Some politically neutral questions for Scottie [Archive]

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 14th 09, 01:26 AM

Doop-de-doop-de-doopty-doo...,

> > Today I'm adopting a non-trolling policy as I pose my questions for Scottie to
> > chew on. The following questions are serious, not loaded, and are intended to
> > initiate a reasoned exchange rather than the usual ridicule-vs-yapping
> > exchanges. Let's see how far we can get.
> >
> > 1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
> > services?
>
> I've only heard that said by MSM who are economically threatened by
> them.

Well, at least you allow a few words from the "MSM" to penetrate your bubble.

> So the answer is obvious. Clearly the credibility of a blog depends
> on the blog.

Your conclusion is erroneous. Would you like me to explain why?

> >
> > 2. Why are the accusations that the anger being directed at President Obama's
> > reform agenda is orchestrated (rather than genuine) seen as credible by
> > pundits, politicians, and ordinary citizens?
>
> They aren't.

Another incorrect assertion.

> That's talking point BS from biased pundits and
> politicians.

No, that's wrong.

> Polls show most citizens believe the anger is real.

But I didn't ask an all-or-none question. Do you see the illogic in your
reply?

> Polls on support for the reform substantiate that.

This is tangential, so I'll ignore it.

> > I believe these two questions go to the heart of the disconnect on RAO.

> Notice how biased your questions are presuming things not true.

Did you ever see a movie called "Reality Bites"? That flick had nothing on
you, Witless.

Hey Jenn, can I at least get credit for trying to engage Witless like an
adult? I do it only once every couple years.

vinyl anachronist

August 14th 09, 01:59 AM

On Aug 13, 5:33�pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 13, 5:26�pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Doop-de-doop-de-doopty-doo...,
>
> > > > Today I'm adopting a non-trolling policy as I pose my questions for Scottie to
> > > > chew on. The following questions are serious, not loaded, and are intended to
> > > > initiate a reasoned exchange rather than the usual ridicule-vs-yapping
> > > > exchanges. Let's see how far we can get.
>
> > > > 1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
> > > > services?
>
> > > � I've only heard that said by MSM who are economically threatened by
> > > them.
>
> > Well, at least you allow a few words from the "MSM" to penetrate your bubble.
>
> > > � So the answer is obvious. �Clearly the credibility of a blog depends
> > > on the blog.
>
> > Your conclusion is erroneous. Would you like me to explain why?
>
> � You can try but your stereotype of something as large as the
> blogosphere is IMO, futile.
>

Okay, I'll make it little more simple for you: Tell me about the
editing and fact-checking standards of a blog compared to public media.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 14th 09, 02:16 AM

vinyl anachronist said:

> > > > > 1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
> > > > > services?

> > ? You can try but your stereotype of something as large as the
> > blogosphere is IMO, futile.

> Okay, I'll make it little more simple for you: Tell me about the
> editing and fact-checking standards of a blog compared to public media.

I already gave up on trying to pound some sense into Witless, but since you've
taken up the challenge, please note one phrase in my original question:
amateur blogs. Scottie immediately leaped from my limiting phrase to "the
blogosphere". They are not equivalent.

vinyl anachronist

August 14th 09, 02:44 AM

On Aug 13, 6:16�pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> vinyl anachronist said:
>
> > > > > > 1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
> > > > > > services?
> > > ? You can try but your stereotype of something as large as the
> > > blogosphere is IMO, futile.
> > Okay, I'll make it little more simple for you: Tell me about the
> > editing and fact-checking standards of a blog compared to public media.
>
> I already gave up on trying to pound some sense into Witless, but since you've
> taken up the challenge, please note one phrase in my original question:
> amateur blogs. Scottie immediately leaped from my limiting phrase to "the
> blogosphere". They are not equivalent.

There aren't enough hours in the day to break down everything's that's
wrong with a single ScottW post.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 14th 09, 02:57 AM

vinyl anachronist said:

> > > > > > > 1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
> > > > > > > services?

> > > > ? You can try but your stereotype of something as large as the
> > > > blogosphere is IMO, futile.

> > > Okay, I'll make it little more simple for you: Tell me about the
> > > editing and fact-checking standards of a blog compared to public media.
> >
> > I already gave up on trying to pound some sense into Witless, but since you've
> > taken up the challenge, please note one phrase in my original question:
> > amateur blogs. Scottie immediately leaped from my limiting phrase to "the
> > blogosphere". They are not equivalent.
>
> There aren't enough hours in the day to break down everything's that's
> wrong with a single ScottW post.

Well, that's true. Have fun anyway.

vinyl anachronist

August 14th 09, 05:05 AM

On Aug 13, 7:24�pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 13, 5:59�pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 5:33 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 13, 5:26 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Doop-de-doop-de-doopty-doo...,
>
> > > > > > Today I'm adopting a non-trolling policy as I pose my questions for Scottie to
> > > > > > chew on. The following questions are serious, not loaded, and are intended to
> > > > > > initiate a reasoned exchange rather than the usual ridicule-vs-yapping
> > > > > > exchanges. Let's see how far we can get.
>
> > > > > > 1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
> > > > > > services?
>
> > > > > I've only heard that said by MSM who are economically threatened by
> > > > > them.
>
> > > > Well, at least you allow a few words from the "MSM" to penetrate your bubble.
>
> > > > > So the answer is obvious. Clearly the credibility of a blog depends
> > > > > on the blog.
>
> > > > Your conclusion is erroneous. Would you like me to explain why?
>
> > > You can try but your stereotype of something as large as the
> > > blogosphere is IMO, futile.
>
> > Okay, I'll make it little more simple for you: Tell me about the
> > editing and fact-checking standards of a blog compared to public media.
>
> � Public media �like the NYTs?

It's a simple question.

>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/13/ny.times.investigation/
>
> �or Mary Mapes of CBS whose forged evidence was outed by blogs?

We're not talking about the Jayson Blairs or the Stephen Glasses of
the world. It's a simple question.

>
> �The blogs may be superior or perhaps not. �That depends on the blog.
> There is a wide variety.

In other words, they're inconsistent.

> Quite a few back up their material with numerous references and some
> refuse to use "unnamed sources".

"Quite a few"? "Some"? Like I said, it's a simple question.

>
> So what you want to make simple for your black and white world,
> is anything but.

No...it's a simple question with a simple answer. And you can't answer
it.

vinyl anachronist

August 14th 09, 05:06 AM

On Aug 13, 7:26�pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 13, 6:16�pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
> > vinyl anachronist said:
>
> > > > > > > 1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
> > > > > > > services?
> > > > ? You can try but your stereotype of something as large as the
> > > > blogosphere is IMO, futile.
> > > Okay, I'll make it little more simple for you: Tell me about the
> > > editing and fact-checking standards of a blog compared to public media.
>
> > I already gave up on trying to pound some sense into Witless, but since you've
> > taken up the challenge, please note one phrase in my original question:
> > amateur blogs. Scottie immediately leaped from my limiting phrase to "the
> > blogosphere". They are not equivalent.
>
> �How do you draw a line between an amateur blog and a non-amateur
> blog?

Good question. How do you know?

