If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

Mark Thomas wrote:

cunt wrote:

Remick wrote:

cunt wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: 1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

I believe he meant the politicians themselves in this part.

But I would say the Iraq war is a good example, everyone disregarded the facts.

Yes, I also believe he's attempting to get away from the original point because he realises how full of shit he is. The broader point that "politicians lie" is much more defensible.

You're missing my point - I'm not saying Fox News doesn't skew conservative, they do. I'm saying that, according to research, almost all of the other mainstream news organizations skew liberal.

cunt wrote:

Im also not convinced by the "corporate media" argument (someone else here argued this point), corporations aren't inherently conservative and in fact many of them (GE, Facebook, Apple) lean decidedly to the left (and they have reasons for doing so).

lmao

Dick Strawkins wrote:Opelia:

It gets crazier every day. You would think it couldn’t, but it does.

You know, Ophelia, in your case we would think it could.
http://www.freezepage.com/1370428535KOUZBJDCCY

Altair wrote:

Ericb wrote: If you are a woman and you feel save and loved you are part of the problem. Shut up and listen.

Something like that, yes. Apparently women are divided into two groups, the one who have been raped and the ones who haven't been raped .... yet

It's very telling how they immediately go into hyperbole mode and use rape as an analogy in order to cause an emotional impact and preemptively paint other people as rape apologists. It's so obvious I don't know how some people out there don't see it's a strategy.

Remick wrote:

cunt wrote:

Im also not convinced by the "corporate media" argument (someone else here argued this point), corporations aren't inherently conservative and in fact many of them (GE, Facebook, Apple) lean decidedly to the left (and they have reasons for doing so).

lmao

Agree, is this a joke? You clearly don't understand what is meant by 'corporate media'. Apple leans left? On what planet? They use sweatshop labor and tax havens to avoid paying taxes on 60-70% of their profits, just because leftists like and use their products doesn't mean Apple itself is leftist. Popular in Hollywood != left leaning.

Mark Thomas wrote:

cunt wrote:

Remick wrote:

cunt wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: 1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

I believe he meant the politicians themselves in this part.

But I would say the Iraq war is a good example, everyone disregarded the facts.

Yes, I also believe he's attempting to get away from the original point because he realises how full of shit he is. The broader point that "politicians lie" is much more defensible.

You're missing my point - I'm not saying Fox News doesn't skew conservative, they do. I'm saying that, according to research, almost all of the other mainstream news organizations skew liberal.

If you want an example of a left-leaning news organization ignoring facts to report a story damaging to conservatives, here's one: Dan Rather in 2004 and the fake document scandal.

cunt wrote:

Remick wrote:

cunt wrote:

Im also not convinced by the "corporate media" argument (someone else here argued this point), corporations aren't inherently conservative and in fact many of them (GE, Facebook, Apple) lean decidedly to the left (and they have reasons for doing so).

lmao

Agree, is this a joke? You clearly don't understand what is meant by 'corporate media'. Apple leans left? On what planet? They use sweatshop labor and tax havens to avoid paying taxes on 60-70% of their profits, just because leftists like and use their products doesn't mean Apple itself is leftist. Popular in Hollywood != left leaning.

General Electric is a leftist organisation now, and how dare you suggest that someone has gamed the ref!

cunt wrote:
Yes, and how do they skew conservative? By totally ignoring the facts!

Mark Thomas wrote:

cunt wrote:
Yes, and how do they skew conservative? By totally ignoring the facts!

The no true Scotsman fallacy in all it's glory :)

Gefan wrote:

cunt wrote:

Remick wrote:

cunt wrote:

Im also not convinced by the "corporate media" argument (someone else here argued this point), corporations aren't inherently conservative and in fact many of them (GE, Facebook, Apple) lean decidedly to the left (and they have reasons for doing so).

lmao

Agree, is this a joke? You clearly don't understand what is meant by 'corporate media'. Apple leans left? On what planet? They use sweatshop labor and tax havens to avoid paying taxes on 60-70% of their profits, just because leftists like and use their products doesn't mean Apple itself is leftist. Popular in Hollywood != left leaning.

General Electric is a leftist organisation now, and how dare you suggest that someone has gamed the ref!

Hey, I can quote media studies too! This is fun!

