PDA

View Full Version : Since the topic has already come up...


Oerdin
08-07-2005, 20:48:17
I noticed Protein and Chris have once again gotten into it about Faux News so I thought I'd make a thread which highlights a few reasons why Faux News is crap.

The following is typical of Faux News:

FOX News vs. 'FOX Facts' - Shepard Smith Is Clueless!
By Mark Williams

The gang at FOX News really needs to get their facts straight. Shepard Smith was bitching at an American Muslim because he hasn't heard "one single solitary word" of condemnation or solidarity from a Muslim country.

Of course this is false and his guest is stunned when he hears Shepard say that. (this is where it gets good!). While Shepard Smith is bitching, a "FOX Fact" pops up and reveals the truth.
http://216.55.181.228/site_images/foxfact2.jpg

Thank God for those "FOX Facts". Now the question is how do we get the anchors at FOX News to read their own facts?

Here is another "Fox Fact" that I captured a few minutes before Shepard said that he hasn't heard "one single solitary word" of condemnation or solidarity.
http://216.55.181.228/site_images/foxfact1.jpg

http://216.55.181.228/images/image270.jpg

http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/7/8/11317/84237

Oerdin
08-07-2005, 20:48:49
So typical of Faux News. They get some air bag idiot who runs off at the mouth with lots of uninformed and completely wrong right wing opinions when it is so easy to prove they're full of horse pucky. Last I heard the average Faux News viewer still believed that Saddam was behind 9/11 and Rupert Murdock isn't in any hurry to tell them the truth.

It's so sad; the more Faux News people watch the less informed they get. :clueless:

Oerdin
08-07-2005, 20:49:51
Since we have a nice thread about jerk offs who work at Faux News I thought I'd share this little tid bit as well. "Fox-Caster" (That's Faux News speak for a show host) John Gibson displayed the typical arrogance and stupidity so familiar to anyone who's viewed Faux News.

The day before the July 7 terrorist attacks on London buses and subways, Fox News host John Gibson stated that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) "missed a golden opportunity" because, if France had been selected to host the 2012 Olympics, terrorists would "blow up Paris, and who cares?" Following the London attacks, Gibson reiterated that the IOC ought to have selected Paris instead of London, because the British should "let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while."

Not content to be a crass sack of dog shit just once Gibson decided to prance the same one trick pony out again. From the July 6 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, guest-hosted by Gibson:


GIBSON: By the way, just wanted to tell you people, we missed -- the International Olympic Committee missed a golden opportunity today. If they had picked France, if they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?

His audience of mullet wearing bible thumpers never seems to tire of French bashing so old John decided to give his one trick pony yet another shot on the air. From the "My Word" segment of the July 7 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:


GIBSON: The bombings in London: This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics -- let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507080002

Don't the red staters who watch Fox ever get tired of the anti-muslim % anti-French trash show on that network? Seriously, it's been four almost four years and they're still on the same tired formula: "Rant about evil brown people, rant about evil French people, claim it's all the Democrats fault, then don't ever mention the massive screw ups the Republicans are making". :clueless:

Venom
08-07-2005, 20:50:48
And you got that evidence from a site named dembloggers. :lol:

Chris
08-07-2005, 20:54:13
Does that site say that FOX claimed hundreds of people were being killed during the attack yesterday?

That was the bone of contention, since the real reason you posted this is just start a fight.

Oerdin
08-07-2005, 20:54:43
Yep, and if you follow the links provided you will see Fox News has video where you can see the whole thing. Just watch Faux New's own video feeds for a good laugh.

Edit: This is a X-post and is responding to Venom.

Chris
08-07-2005, 20:57:56
I just did, it doesn't say anything about hundreds of people being killed, its smith talking to that guy.

Oerdin
08-07-2005, 20:58:12
Originally posted by Chris
Does that site say that FOX claimed hundreds of people were being killed during the attack yesterday?

That was the bone of contention, since the real reason you posted this is just start a fight.

I posted it to discus the state of journalism, or lack there of, at Faux News. You and Protein have you're own discussion but since you brought up the topic of Faux News I thought I'd run with it.

Venom
08-07-2005, 21:00:41
Oh you're begging for a fight. If you used Faux News anymore in your posts you'd wear out the u and x keys on your keyboard.

Oerdin
08-07-2005, 21:01:25
Originally posted by Chris
I just did, it doesn't say anything about hundreds of people being killed, its smith talking to that guy.

Being deliberately obtuse? No, Chris would never do that.

I have no idea of what Protein did or did not see on TV nor do I really care. I've found some excellent examples of how Faux News tries to pass editorials off as news segments and I wish to highlight it. I also believe that other people will be interested in getting a good laugh at a few "Fox-Casters" making fools of themselves.

Chris
08-07-2005, 21:04:17
No, you thought you could score points with an idiot hit piece.

There is nothing there about what we were discussing, and all that site proves is Dems can't stand a TV station they can't control.

BTW, the only people I have ever heard that claim 9/11 and Iraq are linked are democrats, not FOX viewers.

Smith asks the guy a question, and the guy answers, and you act as if its a big deal.

Typical of the biased way you view things.

Oerdin
08-07-2005, 21:06:18
Originally posted by Chris

There is nothing there about what we were discussing, and all that site proves is Dems can't stand a TV station they can't control.

BTW, the only people I have ever heard that claim 9/11 and Iraq are linked are democrats, not FOX viewers.

QFT!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

fp
08-07-2005, 21:58:24
Originally posted by Venom
Oh you're begging for a fight. If you used Faux News anymore in your posts you'd wear out the u and x keys on your keyboard.

In fairness, if he called them Fox News he'd still be using the x key. It's that poor u key I feel sorry for.

protein
08-07-2005, 23:16:16
Originally posted by Chris
BTW, the only people I have ever heard that claim 9/11 and Iraq are linked are democrats, not FOX viewers.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Raijer
08-07-2005, 23:47:38
Originally posted by Chris
BTW, the only people I have ever heard that claim 9/11 and Iraq are linked are democrats, not FOX viewers.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Venom
09-07-2005, 02:08:35
Originally posted by fp
In fairness, if he called them Fox News he'd still be using the x key. It's that poor u key I feel sorry for.

:lol: All too true.

notyoueither
09-07-2005, 02:17:23
Fox does have some hilarious shit on it.

