NationStates Jolt Archive

http://spikedhumor.com/articles/67149/Keith_Olbermann_Faux_News_Revealed.html

Hm. Comments?

You're not surprised, are you?

Of course not, but it's never been so obvious before, and in such a way that we might be able to convince those who couldn't previously see it.

*bump*

Nutty.

Thats the media for ya! KRAZY!

If you havent known about this for years then i would say you must have your head in the clouds.

I'm waiting for the cloudheads to come around, then.

Fox news has fairly attractive women in short skirts reading the 'news'.

I defy anyone to explain to me what is wrong with that concept.

Granted naked news may be a better format. But I can't stomach their pro-canada bias.

You mean that the one objective, fair, and impartial TV station was lambasted by the liberal media for not being scared to report the facts honestly and without a Democratic bias? I'm sure that interviewing the director of an anti-FOX documentary doesn't illustrate any bias at all. Anyway, liberals were so ecstatic over an equally brave (albeit misguiged and incorrect) act which took place 50 years ago, when Edward R. Murrow went against the other major networks to tell a daring lie about a certain senator. They loved it then, but are frustrated when FOX does it now.

Granted naked news may be a better format. But I can't stomach their pro-canada bias.

No more naked news for YOU, buddy! :eek:

You mean that the one objective, fair, and impartial TV station was lambasted by the liberal media for not being scared to report the facts honestly and without a Democratic bias? I'm sure that interviewing the director of an anti-FOX documentary doesn't illustrate any bias at all. Anyway, liberals were so ecstatic over an equally brave (albeit misguiged and incorrect) act which took place 50 years ago, when Edward R. Murrow went against the other major networks to tell a daring lie about a certain senator. They loved it then, but are frustrated when FOX does it now.

You're such a cute little troll. =) Move along, I'm waiting for real people to come talk to me.

You're such a cute little troll. =) Move along, I'm waiting for real people to come talk to me.

I see. You don't want any actual debate, as that would challenge your firmly-ingrained views that FOX is evil and extremely conservatively biased, which it utterly and laughably false. Like many people I have encountered on these forums, you would prefer to put your hands over your ears when faced with a conflicting viewpoint (which, ironically, you even asked for). No, I'm afraid you are the troll here. You just flame-baited, but engaged in no actual argument.

Do you have a youtube version of this? Its not loading for me.

Of course not, but it's never been so obvious before, and in such a way that we might be able to convince those who couldn't previously see it.Yes it has, and it's highly unlikely that anyone who previously couldn't see it will now.

I see. You don't want any actual debate, as that would challenge your firmly-ingrained views that FOX is evil and extremely conservatively biased, which it utterly and laughably false. Like many people I have encountered on these forums, you would prefer to put your hands over your ears when faced with a conflicting viewpoint (which, ironically, you even asked for). No, I'm afraid you are the troll here. You just flame-baited, but engaged in no actual argument.

*tickle, tickle* ^^

No, I'm afraid you are the troll here. You just flame-baited, but engaged in no actual argument.

Get over it, troll. :p

Yes it has, and it's highly unlikely that anyone who previously couldn't see it will now.

I don't recall ever previously hearing about a Fox memo being leaked containing specific instructions on how to say things so that the slant comes out the way they want.

I don't recall ever previously hearing about a Fox memo being leaked containing specific instructions on how to say things so that the slant comes out the way they want.Do you honestly think anyone that's willing to take Fox News at face value will give that memo any credit?

Do you honestly think anyone that's willing to take Fox News at face value will give that memo any credit?

did it mention short skirts?

because that is the main thing.

You mean that the one objective, fair, and impartial TV station was lambasted by the liberal media for not being scared to report the facts honestly and without a Democratic bias? I'm sure that interviewing the director of an anti-FOX documentary doesn't illustrate any bias at all. Anyway, liberals were so ecstatic over an equally brave (albeit misguiged and incorrect) act which took place 50 years ago, when Edward R. Murrow went against the other major networks to tell a daring lie about a certain senator. They loved it then, but are frustrated when FOX does it now.
*laughs cruelly in your face*

*tickle, tickle* ^^

Do you realize that flaming extends to being overly obnoxious? I tried to honestly answer your question, yet I received only an annoying and facetious comment in return, even after you had specifically asked for someone to state why they disagree with your viewpoint. If you do not retract that statement and apologize or engage me in debate, your actions will not be appreciated.

Do you realize that flaming extends to being overly obnoxious? I tried to honestly answer your question, yet I received only an annoying and facetious comment in return, even after you had specifically asked for someone to state why they disagree with your viewpoint. If you do not retract that statement and apologize or engage me in debate, your actions will not be appreciated.
Oooooooh - MTAE IS IN A RAJJ! Ner-ner-ner-ner-ner!