You don't.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 14th 09, 06:26 PM

On Aug 14, 11:56*am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 13, 9:05*pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:

> > On Aug 13, 7:24 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 13, 5:59 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 13, 5:33 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 13, 5:26 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Doop-de-doop-de-doopty-doo...,
>
> > > > > > > > Today I'm adopting a non-trolling policy as I pose my questions for Scottie to
> > > > > > > > chew on. The following questions are serious, not loaded, and are intended to
> > > > > > > > initiate a reasoned exchange rather than the usual ridicule-vs-yapping
> > > > > > > > exchanges. Let's see how far we can get.
>
> > > > > > > > 1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
> > > > > > > > services?
>
> > > > > > > I've only heard that said by MSM who are economically threatened by
> > > > > > > them.
>
> > > > > > Well, at least you allow a few words from the "MSM" to penetrate your bubble.
>
> > > > > > > So the answer is obvious. Clearly the credibility of a blog depends
> > > > > > > on the blog.
>
> > > > > > Your conclusion is erroneous. Would you like me to explain why?
>
> > > > > You can try but your stereotype of something as large as the
> > > > > blogosphere is IMO, futile.
>
> > > > Okay, I'll make it little more simple for you: Tell me about the
> > > > editing and fact-checking standards of a blog compared to public media.
>
> > > Public media like the NYTs?
>
> > It's a simple question.
>
> > >http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/13/ny.times.investigation/
>
> > > or Mary Mapes of CBS whose forged evidence was outed by blogs?
>
> > We're not talking about the Jayson Blairs or the Stephen Glasses of
> > the world. It's a simple question.
>
> > > The blogs may be superior or perhaps not. That depends on the blog.
> > > There is a wide variety.
>
> > In other words, they're inconsistent.
>
> *So is the "public media" whatever that is.

BZZZZZZT.

> > > Quite a few back up their material with numerous references and some
> > > refuse to use "unnamed sources".
>
> > "Quite a few"? "Some"? *Like I said, it's a simple question.
>
> *No, it's just you wanting to paint a rather diverse group with the
> same brush.
>
> *Who knew you were so prejudiced.

It *is* a simple question, 2pid. Why so much dancing?

vinyl anachronist

August 14th 09, 08:57 PM

On Aug 14, 9:56�am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 13, 9:05�pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 7:24 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 13, 5:59 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 13, 5:33 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 13, 5:26 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Doop-de-doop-de-doopty-doo...,
>
> > > > > > > > Today I'm adopting a non-trolling policy as I pose my questions for Scottie to
> > > > > > > > chew on. The following questions are serious, not loaded, and are intended to
> > > > > > > > initiate a reasoned exchange rather than the usual ridicule-vs-yapping
> > > > > > > > exchanges. Let's see how far we can get.
>
> > > > > > > > 1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
> > > > > > > > services?
>
> > > > > > > I've only heard that said by MSM who are economically threatened by
> > > > > > > them.
>
> > > > > > Well, at least you allow a few words from the "MSM" to penetrate your bubble.
>
> > > > > > > So the answer is obvious. Clearly the credibility of a blog depends
> > > > > > > on the blog.
>
> > > > > > Your conclusion is erroneous. Would you like me to explain why?
>
> > > > > You can try but your stereotype of something as large as the
> > > > > blogosphere is IMO, futile.
>
> > > > Okay, I'll make it little more simple for you: Tell me about the
> > > > editing and fact-checking standards of a blog compared to public media.
>
> > > Public media like the NYTs?
>
> > It's a simple question.
>
> > >http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/13/ny.times.investigation/
>
> > > or Mary Mapes of CBS whose forged evidence was outed by blogs?
>
> > We're not talking about the Jayson Blairs or the Stephen Glasses of
> > the world. It's a simple question.
>
> > > The blogs may be superior or perhaps not. That depends on the blog.
> > > There is a wide variety.
>
> > In other words, they're inconsistent.
>
> �So is the "public media" whatever that is.
>
>
>
> > > Quite a few back up their material with numerous references and some
> > > refuse to use "unnamed sources".
>
> > "Quite a few"? "Some"? �Like I said, it's a simple question.
>
> �No, it's just you wanting to paint a rather diverse group with the
> same brush.
>
> �Who knew you were so prejudiced.

I'm not.

I've just lost all respect for you. You know why? It's a simple
question with a simple answer. You know the answer, but you're dancing
around and trying not to answer. Do you know what Occam's Razor is? It
applies here. The answer is simple and straightforward, and any other
reply is simply an obfuscation, a lie.

vinyl anachronist

August 14th 09, 08:58 PM

On Aug 14, 11:49�am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 13, 9:06�pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 7:26 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 13, 6:16 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > vinyl anachronist said:
>
> > > > > > > > > 1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
> > > > > > > > > services?
> > > > > > ? You can try but your stereotype of something as large as the
> > > > > > blogosphere is IMO, futile.
> > > > > Okay, I'll make it little more simple for you: Tell me about the
> > > > > editing and fact-checking standards of a blog compared to public media.
>
> > > > I already gave up on trying to pound some sense into Witless, but since you've
> > > > taken up the challenge, please note one phrase in my original question:
> > > > amateur blogs. Scottie immediately leaped from my limiting phrase to "the
> > > > blogosphere". They are not equivalent.
>
> > > How do you draw a line between an amateur blog and a non-amateur
> > > blog?
>
> > Good question. How do you know?
>
> �I make a subjective assessment upon the quality of their posts and
> the validity of their references.

That doesn't answer the original question.

>
> You appear to do it based upon their ideology.

No, I don't. It's just another attempt by you to avoid answering a
very simple question.

vinyl anachronist

August 14th 09, 08:59 PM

On Aug 14, 11:50�am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 14, 10:26�am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Aug 14, 11:56�am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 13, 9:05�pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Aug 13, 7:24 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 13, 5:59 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 13, 5:33 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 13, 5:26 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Doop-de-doop-de-doopty-doo...,
>
> > > > > > > > > > Today I'm adopting a non-trolling policy as I pose my questions for Scottie to
> > > > > > > > > > chew on. The following questions are serious, not loaded, and are intended to
> > > > > > > > > > initiate a reasoned exchange rather than the usual ridicule-vs-yapping
> > > > > > > > > > exchanges. Let's see how far we can get.
>
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
> > > > > > > > > > services?
>
> > > > > > > > > I've only heard that said by MSM who are economically threatened by
> > > > > > > > > them.
>
> > > > > > > > Well, at least you allow a few words from the "MSM" to penetrate your bubble.
>
> > > > > > > > > So the answer is obvious. Clearly the credibility of a blog depends
> > > > > > > > > on the blog.
>
> > > > > > > > Your conclusion is erroneous. Would you like me to explain why?
>
> > > > > > > You can try but your stereotype of something as large as the
> > > > > > > blogosphere is IMO, futile.
>
> > > > > > Okay, I'll make it little more simple for you: Tell me about the
> > > > > > editing and fact-checking standards of a blog compared to public media.
>
> > > > > Public media like the NYTs?
>
> > > > It's a simple question.
>
> > > > >http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/13/ny.times.investigation/
>
> > > > > or Mary Mapes of CBS whose forged evidence was outed by blogs?
>
> > > > We're not talking about the Jayson Blairs or the Stephen Glasses of
> > > > the world. It's a simple question.
>
> > > > > The blogs may be superior or perhaps not. That depends on the blog.
> > > > > There is a wide variety.
>
> > > > In other words, they're inconsistent.
>
> > > �So is the "public media" whatever that is.
>
> > BZZZZZZT.
>
> > > > > Quite a few back up their material with numerous references and some
> > > > > refuse to use "unnamed sources".
>
> > > > "Quite a few"? "Some"? �Like I said, it's a simple question..
>
> > > �No, it's just you wanting to paint a rather diverse group with the
> > > same brush.
>
> > > �Who knew you were so prejudiced.
>
> > It *is* a simple question, 2pid. Why so much dancing?-
>
> It's a simple question in the minds of simpletons.

No, it's not. It's a complicated question for those who are not
telling the truth.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 14th 09, 09:58 PM

On Aug 14, 3:59*pm, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:
> On Aug 14, 11:50 am, ScottW2 > wrote:

> > On Aug 14, 10:26 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > > It *is* a simple question, 2pid. Why so much dancing?-
>
> > It's a simple question in the minds of simpletons.
>
> No, it's not. It's a complicated question for those who are not
> telling the truth.

Perhaps part of 2pid's issue is that he cannot discern between truth
and deception?