They should be regarded as a national treasure, sort of like the demented aunt of the American media familiy.

protein
09-07-2005, 02:20:30
All the other American tv media I've seen has been fairly news-like and logical in it's delivery. It's just Fox that makes me scared.

I guess if we had a Daily Mail channel it would be similar.

notyoueither
09-07-2005, 02:30:16
Of course Fox scares you. They come from the extreme opposite yours.

Sir Penguin
09-07-2005, 02:42:08
Originally posted by fp
In fairness, if he called them Fox News he'd still be using the x key. It's that poor u key I feel sorry for.
But he's an American, so it doesn't get as much use as it could anyway.

SP

jsorense
09-07-2005, 02:52:14
penguin, why don't you make like a tree and leave?

notyoueither
09-07-2005, 02:54:02
I think you have a severe problem of taxonomy there, j.

jsorense
09-07-2005, 03:09:43
:lol:@notyoueither:beer:

notyoueither
09-07-2005, 06:21:47
:beer:

Much better would be:

'penguin, why don't you make like a bunch of seagulls and flock off?'

Aristotle would approve.

Chris
09-07-2005, 14:20:48
I don't know why you keep posting laugh smiles, Democrats for years have been claiming that is what FOX news viewers think, without a shread of proof to back it up.

protein
09-07-2005, 14:27:45
"America! Fuck yeah! We're here to save the motherfucking day yeah!" - Fox TV

Chris
09-07-2005, 14:30:29
How would you know what they say, since you have never watched it?

protein
09-07-2005, 14:34:03
I was just watching it a minute ago. They were saying that the " islamic website claims are essentially al Qaeda bragging about the bombings".

On the BBC you have security experts and officials saying that the claims are highly dubious since the same group falsely claimed responsibility for the New York power cuts and the Madrid bombings.

Chris
09-07-2005, 14:37:39
Originally posted by protein
I was just watching it a minute ago. They were saying that the " islamic website claims are essentially al Qaeda bragging about the bombings". Who said it?

I have been watching sevreal news programs, the general opinion is that it was a like-minded group using the Al Qaeda brand name.

On the BBC you have security experts and officials saying that the claims are highly dubious since the same group falsely claimed responsibility for the New York power cuts and the Madrid bombings. Must be somewhat suspect as 'experts' since it was reported that this was a previously UNKNOWN group, yet your BBC expert is claiming they materilized years ago?

protein
09-07-2005, 14:39:35
I guess the thing that really bugs me is that there is the stars and stripes constantly flying in the corner, there are ridiculous computer game style sound effects on any graphic (which usually say something like "MUSLIM TERROR ATTACKS!!!!" or "WAR ON TERROR!!!!" or "LOOK OUT AMERICA!!!!") to try and make everything more exciting, every now and then there's a mini advert saying how great Fox is with flashing visuals, and excited hollywood stlye voice over and rock music in the background and every story is sexed up to make everything more American, more right wing and more emotionally involved.

protein
09-07-2005, 14:40:59
Originally posted by Chris
Must be somewhat suspect as 'experts' since it was reported that this was a previously UNKNOWN group, yet your BBC expert is claiming they materilized years ago?

Look up "Abu Hafs al-Masri brigade".

Chris
09-07-2005, 14:46:20
What you are actually saying is you are biased against it, so you take anything they say and ramp it up into something you dislike.

That is plain silly, they are a news service, not 'propaganda' as our friends on the American left claim, I don't watch it all the time, they have a tendency to cover stupid stories to death (they had almost round the clock coverage of that missing teen in Aruba, a massive bore fest as NOTHING was happening in the case.)

They are no better of worse then any other news service, in fact, if you want to talk bias, several European services were guilty of it, such as the BBC reporter sobbing when that murderous bastard Afratfat was being taken to France, or Reuthers refusal to use the word 'terrorist' in articles.

FOX makes plenty of mistakes, just like all the news services do, but most don't have rabid foaming at the mouth people trying to play gotcha against them, like you see vs FOX.

Rather amusing actually.

Chris
09-07-2005, 14:47:28
Originally posted by protein
Look up "Abu Hafs al-Masri brigade". Thay were talking about 'Al Qaeda in Europe' before, the Abu thing wasn't mentioned.

protein
09-07-2005, 14:50:14
Fox is very, very right wing biased. You know that. It's frustrating that Fox claims to be "Fair and Balanced" when it is far from it. They parade opinion as real news. They colour the truth and put their spin on everything. That is fact, the whole world knows that.

67% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization"

33% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended".

35% of FOX viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq.

A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2005 found that, in covering the Iraq War in 2004, 73% of FOX News stories included editorial opinions, compared to 29% on MSNBC and 2% on CNN. The same report found FOX less likely than CNN to present multiple points of view.

protein
09-07-2005, 14:51:21
Originally posted by Chris
Thay were talking about 'Al Qaeda in Europe' before, the Abu thing wasn't mentioned.
Perhaps you should watch Fox news if you are going to defend it.

I seriously suggest you watch CNN though. It seems to focus on news rather than right wing propaganda.

Chris
09-07-2005, 14:58:36
Originally posted by protein
Fox is very, very right wing biased. You know that. It's frustrating that Fox claims to be "Fair and Balanced" when it is far from it. They parade opinion as real news. They colour the truth and put their spin on everything. That is fact, the whole world knows that.Actually, most new services are so far left that anything that isn't sticks out like a sore thumb.

67% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization"These are just standard claims that are not based on any proof, they have been repeated since they first surfaced in 2002.

33% of FOX viewers believed that the "US has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended".The percentage should be higher, since some materails were found, but in miniscule numbers.

35% of FOX viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favour the US having gone to war" with Iraq.At the time of the invasion maybe, but I am forced to point out that the anti-war side is large and loud, but also isn't a majority, even if you think it is.

A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2005 found that, in covering the Iraq War in 2004, 73% of FOX News stories included editorial opinions, compared to 29% on MSNBC and 2% on CNN. The same report found FOX less likely than CNN to present multiple points of view. Its a left wing think tank, you expect results to be anything except what they pre-ordained from the start?