BARNEY, BARNEY! *lets the fight commence*



And we can't really argue with anything other than "you are so very wrong". Don't blame us for that.

Do you realize that flaming extends to being overly obnoxious? Do you realize what it is that constitutes an act of flaming under the rules set down in this forum?
I tried to honestly answer your question, yet I received only an annoying and facetious comment in return, even after you had specifically asked for someone to state why they disagree with your viewpoint. MTAE, if you weren't the perfect example of my points, you might find more people willing to engage in a meaningful debate with you.
If you do not retract that statement and apologize or engage me in debate, your actions will not be appreciated.By whom? You?

Why would you make a thread and then just say anyone who brings up a counter-point is a troll. That in itself is trolling. Go away. There are bad things happening at every media outlet. I was watching the today show and it had a story about somebody who gives a lot of money to charity and just recovered from cancer and on abc nightly news the same day they were talking about him having 4 weeks to live b/c of his cancer. The standards of the media across the board are horrendus.

*laughs cruelly in your face*

Pretty much sums it up, although I myself wouldn't laugh cruelly in his face — more just amusedly.

You mean that the one objective, fair, and impartial TV station was lambasted by the liberal media for not being scared to report the facts honestly and without a Democratic bias? I'm sure that interviewing the director of an anti-FOX documentary doesn't illustrate any bias at all. Anyway, liberals were so ecstatic over an equally brave (albeit misguiged and incorrect) act which took place 50 years ago, when Edward R. Murrow went against the other major networks to tell a daring lie about a certain senator. They loved it then, but are frustrated when FOX does it now.

Did not bother watching the video? or do you enjoy avoiding the entire charge proposed by it

And we can't really argue with anything other than "you are so very wrong". Don't blame us for that.

If, as you are mentally incapable of arguing with my points, I cannot fault you for that. However, if you deliberately choose to flame-bait me and then you not only refuse to honestly debate me, but you also laugh in my face for taking the time to respond, that is pushing it too far.

Did not bother watching the video? or do you enjoy avoiding the entire charge proposed by it
*sighs* Is there really any point arguing with him?

Why would you make a thread and then just say anyone who brings up a counter-point is a troll. That in itself is trolling. Go away. There are bad things happening at every media outlet. I was watching the today show and it had a story about somebody who gives a lot of money to charity and just recovered from cancer and on abc nightly news the same day they were talking about him having 4 weeks to live b/c of his cancer. The standards of the media across the board are horrendus.

Who besides the person who got a ban for TROLLING has been called a troll?

If, as you are mentally incapable of arguing with my points, I cannot fault you for that. However, if you deliberately choose to flame-bait me and then you not only refuse to honestly debate me, but you also laugh in my face for taking the time to respond, that is pushing it too far.
*sighs*

I'm not mentally incapable, you are just wrong. FOX News is biased. It might be biased towards something you like, but it's biased.

There.

Why would you make a thread and then just say anyone who brings up a counter-point is a troll. That in itself is trolling. Go away. Please. MTAE isn't just anyone.

*sighs* Is there really any point arguing with him?

I dont have anything better to do while I download applications for the new RC2 install?

Did not bother watching the video? or do you enjoy avoiding the entire charge proposed by it

I watched the entire video and could see not valid accusation made against FOX. Do you honestly believe that the insurgents will be sad that US forces are leaving? Do you honestly believe that terrorist groups such as Hamas prefer Republicans over Democrats? Is there anything wrong about asking what the Democratic plan for Iraq is? The correct answer is categorically "no."

I dont have anything better to do while I download applications for the new RC2 install?
RealmCrafter?

Who besides the person who got a ban for TROLLING has been called a troll?

He is not trolling. He was just bringing up a counter point. If you just want to have a party where everyone agrees with you and makes your viewpoints even stronger then go somewhere else.

Do you honestly believe that terrorist groups such as Hamas prefer Republicans over Democrats?
Yes. Because it gives them easy ammunition.

FOX News is biased.

Can you cite an incident which supports your allegations? I have found none in that brief video, as I have already explained.

Can you cite an incident which supports your allegations? I have found none in that brief video, as I have already explained.Just watch Fox News. The bias is fairly obvious.

Yes. Because it gives them easy ammunition.

No, it loses them millions in aid money.

Can you cite an incident which supports your allegations? I have found none in that brief video, as I have already explained.
*sighs*

Then you're obviously not looking, are you?

" A vote for Democrats is a vote for terror " is one good example.

Just watch Fox News. The bias is fairly obvious.

Way to cite an example.

*sighs*

Then you're obviously not looking, are you?

" A vote for Democrats is a vote for terror " is one good example.

Where did you hear that? The o'reilly factor? That isn't a news show. It is an editorial show. Its opinion.

Please. MTAE isn't just anyone.

