[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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?

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?

I believe these two questions go to the heart of the disconnect on RAO. At
least this week, anyway.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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]

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_]]

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]

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_]]

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]

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...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]

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!]

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...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]

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...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]

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]

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...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!]

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_]]

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]

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]

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_]]

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]

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!]

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]

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!]

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]

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...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!]

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]

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]

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]

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!]

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_]]

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]

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...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!]

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...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]

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...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]

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]

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_]]

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!]

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]

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_]]

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]

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]

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]

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?