Please. :rolleyes:

Its that kind of propaganda that has gone on for years that turned most people off to the major networks and CNN some time ago.

protein
09-07-2005, 14:59:43
I never knew anything about Fox until I had nothing else to watch in Thailand. I was honestly shocked at the amount of personal spin they put on their stories. It seemed like instead of a news studio they were an excited war room waiting for imminent muslim attack.

It was only when I got back that I discovered that lots of Americans had also noticed how ridiculous Fox is.

Chris
09-07-2005, 15:03:51
Originally posted by protein
Perhaps you should watch Fox news if you are going to defend it.

I seriously suggest you watch CNN though. It seems to focus on news rather than right wing propaganda. I watch CNN and the BBC as much as FOX, I don't base my opinion on one channel, its one of the reasons why I laugh at the contstant attacks on FOX from the left, it galls them that there is a news service that isn't a heart on its sleave 100% dyed in the wool liberal news service like all the rest were before the mid 90s.

And before you spout more left wing think tanks and such, bear it mind it was the BBC that was sanctioned for lying and making up stories (remember Andrew Gilligan?) not FOX or any other US service.

And I wouldn't be to enamored with CNN, Eason Jordan admitted he was in the tank for Saddam for a dozen years to keep his CNN baghdad office open, as well as his more recent claim (which he has since withdrawn) that US armed forces were 'targeting' journalists in Iraq.

Try being fair sometimes Protein, I don't view the entire left as wrong, maybe its time you stopped look on anything on the right as wrong.

Chris
09-07-2005, 15:06:43
Originally posted by protein
I never knew anything about Fox until I had nothing else to watch in Thailand. I was honestly shocked at the amount of personal spin they put on their stories. It seemed like instead of a news studio they were an excited war room waiting for imminent muslim attack.What time period, and what time of day were you viewing?

Are you aware that FOX spends a large portion of its air time doing editorial opinion propgrams, NOT straight news?


It was only when I got back that I discovered that lots of Americans had also noticed how ridiculous Fox is. "Rediculous' depends on the political stripe of who you ask.

If you are on the left, as Oredin is, to him, its rediculous.

If you are open to all ponts of view, its no different then most news services.

protein
09-07-2005, 15:11:18
Originally posted by Chris
Are you aware that FOX spends a large portion of its air time doing editorial opinion propgrams, NOT straight news?

BINGO!

I'm glad you've finally caught on. You hawks are hard work.

Chris
09-07-2005, 15:16:08
Originally posted by protein
BINGO!

I'm glad you've finally caught on. You hawks are hard work. I knew this from the start, wasn't a matter of catching on.

I can tell you what time of day you will catch straight news as opposed to opinion.

I also know some FOX hosts HATE Europeans, such as Gibson who Oredin mentioned, he even wrote a book on why he thinks the way he does.

protein
09-07-2005, 15:34:55
Originally posted by Chris
I also know some FOX hosts HATE Europeans, such as Gibson who Oredin mentioned, he even wrote a book on why he thinks the way he does.
and yet you continue to defend a station that presents biased hate-ridden right wing neo-nazi *ahem * neo-conservative views as actual facts?

fp
09-07-2005, 15:35:09
Gibson sounds like a moron. Hating an entire continent doesn't make any sense.

fp
09-07-2005, 15:36:54
Originally posted by protein
and yet you continue to defend a station that presents biased hate-ridden right wing neo-nazi *ahem * neo-conservative views as actual facts?

Thank goodness you've come at this issue with an open mind, otherwise you'd really be making yourself look silly.

Chris
09-07-2005, 18:51:01
Originally posted by protein
and yet you continue to defend a station that presents biased hate-ridden right wing neo-nazi *ahem * neo-conservative views as actual facts? As fp pointed out, all this kind of post does is make you look like a fool. You are basically labeling anything that is at varience with your beliefs 'hate ridden' when in fact, I have you seen more hate ridden and narrow minded things come from your posting here then you will ever see on FOX or any other news service.

There is no such thing as neoconservatism, the phrase was invented by Bill Crystal as a joke, but the foam at the mouthers spout it like a mantra, and yes, I know there are endless web sites and a number of books that claim there is such a movement.

BTW, what was more Nazi like, your support of leaving Saddam and his gulag of 25 million prisoners intact or the allied attempt to give them a future?

If your honest, you would admit your side is looking a lot more nazi-like, but I don't expect you to admit it, I expect the opposite, deflections and nonsense while you insanely claim those people were better off because you didn't have to hear about them living in a Saddam hell while Saddam kept things off the news.

Chris
09-07-2005, 18:54:19
Originally posted by fp
Gibson sounds like a moron. Hating an entire continent doesn't make any sense. His opinions are based off of things European news and officals have said about the USA, which he sites case by case in his book.

I don't support his postion, but I do understand it, just as I understand how some people will take something he says and place it in a vacum so as to try and prove their postion, the American left does this all the time, its nothing new.

Koshko
09-07-2005, 19:02:48
First, I declare that anyone that uses the words 'hitler' or 'nazi' automatically loses their credibility and thus loses that arguement. We throw those words around like it's nothing now. I saw a great Daily Show piece on the overuse of the word. If I find it, I'll link it.

Also, if you are looking for a good watchable relatively unbiased news station, you are living in the wrong country. That really does not exist in the USA and probably not anywhere in the World. Media is inherently baised. Even the stations that appear to be the most even are biased in some way.

Spartak
09-07-2005, 19:09:33
BBC.

Koshko
09-07-2005, 20:47:31
They are much better than the American stations, but they have thier own biases and agendas they push too.

Oerdin
09-07-2005, 21:08:11
Originally posted by Chris
What you are actually saying is you are biased against it,

Chris, normally I enjoy laughing at your jingoistic politics but this is getting ridiculous. In the past you were very proud to say that Fox had the highest journalistic standards and that they kept editorial content separate from news content.

Let's ignore the fact that most professional journalism organizations completely disagreed with you (We all know your standard drivel about how everyone who disagrees with you are evil leftists) and instead deal with the issue at hand. There have been numerous examples over the last 2 years or so where Fox News most certainly tried to pass editorial content (read unsupported opinion) off as general news stories. Real journalists call that at a minimum unethical and deceptive while other people have just called it what it is... propaganda.

I understand that you enjoy the propaganda but please be honest enough to admit that there are very valid reasons, based upon traditional journalism standards, why people can find Fox News one sided and nonobjective. This has nothing to do with their personal biases and has everything to do with the content of Fox News failing to reach commonly practiced levels of journalism.

