As a journalist I'm never against covering events whether they are good news or bad news. When I first joined the Army, I thought to myself that as a journalist for the Army, I would really be doing propaganda... So far that hasn't held true. As soon as anything comes my way, I find that sometimes bad things happen, but most of the time good things happen. However, since our media has been biased toward "bad news," they give "bad news" more exposure in hopes of selling more papers, or perhaps you can watch their news channel more often.

Media has often proclaimed themselves as the "4th estate" or rather the fourth branch of the government because they voice the people's concerns. But I don't like this idea...

By proclaiming that the media is the fourth branch of the government, it is insinuating that it is the government. And when the government conflicts within itself... i.e. Congress fighting the president, president fighting the supreme court, media fighting all three branches in hopes of exposing material that will sell more papers and get more viewers, then we've become disunited. This leaves us all vulnerable to our enemies.

A VERY straightforward example of this is when Geraldo Rivera gave away positions on national television that can be seen by our enemies, and just from that alone... who knows how many lives he's cost with that little bit of information.

Nowadays, I watch the news as a part of my job. I can pick at things and say "That's true"... "No, I don't believe that because of...," or "that's possible but... I don't know."

I SHOULD watch the news and be able to invest my faith in them... but where money is involved, corruption is soon to follow.

General George G. Meade had a journalist that trailed his troops during the Civil War and this journalist would consistantly give away information just because people would buy that paper more. the journalist dressed in uniform and when Meade found him, he put him on a horse backwards with his hands and feet bound with a sign pinned on him titled "Traitor to the Union."

8/6/2006 5:19:23 PM

well it is their duty to report, but they're still a business. you should also be able to invest your trust in your congressmen, president, and impartial justices, but that aint so true either.

8/6/2006 5:30:20 PM

hey, is everything A-OK in Iraq?

Quote :

"A VERY straightforward example of this is when Geraldo Rivera gave away positions on national television that can be seen by our enemies, and just from that alone... who knows how many lives he's cost with that little bit of information."

Is it a number greater than zero?

8/6/2006 6:04:46 PM

The function of the media as the 4th branch isn't to echo presidential press releases. It's to ensure the people know when their government is failing them.

This is strength, not weakness.

8/6/2006 6:05:18 PM

There used to be a saying about the editors and publishers of newspapers that went something like this: You can't argue with people who buy ink by the barrel and paper by the ton. Think of how it is today with television and the Internet--an entity doesn't need ink or paper or even an organization of people (that's why you will see the word "entity" a lot in business writing) to reach tens of millions of listeners, readers, or viewers. Who edits the output of these entities? Who are these editors accountable to? What is NOT being reported for whatever reason?

The mainstream media are affecting politics, and it is clear to me that the vast majority of these outlets are skewing coverage to the left of the political spectrum. Consider this: Have you EVER heard a news anchor refer to a left-wing talk show host or commentator or writer as "liberal"--or even "left-wing," for that matter? Yet, these same anchors would--I'm paraphrasing Dan Rather--rather walk through a furnace in a gasoline suit than not preface the name of certain hosts or commentators or writers with the label "conservative." And this is just one glaring example of such bias.

As the left-of-center Rather has said, "Does that make your fingernails sweat?"

8/6/2006 6:09:03 PM

The media is a crucial aspect of any free-thinking society. It's removal would eventually erode all of our civil liberties and destroy the country we fought to erect. There will be, and always have been, failures and loopholes in the distribution of information by the media... and the government.

8/6/2006 6:13:19 PM

Now wait, I'm not saying they should remove media because you're right, media is the basis for a free-thinking society. And not it's not their job to echo presidential releases. But it's not their job to put their 2 cents in like it's a tax whenever the president does release something. They can do that in editorials... that's what the editorial and opinion section is for.

It doesn't help when America is fighting a war on two fronts. One against terrorism and insurgents a like, and public relations war.