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/cr

You know, the funny thing is, after all this, according to the Baboon narrative we're still all Glen Beck fans.

Angry_Drunk wrote:

Ophelia 'Outrage-Addict' Benson wrote: So Nugent will respond, and no doubt he will “make a stand” and agree with Sub Man that my blog post about “Skep tickle” is like the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935. Either he will disinvite me from the conference, or I will be forced to withdraw, because the slime pit will do whatever it takes to hound me out.

Emphasis mine.

She's already setting up her flounce strategy. Even if Nugent doesn't tell her to bugger off she'll skip the conference and claim that we "forced" her to do so.

cunt wrote:To be honest Subman. I also thought your comparison to the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935 was ever so slightly... well no, actually it was fucking ridiculous.

So Nugent will respond, and no doubt he will “make a stand” and agree with Sub Man that my blog post about “Skep tickle” is like the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935. Either he will disinvite me from the conference, or I will be forced to withdraw, because the slime pit will do whatever it takes to hound me out.

"I’m going to be cautiously optimistic, maybe naively so, and say that I think Nugent will take your side. I spoke to him about his “structured dialogue” project the other day, and he said that he agrees with the FtB side on all the substantive points. Maybe he has some disagreements about strategy and tone, but I wouldn’t expect him to disinvite you just for that."

Mark Thomas wrote:[quote="Remick"
Just saying 'research' doesn't absolve you from providing it. Link? I have a feeling that I've already explained why this 'research' is faulty without reading it, but I will still read it and see if I am mistaken.

cunt wrote:To be honest Subman. I also thought your comparison to the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935 was ever so slightly... well no, actually it was fucking ridiculous.

Submariner wrote:

cunt wrote:To be honest Subman. I also thought your comparison to the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935 was ever so slightly... well no, actually it was fucking ridiculous.

Thanks cunt, I appreciate that you resisted the urge to water down your opinion out of a sense of tribalism. Good on ya.

Remick wrote:

cunt wrote:

Im also not convinced by the "corporate media" argument (someone else here argued this point), corporations aren't inherently conservative and in fact many of them (GE, Facebook, Apple) lean decidedly to the left (and they have reasons for doing so).

lmao

Agree, is this a joke? You clearly don't understand what is meant by 'corporate media'. Apple leans left? On what planet? They use sweatshop labor and tax havens to avoid paying taxes on 60-70% of their profits, just because leftists like and use their products doesn't mean Apple itself is leftist. Popular in Hollywood != left leaning.

Mark Thomas wrote:

cunt wrote:

Remick wrote:

cunt wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: 1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

I believe he meant the politicians themselves in this part.

But I would say the Iraq war is a good example, everyone disregarded the facts.

Yes, I also believe he's attempting to get away from the original point because he realises how full of shit he is. The broader point that "politicians lie" is much more defensible.

You're missing my point - I'm not saying Fox News doesn't skew conservative, they do. I'm saying that, according to research, almost all of the other mainstream news organizations skew liberal.

If you want an example of a left-leaning news organization ignoring facts to report a story damaging to conservatives, here's one: Dan Rather in 2004 and the fake document scandal.

As a growing number of independent document examiners and competing news outlets reported their findings about the documents, CBS News stopped defending the documents and began to report on the problems with their story. On September 20 they reported that their source, Bill Burkett, "admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."[99][100] While the network did not state that the memos were forgeries, CBS News President Andrew Heyward said,

"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[13][14]

Dan Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now — I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."[13]

In an interview with Dan Rather, Burkett admitted that he misled CBS about the source of the documents, and then claimed that the documents came to him from "Lucy Ramirez", whom CBS was unable to contact or identify as an actual person. Burkett said he then made copies at the local Kinko's and burned the original documents.[36][101]

On September 21, CBS News addressed the contact with the Kerry campaign in its statement: "It is obviously against CBS News standards and those of every other reputable news organization to be associated with any political agenda."[76] The next day the network announced it was forming an independent review panel to perform an internal investigation

Mark Thomas wrote:

Remick wrote:

cunt wrote:

Im also not convinced by the "corporate media" argument (someone else here argued this point), corporations aren't inherently conservative and in fact many of them (GE, Facebook, Apple) lean decidedly to the left (and they have reasons for doing so).

lmao

Agree, is this a joke? You clearly don't understand what is meant by 'corporate media'. Apple leans left? On what planet? They use sweatshop labor and tax havens to avoid paying taxes on 60-70% of their profits, just because leftists like and use their products doesn't mean Apple itself is leftist. Popular in Hollywood != left leaning.