I realize getting you to admit the obvious when it goes against your world view almost never happens but Iím hoping youíll grow up and maybe try to be honest with yourself even if you canít admit it to us. If not then maybe you can again tell us how Democrats are the ones trying to link 9/11 to Saddam. I can always use another good laugh.

Oerdin
09-07-2005, 21:42:49
Originally posted by Chris

If you are on the left, as Oredin is, to him, its rediculous.

If you are open to all ponts of view, its no different then most news services.

That's just plain ignorant. Every where I go I get accussed of being a rightist except with you. I tend to be an issues voter while everything I've seen from you from CFC to FFZ to here shows me that you are a right wing ideologue who avoids thinking about the issues when ever possible.

I know lots of people who feel the same way though the truth is you hardly ever come up except when you post some especially bone headed comment (like Democrats are the ones trying to link Saddam to 9/11) and then people get together to point and laugh at you. If it makes you feel better to have feelings of persecution (the media are left wingers who are out to get the Republicans or everyone who uses facts to prove you're wrong are left wingers) then please continue to do so.

Realize that makes you look like a silly little person though.

Diss
09-07-2005, 22:00:03
bitching about Fox News is so 2004. Get with the times man.

fp
09-07-2005, 22:06:29
Next they'll start arguing about whether or not Gore had the election stolen from him or not.

Chris
09-07-2005, 22:30:33
Originally posted by Oerdin
Chris, normally I enjoy laughing at your jingoistic politics but this is getting ridiculous. In the past you were very proud to say that Fox had the highest journalistic standards and that they kept editorial content separate from news content.You just want somebody to acknoledge your wacky attempts to get attention, but its ok. The guys here are are mostly Europeans liberals, they don't see the goofiness that is the American left, so I don't hold it against them.

What is rediculous is your constant parrotting of every moonbat website in creation, such as your latest, Karl Rove nonsense, or last month's 'DS Memo' or before that your craziness about Tom DeLay, its just after the other with you.

Let's ignore the fact that most professional journalism organizations completely disagreed with you (We all know your standard drivel about how everyone who disagrees with you are evil leftists) and instead deal with the issue at hand. There have been numerous examples over the last 2 years or so where Fox News most certainly tried to pass editorial content (read unsupported opinion) off as general news stories. Real journalists call that at a minimum unethical and deceptive while other people have just called it what it is... propaganda.This is the perfect example of what I always talk about, the 'we all know' comment once it becomes clear all you have is left leaning hit pieces, the mosty respected journalism is the London Times and the WS Journel, neither attack FOX news, as you waste endless amounts of words attempting to do.

I understand that you enjoy the propaganda but please be honest enough to admit that there are very valid reasons, based upon traditional journalism standards, why people can find Fox News one sided and nonobjective. This has nothing to do with their personal biases and has everything to do with the content of Fox News failing to reach commonly practiced levels of journalism.There is no such thing to admit, FOX simple refuses to play the left wing pander game, which is why you waste my time with this.



I realize getting you to admit the obvious when it goes against your world view almost never happens but Iím hoping youíll grow up and maybe try to be honest with yourself even if you canít admit it to us. If not then maybe you can again tell us how Democrats are the ones trying to link 9/11 to Saddam. I can always use another good laugh. The one that needs to grow up is you son, you see, I'm not the one that tries to start arguments and flame wars, YOU do that. I don't go to other web sites and start ripping on you, YOU do that to me.
Both are incredibly immature, but hey, I figure when you get a little older maybe you will stop playing the fool, but who knows? At this point, its highly unlikely.

As for laughs, nothing fuinnier then you trotting out the "Xamount of FOX viewers believe" line, when we both know that number was pulled out of some hit piece, as a way to try and prove the left are somehow superior then those FOX watching hicks. And it is ALWAYS Democrats that use that line, 'Fox viewers believe' which is as laughable as that circus clown that runs your party, 'Dr Dean.'

Chris
09-07-2005, 22:35:16
Originally posted by Oerdin
That's just plain ignorant. Every where I go I get accussed of being a rightist except with you. I tend to be an issues voter while everything I've seen from you from CFC to FFZ to here shows me that you are a right wing ideologue who avoids thinking about the issues when ever possible.What is rediculous is you trying to claim anyone calls you right wing, even more laughable is saying I'm staright right wing, you are either dumber then you appear or just plain trolling.

I know lots of people who feel the same way though the truth is you hardly ever come up except when you post some especially bone headed comment (like Democrats are the ones trying to link Saddam to 9/11)Its typical that you make something up, and keep trying to push it, what I said was DEMOCRATS ARE THE ONES THAT CLAIM FOX viewers see a 9/11 conection to Saddam.

and then people get together to point and laugh at you. You would be surprised at the laughs you generate, but I don't expect you to believe it.

If it makes you feel better to have feelings of persecution (the media are left wingers who are out to get the Republicans or everyone who uses facts to prove you're wrong are left wingers) then please continue to do so.It amazes me that you waste so much time trying to 'prove' the GoP is wrong and you are right, and each time, time after time, you get shot to pieces.

It is mildy amusing to watch though, but really son, grow up.

Realize that makes you look like a silly little person though. Look who's talking!:lol:

Cruddy
09-07-2005, 22:36:53
Chris, could you please explain why, in the wide stream of political reporting, there's this lone figure of Fox on the right bank pushing out propaganda the way Albert Speer made tanks?

Why is to so way off track and out of line? ;)

Chris
09-07-2005, 22:40:00
Never said that Cruddy, what I said was FOX isn't in the left side of things.

That doesn't make it wrong or right, buyt before you get into it, let me tell you that Oredin has been attempting to start fights with me for years, this is just his latest attempt.

Cruddy
09-07-2005, 22:46:24
Nah, look at it my (and other's way) for 10 seconds...

... every other news service in the world is at such a distance from Fox. Why?

Is Fox right or wrong? Or COULD they at least be wrong.

Chris
09-07-2005, 22:52:34
Not every other newservice is different.

I once proved that here, by pasting the headlinnes and stories from FOX, CNN and the BBC, they werevall virtually identical.

Where FOX differs is it will say 'terrorist' when Reuters refues for political correctness.
It will correct mistakes it makes, such as Carl Camreron making a fool of himself during the Kerry campaign ON AIR, and the next day, whereas CBS refused to do so with its faked TANG memos.