Notice how media shifts it's bias according to polls. Polls NEVER reflect the thoughts and opinions of the majority of the population(since we are a democracy), it reflects the thoughts of a SAMPLE of said population. Not only that, but the people as a whole AVOID surveys because they are an annoyance and interfere with our everyday activities. So who fills them out? In a country where we have a silent majority and a very angry and vocal minority... who would be willing to fill them out? The politically active and concerned... the minority.

This is dangerous... because most revolutions start with an angry minority.

So when the president and media are constantly at war, at what point will the president stop trying to satisfying the media and actually use them as a tool.

If you remember correctly, the president issued out a release with a plan to slowly withdraw troops from Iraq. The media jumped at this. Is the plan to really withdraw troops? Or to mislead the enemy into THINKING that we are withdrawing. Stay with me on this one here...

So when the president misleads the media so as to mislead the enemy... what happens to the politically active media... They mislead the public and in the end no one has credibility making trust an issue with our government and trust an issue with our media. But! now we notice that the troops are losing less lives and the terrorists and insurgents begin to target within themselves as a nation. In the end, the president has saved lives through a lie, but still, credibility is lost.

Check out Reuters, LA Times, NY Times, AP, and other media... They are CONSTANTLY apologizing for putting out photos that are photoshopped to the point where they mislead the public into thinking that events are much worse than they really are! Yet! no media jumps at this, and the individual who made the photo is blamed. As a journalist and photographer, I KNOW when a photo is photoshopped no matter what you do to it, and my work is CHECKED everytime I turn it in, and it's the same for every newspaper out there. So why do they wait until after the newspaper sells before they withdraw the photo. Is it better to ask for forgiveness, than to ask for permission?

8/6/2006 9:37:27 PM

Sorry, the point is... if the media IS the fourth estate... what branch checks and balances them? they are acting independently of the public, and are given it's sole power from the 1st amendment. So now we have a flaw in our Constitution. How do you fix that?

8/6/2006 9:41:32 PM

wait aren't you that skinny little kid who thought it was hillarious when your dad brutalized someone for being gay?

you're a real winner there, buddy

8/6/2006 9:43:46 PM

Are you that gay dude my dad beat the shit out of once? Man that was hilarious

however for purposes of a Soap Box, let's stay on subject... I told your story once, but I'll tell them again in Chit Chat

[Edited on August 6, 2006 at 9:50 PM. Reason : a]

8/6/2006 9:49:23 PM

Quote :

"what branch checks and balances them"

The last branch...the people. With the advent of the internet, citizens can keep the media's foot to the fire. Also, as long as gov't doesn't block entry into journalism, competition will help keep journalists honest.

I find it hard to believe any journalist can be objective about an issue they are interested in covering. I would rather have them be more up-front and let me know where they stand before they give me their rendition of the story. This way, if I suspect too much bias, I can check out a journalist on the other side of the issue and see what he has to say.

8/6/2006 9:51:13 PM

Another ambiguous and vague suggestion that something good is going on in Iraq.

Perhaps what our army needs in Iraq are a few good journalists who can be specific about what's being done there. It seems that if I'd been handed a dollar along with every time I've heard about "good things" going on in Iraq without any details, I'd be working on six figures by now. But as it is, we've already spent as much money reconstructing Iraq as was spent in the first six years of reconstructing Germany after WWII, and our ability to improve the Iraqi infrastructure is still being impeded by the political situation on the ground.

Figures from http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1886479

Quote :

"By proclaiming that the media is the fourth branch of the government, it is insinuating that it is the government."

With all due respect, this is patently ridiculous. The government is an institution that makes and enforces laws. The media does nothing in either capacity besides lobby on its own behalf; but that no more makes the media a branch of government than the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying makes it the "4th estate."

Quote :

"...then we've become disunited. This leaves us all vulnerable to our enemies."

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

That's what you're saying. Information should be contained such that we can all be kept in agreement with one another for the sake of our safety. Weak appeal to fear.

Quote :

"A VERY straightforward example of this is when Geraldo Rivera gave away positions on national television that can be seen by our enemies, and just from that alone... who knows how many lives he's cost with that little bit of information."

I'll tell you who knows. The Pentagon. The families of the troops. This is a media war. Do you honestly think we wouldn't have heard?