Apple Computer employee campaign contributions 1999-present
http://www.campaignmoney.com/apple_computer.asp
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans $228,640 (16% of total)
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats $938,623 (68% of total)

Actually I was wrong about GE, they are more balanced:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/general_electric.asp
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans $2,359,236 (20% of total)
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats $1,933,300 (17% of total)

And while I'm at it, here is the NYT. Significantly less money, but relatively more skewed to the left.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/new_york_times.asp
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Republicans $9,700 (15% of total)
Total Contribution Dollar Amount to Democrats $51,521 (81% of total)

I should probably have included Google as an example:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162- ... heir-cash/

The point remains - corporations aren't inherently conservative.

cunt wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: 1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Remick wrote:

cunt wrote:

Im also not convinced by the "corporate media" argument (someone else here argued this point), corporations aren't inherently conservative and in fact many of them (GE, Facebook, Apple) lean decidedly to the left (and they have reasons for doing so).

lmao

Agree, is this a joke? You clearly don't understand what is meant by 'corporate media'. Apple leans left? On what planet? They use sweatshop labor and tax havens to avoid paying taxes on 60-70% of their profits, just because leftists like and use their products doesn't mean Apple itself is leftist. Popular in Hollywood != left leaning.

welch wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote:

cunt wrote:

Remick wrote:

cunt wrote:

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

I believe he meant the politicians themselves in this part.

But I would say the Iraq war is a good example, everyone disregarded the facts.

Yes, I also believe he's attempting to get away from the original point because he realises how full of shit he is. The broader point that "politicians lie" is much more defensible.

You're missing my point - I'm not saying Fox News doesn't skew conservative, they do. I'm saying that, according to research, almost all of the other mainstream news organizations skew liberal.

If you want an example of a left-leaning news organization ignoring facts to report a story damaging to conservatives, here's one: Dan Rather in 2004 and the fake document scandal.

you mean the one that lead to multiple firings and clear admissions of error on the part of CBS and staff? The story that was aired on 8 september 2004, and the first apology/repudiation came on 20 September? Like this?

As a growing number of independent document examiners and competing news outlets reported their findings about the documents, CBS News stopped defending the documents and began to report on the problems with their story. On September 20 they reported that their source, Bill Burkett, "admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."[99][100] While the network did not state that the memos were forgeries, CBS News President Andrew Heyward said,

"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[13][14]

Dan Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now — I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."[13]

In an interview with Dan Rather, Burkett admitted that he misled CBS about the source of the documents, and then claimed that the documents came to him from "Lucy Ramirez", whom CBS was unable to contact or identify as an actual person. Burkett said he then made copies at the local Kinko's and burned the original documents.[36][101]

On September 21, CBS News addressed the contact with the Kerry campaign in its statement: "It is obviously against CBS News standards and those of every other reputable news organization to be associated with any political agenda."[76] The next day the network announced it was forming an independent review panel to perform an internal investigation

It's funny how when you read up on the entire thing, it's not quite what you make it out to be. Funny that.

Git wrote:

cunt wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: 1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

cunt wrote:

Git wrote:

cunt wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: 1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

I didn't ask for names, dickhead. I asked for examples of a left-wing news organisation that distorted and ignored the facts on the issue to suit their ideology. So, go on, there's been a lot of false shit in the left wing media about Nuclear, GMO, Immigration and Islam.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Oh, I would like to thank Sacha for the very valuable infos she gave me about managing a young, almost untrained dog.

Cheers!

Eskarina wrote:
I would have to take your word for it, since I'm not really familiar with the lot of 'em. Actually, most of the time I still can't really believe that such a bunch of whining, entitled cissies shares the planet with me.

Mark Thomas wrote:

Remick wrote: Just saying 'research' doesn't absolve you from providing it. Link? I have a feeling that I've already explained why this 'research' is faulty without reading it, but I will still read it and see if I am mistaken.

http://www.timgroseclose.com/

I was born on that day in Tulsa. To this day, I consider Goldwater one of my political heroes. Four others are Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Four other heroes, in addition to being successful politicians, are true scholars: Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, and Dick Cheney.