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 14th 09, 10:13 PM

Shhhh! said:

> > > > It *is* a simple question, 2pid. Why so much dancing?-
> >
> > > It's a simple question in the minds of simpletons.
> >
> > No, it's not. It's a complicated question for those who are not
> > telling the truth.
>
> Perhaps part of 2pid's issue is that he cannot discern between truth
> and deception?

I'm having a flashback to a long-ago Kroodown. I recall Mr. **** klaiming that
truth and lies are essentially the same thing.

Scottie needs help.

vinyl anachronist

August 15th 09, 12:07 AM

On Aug 14, 1:58�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 14, 3:59�pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 14, 11:50 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Aug 14, 10:26 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > It *is* a simple question, 2pid. Why so much dancing?-
>
> > > It's a simple question in the minds of simpletons.
>
> > No, it's not. It's a complicated question for those who are not
> > telling the truth.
>
> Perhaps part of 2pid's issue is that he cannot discern between truth
> and deception?

Anyone who can't answer a simple question with a simple answer is
lying and is hiding something. With Scott, however, I'm not sure if
he's lying or if he is so dumb that he truly doesn't know the answer.

vinyl anachronist

August 15th 09, 12:09 AM

On Aug 14, 2:13�pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > > It *is* a simple question, 2pid. Why so much dancing?-
>
> > > > It's a simple question in the minds of simpletons.
>
> > > No, it's not. It's a complicated question for those who are not
> > > telling the truth.
>
> > Perhaps part of 2pid's issue is that he cannot discern between truth
> > and deception?
>
> I'm having a flashback to a long-ago Kroodown. I recall Mr. **** klaiming that
> truth and lies are essentially the same thing.

Scott is reminding me of Arny more and more these days.

>
> Scottie needs help.

Somebody shine the Pastor Matt Signal above Gotham.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 15th 09, 12:10 AM

vinyl anachronist said:

[credibility of blogs vs. real news sources]

> > > > > It *is* a simple question, 2pid. Why so much dancing?-
> >
> > > > It's a simple question in the minds of simpletons.
> >
> > > No, it's not. It's a complicated question for those who are not
> > > telling the truth.
> >
> > Perhaps part of 2pid's issue is that he cannot discern between truth
> > and deception?
>
> Anyone who can't answer a simple question with a simple answer is
> lying and is hiding something. With Scott, however, I'm not sure if
> he's lying or if he is so dumb that he truly doesn't know the answer.

At least the pooch's danger sense is working. He may not know much, but he
knows how to avoid a trap.

vinyl anachronist

August 15th 09, 12:11 AM

On Aug 14, 4:10�pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> vinyl anachronist said:
>
> [credibility of blogs vs. real news sources]
>
> > > > > > It *is* a simple question, 2pid. Why so much dancing?-
>
> > > > > It's a simple question in the minds of simpletons.
>
> > > > No, it's not. It's a complicated question for those who are not
> > > > telling the truth.
>
> > > Perhaps part of 2pid's issue is that he cannot discern between truth
> > > and deception?
>
> > Anyone who can't answer a simple question with a simple answer is
> > lying and is hiding something. With Scott, however, I'm not sure if
> > he's lying or if he is so dumb that he truly doesn't know the answer.
>
> At least the pooch's danger sense is working. He may not know much, but he
> knows how to avoid a trap.

I was thinking the same thing.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 15th 09, 07:04 AM

On Aug 14, 4:13*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > > It *is* a simple question, 2pid. Why so much dancing?-
>
> > > > It's a simple question in the minds of simpletons.
>
> > > No, it's not. It's a complicated question for those who are not
> > > telling the truth.
>
> > Perhaps part of 2pid's issue is that he cannot discern between truth
> > and deception?
>
> I'm having a flashback to a long-ago Kroodown. I recall Mr. **** klaiming that
> truth and lies are essentially the same thing.
>
> Scottie needs help.

Agreed.

Clyde Slick

August 15th 09, 04:24 PM

On 14 aug., 19:09, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2:13 pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
> > Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > > > It *is* a simple question, 2pid. Why so much dancing?-
>
> > > > > It's a simple question in the minds of simpletons.
>
> > > > No, it's not. It's a complicated question for those who are not
> > > > telling the truth.
>
> > > Perhaps part of 2pid's issue is that he cannot discern between truth
> > > and deception?
>
> > I'm having a flashback to a long-ago Kroodown. I recall Mr. **** klaiming that
> > truth and lies are essentially the same thing.
>
> Scott is reminding me of Arny more and more these days.
>

Scott can readily tell the diference between a photo
of an adult and a photo of an infant.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 15th 09, 05:42 PM

On Aug 15, 11:05*am, ScottW2 > wrote:

> *Why do people make stupid ignorant statements?
> *I guess you'll have to answer that one yourself.

LoL. 2pid, why do you insist on mocking yourself when there are
several here who will do it for you?

vinyl anachronist

August 15th 09, 05:47 PM

On Aug 15, 9:05�am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 14, 12:57�pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 14, 9:56 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 13, 9:05 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 13, 7:24 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 13, 5:59 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 13, 5:33 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 13, 5:26 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Doop-de-doop-de-doopty-doo...,
>
> > > > > > > > > > Today I'm adopting a non-trolling policy as I pose my questions for Scottie to
> > > > > > > > > > chew on. The following questions are serious, not loaded, and are intended to
> > > > > > > > > > initiate a reasoned exchange rather than the usual ridicule-vs-yapping
> > > > > > > > > > exchanges. Let's see how far we can get.
>
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
> > > > > > > > > > services?
>
> > > > > > > > > I've only heard that said by MSM who are economically threatened by
> > > > > > > > > them.
>
> > > > > > > > Well, at least you allow a few words from the "MSM" to penetrate your bubble.
>
> > > > > > > > > So the answer is obvious. Clearly the credibility of a blog depends
> > > > > > > > > on the blog.
>
> > > > > > > > Your conclusion is erroneous. Would you like me to explain why?
>
> > > > > > > You can try but your stereotype of something as large as the
> > > > > > > blogosphere is IMO, futile.
>
> > > > > > Okay, I'll make it little more simple for you: Tell me about the
> > > > > > editing and fact-checking standards of a blog compared to public media.
>
> > > > > Public media like the NYTs?
>
> > > > It's a simple question.
>
> > > > >http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/13/ny.times.investigation/
>
> > > > > or Mary Mapes of CBS whose forged evidence was outed by blogs?
>
> > > > We're not talking about the Jayson Blairs or the Stephen Glasses of
> > > > the world. It's a simple question.
>
> > > > > The blogs may be superior or perhaps not. That depends on the blog.
> > > > > There is a wide variety.
>
> > > > In other words, they're inconsistent.
>
> > > So is the "public media" whatever that is.
>
> > > > > Quite a few back up their material with numerous references and some
> > > > > refuse to use "unnamed sources".
>
> > > > "Quite a few"? "Some"? Like I said, it's a simple question.
>
> > > No, it's just you wanting to paint a rather diverse group with the
> > > same brush.
>
> > > Who knew you were so prejudiced.
>
> > I'm not.
>
> > I've just lost all respect for you. You know why? It's a simple
> > question with a simple answer. You know the answer, but you're dancing
> > around and trying not to answer.
>
> �No. I'm declaring the statement stupid and meaningless
> so full of vaguery requiring definition that it's hardly a starting
> point.
> For example, when you say "news service", I take it you're referring
> to the likes of AP, Reuters and NYTs News Service.
> Why do you grant anything from those organizations credible?
> Do you recall how Hezbollah used Reuters as a propaganda
> tool during the Israeli Lebanon conflict getting photoshopped
> crap published along with staged sories of recoveries of bodies
> and wailing relatives? How about the Hamas pictures
> of a redcross ambulance with a rocket hole in the roof but no
> indication of a blast? �It was the blogs that analyzed and pointed
> out the BS propaganda the "news services" were putting out.
>
> If what you claim to be "said" is really "said"
> (Which in itself is a stupid statement...it is said,
> Why is it said, "you're a buffoon"?)
> �in such a lame and ill-defined
> context as you provide, it's a stupid and ignorant statement.
>
> �Why do people make stupid ignorant statements?
> �I guess you'll have to answer that one yourself.