Quote :

"I SHOULD watch the news and be able to invest my faith in them... but where money is involved, corruption is soon to follow."

Interesting coming from a man employed by an entity that spends over $800,000 a minute...

Why don't you look up what those media conglomerates are spending, COMBINED, and see if it comes close to what kind of money chest they're playing with over at the five-pointed castle. I'll go ahead and bet not.

Quote :

"General George G. Meade had a journalist that trailed his troops during the Civil War and this journalist would consistantly give away information just because people would buy that paper more. the journalist dressed in uniform and when Meade found him, he put him on a horse backwards with his hands and feet bound with a sign pinned on him titled "Traitor to the Union.""

Cute story, but ironically enough, I can think of no network that tries to align itself more with our troops than our very own Fox News. In fact, I can think of no network that tries to do so, aside from Fox News. Of course, they're they ones responsible for your Geraldo Rivera reporting troop positions and endangering the war effort. But I'd like to see the same thing happen to them that happened to your Civil War guy...

8/6/2006 9:56:45 PM

we check them by not buying their papers when we find out they they are lame.

8/6/2006 9:58:04 PM

I see what you're saying! maybe the media is checked by the public! But remember that truth is truth and there should be no two sides to it. George Washington warned us as a nation in his Farewell Address to do away with the party system because it disunifies. When our media splits and chooses sides truth is lost and is no longer truth but perspectives. I'm not buying a paper purely for editorial and opinion. I read about an accident from down the street... it's given to me plainly and with facts and no prejudice... I read about politics, and all sorts of shit is added that is not needed. Like a movie that halts at points and keeps the flow of the plot from moving. With press coverage like we have today it's no wonder the media is losing so much credibility.

Howard Stern's theory on gaining ratings is now applied to media. "Shock and awe" the public, and angrier people will listen because they want to disagree. But that's entertainment... that should not be applied with news.

The public should not HAVE to be strained with yet ONE MORE BRANCH. Does that mean soon we should be VOTING for our media to voice us? The government should fear the people... but it should not fear the people to the point where it's too pussy to react on anything to ask our permission before going ahead.

[Edited on August 6, 2006 at 10:03 PM. Reason : To EarthDogg]

8/6/2006 10:01:39 PM

Doublepost... sorry

[Edited on August 6, 2006 at 10:03 PM. Reason : a]

8/6/2006 10:02:05 PM

you could always just read a few different papers for various perspectives. obviously many of the facts should remain constant and you could decide for youself what likely happened. is it the most efficient manner? no, but human beings are human beings, they want to further their agenda, even if unintentional.

8/6/2006 10:09:47 PM

Quote :

"But remember that truth is truth and there should be no two sides to it."

"Oh?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity#Clocks_delays_and_rods_contractions

Quote :

"The public should not HAVE to be strained with yet ONE MORE BRANCH. Does that mean soon we should be VOTING for our media to voice us?"

You do. Every day. With your remote.

Funny, I haven't seen any threads complaining about the strain of channel surfing.

Quote :

"The government should fear the people... but it should not fear the people to the point where it's too pussy to react on anything to ask our permission before going ahead."

"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people,LOL shall not perish from the earth."

8/6/2006 10:10:40 PM

I'll tell you what Gamecat...

I'll tell you about a few stories I've written about. However, they aren't news... they are features.

Soldiers being invited into the homes of Iraqis and being given a hot and decent meal... but nothing sensational about that. Is there?

How about engineering soldiers building homes for Iraqis that have lost their homes during bomb raids. probably worth a 30 second segment... but atrocities and their mysteriousness are covered and given an hours worth of television, maybe two more with editorials and other anchors that have to put their two cents in.

I wrote a story about the 864th that has connected a rode between north and south Afghanistan. Where it used to take the Afghanis 14 hours to trade and travel (and that's in vehicles), it now takes 2 hours. You didn't hear about that at all did you? Now they can vote, economy is picking up between villages, and not only that, but soldiers are HONORED within the huts of the Afghanis.