An idea is completely independent of the person by whom it is conveyed; you can only debate what someone writes or says, not that person themselves. You can only argue against one's theories. As such, it would not matter if I had posted that or if Bill Clinton had; your answer should be the same.

No, it loses them millions in aid money.
A bit of both, and if I was a terrorist group, I'd want an easy way to get noticed. Bush is looking for any bunch of baddies to prove he's right with his "they hate freedom" stuff.

He is not trolling. He was just bringing up a counter point. If you just want to have a party where everyone agrees with you and makes your viewpoints even stronger then go somewhere else.

He did not counter a single thing proposed by the original video.

" A vote for Democrats is a vote for terror " is one good example.

That would be a good example, indeed. When did a FOX journalist ever say a such thing on TV (without being immediately fired)?

That would be a good example, indeed. When did a FOX journalist ever say a such thing on TV (without being immediately fired)?
Urmm all throughout the election season?

Where did you hear that? The o'reilly factor? That isn't a news show. It is an editorial show. Its opinion.

No that was in the video that he skipped over, the editors memo portion

A bit of both, and if I was a terrorist group, I'd want an easy way to get noticed. Bush is looking for any bunch of baddies to prove he's right with his "they hate freedom" stuff.

Because of international sanctions, Hamas' iron grip on power has been slowly eroded. They are increasingly yielding to Fatah and a more peaceful resolution in the region. Their once-destructive attacks have been greatly reduced due to a massive plummet in popular support and a highly polarized political climate. Since their victory, they have been in free-fall mode. They are completely bankrupt and powerless, thanks, in part, to the US power structure, headed by pro-Israel Republicans. They have been unwilling to cede even an inch of ground to Hamas, and Hamas has suffered as a consequence.

Urmm all throughout the election season?

Can you provide a source? I watched FOX almost religiously throughout the period which you mentioned, yet I heard nothing of the sort.

He did not counter a single thing proposed by the original video.

I'm sure that interviewing the director of an anti-FOX documentary doesn't illustrate any bias at all. I watched the entire video and could see not valid accusation made against FOX. Do you honestly believe that the insurgents will be sad that US forces are leaving? Do you honestly believe that terrorist groups such as Hamas prefer Republicans over Democrats? Is there anything wrong about asking what the Democratic plan for Iraq is? The correct answer is categorically "no."
-MTAE

I actually think that those are all pretty examples.

Way to cite an example.Not for MTAE. No point in debating with him. But if you want an example:
Monday's edition of The Washington Post says a secret review commissioned by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace outlines three alternatives for Iraq: sending in more troops for a short-term blitz, shrinking the force on the ground but staying longer or ditching Iraq and pulling out.Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230702,00.html)
Take a look at the vocabulary and make an educated guess at which of the options might be seen as more favorable by the author of that article and which one is frowned upon.

No that was in the video that he skipped over, the editors memo portion

There was no context provided at all. Just little one sentence tid bits. It's all garbage unless there is context.

Can you provide a source? I watched FOX almost religiously throughout the period which you mentioned, yet I heard nothing of the sort.
Proving my point:
Yes it has, and it's highly unlikely that anyone who previously couldn't see it will now.

I'm sure that interviewing the director of an anti-FOX documentary doesn't illustrate any bias at all. I watched the entire video and could see not valid accusation made against FOX. Do you honestly believe that the insurgents will be sad that US forces are leaving? Do you honestly believe that terrorist groups such as Hamas prefer Republicans over Democrats? Is there anything wrong about asking what the Democratic plan for Iraq is? The correct answer is categorically "no."
-MTAE

I actually think that those are all pretty examples.
I agree it is probably not the least biased show to present it on, but that does not mean MTAE is a good debater by simply skipping every idea proposed in it and going to a talking point of his own which was the whole point of this small sub debate.

You mean that the one objective, fair, and impartial TV station was lambasted by the liberal media for not being scared to report the facts honestly and without a Democratic bias?
This is not a counterpoint, this is a flag-waving, pom-pom shaking cheerleader post of their corporate slogans.

No, Fox isn't unbiased. No, NPR isn't unbiased. No, ABC/NBC/CBS aren't unbiased. All of them carry an undercurrent of bias based on the stories they carry, the people they interview, and the edits of what management considers important. That's the inevitable result of having a lot of news and a limited time to present it, multiplied by the fact that there are human beings on the other side of the mike, camera, and editing suite.

That said, the only thing I can see in the quote above that is true is the phrase "without a Democratic bias". Fox News Channel, and particularly the commentary that they air separately from their news programs, is decidedly pro-Bush. That's not the same as being pro-Republican, or pro-American, or pro-anything else for that matter.

I'm intelligent enough to filter out the bias from the various stations I watch or listen to, but when I filter the bias from Fox I'm left with very little meat on the bones on the bias. I'm all for having differening opinions on the airwaves. You can listen to whatever floats your boat. Just don't pretend that they alone are objective or unbiased, because it simply isn't true.

