to pick out any word from the background crowd noise, would nevertheless have been able to pick up "nigger" is anyone had said "nigger?"   What are the unique properties of the word "nigger" that enable mikes to pick it up over the background noises of the crowd when they are incapable of doing the same for any other word th

<<I expect it is possible that I could be proven wrong(and you right) by someone who was there and had a tape of the event .>>

Well, plane, if you open your eyes and ears, you will see that we actually DO have tapes of the event made by people who were there, and we have already seen that the microphones used to make the tapes are not only unable to pick out the word "nigger" from the background noise, but they are actually unable to pick out ANY word from the background noise.  So they aren't of much use in proving anybody right or wrong, are they?

<<All that is required is that the recording microphone be closer to the shouter than the shoutee and there is not a way that the words intelligable to the shoutee could be unintelligable to the microphone closer to the sorce.>>

I think kimba also pointed out that it is also required that the mike be pointed at the speaker, did he not?

<<Since the subjects of our discussion were surrounded by reporters this is very likely indeded to be the case if you are right.>>

In the first place they weren't "surrounded" by reporters and in the second place, none of the photos or videos that I've seen of the event showed anybody pointing their mikes at the speakers in the crowd.  So from all that I can see of the visual evidence of the scene, what you have considered to be "very likely indeed to be the case" quite simply did not happen.  Frankly, I think that what you consider "very likely" - - that a reporter would intuit when someone in the crowd was just about to shout "nigger" and would aim his mike at the guy just as he shouted it - - is not very likely at all.  In fact, to my knowledge, it has not been recorded on a single photo or video of the scene taken at the time.

<<As for the nature of sound energy and microphones and human ears this seems like a case for Mythbusters.>>

It would be if we didn't already have a demonstration of the mikes' total inability to pick any word out of the crowd noise and if anybody but yourself had seen the Congressman and his entourage "totally surrounded by reporters pointing microphones in all directions."

<<Is there indeed a srt of sound that human ears are sensitive to and microphones are not? I am a mere Electrician and not by profession a sound engineer, this might be a good question to put to a pro.

<<But from my limits I will assert my opinion , you cannot shout over a microphone at someone on the other side of the mike anything that will be intelligable to the person and unintelligable to the mike.>>

Your problem of course is that before asking the question, you'd need some kind of evidence that the word in question was actually shouted over a microphone pointed at the speaker.  To date you have no photos and no videos and no eye-witness evidence that such was the case.

[sirs]

It's fascinating watching Tee continue to try to squeeze water out of this rock