YET! THERE IS PRESSURE FROM MEDIA TO WITHDRAW... Even the US couldn't reconstruct itself in that time frame. Yet it should have been done yesterday.

I could go on... and I'm not about to dig up names for you, but I hope that's specific enough for you.

Quote :

"You do. Every day. With your remote."

I have to. That's my job.



[Edited on August 6, 2006 at 10:17 PM. Reason : I've addressed you, and now you'll troll. I'm done with you. I guess your media is too bias for me]

8/6/2006 10:11:49 PM

Quote :

"you could always just read a few different papers for various perspectives. obviously many of the facts should remain constant and you could decide for youself what likely happened. is it the most efficient manner? no, but human beings are human beings, they want to further their agenda, even if unintentional."

That's very true... and very disturbing...

8/6/2006 10:12:53 PM

we do positive things, no doubt, but that doesnt mean we should stay there forever or even for much longer.

8/6/2006 10:20:27 PM

Quote :

"Soldiers being invited into the homes of Iraqis and being given a hot and decent meal... but nothing sensational about that. Is there?"

I've seen this stuff on CNN.

Quote :

"How about engineering soldiers building homes for Iraqis that have lost their homes during bomb raids. probably worth a 30 second segment... but atrocities and their mysteriousness are covered and given an hours worth of television, maybe two more with editorials and other anchors that have to put their two cents in."

I feel like there's a study in this. A university ought to re-conduct the "if it bleeds it leads" poll only for these recent conflicts. I wonder if people would respond better to more positive stories.

Quote :

"I wrote a story about the 864th that has connected a rode between north and south Afghanistan. Where it used to take the Afghanis 14 hours to trade and travel (and that's in vehicles), it now takes 2 hours. You didn't hear about that at all did you?"

Nope. And I'm sure there are plenty of possible reasons that could be, many of which do not involve massive conspiracies.

Quote :

"Now they can vote, economy is picking up between villages, and not only that, but soldiers are HONORED within the huts of the Afghanis."

1) Are they voting for the mayor of Kabul or the ruler of Afghanistan?

2) Is the economy picking up between villages because of increased poppy production?

Good to know that some Afghanis honor our troops. I'd hate to think they all hated us.

8/6/2006 10:20:50 PM

Quote :

"How about engineering soldiers building homes for Iraqis that have lost their homes during bomb raids. probably worth a 30 second segment... but atrocities and their mysteriousness are covered and given an hours worth of television, maybe two more with editorials and other anchors that have to put their two cents in."

Haha, how is this good news?

Would it be good news if I took a sledge hammer to your car, but then paid to have it repaired for you?

8/6/2006 10:22:39 PM

Aside from the puff pieces you mentioned, have you ever written an article about anything bad happening in Iraq?

And as a journalist, I'm sure you attempted to quantify and put into context how much the "good" things you reported on are helping to stabilize the situation relative to all of the "bad" things, right?

The big irony of this thread is that a reporter on the military's dole is only accountable to his commander, not the public, and has the least leeway to report the whole truth. If a mainstream outlet proves to be unreliable, they lose trust, audience, and revenue. Witness CBS news, which tumbled after Rather embarrassed himself. Also witness how CBS moved quickly to restore their credibility.

If the military releases disinformation and it is proven to be a lie, it faces no such reprisal because no one expects the truth from them, anyway. Your post itself points out how the military lies to support its objective, not truth in reporting. There is also no mechanism for reprisal since they don't care about ratings or profits.

I'm not sure why you think open competition to report the truth is worse than whatever the hell it is you are suggesting, and I'm not sure why you think simply reading from a wide range of sources is an unacceptable solution.

[Edited on August 6, 2006 at 10:46 PM. Reason : fsd]

8/6/2006 10:24:23 PM

oh I've done some bad stuff too..

shit... not all soldiers are good... Some are just ate up from the floor up. Rapes, murders, accidents, stuff like that. I don't try to quantify... just try to report pure facts, but I'm an idealist and unaffiliated.

I feel the press should be unaffilated too to remain unbias.