Like I said, it's an easy question with an easy answer, comfirmed by
others here. And yet here you are, totally discombobulated, hurling
insults at me, doing anything you can to avoid answering the question.

If there was anyone here didn't think you were full of **** before,
they do now. Congrats.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 15th 09, 06:09 PM

On Aug 15, 11:47*am, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:

> If there was anyone here didn't think you were full of **** before,
> they do now. Congrats.

There was doubt?

MiNe 109

August 15th 09, 07:44 PM

In article
>,
vinyl anachronist > wrote:

> > Do you recall how Hezbollah used Reuters as a propaganda
> > tool during the Israeli Lebanon conflict getting photoshopped
> > crap published along with staged sories of recoveries of bodies
> > and wailing relatives? How about the Hamas pictures
> > of a redcross ambulance with a rocket hole in the roof but no
> > indication of a blast? ?

Nobody saw them until the rightie blogs took up the cause!

Stephen

vinyl anachronist

August 15th 09, 08:20 PM

On Aug 15, 10:09�am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 11:47�am, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
> > If there was anyone here didn't think you were full of **** before,
> > they do now. Congrats.
>
> There was doubt?

Bratzi probably thinks he's okay. But at this point he's probably
wishing that Scott would just shut the **** up and stop hurting the
cause.

vinyl anachronist

August 15th 09, 08:21 PM

On Aug 15, 11:44�am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> �vinyl anachronist > wrote:
>
> > > Do you recall how Hezbollah used Reuters as a propaganda
> > > tool during the Israeli Lebanon conflict getting photoshopped
> > > crap published along with staged sories of recoveries of bodies
> > > and wailing relatives? How about the Hamas pictures
> > > of a redcross ambulance with a rocket hole in the roof but no
> > > indication of a blast? ?
>
> Nobody saw them until the rightie blogs took up the cause!

It's amazing that with a little effort, nearly everything Scott says
can be easily discredited.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 15th 09, 08:30 PM

On Aug 15, 2:21*pm, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:
> On Aug 15, 11:44 am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > vinyl anachronist > wrote:
>
> > > > Do you recall how Hezbollah used Reuters as a propaganda
> > > > tool during the Israeli Lebanon conflict getting photoshopped
> > > > crap published along with staged sories of recoveries of bodies
> > > > and wailing relatives? How about the Hamas pictures
> > > > of a redcross ambulance with a rocket hole in the roof but no
> > > > indication of a blast? ?
>
> > Nobody saw them until the rightie blogs took up the cause!
>
> It's amazing that with a little effort, nearly everything Scott says
> can be easily discredited.

I think that 2pid is actually a closet lib. That's the only way that
95% of his 'arguments' make any sense.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 15th 09, 10:39 PM

vinyl anachronist said:

> It's amazing that with a little effort, nearly everything Scott says
> can be easily discredited.

That's fine for humans, but I think Scottie is yapping to a different
constituency.

vinyl anachronist

August 15th 09, 11:42 PM

On Aug 15, 3:08�pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 15, 9:47�am, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 15, 9:05 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 14, 12:57 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 14, 9:56 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 13, 9:05 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 13, 7:24 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 13, 5:59 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 5:33 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 5:26 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Doop-de-doop-de-doopty-doo...,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Today I'm adopting a non-trolling policy as I pose my questions for Scottie to
> > > > > > > > > > > > chew on. The following questions are serious, not loaded, and are intended to
> > > > > > > > > > > > initiate a reasoned exchange rather than the usual ridicule-vs-yapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > exchanges. Let's see how far we can get.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
> > > > > > > > > > > > services?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I've only heard that said by MSM who are economically threatened by
> > > > > > > > > > > them.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Well, at least you allow a few words from the "MSM" to penetrate your bubble.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > So the answer is obvious. Clearly the credibility of a blog depends
> > > > > > > > > > > on the blog.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Your conclusion is erroneous. Would you like me to explain why?
>
> > > > > > > > > You can try but your stereotype of something as large as the
> > > > > > > > > blogosphere is IMO, futile.
>
> > > > > > > > Okay, I'll make it little more simple for you: Tell me about the
> > > > > > > > editing and fact-checking standards of a blog compared to public media.
>
> > > > > > > Public media like the NYTs?
>
> > > > > > It's a simple question.
>
> > > > > > >http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/13/ny.times.investigation/
>
> > > > > > > or Mary Mapes of CBS whose forged evidence was outed by blogs?
>
> > > > > > We're not talking about the Jayson Blairs or the Stephen Glasses of
> > > > > > the world. It's a simple question.
>
> > > > > > > The blogs may be superior or perhaps not. That depends on the blog.
> > > > > > > There is a wide variety.
>
> > > > > > In other words, they're inconsistent.
>
> > > > > So is the "public media" whatever that is.
>
> > > > > > > Quite a few back up their material with numerous references and some
> > > > > > > refuse to use "unnamed sources".
>
> > > > > > "Quite a few"? "Some"? Like I said, it's a simple question.
>
> > > > > No, it's just you wanting to paint a rather diverse group with the
> > > > > same brush.
>
> > > > > Who knew you were so prejudiced.
>
> > > > I'm not.
>
> > > > I've just lost all respect for you. You know why? It's a simple
> > > > question with a simple answer. You know the answer, but you're dancing
> > > > around and trying not to answer.
>
> > > No. I'm declaring the statement stupid and meaningless
> > > so full of vaguery requiring definition that it's hardly a starting
> > > point.
> > > For example, when you say "news service", I take it you're referring
> > > to the likes of AP, Reuters and NYTs News Service.
> > > Why do you grant anything from those organizations credible?
> > > Do you recall how Hezbollah used Reuters as a propaganda
> > > tool during the Israeli Lebanon conflict getting photoshopped
> > > crap published along with staged sories of recoveries of bodies
> > > and wailing relatives? How about the Hamas pictures
> > > of a redcross ambulance with a rocket hole in the roof but no
> > > indication of a blast? It was the blogs that analyzed and pointed
> > > out the BS propaganda the "news services" were putting out.
>
> > > If what you claim to be "said" is really "said"
> > > (Which in itself is a stupid statement...it is said,
> > > Why is it said, "you're a buffoon"?)
> > > in such a lame and ill-defined
> > > context as you provide, it's a stupid and ignorant statement.
>
> > > Why do people make stupid ignorant statements?
> > > I guess you'll have to answer that one yourself.
>
> > Like I said, it's an easy question with an easy answer, comfirmed by
> > others here.
>
> �Keep trying Vladimer.

What's a Vladimer? Do you mean Vladimir? Or Wladimir? Are you trying
to call me a commie pinko, gramps? ROTFLMAO.

>
> > �And yet here you are, totally discombobulated, hurling
> > insults at me, doing anything you can to avoid answering the question.
>
> �I'm not obliged to answer ignorant questions based on your ignorant
> presumptions. You may foolishly think so but that speaks more of you
> than me.

You're the only one here who seems to think my answer is ignorant, and
yet you're the one who doesn't know the answer. That's kind of like
when idiots say, "That's stupid" when they mean "I don't understand."
>
>
>
> > If there was anyone here didn't think you were full of **** before,
> > they do now. Congrats.
>
> LoL. More of the same usenet declarations I've come to expect from
> you.
> They come with the same certificate of authenticity as your
> short-lived screenwriter career.