Not for MTAE. No point in debating with him.
Thats bullshit. I usually don't agree w/ him but thats still bullshit. But if you want an example:
Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230702,00.html)
Take a look at the vocabulary and make an educated guess at which of the options might be seen as more favorable by the author of that article and which one is frowned upon.

There is no defending that but other news sources use adjectives also. Again, i have said that journalism today has very low standards. Across the board.

I'm sure that interviewing the director of an anti-FOX documentary doesn't illustrate any bias at all. I watched the entire video and could see not valid accusation made against FOX. Do you honestly believe that the insurgents will be sad that US forces are leaving? Do you honestly believe that terrorist groups such as Hamas prefer Republicans over Democrats? Is there anything wrong about asking what the Democratic plan for Iraq is? The correct answer is categorically "no."
-MTAE

I actually think that those are all pretty examples.

Why are you defending MTAE?He's a troll,through and through.He's made up many posts about the evils of Islam,he's talked about breeding rapidly in order to stop a Muslim invasion of Europe.He's pro-slavery.Generally bad.Ever seen any of his posts?

Where did you hear that? The o'reilly factor? That isn't a news show. It is an editorial show. Its opinion.

I heard it on the video you apparently didn't watch.

"Then it brings out the old 'A vote for Democrats is a vote for terrorists' chestnut, quote, 'Let's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled Congress.' "

Gee...

Thats bullshit. I usually don't agree w/ him but thats still bullshit. Hardly. MTAE is so extreme that the chances of him being a liberal trying to slander conservatives are greater than his viewpoint being his own.
There is no defending that but other news sources use adjectives also.Yup. But there's a distinct difference if you pay attention to what the connotations are. The more neutral (i.e. less valuation) the connotation, the less biased the report will likely be.
Again, i have said that journalism today has very low standards. Across the board.Which one? There's some very good non-American news channels that don't buy into the sensationalist or conservative catering business.

Take a look at the vocabulary and make an educated guess at which of the options might be seen as more favorable by the author of that article and which one is frowned upon.

I think that the term "ditched" is used in a perfectly apt context. It should not have a negative connotation; it was simply used to accurately describe the situation. Similarly, employing the words "desert" or "abandon" in reference to withdrawing from Iraq would be fine. if you would actually look in a dictionary, you would see that "ditch" is defined as "to get away from." Do you believe that this is a faulty synonym? I don't see how it's flawed to use the word "ditch" in that context.

I heard it on the video you apparently didn't watch.

"Then it brings out the old 'A vote for Democrats is a vote for terrorists' chestnut, quote, 'Let's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled Congress.' "

Gee...

I already responded to someone else about this. find it.

Why are you defending MTAE?He's a troll,through and through.He's made up many posts about the evils of Islam,he's talked about breeding rapidly in order to stop a Muslim invasion of Europe.He's pro-slavery.Generally bad.Ever seen any of his posts?

B/c everyone here is incapable of even hearing the other side. They just lambast them as a troll. That is ont debating.

He's made up many posts about the evils of Islam

I hold the same opinion of Islam, as a religion, as I do of Christianity (although it is more violent, as it preaches forcibly converting or killing the infidels). In general, I hold a dismally low view of religion. However, I never go on a crusade against one particular religion -- only its interpretations and the manifestations of religious fundamentalism which have an extremely detrimental effect upon society (9/11, for example).

I think that the term "ditched" is used in a perfectly apt context. It should not have a negative connotation; it was simply used to accurately describe the situation. Similarly, employing the words "desert" or "abandon" in reference to withdrawing from Iraq would be fine. if you would actually look in a dictionary, you would see that "ditch" is defined as "to get away from." Do you believe that this is a faulty synonym? I don't see how it's flawed to use the word "ditch" in that context.You are aware that quoting a word's denotation is completely irrelevant when discussing a word's connotation?
con‧no‧ta‧tion–noun
1. an act or instance of connoting.
2. the associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning: A possible connotation of “home” is “a place of warmth, comfort, and affection.” Compare denotation (def. 1).

B/c everyone here is incapable of even hearing the other side. They just lambast them as a troll. That is ont debating.
When the shoe fits ... I am sorry a large part of the posts in this thread come from someone who trolls but that we can not help

Rather then trying to defend that person maybe make some strong points on which we can debate

B/c everyone here is incapable of even hearing the other side. They just lambast them as a troll. That is ont debating.MTAE isn't "the other side".

You are aware that quoting a word's denotation is completely irrelevant when discussing a word's connotation?

You cannot fault a news agency for employing a completely correct term just because you associate something negative with a term. The world does not revolve around you or what you believe; learn to accept the objective definition of a particular word, not what you think its connotation is.