For instance, I favor lower taxes, less government regulation in the economy, a stronger military, and fewer restrictions on guns. I believe that “Roe vs. Wade” was unconstitutional—namely, it violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves abortion-law decisions for the states.

Although it is based only on casual observation, I believe that if you conducted a systematic study, you’d find that my views are to the right of Bill O’Reilly’s, while left of Sean Hannity’s.

But on another level my views and background do matter. As I will explain, the topics that journalists choose depend partly upon their political views and the views of the people who surround them. So let me admit, I don’t think I would have written a book about media bias if I weren’t conservative or if my parents hadn’t instilled Central Time Zone values in me.

Is this book biased? On one level, it matters not a whit where I was born or what my political views are. The methods that I use to measure media bias are completely objective—indeed, a computer executes them.

cunt wrote:

Git wrote:

cunt wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: 1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

I didn't ask for names, dickhead. I asked for examples of a left-wing news organisation that distorted and ignored the facts on the issue to suit their ideology. So, go on, there's been a lot of false shit in the left wing media about Nuclear, GMO, Immigration and Islam.

Outwest wrote:

Altair wrote:

Ericb wrote: If you are a woman and you feel save and loved you are part of the problem. Shut up and listen.

Something like that, yes. Apparently women are divided into two groups, the one who have been raped and the ones who haven't been raped .... yet

It's very telling how they immediately go into hyperbole mode and use rape as an analogy in order to cause an emotional impact and preemptively paint other people as rape apologists. It's so obvious I don't know how some people out there don't see it's a strategy.

We need to come up with a term for that. It seems the Rad's always immediately jump to "rape" like some people make comparisons to Hitler or Nazi's. Maybe "Wastoning"

Git wrote:

cunt wrote:

Git wrote:

cunt wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: 1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

I didn't ask for names, dickhead. I asked for examples of a left-wing news organisation that distorted and ignored the facts on the issue to suit their ideology. So, go on, there's been a lot of false shit in the left wing media about Nuclear, GMO, Immigration and Islam.

BBC, C4, MSNBC. There's three for starters. Just as bad as Fox is.

Remick wrote:

welch wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote:

cunt wrote:

Remick wrote:
I believe he meant the politicians themselves in this part.

But I would say the Iraq war is a good example, everyone disregarded the facts.

Yes, I also believe he's attempting to get away from the original point because he realises how full of shit he is. The broader point that "politicians lie" is much more defensible.

You're missing my point - I'm not saying Fox News doesn't skew conservative, they do. I'm saying that, according to research, almost all of the other mainstream news organizations skew liberal.

If you want an example of a left-leaning news organization ignoring facts to report a story damaging to conservatives, here's one: Dan Rather in 2004 and the fake document scandal.

you mean the one that lead to multiple firings and clear admissions of error on the part of CBS and staff? The story that was aired on 8 september 2004, and the first apology/repudiation came on 20 September? Like this?

As a growing number of independent document examiners and competing news outlets reported their findings about the documents, CBS News stopped defending the documents and began to report on the problems with their story. On September 20 they reported that their source, Bill Burkett, "admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."[99][100] While the network did not state that the memos were forgeries, CBS News President Andrew Heyward said,

"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[13][14]

Dan Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now — I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."[13]

In an interview with Dan Rather, Burkett admitted that he misled CBS about the source of the documents, and then claimed that the documents came to him from "Lucy Ramirez", whom CBS was unable to contact or identify as an actual person. Burkett said he then made copies at the local Kinko's and burned the original documents.[36][101]

On September 21, CBS News addressed the contact with the Kerry campaign in its statement: "It is obviously against CBS News standards and those of every other reputable news organization to be associated with any political agenda."[76] The next day the network announced it was forming an independent review panel to perform an internal investigation

It's funny how when you read up on the entire thing, it's not quite what you make it out to be. Funny that.

Reading Comprehension seems to be a weak spot for our new buddy Mark

Git wrote:

cunt wrote:

Git wrote:

cunt wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote: 1. Both sides disregard 'facts' when it suits them. That is not a uniquely conservative or liberal trait. But facts and public policy are two different things - the former does not necessarily dictate the latter.