Wow, you're going to make it personal again. That's what you always do
when you're backed against the wall. Not the mark of an intelligent
person, I'm afraid.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 16th 09, 09:44 AM

On Aug 15, 5:42*pm, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:
> On Aug 15, 3:08 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 15, 9:47 am, vinyl anachronist >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 15, 9:05 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 14, 12:57 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 14, 9:56 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 13, 9:05 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 13, 7:24 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 5:59 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 5:33 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 5:26 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Doop-de-doop-de-doopty-doo...,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Today I'm adopting a non-trolling policy as I pose my questions for Scottie to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > chew on. The following questions are serious, not loaded, and are intended to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > initiate a reasoned exchange rather than the usual ridicule-vs-yapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exchanges. Let's see how far we can get.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
> > > > > > > > > > > > > services?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've only heard that said by MSM who are economically threatened by
> > > > > > > > > > > > them.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Well, at least you allow a few words from the "MSM" to penetrate your bubble.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > So the answer is obvious. Clearly the credibility of a blog depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > on the blog.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Your conclusion is erroneous. Would you like me to explain why?
>
> > > > > > > > > > You can try but your stereotype of something as large as the
> > > > > > > > > > blogosphere is IMO, futile.
>
> > > > > > > > > Okay, I'll make it little more simple for you: Tell me about the
> > > > > > > > > editing and fact-checking standards of a blog compared to public media.
>
> > > > > > > > Public media like the NYTs?
>
> > > > > > > It's a simple question.
>
> > > > > > > >http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/13/ny.times.investigation/
>
> > > > > > > > or Mary Mapes of CBS whose forged evidence was outed by blogs?
>
> > > > > > > We're not talking about the Jayson Blairs or the Stephen Glasses of
> > > > > > > the world. It's a simple question.
>
> > > > > > > > The blogs may be superior or perhaps not. That depends on the blog.
> > > > > > > > There is a wide variety.
>
> > > > > > > In other words, they're inconsistent.
>
> > > > > > So is the "public media" whatever that is.
>
> > > > > > > > Quite a few back up their material with numerous references and some
> > > > > > > > refuse to use "unnamed sources".
>
> > > > > > > "Quite a few"? "Some"? Like I said, it's a simple question.
>
> > > > > > No, it's just you wanting to paint a rather diverse group with the
> > > > > > same brush.
>
> > > > > > Who knew you were so prejudiced.
>
> > > > > I'm not.
>
> > > > > I've just lost all respect for you. You know why? It's a simple
> > > > > question with a simple answer. You know the answer, but you're dancing
> > > > > around and trying not to answer.
>
> > > > No. I'm declaring the statement stupid and meaningless
> > > > so full of vaguery requiring definition that it's hardly a starting
> > > > point.
> > > > For example, when you say "news service", I take it you're referring
> > > > to the likes of AP, Reuters and NYTs News Service.
> > > > Why do you grant anything from those organizations credible?
> > > > Do you recall how Hezbollah used Reuters as a propaganda
> > > > tool during the Israeli Lebanon conflict getting photoshopped
> > > > crap published along with staged sories of recoveries of bodies
> > > > and wailing relatives? How about the Hamas pictures
> > > > of a redcross ambulance with a rocket hole in the roof but no
> > > > indication of a blast? It was the blogs that analyzed and pointed
> > > > out the BS propaganda the "news services" were putting out.
>
> > > > If what you claim to be "said" is really "said"
> > > > (Which in itself is a stupid statement...it is said,
> > > > Why is it said, "you're a buffoon"?)
> > > > in such a lame and ill-defined
> > > > context as you provide, it's a stupid and ignorant statement.
>
> > > > Why do people make stupid ignorant statements?
> > > > I guess you'll have to answer that one yourself.
>
> > > Like I said, it's an easy question with an easy answer, comfirmed by
> > > others here.
>
> > Keep trying Vladimer.
>
> What's a Vladimer?

No fair. You asked 2pid a direct question.

> > LoL.

I agree, 2pid. He should have known better,

vinyl anachronist

August 16th 09, 07:32 PM

On Aug 16, 11:20�am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 15, 3:42�pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 15, 3:08 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 15, 9:47 am, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 15, 9:05 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 14, 12:57 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 14, 9:56 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 13, 9:05 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 7:24 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 5:59 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 5:33 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 5:26 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Doop-de-doop-de-doopty-doo...,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today I'm adopting a non-trolling policy as I pose my questions for Scottie to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > chew on. The following questions are serious, not loaded, and are intended to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > initiate a reasoned exchange rather than the usual ridicule-vs-yapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exchanges. Let's see how far we can get.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > services?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've only heard that said by MSM who are economically threatened by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > them.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Well, at least you allow a few words from the "MSM" to penetrate your bubble.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So the answer is obvious. Clearly the credibility of a blog depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on the blog.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Your conclusion is erroneous. Would you like me to explain why?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > You can try but your stereotype of something as large as the
> > > > > > > > > > > blogosphere is IMO, futile.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Okay, I'll make it little more simple for you: Tell me about the
> > > > > > > > > > editing and fact-checking standards of a blog compared to public media.
>
> > > > > > > > > Public media like the NYTs?
>
> > > > > > > > It's a simple question.
>
> > > > > > > > >http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/13/ny.times.investigation/
>
> > > > > > > > > or Mary Mapes of CBS whose forged evidence was outed by blogs?
>
> > > > > > > > We're not talking about the Jayson Blairs or the Stephen Glasses of
> > > > > > > > the world. It's a simple question.
>
> > > > > > > > > The blogs may be superior or perhaps not. That depends on the blog.
> > > > > > > > > There is a wide variety.
>
> > > > > > > > In other words, they're inconsistent.
>
> > > > > > > So is the "public media" whatever that is.
>
> > > > > > > > > Quite a few back up their material with numerous references and some
> > > > > > > > > refuse to use "unnamed sources".
>
> > > > > > > > "Quite a few"? "Some"? Like I said, it's a simple question.
>
> > > > > > > No, it's just you wanting to paint a rather diverse group with the
> > > > > > > same brush.
>
> > > > > > > Who knew you were so prejudiced.
>
> > > > > > I'm not.
>
> > > > > > I've just lost all respect for you. You know why? It's a simple
> > > > > > question with a simple answer. You know the answer, but you're dancing
> > > > > > around and trying not to answer.
>
> > > > > No. I'm declaring the statement stupid and meaningless
> > > > > so full of vaguery requiring definition that it's hardly a starting
> > > > > point.
> > > > > For example, when you say "news service", I take it you're referring
> > > > > to the likes of AP, Reuters and NYTs News Service.
> > > > > Why do you grant anything from those organizations credible?
> > > > > Do you recall how Hezbollah used Reuters as a propaganda
> > > > > tool during the Israeli Lebanon conflict getting photoshopped
> > > > > crap published along with staged sories of recoveries of bodies
> > > > > and wailing relatives? How about the Hamas pictures
> > > > > of a redcross ambulance with a rocket hole in the roof but no
> > > > > indication of a blast? It was the blogs that analyzed and pointed
> > > > > out the BS propaganda the "news services" were putting out.
>
> > > > > If what you claim to be "said" is really "said"
> > > > > (Which in itself is a stupid statement...it is said,
> > > > > Why is it said, "you're a buffoon"?)
> > > > > in such a lame and ill-defined
> > > > > context as you provide, it's a stupid and ignorant statement.
>
> > > > > Why do people make stupid ignorant statements?
> > > > > I guess you'll have to answer that one yourself.
>
> > > > Like I said, it's an easy question with an easy answer, comfirmed by
> > > > others here.
>
> > > Keep trying Vladimer.
>
> > What's a Vladimer?
>
> �You really have to be spoon fed.
>
> > Do you mean Vladimir? Or Wladimir? Are you trying
> > to call me a commie pinko, gramps? ROTFLMAO.
>
> > > > And yet here you are, totally discombobulated, hurling
> > > > insults at me, doing anything you can to avoid answering the question.
>
> > > I'm not obliged to answer ignorant questions based on your ignorant
> > > presumptions. You may foolishly think so but that speaks more of you
> > > than me.
>
> > You're the only one here who seems to think my answer is ignorant,
>
> Uh...it was your "question" that was ignorant. �

Sorry...you're right. My mistake, Vladimer.