I already responded to someone else about this. find it.

Meh, one probably could make a case that it's not an appeal to the "Democrats = terrorists" bit. After all, if FOX News really reports it like it is, then they realize that Iraqis had very little to do with the terrorists who actively wanted to attack America.

Glad we can kinda see eye-to-eye.

MTAE isn't "the other side".

I'm not the same side. By definition, I'm one of the "other" sides.

B/c everyone here is incapable of even hearing the other side. They just lambast them as a troll. That is ont debating.

Yes,we're all completely ignorant fools,and MTAE is simply "misunderstood."We don't lambast them as trolls.I accept other people's views,I merit other people's arguments then try and provide a counter-argument.If I can't,I admit defeat.MTAE recently got banned for a few days for trolling and I hear from the grapevine he also got a very strong warning.So yes,he is a troll.And no,we're not all ignorant fools.

Hardly. MTAE is so extreme that the chances of him being a liberal trying to slander conservatives are greater than his viewpoint being his own.
Why does that even matter? You debate the issue not the person. I would be really surprised to see you or even more, arthais101 slandering a liberal.
Yup. But there's a distinct difference if you pay attention to what the connotations are. The more neutral (i.e. less valuation) the connotation, the less biased the report will likely be.
Okay?
Which one? There's some very good non-American news channels that don't buy into the sensationalist or conservative catering business.
I don't necesarily mean bias. I mean just getting the story plain wrong.

I hold the same opinion of Islam, as a religion, as I do of Christianity (although it is more violent, as it preaches forcibly converting or killing the infidels). In general, I hold a dismally low view of religion. However, I never go on a crusade against one particular religion -- only its interpretations and the manifestations of religious fundamentalism which have an extremely detrimental effect upon society (9/11, for example).

Fair enough.I haven't seen any anti-Christian posts from you though,that's all.

Yes,we're all completely ignorant fools,and MTAE is simply "misunderstood."We don't lambast them as trolls.I accept other people's views,I merit other people's arguments then try and provide a counter-argument.If I can't,I admit defeat.MTAE recently got banned for a few days for trolling and I hear from the grapevine he also got a very strong warning.So yes,he is a troll.And no,we're not all ignorant fools.

Then argue his points. If he wasn't banned for good then you can still debate him. I got banned for threatening someone but your still talking to me.

I hear from the grapevine he also got a very strong warning.

Yes, I committed the transgression of saying a rather unfortunate joke to a moderator, for which I apologized. I was not trolling, however.

MTAE isn't "the other side".

Who is?

Fair enough.I haven't seen any anti-Christian posts from you though,that's all.

Christianity hasn't been responsible for many deaths in modern times, as has Islam. I do think that religious people are all fools, but I don't want to say that as it's trolling and against forum rules.

Then argue his points. If he wasn't banned for good then you can still debate him. I got banned for threatening someone but your still talking to me.

Your telling us to all lighten up and debate his points,but you yourself got banned for threatening someone?
Funny,that.
Ok.So,slavery is wrong,really wrong,religion is pretty good-it does have some very good effects on society.Happy?

You cannot fault a news agency for employing a completely correct term just because you associate something negative with a term.No, but I can fault a news agency for picking words with connotations held by a lot of people. You have the same connotation, as "ditching" apparently appeals to you, no doubt because you believe leaving Iraq would be a mistake.
The world does not revolve around you or what you believe; learn to accept the objective definition of a particular word, not what you think its connotation is.This is journalism. Connotations matter. Only someone with no clue about propaganda or debate would say otherwise. The objective meaning of a word is not the only one. There is a distinct difference betwixt using "pulling out of" or "ditching". The first one is a more neutral description of what's happening, the second implies an abandonning of responsibility.

So,slavery is wrong

I got banned for debating a similar topic, and I don't want to start that again. I'm trying to watch where I step. However, religion has had many extremely detrimental effects upon society -- consider, for example, the Crusades and the modern holy war against the West, perpetrated by such groups as Al-Qaeda.

You're such a cute little troll. =) Move along, I'm waiting for real people to come talk to me.

*tickle, tickle* ^^

Get over it, troll. :p

*laughs cruelly in your face*

Oooooooh - MTAE IS IN A RAJJ! Ner-ner-ner-ner-ner!

BARNEY, BARNEY! *lets the fight commence*


Pretty much sums it up, although I myself wouldn't laugh cruelly in his face — more just amusedly.

Please. MTAE isn't just anyone.

Such intelligent debate. Can you people make an argument against an opposing point that doesn't amount to: "ROFL, TROLL!"

Your telling us to all lighten up and debate his points,but you yourself got banned for threatening someone?
Funny,that.
He threatened my first and also got banned. I really don't see how it's relevant.
Ok.So,slavery is wrong,really wrong,religion is pretty good-it does have some very good effects on society.Happy?