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

I didn't ask for names, dickhead. I asked for examples of a left-wing news organisation that distorted and ignored the facts on the issue to suit their ideology. So, go on, there's been a lot of false shit in the left wing media about Nuclear, GMO, Immigration and Islam.

BBC, C4, MSNBC. There's three for starters. Just as bad as Fox is.

welch wrote:

Mark Thomas wrote:

Remick wrote: Just saying 'research' doesn't absolve you from providing it. Link? I have a feeling that I've already explained why this 'research' is faulty without reading it, but I will still read it and see if I am mistaken.

http://www.timgroseclose.com/

You're used to arguing with morons, aren't you.

From: http://www.timgroseclose.com/biography/

I was born on that day in Tulsa. To this day, I consider Goldwater one of my political heroes. Four others are Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, Bob Dole, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Four other heroes, in addition to being successful politicians, are true scholars: Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, and Dick Cheney.

and his requisite "I don't actually know what the Constitution says beyond what I find convenient for my views" bit:

For instance, I favor lower taxes, less government regulation in the economy, a stronger military, and fewer restrictions on guns. I believe that “Roe vs. Wade” was unconstitutional—namely, it violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves abortion-law decisions for the states.

Although it is based only on casual observation, I believe that if you conducted a systematic study, you’d find that my views are to the right of Bill O’Reilly’s, while left of Sean Hannity’s.

No, no, no agenda there at all. Why in fact, he states he had no ulterior motive for writing this book:

But on another level my views and background do matter. As I will explain, the topics that journalists choose depend partly upon their political views and the views of the people who surround them. So let me admit, I don’t think I would have written a book about media bias if I weren’t conservative or if my parents hadn’t instilled Central Time Zone values in me.

Oh wait, oops.

and of course, his footnote is one of the stupidest appeals to authority and Erdos ever. The erdos number thing is fucking stupid. Having a low Erdos number no more makes you smart than being within six degrees of Kevin Bacon makes you famous. Point in fact: i am actually within six degrees of Kevin Bacon. I've met Judd Nelson, who was in St. Elmo's Fire with Demi Moore who was in A Few Good Men with Kevin bacon. I also hung out with Wil Wheaton, who was in Stand By Me with Kiefer Sutherland who was in A few Good Men with Kevin Bacon.

This makes me...nothing special at all. Unless you're Paul Erdos, who gives a fuck about your Erdos number.

He also shows he knows nothing about statistics or programming, or that he thinks his readers are fucking stupid:

Is this book biased? On one level, it matters not a whit where I was born or what my political views are. The methods that I use to measure media bias are completely objective—indeed, a computer executes them.

Except for bias in data collection, data entry, data formatting, coding, output formatting and presentation, IT'S COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.

and let us not forget his personal recommendations for reading, by such famed supporters of unbiased reporting like:

Glenn Beck
Fox & Friends
Karl Rove


The fact he's not full on tea party doesn't make him even vaguely unbiased, and his blatant misrepresentation of computer data analysis shows him to be stupid or a liar.

cunt wrote:

Git wrote:

cunt wrote:

Git wrote:

cunt wrote:
Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

I didn't ask for names, dickhead. I asked for examples of a left-wing news organisation that distorted and ignored the facts on the issue to suit their ideology. So, go on, there's been a lot of false shit in the left wing media about Nuclear, GMO, Immigration and Islam.

BBC, C4, MSNBC. There's three for starters. Just as bad as Fox is.

Nope. Oh, well that fucked your argument right there.

cunt wrote:

Git wrote:

cunt wrote:

Git wrote:

cunt wrote:

Yeah, like when? Can you identify a single mainstream apparently "left wing" news outlet that has so consistently rallied, distorted and bullshitted about the scientific consensus as Fox News has with climate change? Or are you just intentionally trying to confuse news outlets with political parties?

Left-wing equivalents of climate change: Nuclear Power, GMO, Immigration, Islam.

There you go.

As someone upthread said, facts are facts. They neither lean left, right, up, down, strange or charm.