Given the like-minded
> shallow minds you rely on for support, what did you expect?

I don't rely on any minds except my own. That's how I'm different from
you, Mr. Right Wing Blog Addict.

> RAO was never a cross-section of anything so your claims that a sample
> of a few like-minded shallow thinkers is meaningful are silly.

That's a meaningless statement. First, back up the statement about the
cross-section. That would require statistical data. I'll wait.

> But it's all you've got so you keep playing it.

All I have? I asked a simple question, and I'm still waiting for an
answer. What other way is there to play it?

>
>
>
>
>
> > and
> > yet you're the one who doesn't know the answer. That's kind of like
> > when idiots say, "That's stupid" when they mean "I don't understand."
>
> > > > If there was anyone here didn't think you were full of **** before,
> > > > they do now. Congrats.
>
> > > LoL. More of the same usenet declarations I've come to expect from
> > > you.
> > > They come with the same certificate of authenticity as your
> > > short-lived screenwriter career.
>
> > Wow, you're going to make it personal again. That's what you always do
> > when you're backed against the wall. Not the mark of an intelligent
> > person, I'm afraid.
>
> LoL. �Only thing proven here is you're just trolling for another
> fight.

No, by making it personal you're proven that Jim Sanders was right
about you...you have no class.

I just asked for an answer to a simple question. You're the one who is
letting things escalate by substituting personal insults for an
answer.

> It's what you do on usenet.
> Geo may have time for your senseless tirades, I just can't endure that
> much boring bs.

I asked one question, and you can't "endure" it. What a crybaby.

vinyl anachronist

August 16th 09, 08:42 PM

On Aug 16, 12:05�pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 16, 11:32�am, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 16, 11:20 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > You're the only one here who seems to think my answer is ignorant,
>
> > > Uh...it was your "question" that was ignorant.
>
> > Sorry...you're right. My mistake, Vladimer.
>
> �So much for any original thinking from you.

That makes absolutely no sense. Admitting a mistake constitutes
unoriginal thinking for you? No wonder you can't admit it when you're
wrong (which is often). You think lying and obfuscation is original.
Got it.

>
>
>
> > �Given the like-minded
>
> > > shallow minds you rely on for support, what did you expect?
>
> > I don't rely on any minds except my own.
>
> �LoL. Too bad. �You're missing a world of great minds
> out there.

No, I'm not. Obviously you don't understand the word "rely." Got it.
>
> > �That's how I'm different from
> > you, Mr. Right Wing Blog Addict.
>
> �Information and knowledge comes from many sources.
> �You just choose to be blind to much of it.

Just because I don't accept your biased sources doesn't mean I'm blind
to the opinions of others. That's another black-and-white statement
from you. My job is to parse information and knowledge from relevant
sources. I do it on a professional level. And as an editor, I would
reject most of what you say on a professional level because it does
not come from reliable sources. You, as a non-professional, are not
qualified to dispute this.

>
>
>
> > > RAO was never a cross-section of anything so your claims that a sample
> > > of a few like-minded shallow thinkers is meaningful are silly.
>
> > That's a meaningless statement.
>
> Perhaps to you.

BZZZZ. Wrong answer. That's an obvious obfuscation. The onus was on
you to prove the meaning in your statement. You chose to run away
instead. Got it.

>
> > First, back up the statement about the
> > cross-section. That would require statistical data. I'll wait.
>
> �You need proof of the obvious. That must be a very tedious life
> of waiting for proof.

Actually, it would become a tedious life if I waited for you to prove
anything. That's the more accurate statement.
>
>
>
> > > But it's all you've got so you keep playing it.
>
> > All I have? I asked a simple question,
>
> No, you asked a foolish question based on false premises.

No, there were no false premises. You continue to invent rubbish
because you simply cannot answer the question without exposing your
bull****. What you fail to understand is that your bull**** is exposed
on a daily basis. I cannot understand how a sane person would remain
here every day and get discredited and outsmarted at every turn like
you do.

>
> > and I'm still waiting for an
> > answer. What other way is there to play it?
>
> �Apparently none for you. But that is your problem.

I feel like I'm talking to a small child here. You need to grow up.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > and
> > > > yet you're the one who doesn't know the answer. That's kind of like
> > > > when idiots say, "That's stupid" when they mean "I don't understand.."
>
> > > > > > If there was anyone here didn't think you were full of **** before,
> > > > > > they do now. Congrats.
>
> > > > > LoL. More of the same usenet declarations I've come to expect from
> > > > > you.
> > > > > They come with the same certificate of authenticity as your
> > > > > short-lived screenwriter career.
>
> > > > Wow, you're going to make it personal again. That's what you always do
> > > > when you're backed against the wall. Not the mark of an intelligent
> > > > person, I'm afraid.
>
> > > LoL. Only thing proven here is you're just trolling for another
> > > fight.
>
> > No, by making it personal you're proven that Jim Sanders was right
> > about you...you have no class.
>
> �Are you planning to freak out like Sanders too?
> �He also demanded "like-mindedness".

Freak out? He didn't freak out. He was so disgusted by your behavior
that he left. He called you a backstabber. After your comment about my
"short-lived screenwriter career," I would have to agree.

Do you have any friends in the real world anymore? Is that why you
prefer to hang out with a group who ridicules you...because you have
nowhere left to go?
>
>
>
> > I just asked for an answer to a simple question.
>
> �Still wrong.

No. It's just that you have plenty to lose by coming up with an honest
answer. I, and everyone else here, is having fun watching you wiggle
out of this.

>
> > �You're the one who is
> > letting things escalate by substituting personal insults for an
> > answer.
>
> �Lack of self awareness noted.

Actually, I gave you a wide berth for years even though I kept
receiving emails from several people who asked me, "Is Scott really
like this in person? He has to be putting on an act." And I usually
defended you. It was only after you decided to attack my credibility
as an equipment reviewer that you received the big "**** you."

Jim Sanders told me, "Stay away from that guy. He's not your friend.
He'll stab you in the back the first chance he gets."

Boy, that Jim Sanders is a very smart guy.

vinyl anachronist

August 16th 09, 08:49 PM

On Aug 16, 12:46�pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 16, 12:42�pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 12:05 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 16, 11:32 am, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 16, 11:20 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > You're the only one here who seems to think my answer is ignorant,
>
> > > > > Uh...it was your "question" that was ignorant.
>
> > > > Sorry...you're right. My mistake, Vladimer.
>
> > > So much for any original thinking from you.
>
> > That makes absolutely no sense.
>
> �I was referencing your Vladimer comment. Sigh.

Yes, I know. I was commenting on your inability to express yourself
clearly. Sigh.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 16th 09, 08:55 PM

It doesn't get any dumber than this.

> > > > Sorry...you're right. My mistake, Vladimer.
> >
> > > So much for any original thinking from you.
> >
> > That makes absolutely no sense.
>
> I was referencing your Vladimer comment. Sigh.

Scottie Witlessmongrel is real. Nobody could make this stuff up.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 17th 09, 12:36 AM

On Aug 16, 2:55*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> It doesn't get any dumber than this.
>
> > > > > Sorry...you're right. My mistake, Vladimer.
>
> > > > So much for any original thinking from you.
>
> > > That makes absolutely no sense.
>
> > *I was referencing your Vladimer comment. Sigh.
>
> Scottie Witlessmongrel is real. Nobody could make this stuff up.