These may seem subtle, but you can actually catch little things that you don't realize in things, such as the BBC's habit of saying 'occupied territories' in Israel Palestine (they should be saying DISPUTED, as it was Arafat's Fatah movement that created the phrase 'occupied' which sets a certain tone in reporting.

Oerdin
09-07-2005, 23:01:42
Oh, Bullocks. It just isn't worth it. Yes, Chris... Everyone who disagrees with your sad little view point are left wingers who right left wing hit pieces. :rolleyes: They've done objective analysis based purely upon what Fox broadcasts yet you still have to stick your fingers in your ears and cry that everyone is out to get you. Did it ever cross your closed little mind that maybe, just maybe, people are basing their objections upon facts?

I find it funny that you claim I go to other web sites to complain about you when you are the one who blocks other people from reading FFZ. I don't blame you though because if I said half of the asinine shit you have over the years then I'd try to hide it as well.

BTW I know you have a hard time reading and responding to what people wrote but I didn't say I was right wing. I said people accuse me of being right wing. I'm sure even you can understand the distinction though I expect you to continue to play the obtuse clown and misrepresent what was written.
I know you are of the opinion that if you just keep repeating the same tired old lies until the other person gets bored and goes away then you won. So hey, why not go back to your sorry little shit hole to declare victory because I'm confident that most people here agree with me and I don't feel like wasting more effort on you. You've proven time and again that you are a crack pot who can't admit when he's wrong. Why not tell me about Saddam's WMDs again or maybe how Iraqis would welcome foreigners as liberators? Oh, wait... you likely don't want talk about your embarrassingly wrong past garbage. Please continue telling me about how Democrats and not Bush are trying to link 9/11 and Saddam because I do love that so. While your at it can you please again tell me about how all the media but Fox is left wing and how there is no objective reason to disagree with Fox's tactics. :lol:

Cruddy
09-07-2005, 23:03:08
Originally posted by Chris
Where FOX differs is it will say 'terrorist' when Reuters refues for political correctness...


Nonsense. They do use the word terrorist.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newssearchresults.aspx?srch=terrorist&qtype=a

They just use it ACCURATELY.

Diss
09-07-2005, 23:04:22
the important question is which network has the hottest female newswomen.

Oerdin
09-07-2005, 23:08:57
Fox does excel at that. Nothing gets the poor white trash excited like hot women.

Oerdin
10-07-2005, 00:21:09
Chris you are once again just a silly little man. Is it so hard to understand that people would believe I'm a rightist when I talk about having volunteered to go to Iraq? How about when I say invading Iraq was a good idea due to the desire to create a new swing oil producer but that I am deeply offended by Bush's lies about WMD. This is proven by numerous insider confessions and every new Downing Street Memo. People also accuse me of being a rightist when I say low taxes, provided the budget is balanced (something which big government Republicans like Bush can never understand) is better then high taxes. Then of course there is my support of capital punishment.

The truth is I am an economic traditionalist and a social progressive. That means I want balanced budgets & low taxes yet I support more money for soldiers and less for worthless duplicative weapon systems which are just corporate pork. These tend to get moderates and leftist to declare me a rightist.

Then there are the things which rightist (like you) use to declare me a leftist. I support equal rights so Republican efforts to prevent blacks from voting (please challenge me on this since I will pwn the shit out of you, again) is bad as is Republican efforts to advantage everything to the wealthy & powerful (the recent "reforms" of the bankruptcy laws come to mind as does Bush's personal efforts to help Enron at the express of rivals). I support the Dutch & British model which allows rich and poor to receive necessary medical care. For some reason rightist just hate the idea of poor people getting care for cancer.

I chalk that up to ideology. Lord do I know you are an ideologue and that you parrot other right wing ideologues at every opportunity.

notyoueither
10-07-2005, 01:40:10
Originally posted by Cruddy
Nah, look at it my (and other's way) for 10 seconds...

... every other news service in the world is at such a distance from Fox. Why?

Is Fox right or wrong? Or COULD they at least be wrong.

If I may...

There are media outlets that people in the centre see as being very left wing. People on the right have nastier names for them.

So Fox is right wing? So what? It's not a matter of right and wrong, it is a matter of viewpoint. I don't see how you can ask if they are wrong. <--- period, unless you want to catagorise people with handy labels and then be able to dismiss everything they say on the basis that they said it, not on the merits of the case made.

notyoueither
10-07-2005, 01:57:16
Originally posted by Cruddy
Nonsense. They do use the word terrorist.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newssearchresults.aspx?srch=terrorist&qtype=a

They just use it ACCURATELY.

Actually, most of their usage is in quotes or paraphrasing, or in a discussion of the meaning of the term. They quote someone saying terrorist and then revert to 'gunman' or 'bomber' in thier own words.... from the first fifteen links.

KrazyHorse@home
10-07-2005, 05:38:32
'Terrorist' is a loaded word, and makes a judgment about the strategic thought behind an action. This becomes especially hairy when you are talking about insurgent forces in Iraq. Some of them use terror as a means, others are focussing more on symbolic targets, still others are focussing on economic targets and yet others are focussing on military targets. Some do many or all of the above.

'Bomber' or 'gunman' is simply a description of fact, of the direct action taken by an individual. If he shoots a gun then he is a gunman. If he detonates a bomb then he is a bomber.

Oerdin
10-07-2005, 05:44:51
In short it is about accuracy.

notyoueither
10-07-2005, 05:52:33
Originally posted by KrazyHorse@home
'Terrorist' is a loaded word, and makes a judgment about the strategic thought behind an action. This becomes especially hairy when you are talking about insurgent forces in Iraq. Some of them use terror as a means, others are focussing more on symbolic targets, still others are focussing on economic targets and yet others are focussing on military targets. Some do many or all of the above.

'Bomber' or 'gunman' is simply a description of fact, of the direct action taken by an individual. If he shoots a gun then he is a gunman. If he detonates a bomb then he is a bomber.

Tell that to the BBC.

notyoueither
10-07-2005, 05:53:01
Originally posted by Oerdin
In short it is about accuracy.

:lol:

KrazyHorse@home
10-07-2005, 05:59:32
Originally posted by notyoueither
Tell that to the BBC.