Wait, how is that relevant to fox news?

Who is?I know several conservatives. My dad for one.

Christianity hasn't been responsible for many deaths in modern times, as has Islam. I do think that religious people are all fools, but I don't want to say that as it's trolling and against forum rules.

Right,so I'm a fool.Moving on.
Islam itself has not been responsible for any deaths.The religion itself means "peace" (the literal translation of 'Islam').Teh crazy fundamentalists,such as Al-Qaida and Hizbollah,are responsible for those deaths.Sure,they follow Islam,but they follow it in a disgusting way.Millions of moderate Muslims all over the world condemn attacks by those organisations,just like you and me.

No, but I can fault a news agency for picking words with connotations held by a lot of people.

I don't see anything that is not completely true about the statement, and I see that all three options given by the commission were presented to the viewer. I don't know about you, but that's why I call fair and balanced. I could care less whether you don't like a particular term, because it happens to be totally apt.

Such intelligent debate. Can you people make an argument against an opposing point that doesn't amount to: "ROFL, TROLL!"Care to disprove that MTAE doesn't have anything to add to a debate? :p

I know several conservatives. My dad for one.

Okay... wait what?

Care to disprove that MTAE doesn't have anything to add to a debate? :p

I believe we've already been through this with the post where i summarized all of his points.

He threatened my first and also got banned. I really don't see how it's relevant.

Well,it's relevant because you're telling us all to stop branding MTAE a troll.Yet you reacted to a threat,hence flaming and breaking the rules.That isn't debating.

Wait, how is that relevant to fox news?

It isn't.I was answering your question.I was debating MTAE's arguments.Those are some of his viewpoints.

Millions of moderate Muslims all over the world condemn attacks by those organisations,just like you and me.

And I don't fault those individuals too much for the actions of Osama. However, groups such as Al-Qaeda would not exist if not for religious indoctrination. In this case, they are being brainwashed with fundamentalist Islamic ideas, not Christian, Jewish or Buddhist ones.

Such intelligent debate. Can you people make an argument against an opposing point that doesn't amount to: "ROFL, TROLL!"

I'm surprised someone with your amount of posts still has such an optimistic view of the forums. See, people like MTAE post for the singular purpose of pissing people off while just skimming the definition of trolling. Debating him only gives him more to work around because he's not actually defending or debating any specific point, rather, is just trying to annoy you. The only way to keep him from getting the satisfaction he so desires is to simply not feed the troll. Hear that?

Do not feed the troll.

I don't see anything that is not completely true about the statement, and I see that all three options given by the commission were presented to the viewer. Irrelevant. No one is debating the denotation.
I don't know about you, but that's why I call fair and balanced. I'm sure it shouldn't be too hard to guess what my opinion is.
I could care less whether you don't like a particular term, because it happens to be totally apt.Yeah, whatever. :rolleyes:

Well,it's relevant because you're telling us all to stop branding MTAE a troll.Yet you reacted to a threat,hence flaming and breaking the rules.That isn't debating.

Somebody threatened him, and he reacted in kind. I don't see that as an egregious error at all, and he is certainly an honest debater. He is perfectly correct in telling you how to behave. Bush made some small mistakes in his past, but he was still elected president and tells the country what to do; USMC made one insignificant mistake and suddenly he can't rebuke you for breaking the rules?

Hey pyotr, there you have a tg explaining everything from yesterday. Thanks again.

And I don't fault those individuals too much for the actions of Osama. However, groups such as Al-Qaeda would not exist if not for religious indoctrination. In this case, they are being brainwashed with fundamentalist Islamic ideas, not Christian, Jewish or Buddhist ones.

Too much?How is it even their fault in the slightest?
Well,most of their cause for existance is hatred of the US,and the West in general.Sure,religion has something to do with it.But not a whole lot.Their view of Islam is distorted and warped.They use it to perpetrate violence when it's a religion of peace.

Somebody threatened him, and he reacted in kind. I don't see that as an egregious error at all, and he is certainly an honest debater. He is perfectly correct in telling you how to behave. Bush made some small mistakes in his past, but he was still elected president and tells the country what to do; USMC made one insignificant mistake and suddenly he can't rebuke you for breaking the rules?

I'm just saying it's hypocritical.It's like me taking drugs and going round to schools saying "Hey kids,don't take drugs!"
...Small mistakes?He's messed up pretty badly in places.And it still eludes me as to why he was elected...again.

I'm surprised someone with your amount of posts still has such an optimistic view of the forums. See, people like MTAE post for the singular purpose of pissing people off while just skimming the definition of trolling. Debating him only gives him more to work around because he's not actually defending or debating any specific point, rather, is just trying to annoy you. The only way to keep him from getting the satisfaction he so desires is to simply not feed the troll. Hear that?