8/6/2006 10:35:07 PM

I don't know what you mean by "unaffiliated." You are living in a dream land where there is some arbiter of truth who will create this magical newspaper that only reports the unbiased truth. I will give you a million dollars if you can find this arbiter.

We have media outlets run by private industry, the government (military, npr), not for profit organizations, individuals, foundations, etc. It's not for lack of trying that we have failed to find this source of truth.

Competition and casting a broad net are the best ways to get at what is true.

8/6/2006 10:52:16 PM

Quote :

"The big irony of this thread is that a reporter on the military's dole is only accountable to his commander, not the public, and has the least leeway to report the whole truth."

Just so that you're not misinformed and misled because that was the way to do it during Vietnam where it goes to a commander and he censors it and it goes up the chain of command for further censorship.

The Army (not the Marine Corps) has learned their lesson about cover ups because of Vietnam and now as soon as I write a story, it goes to my editor (an NCO), and straight into the world. Public Affairs has changed. CNN, Fox, etc... Their reporters are FREE to attach themselves with us as long as they don't give away our positions, and don't deter the speed by which the mission has to be accomplished.

Quote :

"Would it be good news if I took a sledge hammer to your car, but then paid to have it repaired for you?"

You know, if that car costed nearly 3,000 American Lives... I wouldn't care what civilian the owner of that car hid behind, I would chase him to the ends of the earth. I'm referring the the 9/11 attack in case you got lost. You want to give me an example, I'll tell you what actually happened.

8/6/2006 10:56:45 PM

Quote :

"I don't know what you mean by "unaffiliated." You are living in a dream land where there is some arbiter of truth who will create this magical newspaper that only reports the unbiased truth. I will give you a million dollars if you can find this arbiter."

and why not? Weren't the fore-fathers radicals with a dream they had too? I mean unaffiliated with any party so they don't further their political agenda.

8/6/2006 10:57:56 PM

^In other words, you have no practical solution to a supposed problem. Most of the main stream media outlets claim to be unaffiliated. Is that what you mean? In general, why should we believe any media outlet's claim to be unaffiliated or unbiased?

Your entire rant is sophistry. You cannot come up with a better way to get truth in reporting other than reading from a wide variety of news sources.

Quote :

"The Army (not the Marine Corps) has learned their lesson about cover ups because of Vietnam and now as soon as I write a story, it goes to my editor (an NCO), and straight into the world. Public Affairs has changed."

You missed the point. The point was that because they are private, big media outlets are accountable to the public for the truth in their stories. The military is not.

We know the military lies. You have said that they lie. It's been proven that they lie. Now, what steps have they taken to be accountable for this? What steps have they taken to assure us that they won't lie and spread misinformation in the future?

If they were an actual private, independent entity, they would lose trust and patronage and would be forced into swift action to restore their integrity. The military press inherently faces no such accountability.

You are not going to get credit for saying "we've changed, we promise." You get credit for having a record of telling the whole truth and being accountable for it, like the private media is.

I would actually give the military media more credit if they were a private, self-supporting entity that had to earn their existence like everyone else. Even NPR is largely self-supporting.

[Edited on August 6, 2006 at 11:30 PM. Reason : The bias of embeds is well-documented and is not a solution to the bias problem.]

8/6/2006 11:17:08 PM

well you don't hear the Army as a whole saying that... they are trying to do it the old fashioned way.

Not offering any solutions... just wanted my voice heard.

8/6/2006 11:31:42 PM

Quote :

"Apocalypse: where money is involved, corruption is soon to follow."

8/7/2006 12:52:36 PM

the US is completely evil

only the media can inform the people of that

8/7/2006 1:01:17 PM

Quote :

"The function of the media as the 4th branch isn't to echo presidential press releases. It's to ensure the people know when their government is failing them. This is strength, not weakness."

/thread

8/7/2006 1:16:15 PM

^ahahahahahahaha you trust the media hahahahahahahahh

8/7/2006 1:17:31 PM

Quote :

"The point was that because they are private, big media outlets are accountable to the public for the truth in their stories."