I doubt they'd listen to me.

notyoueither
10-07-2005, 06:07:20
I suppose they would not. I suppose they would decline to be herded like Reuters has been.

Koshko
10-07-2005, 06:34:48
Well many people seem to confuse Insurgent with Terrorist.

fp
10-07-2005, 08:59:49
Originally posted by Chris
What is rediculous is you trying to claim anyone calls you right wing

Actually I've seen him be called right wing a number of times, especially on 'poly. Being an American, and an Iraq war vet, is more than enough regardless of what he actually says.

Don't forget (but how could you? :D) that in the eyes of most of us loony lefty Euros even the most left-leaning American is firmly on the right wing.

Provost Harrison
10-07-2005, 10:10:32
Originally posted by Chris
"Rediculous' depends on the political stripe of who you ask.

Before you attempt to correct protein on his spelling, actually check the spelling yourself. He is right, it is "ridiculous"...

Provost Harrison
10-07-2005, 10:19:46
Chris, I am not going to wade into this somewhat anal argument but this comment made me laugh so much I farted at the same time...

the mosty respected journalism is the London Times

Have you actually ever had to endure the right-wing filth that is The Times? Blame it all on those cursed asylum seekers coming in and stealing our jobs and money :rolleyes:

To be unbiased you need to analyse a range of news sources, not just the likes of Fox or The Times where, to be blunt, you aren't going to.

And all you seem to do is accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being 'loony lefties'. You almost advocate the anti-European stance that your preferred source of news perpetuates. Think outside the box Chris, don't let the establishment continue it's brainwash on you!

Chris
10-07-2005, 10:31:49
Originally posted by Oerdin
Oh, Bullocks. It just isn't worth it. Your crazy attempts are never worth it, yet you try again and agin.

Yes, Chris... Everyone who disagrees with your sad little view point are left wingers who right left wing hit pieces. Even in these discusions, we see you foaming at the mouth, attempting to get an emotional response by posting such drivel.
Dude seriously, get help, or stalk someone else. you are getting tiresome.

They've done objective analysis based purely upon what Fox broadcasts yet you still have to stick your fingers in your ears and cry that everyone is out to get you. Did it ever cross your closed little mind that maybe, just maybe, people are basing their objections upon facts? The littl;e mind belongs to you dear heart, you use bias to attempt to prove your own bias, and try to be insulting when its laughed at.

Rather amusing actually.

I find it funny that you claim I go to other web sites to complain about you when you are the one who blocks other people from reading FFZ. I don't blame you though because if I said half of the asinine shit you have over the years then I'd try to hide it as well. Dude, you are like Fatal Attraction, why on Earth are you obcessed with me, of all people?

BTW I know you have a hard time reading and responding to what people wrote but I didn't say I was right wing. I said people accuse me of being right wing. I'm sure even you can understand the distinction though I expect you to continue to play the obtuse clown and misrepresent what was written.Another childish attempt to spark a fight, have you noticed yet, after years, that I'm not interested?

I know you are of the opinion that if you just keep repeating the same tired old lies until the other person gets bored and goes away then you won. So hey, why not go back to your sorry little shit hole to declare victory because I'm confident that most people here agree with me and I don't feel like wasting more effort on you. You've proven time and again that you are a crack pot who can't admit when he's wrong. Why not tell me about Saddam's WMDs again or maybe how Iraqis would welcome foreigners as liberators?You seem to have a LOT of emotional problems dude, seriously again, seek help.

Oh, wait... you likely don't want talk about your embarrassingly wrong past garbage. Please continue telling me about how Democrats and not Bush are trying to link 9/11 and Saddam because I do love that so. While your at it can you please again tell me about how all the media but Fox is left wing and how there is no objective reason to disagree with Fox's tactics. You rreally are a strange dude, but you may grow up someday.

Chris
10-07-2005, 10:40:25
Originally posted by Oerdin
Chris you are once again just a silly little man.[Again dude, grow up.

Is it so hard to understand that people would believe I'm a rightist when I talk about having volunteered to go to Iraq? How about when I say invading Iraq was a good idea due to the desire to create a new swing oil producer but that I am deeply offended by Bush's lies about WMD. This is proven by numerous insider confessions and every new Downing Street Memo. People also accuse me of being a rightist when I say low taxes, provided the budget is balanced (something which big government Republicans like Bush can never understand) is better then high taxes. Then of course there is my support of capital punishment.Its obvious they don't know you well.

The truth is I am an economic traditionalist and a social progressive. That means I want balanced budgets & low taxes yet I support more money for soldiers and less for worthless duplicative weapon systems which are just corporate pork. These tend to get moderates and leftist to declare me a rightist.Yet you spend most of your time parroting loony leftey sites, now why is that?

Then there are the things which rightist (like you) use to declare me a leftist. I support equal rights so Republican efforts to prevent blacks from voting (please challenge me on this since I will pwn the shit out of you, again) HA HA HA HA

You haven't 'pwn' anything, you silly person.
This is exactly what I was referring to before, a baseless acusation, go ahead and try to back up that rediculous claim, I would be happy to dig up teh numerous voter fraud convictions of teh DEMS this last election cycle.


is bad as is Republican efforts to advantage everything to the wealthy & powerful (the recent "reforms" of the bankruptcy laws come to mind as does Bush's personal efforts to help Enron at the express of rivals). I support the Dutch & British model which allows rich and poor to receive necessary medical care. For some reason rightist just hate the idea of poor people getting care for cancer.Not to busy posting a manifesto, are you?

I chalk that up to ideology. Lord do I know you are an ideologue and that you parrot other right wing ideologues at every opportunity. You know absolute zero about my opinions, just because you say this or that changes nothing, but once again, really, get help or find another person to stalk.

I simply find you laughable.

And I also know how CG is, and the political stripe of my friends here, you see this as easy support for your lunacy, and it is to a certain extent.

You are never going to get the argument you are so desperate for.

Chris
10-07-2005, 10:42:03
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Before you attempt to correct protein on his spelling, actually check the spelling yourself. He is right, it is "ridiculous"... Richard, I would never attempt to correct anyone's spelling, why would you assume that?

I am notorious for being a rotten speller.