Do not feed the troll.

Or he is just provding the counter argument and your not intelligent enough to respond so you get frusturated and you interpretate it as annoying you.

Right,so I'm a fool.Moving on.
Islam itself has not been responsible for any deaths.The religion itself means "peace" (the literal translation of 'Islam').Teh crazy fundamentalists,such as Al-Qaida and Hizbollah,are responsible for those deaths.Sure,they follow Islam,but they follow it in a disgusting way.Millions of moderate Muslims all over the world condemn attacks by those organisations,just like you and me.

Islam means "submission."

Islam means "submission."

.....ah,wait,so it does.
Bugger it.
*watches argument go down in flames.*
Ok,misinterpretation by me there,I admit that.But the point still stands-Islam is a religion of peace-the five pillars of Islam promote peace.

I'm surprised someone with your amount of posts still has such an optimistic view of the forums. See, people like MTAE post for the singular purpose of pissing people off while just skimming the definition of trolling. Debating him only gives him more to work around because he's not actually defending or debating any specific point, rather, is just trying to annoy you. The only way to keep him from getting the satisfaction he so desires is to simply not feed the troll. Hear that?

Do not feed the troll.

Or maybe the views that he has anger you because they are opposed to yours. From what i understand, a troll is someone who posts stuff that angers people. A forum filled with people who are intolerant of opposing viewpoints is going to be angered by any difference in ideologies, and is going to label any dissenter as a troll. General has become that forum.

.....ah,wait,so it does.
Bugger it.
*watches argument go down in flames.*
Ok,misinterpretation by me there,I admit that.But the point still stands-Islam is a religion of peace-the five pillars of Islam promote peace.

That's why you have to chop people's heads off.

For peace.

Too much?How is it even their fault in the slightest?

They should be more vocal in chastising those who are hijacking their religion and driving it into the wall. They are complicit in the problems caused by their religion as they are unwilling to devote any of their energy to stopping it; they implicitly agree with the terrorists.

Or maybe the views that he has anger you because they are opposed to yours. From what i understand, a troll is someone who posts stuff that angers people. A forum filled with people who are intolerant of opposing viewpoints is going to be angered by any difference in ideologies, and is going to label any dissenter as a troll. General has become that forum.

Yes,but,MTAE proposes some more inhumane things.Like slavery for the poor.I'm not sure if this is true,but apparently he also said impregnating female prisoners and making the children into soldiers is a good thing.I hope that's not true anyway.But the point stands-a person who opposes your viewpoint and a troll are reasonably different,even if the lines are a little blurred.

That's why you have to chop people's heads off.

For peace.

Yes,because every single Muslim has chopped someone's head off on a grainy video tape,and the Qur'an actually says "You have to chop Westerner's heads off in order to gain peace."

Wait...no it doesn't.

They should be more vocal in chastising those who are hijacking their religion and driving it into the wall. They are complicit in the problems caused by their religion as they are unwilling to devote any of their energy to stopping it; they implicitly agree with the terrorists.

People can't devote all their time and energy to stopping terrorists,because,some of the time they live in a completely different country.Also,I thought George Bush was meant to have stopped terrorism with his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?They don't agree with the terrorists.

Yes,but,MTAE proposes some more inhumane things.Like slavery for the poor.I'm not sure if this is true,but apparently he also said impregnating female prisoners and making the children into soldiers is a good thing.I hope that's not true anyway.But the point stands-a person who opposes your viewpoint and a troll are reasonably different,even if the lines are a little blurred.

He's not saying that right now. He stopped trying to defend that after it was clear that he was wrong. Debate what the subject is.

Also,I thought George Bush was meant to have stopped terrorism with his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

It has helped to curb terrorism, but it has not completely purged that blemish from the face of the world. There are many active terrorists operating in other areas of the country; the most egregious example may be in Sri Lanka.

It has helped to curb terrorism, but it has not completely purged that blemish from the face of the world. There are many active terrorists operating in other areas of the country; the most egregious example may be in Sri Lanka.

I don't think Iraq has done a thing to curtail terrorism, if anything it has increased it's power.

Yes,because every single Muslim has chopped someone's head off on a grainy video tape,and the Qur'an actually says "You have to chop Westerner's heads off in order to gain peace."

Wait...no it doesn't.

I'm sure they would if they could. And I do remember being in the UK recently where muslims were holding placards to that effect. "behead all those who defame islam" or something.

Granted, it is not just muslims who act this way, but to suggest that islam has anything whatsoever to do with peace is just bald faced mendacity.

I'm sure they would if they could. And I do remember being in the UK recently where muslims were holding placards to that effect. "behead all those who defame islam" or something.

Yeah, a mind blowing 500 or so....