This is false for the same reason that the government is unaccountable to the public. The public does give a shit. Media organizations have been shown to make up stories almost entirely without factual basis and yet the public still gives them almost unending trust for "accurate and truthful" reporting.

There's nothing magical about the media that makes them any more trustworthy than a politician or a corporate executive. In fact the media is pretty much equal parts politics and corporations, but we still trust them

8/7/2006 1:24:21 PM

its really out of necessity if you wish to be at all informed. you've gotta trust someone. short of doing the reporting/investigation yourself you either have to throw your trust one way or read multiple sources.

[Edited on August 7, 2006 at 1:33 PM. Reason : theres tons of options that are all equally bad]

8/7/2006 1:32:49 PM

Yeah, keep on trusting the mainstream media, dipshits:

_New York Times_ reporter fabricates stories:
http://www.slate.com/id/2082741/

"Respected" journalist fakes interview with Bill Gates:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/03/gates-interview-fake-cx_po_0803autofacescan03.html

Reuters photographer suspended after "blatant evidence of manipulation":
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html

8/7/2006 3:34:53 PM

just curious, what media sources do you people find to be the most reputable?

8/7/2006 3:37:37 PM

ANY media source should be viewed from a state of suspicious alertness. One should listen or read for what is NOT said or printed, one should watch out for parroting among news sources, one should be concerned about the timing of a given story and the story's context, one should be concerned about particular descriptive words or terms that many in the media use to lead the listener or reader toward feeling an intended way about a subject or that subject's commentary, and so on.

By the way, PinkandBlack, it is commonly accepted that the words "you people" are often used pejoratively. Are you attempting to belittle those who would dare question these plagiarists and frauds? Would you mind simply addressing the examples above?

8/7/2006 5:02:10 PM

your anecdotal evidence has convinced me of something.

8/7/2006 9:21:58 PM

I would not describe the specific examples I have posted above as "anecdotal," skokiaan. I merely listed the latest outrageous instances at a glance. I have no doubt that a more thorough examination of media bias would simply confirm my position. In fact, a number of in-depth examinations have done just that.

Several books have been published in recent years--by formerly well-placed industry insiders--that provide strong evidence of liberal bias in a variety of US media outlets. The following are a few examples of such books: _110 People Who Are Screwing Up America: (and Al Franken Is #37)_ by six-time Emmy award-winning journalist Bernard Goldberg, who was a reporter with CBS News for many years; _How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy: (and Found Inner Peace)_ by Harry Stein, who has written for _Playboy_, _GQ_, _Esquire_, and many other major publications; _Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness--and Liberalism--to the Women of America_ by Myrna Blyth, who was editor in chief of _Ladies' Home Journal_ for more than twenty years; and so on. Are these examples specific enough for you?

Before some of you that disagree with me reply, I suggest you read the abovementioned books--I have. They are eye openers. Hell, Stein was a '60s radical, but in the book, he recounts how he eventually had enough of the blatant left-wing bias in the media and in his personal life.

By the way, here's a hot-of-the-press example, which may or may not be bias, of a reporting error from _The News & Observer_ concerning the investigation of members of the Duke lacrosse team:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4442161

Wow! It seems that one has to look no further than, well, today's news for the so-called anecdotal evidence of blatant errors in the media.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 1:57 AM. Reason : :-)]

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 1:59 AM. Reason : Link]

8/9/2006 1:54:58 AM

Quote :

"I would not describe the specific examples I have posted above as "anecdotal," skokiaan"

I suggest you actually learn what "anecdotal evidence" means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

"The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is."

Quote :

"Are these examples specific enough for you?"

Examples of what -- more books with anecdotal evidence and commentary? And, no, they aren't specific enough. Your original point isn't even specific enough. Are you arguing that the media makes errors? The media makes errors that consistently are in favor of one viewpoint? The media is actively biased a certain way?

"Specific enough" would be scientific studies with sound reasoning based on statistically valid evidence.

(Out of all the literature you could cite to support your point, you list unabashed pop-polisci commentary. That's not all you have read on that topic, is it )

Quote :

"I have no doubt that a more thorough examination of media bias would simply confirm my position."