Chris
10-07-2005, 10:51:10
Originally posted by Provost Harrison

To be unbiased you need to analyse a range of news sources, not just the likes of Fox or The Times where, to be blunt, you aren't going to.You see Richard, I always state I both read a wide range of news servives, and here you are attempting to pigeon hole, I didn't pick those two papers because they are right wing, they were teh top two on the most recent survey by the industry as being the most accurate.

And all you seem to do is accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being 'loony lefties'.That would be so, if I accused everyone of that, I disagree with lots of people, few however like to post wacky left wing web sites to 'prove' their cases, two here like it, Oerdin and HK.

You almost advocate the anti-European stance that your preferred source of news perpetuates.Not anti-European, that is one of things I have been trying to show you, but it becomes nearly impossible, as I have to keep sifting through the dis-information posted.
On any particular news service you will see some comentator showing bias, right or left, I am simply saying FOX is no better or worse, and I keep being hit with this barrage of 'we all have group think, so we are right.'

Consider this:

FOX is still the largest growing news outlet in teh world, it owns the cable news rating in the USA, there has to be a reason for that, and it isn't that we are all biased right wingers trying to keep the brothers down while insulting Europe.

I expect such simplicity from Oerdin, and he never disapoints, I expect more from you and other people.

Think outside the box Chris, don't let the establishment continue it's brainwash on you! That is the message I have been trying to convey to you Richard, its lost on Oerdin.

DON'T believe things simply because the BBC, or FOX or any other news says its so, investigate.

Chris
10-07-2005, 10:59:55
One last post to prove a point, this is an actual news story, not an opinion piece, Democrats CONVICTED (not accused) of voter fraud:

Defendants guilty of vote fraud
By Michael Shaw
Of the Post-Dispatch
06/28/2005

Charles Powell Jr., the head of the city's Democratic Party, leaves the courthouse Wednesday, after he and four other defendants in the vote fraud trail were convicted in East St. Louis.
(Huy Richard Mach/P-D)



UPDATE:

All five defendants in the vote fraud trial in East St. Louis were convicted by a jury today after five and a half hours of deliberations.

The defendants showed little response when the verdicts were displayed on an overhead projector in federal court. Defendant Sheila Thomas dabbed her eyes, but the other four stared straight ahead.

Charles Powell Jr., the head of the city's Democratic Party, three precinct committeemen and an election worker had been accused of buying votes to get prominent Democrats elected in the Nov. 2 election. Advertisement


Also convicted were Democratic precinct committee members Thomas, 31, and Jesse Lewis, 56, and City Hall worker Yvette Johnson, 46. Kelvin Ellis, the city's former director of regulatory affairs, along with Thomas, Lewis and Johnson also were convicted of one count apiece of election fraud for allegedly paying at least one person to vote -- or offering to do so. Powell was never charged with that count.

Jurors set aside defense claims that the government's case was flimsy because of unreliable witnesses whose testimony often contradicted each other and, at times, was recanted.

"I respect the jury, but I am disappointed," Ellis' attorney, John O'Gara, said after the verdicts.

O'Gara said the defense attorneys would consider asking for a new trial.

"I would say jurors looked at these tapes and listened to them, and I'm guessing they are using the interpretations these very faulty witnesses gave them to reach their conclusion," O'Gara added. "I would not have trusted the government's presentation."

Ron Tenpas, the U.S. attorney for southern Illinois, applauded the jury's conclusion that "we put together a well-founded case."

"We're not in the business of having ourselves validated," Tenpas said. "We think what the verdict represents is that -- in the judgment of 12 impartial citizens -- when all the evidence is put together we made a strong case."

A date for sentencing was not immediately set.

The Associated Press contributed information for this story.

For later developments, check back with STLtoday.com or read Thursday's Post-Dispatch.

------------

Our earlier story:

"You cannot hide from the tapes."

That was the message Tuesday from the prosecutor in the East St. Louis vote fraud trial, who spent about an hour of his closing argument replaying recordings of five East St. Louisans who were secretly taped before, during and after Election Day last November.

The jury will begin deliberating today in the monthlong trial, which culminated with an entire day of arguments from the prosecutor and five defense attorneys on Tuesday.

Charles Powell Jr., the head of the city's Democratic Party, three precinct committeemen and an election worker are accused in federal court in East St. Louis of buying votes to get prominent Democrats elected in the Nov. 2 election.

The money, about $79,000 according to prosecutors, came from the St. Clair County Democratic Committee and Mark Kern, who won as County Board Chairman in November.

In the recordings, Powell and others discuss election budgets calculated at $5 multiplied by the number of people expected to vote. Prosecutors argued that those per-capita budgets and the discussions surrounding them are evidence of vote fraud.

Defense attorneys largely steered clear of the recordings and spent the bulk of the day on the same course they've taken throughout the trial: attacking the prosecution's three main witnesses over their sometimes-contradictory testimony and strange claims.

But occasionally, they also attempted to cast doubt on what their clients may have meant when they were secretly recorded.

Defense attorney Paul Sims, who represents precinct committeeman Sheila Thomas, said it was a "leap of faith" to see the recordings as proof positive that the five had paid people for voting.

"In order to convict these people, that's exactly what you're going to have to do - assume," Sims told the jury. "The only reason my client is here is that she said, 'We paid everybody.' Again, we have to assume 'everybody' means voters."

Thomas made the statement while being recorded by former East St. Louis Deputy Police Chief Rudy McIntosh, who recorded the others on trial as well.

Precinct committeeman Jesse Lewis told McIntosh that he paid a "few people." Lewis' attorney, Susan Gentle, said her client went on to explain who he paid later in the recording: election judges, poll watchers and other legitimate workers during the election.

Bruce Cook, who represents the party leader, Powell, pointed to what he considered discrepancies between the recordings and the transcripts. That included one place where Powell reportedly said, "They know you gonna pay everybody who come vote." He argued that Powell really said, "They know you don't pay everybody who come vote."

"This wasn't fair," he said of the government's transcripts. "Charlie does not say that you should pay people to vote. They tried so hard to catch Charlie saying 'pay people $10 a vote.'"

But Assistant U.S. Attorney Mike Carr argued that many of the statements can't be explained away.

He noted that Yvette Johnson says on tape, "There's a tall guy that voted early, you need to give him 10," according to the government's transcript of an Election Day recording.