Granted, it is not just muslims who act this way, but to suggest that islam has anything whatsoever to do with peace is just bald faced mendacity.
No, it has to do with submission to god, thats it. The Qur'an is an unbelievably elastic text, it can be perceived and interpreted a million different ways. If you look at what the terrorists quote as their justification you find fallacies, edited quotes, and quotes that are totally out of context(I believe UBL used a passage that referred to the punishment of criminals and tried to pass it off as referring to the "unbelievers").

They should be more vocal in chastising those who are hijacking their religion and driving it into the wall. They are complicit in the problems caused by their religion as they are unwilling to devote any of their energy to stopping it; they implicitly agree with the terrorists.

http://www.fanstory.com/forummessages.jsp?section=5&secName=Politics&id=4771&reply=1&createid=122449

Golly...

http://www.fanstory.com/forummessages.jsp?section=5&secName=Politics&id=4771&reply=1&createid=122449

Golly...

To add to that:
http://www.islamfortoday.com/harun01.htm
http://www.islamfortoday.com/murad04.htm
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=5270
http://www.muslim-lawyers.net/news/index.php3?aktion=show&number=78

I see. You don't want any actual debate, as that would challenge your firmly-ingrained views that FOX is evil and extremely conservatively biased, which it utterly and laughably false.

Don't make me laugh.

I was watching Fox News for laughs a while ago, and when it was doing a piece on the Foley Scandal, it showed a picture of him.

And his designation on the screen?

D-FL.

He's a Republican.

Totally not biased.

LIEK WOAH!!!1!

It has helped to curb terrorism, but it has not completely purged that blemish from the face of the world. There are many active terrorists operating in other areas of the country; the most egregious example may be in Sri Lanka.

Pssh. If you already hated a country, and then said country invaded your country, which then caused instability and a mini-civil war, wouldn't you hate it even more?

Now Mr. Troll, go along on your merry way.

http://www.fanstory.com/forummessages.jsp?section=5&secName=Politics&id=4771&reply=1&createid=122449

Golly...

I applaud those who have written those letters. Sadly, however, there are not enough people like them.

Don't make me laugh.

I was watching Farce News for laughs a while ago, and when it was doing a piece on the Foley Scandal, it showed a picture of him.

And his designation on the screen?

D-FL.

He's a Republican.

Totally not biased.

LIEK WOAH!!!1!

It did that twice. Somewhere in the fray, Dennis Hastert was mislabeled as a Democrat too. And during the late-night rerun, they simply removed the labels for Foley. As far as I know, they have yet to actually own up to the "mistake" and apologize and make a correction.

In fact, they did it yet again a few days later, while they were reviewing the Senate elections. While on Rhode Island, they quite clearly labeled Lincoln Chafee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Chafee) a Democrat and Sheldon Whitehouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Whitehouse) a Republican.

So they mislabel a Republican who turns out to be gay and turns out to have done inappropriate things with congressional pages. And then they mislabel the Republican who is the most liberal Republican in Congress and who is for this reason loathed among neocons. To what conclusion might we come, given this evidence?

If you havent known about this for years then i would say you must have your head in the clouds.

Is "clouds" a pet name for "hairy pasty-white ass?"

I don't think Iraq has done a thing to curtail terrorism, if anything it has increased it's power.

If conservatives went in for "intellectuals" they'd know how to explain that it has caused a decrease in potential terrorism by creating a marked increase in kinetic terrorism.

And people always say Fox is liberal...

And people always say Fox is liberal...

What sort of crazy people are they?

Or he is just provding the counter argument and your not intelligent enough to respond so you get frusturated and you interpretate it as annoying you.

did you notice that MTAE ignored the post from the ONE person who gave him a serious response?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11975756&postcount=57

could this not be because he is uninterested in debate? maybe he only wants to wind people up and keep attention on himself. hmmmm isnt there a term for that?

did you notice that MTAE ignored the post from the ONE person who gave him a serious response?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11975756&postcount=57

could this not be because he is uninterested in debate? maybe he only wants to wind people up and keep attention on himself. hmmmm isnt there a term for that?

Or mabye he missed it? Why don't u tell him to respond to it. I completely agree with it.

did you notice that MTAE ignored the post from the ONE person who gave him a serious response?

He has a definition of bias which applies to every major news network, while I have a much more lax definition. I can't really argue since it's like comparing apples and oranges. I will stipulate that according to his definition, FOX News is biased.

I can't really argue since it's like comparing apples and oranges.
I can't reconcile this statement with much of anything. You say they're not biased, that they're fair and objective. I say they're not. That's apples and apples, chief.

I can't reconcile this statement with much of anything. You say they're not biased, that they're fair and objective. I say they're not. That's apples and apples, chief.

Apples and rotten apples, really.

I hope some of the more gullible people of the forum has learned from this thread and taken note not to feed the trolls. Hear that?

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.