But is he serious? That's the part I find hard to believe.

vinyl anachronist

August 17th 09, 12:55 AM

On Aug 16, 4:36�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2:55�pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
> > It doesn't get any dumber than this.
>
> > > > > > Sorry...you're right. My mistake, Vladimer.
>
> > > > > So much for any original thinking from you.
>
> > > > That makes absolutely no sense.
>
> > > �I was referencing your Vladimer comment. Sigh.
>
> > Scottie Witlessmongrel is real. Nobody could make this stuff up.
>
> But is he serious? That's the part I find hard to believe.

He's a serious asshole.

For instance, I was trying to have an audio discussion with Bratzi. I
was encouraging and polite to him. Scott stormed in and started
challenging everything I said. He turned out to be wrong. Did he
apologize for trying to trash a legitimate audio discussion? No. Is he
a dumb, hypocritical asshole since he accused me last week of not
engaging in audio discussions? Yes.

Then he pulled a CISG trick and tried to say something about a
screenwriting project I did a few years ago. He called my career
"short-lived." All Scott knows is that three years ago I was hired to
work on a screenplay, I completed the job and I got paid. He doesn't
know what's going on with the screenplay and what I've done since.
Like CISG, he takes one small fact and turns it into an extended
fantasy involving the failures of anyone other than himself. Has he
apologized for his lies? No. Is he a lying asshole? You betcha.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 17th 09, 02:01 AM

Shhhh! said:

> > It doesn't get any dumber than this.
> >
> > > > > > Sorry...you're right. My mistake, Vladimer.
> >
> > > > > So much for any original thinking from you.
> >
> > > > That makes absolutely no sense.
> >
> > > *I was referencing your Vladimer comment. Sigh.
> >
> > Scottie Witlessmongrel is real. Nobody could make this stuff up.
>
> But is he serious? That's the part I find hard to believe.

I know what you mean. Even after all these years of seeing the same kind of
meltdown, it's hard to believe anybody could be so completely devoid of
self-awareness.

GeoSynch

August 17th 09, 03:39 AM

ScottW2 wrote:

> They come with the same certificate of authenticity as your short-lived
> screenwriter career.

But "at least" the BaBoon did manage to successfully buy a gigantasaurous dress
on eBay.

GeoSynch

August 17th 09, 03:50 AM

Buffoon reaches deep into his bag of debating tricks:

> No, by making it personal you're [sic] proven that Jim Sanders was right about
> you...you have no class.

Being told you have "no class" by a bottom-feeding ambulance chaser could be
construed as one heckuva compliment.

GeoSynch

August 17th 09, 04:02 AM

Buffoon reaches ever deeper into the bag of debating tricks:

> You, as a non-professional, are not qualified to dispute this.

The self-appointed petty little tyrant of rao stamps his feet, throws a hissy
fit and threatens to hold his breath.

> I cannot understand how a sane person would remain here every day and get
> discredited and outsmarted at every turn like you do.

You sound like a broken record. It's like deja vu all over again. How many
different people have you tried that lame idiotic tactic on?

> It was only after you decided to attack my credibility

What credibility? I think you're hallucinating again. ROTFLMAO!

> Boy, that Jim Sanders is a very smart guy.

Did he advise you to skip town and hide out in the great northwest?

GeoSynch

August 17th 09, 04:08 AM

Buffoon burbled:

> Then he pulled a CISG trick and tried to say something about a screenwriting
> project I did a few years ago.

So, are you futilely going to try and get him fired from his job, too?

I wouldn't put it past a no-credibility rat fink snitch hypocrite idiot loser
like you.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 17th 09, 05:19 AM

On Aug 16, 9:39*pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
> ScottW2 wrote:
> > They come with the same certificate of authenticity as your short-lived
> > screenwriter career.
>
> But "at least" the BaBoon did manage to successfully buy a gigantasaurous dress
> on eBay.

OK, so we have Sugar, Clyde and (sometimes) Bratzi taking 2pid
seriously.

Any other takers? LoL.

Clyde Slick

August 17th 09, 06:01 AM

On 16 aug., 14:20, ScottW2 > wrote:

>
> LoL. *Only thing proven here is you're just trolling for another
> fight.
> It's what you do on usenet.

LOL x2!!!!

Clyde Slick

August 17th 09, 06:03 AM

On 16 aug., 15:42, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:

>
> Jim Sanders told me, "Stay away from that guy. He's not your friend.
> He'll stab you in the back the first chance he gets."
>
> Boy, that Jim Sanders is a very smart guy.

I sure do miss mooching off of him!

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 17th 09, 06:08 AM

Clyde Slick said:

> > Boy, that Jim Sanders is a very smart guy.
>
> I sure do miss mooching off of him!

Didn't he kick you to the curb because you embrace the politics of hatred?

vinyl anachronist

August 17th 09, 06:37 AM

On Aug 16, 10:03�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 16 aug., 15:42, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jim Sanders told me, "Stay away from that guy. He's not your friend.
> > He'll stab you in the back the first chance he gets."
>
> > Boy, that Jim Sanders is a very smart guy.
>
> I sure do miss mooching off of him!

Sarcasm aside, he was a very generous person. So was Scott. Too bad
online politics got in the way of real-world friendships.

vinyl anachronist

August 17th 09, 06:40 AM

On Aug 16, 9:19�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 9:39�pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
>
> > ScottW2 wrote:
> > > They come with the same certificate of authenticity as your short-lived
> > > screenwriter career.
>
> > But "at least" the BaBoon did manage to successfully buy a gigantasaurous dress
> > on eBay.
>
> OK, so we have Sugar, Clyde and (sometimes) Bratzi taking 2pid
> seriously.
>
> Any other takers? LoL.

One more person and we can have a basketball game.

Clyde Slick

August 17th 09, 09:34 AM

On 17 aug., 01:37, vinyl anachronist >
wrote:
> On Aug 16, 10:03 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 16 aug., 15:42, vinyl anachronist >
> > wrote:
>
> > > Jim Sanders told me, "Stay away from that guy. He's not your friend.
> > > He'll stab you in the back the first chance he gets."
>
> > > Boy, that Jim Sanders is a very smart guy.
>
> > I sure do miss mooching off of him!
>
> Sarcasm aside, he was a very generous person. So was Scott. Too bad
> online politics got in the way of real-world friendships.

i haven't ended my friendship with Scott, adn as far as Sanders, he
ended it with me,
politics was more important to him. He could only have friends who
agreed with him.

George M. Middius[_4_]

August 17th 09, 09:51 AM

Sacky the Dim burbled:

> as far as Sanders, he
> ended it with me,
> politics was more important to him. He could only have friends who
> agreed with him.

Is that really how you see it? You really don't understand how odious the
republicans are?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 17th 09, 03:39 PM

On Aug 17, 3:51*am, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Sacky the Dim burbled:
>
> > as far as Sanders, he
> > ended it with me,
> > politics was more important to him. He could only have friends who
> > agreed with him.
>
> Is that really how you see it? You really don't understand how odious the
> republicans are?

Believe it or not there are those who fail to see how the evangelicals
have taken over the republican party. These same people also fail to
see how their support of the GOP also means they are supporting the
agenda of the evangelicals.

These people tend to live in the past, back in the days where the
republicans stood for fiscally-conservative policy and were generally
moderate in other areas. The coffin was opened in the 1970s, sped
along by Reagan and filled, closed and buried by bushie.

The headstone reads, "Here lies the GOP. If you're reading this and
you consider yourself a republican you is a imbecile. Quit standing on
the real republicans.". LoL.

MiNe 109

August 17th 09, 04:53 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Sacky the Dim burbled:
>
> > as far as Sanders, he
> > ended it with me,
> > politics was more important to him. He could only have friends who
> > agreed with him.
>
> Is that really how you see it? You really don't understand how odious the
> republicans are?