He pointed to an instance where Kelvin Ellis, the city's former director of Regulatory Affairs and a prominent Democrat, tells an election worker to give voters a fake name, so that they will be "confused" if they're ever questioned about what happened on Nov. 2.

That worker turned out to be Dannita Youngblood, a confidential witness who became a focus at trial based on puzzling things she said. Carr claimed the attacks on Youngblood and McIntosh's credibility and other theories by the defense were a "smoke screen."

"This wasn't Republican electioneering," Carr said of the FBI investigation into vote fraud, as some defense attorneys have argued throughout the trial.

"This was business as usual in East St. Louis."

Reporter Michael Shaw
E-mail: mshaw@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 618-235-3988

Now watch Oerdin post an opinion piece or an accusation to back his absurd claim that the GoP and are blocking poor black folk from voting. :rolleyes:

Provost Harrison
10-07-2005, 11:05:09
I also think anyone is making a mistake to think the Democrats are any less dodgy than the Republicans either and I don't understand why they are held in such a high regard. Look at their vote record for issues such as the patriot act and Bush's welfare reforms...

Chris
10-07-2005, 11:23:34
Patriot act needs a lot of revisions, it should never have been passed the way it stood, with so many un-needed clauses (sneak and peak comes to mind).

protein
10-07-2005, 12:49:31
Originally posted by KrazyHorse@home
'Terrorist' is a loaded word, and makes a judgment about the strategic thought behind an action. This becomes especially hairy when you are talking about insurgent forces in Iraq. Some of them use terror as a means, others are focussing more on symbolic targets, still others are focussing on economic targets and yet others are focussing on military targets. Some do many or all of the above.

'Bomber' or 'gunman' is simply a description of fact, of the direct action taken by an individual. If he shoots a gun then he is a gunman. If he detonates a bomb then he is a bomber.

Yup. The BBC use quotes as a way of showing they are reporting what someone has reported to them, not reporting it as fact. For example:

Six Afghans beheaded 'by Taleban'
Tube bombs 'almost simultaneous'
Burns mask photo woman 'stable'
'Pyramid power' probes universe

Which makes sense to me since the news is all about reporting what you've been told from various sources and trying to piece together the truth without getting emotionally involved or jumping to conclusions.

Talking of emotionally involved...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161867,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161221,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155413,00.html

Debaser
10-07-2005, 13:00:31
Originally posted by Chris
Does that site say that FOX claimed hundreds of people were being killed during the attack yesterday?

They did, but so did lots of other people (Sky news did too in the UK). There was some confusion after an early statement said something like there were 100+ casualtys, meaning injured people, but some stations took it to mean fatalities. It was cleared up fairly quickly though.

fp
10-07-2005, 13:01:24
I don't see anything wrong with those FOX articles...

The second one in particular is just a list of facts. No emotional involvement there. Sure the poll was probably set up to produce the result that the producers wanted. All opinion polls are like that, though.

And why shouldn't illegal immigration be seen as a serious problem? Note the word "illegal" in there.

Kitsuki
10-07-2005, 13:42:11
Originally posted by protein

On the BBC you have security experts and officials saying that the claims are highly dubious since the same group falsely claimed responsibility for the New York power cuts and the Madrid bombings.

The same BBC that gives disproportionate coverage to the Liberal Democrats over the other 2 major political parties (which are in fact both much more popular and have far more representation)...?

Chris
10-07-2005, 13:54:38
Originally posted by Debaser
They did, but so did lots of other people (Sky news did too in the UK). There was some confusion after an early statement said something like there were 100+ casualtys, meaning injured people, but some stations took it to mean fatalities. It was cleared up fairly quickly though. In that case, I concede that point, but in my defense, I didn't hear that.

Guynemer
10-07-2005, 17:56:24
So sorry, was looking for Poly... actually, seems like most of you folks are too. If I may humbly suggest http://apolyton.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=147?

Dyl Ulenspiegel
10-07-2005, 18:07:48
And now, for something completely different: a dutch architect with a banana in his ear!

BigGameHunter
10-07-2005, 18:15:28
The typos alone are justification for locking certain people in this thread and burning it down.

Hey...that's a good idea...when flame wars start, you should make them wallow in that one lone thread and then beg to come out, outcome based on popular vote and humiliating apology dances.

Oerdin
10-07-2005, 19:24:49
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yeah, that's right Chris... I stalk you. I bother responding to one of your posts like once every 6 months and even that only when your diarihia of the mouth is so thick you're just begging to be proven wrong. I've slapped you down in this thread and if we took a poll virtually everyone here would agree with my position that Fox News is a highly biased news source which tries to pass off opinion as fact. You know it, I know it, and the people here mostly agree.

Now that I've gotten my point across to the people who matter I will not be wasting any more time on you until you work yourself up into another stupid tizy.

Chris
10-07-2005, 19:30:53
Originally posted by Oerdin


Yeah, that's right Chris... I stalk you. And its very odd, I wish you would stop it, or at least grow some decent hooters.

I bother responding to one of your posts like once every 6 months and even that only when your diarihia of the mouth is so thick you're just begging to be proven wrong. HA HA HA, this from the simp who tried everything he could think of to get a rise, and got nothing, you really are a gem.

I've slapped you down in this thread and if we took a poll virtually everyone here would agree with my position that Fox News is a highly biased news source which tries to pass off opinion as fact. HA HA HA, as i said, priceless.

You know it, I know it, and the people here mostly agree.Most of the folks here are European liberals, they don't give a rat's ass about FOX, not that you would understand that,.

Now that I've gotten my point across to the people who matter I will not be wasting any more time on you until you work yourself up into another stupid tizy. HA HA HA, that has so many white flags it isn't funny.

You really are amazing, never change! :lol: :lol:

RC's AE
10-07-2005, 19:37:14
To be fair it sounded more like he's going to treat you like Castro, ignored on your island, then surrender. Why not do the same? If I had to vote I'd say arguing on the internet is stupid and this thread is very unCG like.

Provost Harrison
10-07-2005, 19:37:57
Apolyton forum!

Chris
10-07-2005, 19:42:48
Originally posted by RC's AE
To be fair it sounded more like he's going to treat you like Castro, ignored on your island, then surrender. Why not do the same? If I had to vote I'd say arguing on the internet is stupid and this thread is very unCG like. Hey, you are on MY payroll, and don't forget it!