I have not doubt that you have no doubt that the evidence must exist somewhere.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 2:29 AM. Reason : asdf]

8/9/2006 2:13:07 AM

I am well aware of the meaning of "anecdotal evidence," skokiaan. I find it laughable that you condemn my understanding of a common term, but in the same breath, you list Wikipedia as your solid source for knowledge. Since you obviously didn’t know, the founder of Wikipedia has admitted to serious quality problems with the repository:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/

Moreover, I find it peculiar that you seem obsessed with the word "anecdotal." An eyewitness account is anecdotal, is it not? But--horrors--it is allowed as evidence in a court of law! And E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E is what I have presented.

As to your various suggestions, fuck 'em. It appears that I've read more books than you have concerning the area in question; I have not seen your extensive reading list offered here for our edification. I suggest a scientific study of you removing your head from your ass and actually considering what I have put forth--instead of the typical knee-jerk rejection, as would be expected from an apologist for the liberal media.

If you want to continue living on Fantasy Island, go right ahead. Please don't ask the rest of us to join you, though.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 3:50 AM. Reason : !]

8/9/2006 3:47:35 AM

^ wikipedia is generally given to people who lack foundational knowledge on a subject. anything more complex would be lost on you.

Quote :

"Moreover, I find it peculiar that you seem obsessed with the word "anecdotal." An eyewitness account is anecdotal, is it not? But--horrors--it is allowed as evidence in a court of law! And E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E is what I have presented. "

it is kind of funny in a way, knowing that you're sitting somewhere chuckling to yourself, and congratulating yourself on what a clever chap you are.

and i mean funny, in the painful sense.

8/9/2006 4:20:48 AM

wikipedia is a joke.

8/9/2006 4:22:00 AM

wikipedia has its place. to give to idiots who are so completely lacking in foundational knowlege on something simple, and you dont feel like researching basic shit for them.

so when youre just tired of the fool, you can say,

Quote :

"look here, dumbass: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/why_is_the_sky_fucking_blue_and_not_green now go the fuck away, because i dont have time to review high school shit with you."

8/9/2006 4:59:14 AM

It seems, joe_schmoe, that you're up to your old bullshit again. Nevertheless, I will attempt to address your nonsensical posts.

First, I think it's revealing that you evidently have extensive knowledge of Wikipedia. I'm sure that you use it often. You will note that the link I posted was to an article about Wikipedia with the subtitle "Yes it's garbage, but it's delivered so much faster!"

Second, It's obvious that you're frustrated because you can never seem to win an argument with me. After all, you ARE the guy who offered us these trinkets when the thread topic was actually "Hezbollah: Terrorist Org or Legitimate Army": "Hezbollah is a political party that has seats in the Lebanese parliament. if ya dont boleedat, ya need ta look dat shit up" and "wooo hooooo yeee haw muthafucka sheeeeeeeite" (joe_schmoe). Classics both, and very enlightening.

Third, if you would like to post a serious position here, I have a few suggestions: (1) Check your facts, (2) sober up, and (3) try not to go off on one of your schizo rages. Before you reject these well-intentioned suggestions outright, please give them a try.

Finally, concerning your ridiculous assertion "that [I am] sitting somewhere chuckling to [myself], and congratulating [myself] on what a clever chap [I am]," it's simply not true. I'm actually sitting somewhere laughing out loud--I don't chuckle--at your rants, and thanking the Creator that I am NOT joe_schmoe.

Sleep it off, schmoe.

8/9/2006 5:52:23 PM

id beleive you, except your examples were reported by the media, so i dont beleive them.

8/9/2006 6:59:35 PM

^^ well, fuck. ive just been told.

please cancel my subscription. i dont like you guys anymore.

8/9/2006 8:34:45 PM

Aw, c'mon back, schmoe. I just disagree with you--I didn't say I don't like you.

8/10/2006 4:46:08 PM

really? you really mean it?? hooray!

8/11/2006 1:00:36 AM