I didn't ask for names, dickhead. I asked for examples of a left-wing news organisation that distorted and ignored the facts on the issue to suit their ideology. So, go on, there's been a lot of false shit in the left wing media about Nuclear, GMO, Immigration and Islam.

BBC, C4, MSNBC. There's three for starters. Just as bad as Fox is.

Nope. Oh, well that fucked your argument right there.

welch wrote:

Is this book biased? On one level, it matters not a whit where I was born or what my political views are. The methods that I use to measure media bias are completely objective—indeed, a computer executes them.

Except for bias in data collection, data entry, data formatting, coding, output formatting and presentation, IT'S COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.

Git wrote:http://bbcwatch.org/ and http://cifwatch.com are just two websites collecting examples of how (mainly) leftist media lie their heads off time and time again.

ReneeHendricks wrote:Damn it. I stop by the 'pit during my break and it's all about politics. Or lots of wings. Birds. Or maybe BBQ with dipping sauce? Feh.

deLurch wrote:So let me get this straight. If I write an entirely scathing insult towards Ophelia and post it here in the pit, Ophelia will repeat it for me on her own blog?!?!

cunt wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Damn it. I stop by the 'pit during my break and it's all about politics. Or lots of wings. Birds. Or maybe BBQ with dipping sauce? Feh.

Fuck you.

ReneeHendricks wrote:

cunt wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Damn it. I stop by the 'pit during my break and it's all about politics. Or lots of wings. Birds. Or maybe BBQ with dipping sauce? Feh.

Fuck you.

I shall take that up for discussion with my guy. I'm sure he'll be happy to oblige :D

cunt wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:

cunt wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Damn it. I stop by the 'pit during my break and it's all about politics. Or lots of wings. Birds. Or maybe BBQ with dipping sauce? Feh.

Fuck you.

I shall take that up for discussion with my guy. I'm sure he'll be happy to oblige :D

You guys are rich, right?

Angry_Drunk wrote:

Ophelia 'Outrage-Addict' Benson wrote: So Nugent will respond, and no doubt he will “make a stand” and agree with Sub Man that my blog post about “Skep tickle” is like the Nuremberg Race Law of 1935. Either he will disinvite me from the conference, or I will be forced to withdraw, because the slime pit will do whatever it takes to hound me out.

Emphasis mine.

She's already setting up her flounce strategy. Even if Nugent doesn't tell her to bugger off she'll skip the conference and claim that we "forced" her to do so.

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Kareem wrote:
Ironically, I think this has to do with Skep being a woman. She's not hated by all of us, who just must be misogynists, so she must be an uncle tom a chill girl because otherwise Ms. Benson's problems just might be about Ms. Benson.

Look at who they have targeted:

Steff McGraw,
Abbie Smith,
Mallorie Nasrallah,
Harriet Hall,
Sarah Mayhew,
Wooly Bumblebee,
Zenbuffy,

as well as several of the regulars here at the slymepit.

And now Skep tickle.
If anything the treatment meeted out to women they oppose is far more vindictive and nasty than that faced by men.

ReneeHendricks wrote:

cunt wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:

cunt wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:Damn it. I stop by the 'pit during my break and it's all about politics. Or lots of wings. Birds. Or maybe BBQ with dipping sauce? Feh.

Fuck you.

I shall take that up for discussion with my guy. I'm sure he'll be happy to oblige :D

You guys are rich, right?

Not sure where you're going with this but I'll roll with it - no, we are not. Why do you ask?

Git wrote:http://bbcwatch.org/ and http://cifwatch.com are just two websites collecting examples of how (mainly) leftist media lie their heads off time and time again.

The posters above (like their fellow liberals) are the prime reason I refuse to call myself a liberal, despite probably having many policy positions in common with them. Here's a fucking great big hint: I'll never be as fucking sanctimonious and arrogant as they.

cunt wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:

cunt wrote:

ReneeHendricks wrote:

cunt wrote:
Fuck you.

I shall take that up for discussion with my guy. I'm sure he'll be happy to oblige :D

You guys are rich, right?

Not sure where you're going with this but I'll roll with it - no, we are not. Why do you ask?

So you can fly me over, obviously.

Git wrote:Remick has me on ignore? Good fucking riddance. He/she is the spitting image of Peezus, Watson, Marcotte and the rest of the leftist entryist rabble.