Considering Sackie attacks me personally because he disagrees with my
politics, I question his take on the situation.

Stephen

Clyde Slick

August 17th 09, 05:11 PM

On 17 aug., 10:39, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 3:51*am, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
> > Sacky the Dim burbled:
>
> > > as far as Sanders, he
> > > ended it with me,
> > > politics was more important to him. He could only have friends who
> > > agreed with him.
>
> > Is that really how you see it? You really don't understand how odious the
> > republicans are?
>
> Believe it or not there are those who fail to see how the evangelicals
> have taken over the republican party.

If they had taken it over, they would have nominated Huckabee

Clyde Slick

August 17th 09, 05:12 PM

On 17 aug., 11:53, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> *George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Sacky the Dim burbled:
>
> > > as far as Sanders, he
> > > ended it with me,
> > > politics was more important to him. He could only have friends who
> > > agreed with him.
>
> > Is that really how you see it? You really don't understand how odious the
> > republicans are?
>
> Considering Sackie attacks me personally because he disagrees with my
> politics, I question his take on the situation.
>

I attack your politics and your closed mind.
You probably are a very decent person.

vinyl anachronist

August 17th 09, 05:34 PM

On Aug 17, 1:34�am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 17 aug., 01:37, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 16, 10:03 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 16 aug., 15:42, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Jim Sanders told me, "Stay away from that guy. He's not your friend..
> > > > He'll stab you in the back the first chance he gets."
>
> > > > Boy, that Jim Sanders is a very smart guy.
>
> > > I sure do miss mooching off of him!
>
> > Sarcasm aside, he was a very generous person. So was Scott. Too bad
> > online politics got in the way of real-world friendships.
>
> i haven't ended my friendship with Scott, adn as far as Sanders, he
> ended it with me,
> politics was more important to him. He could only have friends who
> agreed with him.

Jim and I had plenty of political discussions, and we did not see eye
to eye. And yet I still consider him a good friend. There's more to it
than that.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 17th 09, 06:14 PM

On Aug 17, 11:11*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 17 aug., 10:39, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 3:51*am, George M. Middius >
> > wrote:
>
> > > Sacky the Dim burbled:
>
> > > > as far as Sanders, he
> > > > ended it with me,
> > > > politics was more important to him. He could only have friends who
> > > > agreed with him.
>
> > > Is that really how you see it? You really don't understand how odious the
> > > republicans are?
>
> > Believe it or not there are those who fail to see how the evangelicals
> > have taken over the republican party.
>
> If they had taken it over, they would have nominated Huckabee

Look at the platform, Clyde. Not the candidate.

Look at the actions, Clyde. Would you say that bushie did any
pandering to the evangelicals in social/moral areas? How about with
"faith-based initiatives"?

Does any of this ring any bells? Has the mammoth amount of pivo you've
ingested permanently addled your brain? LoL.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 17th 09, 06:15 PM

On Aug 17, 11:12*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 17 aug., 11:53, MiNe 109 * > wrote:

> > Considering Sackie attacks me personally because he disagrees with my
> > politics, I question his take on the situation.
>
> I attack your politics and your closed mind.

LoL.

MiNe 109

August 17th 09, 07:05 PM

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Aug 17, 11:12*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > On 17 aug., 11:53, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > Considering Sackie attacks me personally because he disagrees with my
> > > politics, I question his take on the situation.
> >
> > I attack your politics and your closed mind.
>
> LoL.

He's right that I'm close-minded about stuff like torture, the Bill of
Rights, etc.

Stephen

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 17th 09, 07:40 PM

On Aug 17, 1:05*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > On Aug 17, 11:12*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > On 17 aug., 11:53, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > > Considering Sackie attacks me personally because he disagrees with my
> > > > politics, I question his take on the situation.
>
> > > I attack your politics and your closed mind.
>
> > LoL.
>
> He's right that I'm close-minded about stuff like torture, the Bill of
> Rights, etc.

But I can laugh at Clyde for keeping an open mind about them.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

August 17th 09, 07:41 PM

On Aug 17, 1:14*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 16, 4:55*pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 4:36 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Aug 16, 2:55 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > It doesn't get any dumber than this.
>
> > > > > > > > Sorry...you're right. My mistake, Vladimer.
>
> > > > > > > So much for any original thinking from you.
>
> > > > > > That makes absolutely no sense.
>
> > > > > I was referencing your Vladimer comment. Sigh.
>
> > > > Scottie Witlessmongrel is real. Nobody could make this stuff up.
>
> > > But is he serious? That's the part I find hard to believe.
>
> > He's a serious asshole.
>
> > For instance, I was trying to have an audio discussion with Bratzi. I
> > was encouraging and polite to him. Scott stormed in and started
> > challenging everything I said. He turned out to be wrong.
>
> I asked two questions with no insults and you started making your
> usual BS
> childish claims.

BZZZZZT.

> Your full of debating trade BS...again.

LoL.

Your armchair has no integrity.

vinyl anachronist

August 17th 09, 07:54 PM

On Aug 17, 11:14�am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 16, 4:55�pm, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 4:36 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Aug 16, 2:55 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > It doesn't get any dumber than this.
>
> > > > > > > > Sorry...you're right. My mistake, Vladimer.
>
> > > > > > > So much for any original thinking from you.
>
> > > > > > That makes absolutely no sense.
>
> > > > > I was referencing your Vladimer comment. Sigh.
>
> > > > Scottie Witlessmongrel is real. Nobody could make this stuff up.
>
> > > But is he serious? That's the part I find hard to believe.
>
> > He's a serious asshole.
>
> > For instance, I was trying to have an audio discussion with Bratzi. I
> > was encouraging and polite to him. Scott stormed in and started
> > challenging everything I said. He turned out to be wrong.
>
> I asked two questions with no insults and you started making your
> usual BS
> childish claims.

No, you challenged what I said as if I was lying about it.
>
> Your full of debating trade BS...again.

Sure. You're a babe in the woods.

vinyl anachronist

August 17th 09, 11:28 PM

On Aug 17, 3:19�pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 17, 11:54�am, vinyl anachronist >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 11:14 am, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 16, 4:55 pm, vinyl anachronist >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 16, 4:36 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 16, 2:55 pm, George M. Middius >
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > It doesn't get any dumber than this.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Sorry...you're right. My mistake, Vladimer.
>
> > > > > > > > > So much for any original thinking from you.
>
> > > > > > > > That makes absolutely no sense.
>
> > > > > > > I was referencing your Vladimer comment. Sigh.
>
> > > > > > Scottie Witlessmongrel is real. Nobody could make this stuff up..
>
> > > > > But is he serious? That's the part I find hard to believe.
>
> > > > He's a serious asshole.
>
> > > > For instance, I was trying to have an audio discussion with Bratzi. I
> > > > was encouraging and polite to him. Scott stormed in and started
> > > > challenging everything I said. He turned out to be wrong.
>
> > > I asked two questions with no insults and you started making your
> > > usual BS
> > > childish claims.
>
> > No, you challenged what I said as if I was lying about it.
>
> Here's the exchange.
>
> Me: Why would someone damage a newly cut lacquer by playing it?
>
> You: It was a demonstration.
>
> Me: So what were they trying to demonstrate beyond that a modest
> Shure
> cart can sound "ear-opening" on a decent master/pressing?
>
> You: They demonstrated the entire LP mastering process. It's
> funny...when
> you're good to people and develop friendships, you get invited to a
> lot of cool events. When you don't, you spend all your time reading
> right-wing blogs until you hate the world and everything in it.
>
> If I think you're lying, I'll tell you. � I was more interested in the
> comment that a Shure cart can sound "ear-opening".

Since you turned out to be such a lying douchebag, you can consider
yourself unwelcome in any of my audio discussions.