On 31-7-2009 23:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> I like how someone points out that McCain was born in 
> Panama.
[]
> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we *do* 
> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.

On which continent was he then?

Post a reply to this message

On 1-8-2009 5:31, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired 
>> of people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the 
>> post.
> 
> You should understand that it really distracts from your point. It 
> actually makes it difficult to understand, like if you consistently used 
> the wrong tense for verbs or used "he" when you meant "she".
> 
> (I know when my wife gets talking fast and forgets that "he" and "she" 
> are different words in English, it becomes really hard to follow who 
> she's talking about.)

My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations 
(i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is 
still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get 
confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2009 8:23, John VanSickle wrote:
> I do, however, see a boatload of 
> Monday-morning quarterbacking.

What on earth is that? Could you explain for us geographically 
challenged people?

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 07:58, andrel wrote:
> to have an political opinion. One of the reasons for the sharp divide in
> the US is that most people only watch a certain number of channels.
> Which shape their political points of view which in turn makes watching
> a channel with a different opinion impossible. In a way some channels
> are using politics to bind the audience.

	That's essentially the free market ideology at work. You end up with 
lots of "specialized" channels - each presenting a certain point of 
view, and most presenting things that are not true mixed in. Sure, if 
you go through almost all of them, no doubt you can figure out what's 
going on. But most people don't have the time, and when given a 
"choice", they'll go for the station that is showing _their_ truth.

	And if that's bad, the Internet as a source is even worse. When you 
have disgustingly partisan sites like the Huffington Post and 
FrontPageMag that make the schisms even more pronounced. People will 
naturally choose the sites that give them the news they want to hear, 
and those sites generally don't display news that goes against their 
point of view.

	A few years ago, a veteran journalist lamented this whole problem. He 
said that at the very least the benefit of newspapers is that a headline 
on the other page may catch your eye, and it takes less effort to read 
that article than to click on it. Unfortunately, newspapers are being 
abandoned for more partisan sources.

	As for The Daily Show, while it _is_ good that it often highlights the 
general inaneness of the main media companies, I don't see it being any 
better as a _sole_ source of news.

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   I hate to be a grammar nazi

  Btw, does that count as Godwin's law in action?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:58:21 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>Over the last few years the daily show seems to have gotten a reputation 
>of being the only unbiased source of information during elections. All 
>other general broadcast companies are either too tightly bound to one 
>political party or too busy avoiding law suits and/or loss of audience 
>to have an political opinion. 

I've only been watching for a few weeks. I can detect a little bias, I think,
but as it is similar to my own political views I heartily approve. :)

>One of the reasons for the sharp divide in 
>the US is that most people only watch a certain number of channels. 
>Which shape their political points of view which in turn makes watching 
>a channel with a different opinion impossible. 

I thought it was more because there was a fear of being thought Un-American.
Although I think that most people tend to stick with what they are comfortable
with.
 
>In a way some channels are using politics to bind the audience.

Do tell ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:12:37 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations 
>(i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is 
>still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get 
>confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.

Oh! Is that a bad thing then?

You would not like to hear her talking to me :P
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2009 16:54, Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:12:37 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations 
>> (i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is 
>> still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get 
>> confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.
> 
> Oh! Is that a bad thing then?
yes, because she gets angry, because I haven't been paying attention. 
Actually I have been listening for 10 bloody minutes and how am I to 
know when the quote stops if she does not tell me.
> 
> You would not like to hear her talking to me :P

why not?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:21:56 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>On 2-8-2009 16:54, Stephen wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:12:37 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> 
>>> My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations 
>>> (i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is 
>>> still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get 
>>> confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.
>> 
>> Oh! Is that a bad thing then?
>yes, because she gets angry, because I haven't been paying attention. 
>Actually I have been listening for 10 bloody minutes and how am I to 
>know when the quote stops if she does not tell me.
>> 

If you follow properly then you would know :)

>> You would not like to hear her talking to me :P
>
>why not?

I do the same or so my wife tells me.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 2-8-2009 8:23, John VanSickle wrote:
>> I do, however, see a boatload of Monday-morning quarterbacking.
> 
> What on earth is that? Could you explain for us geographically 
> challenged people?

Claiming, with hindsight, that you know what he should have done better 
than he did at the time.

American Football games are often played on Sunday night.  The tendency 
is for fans to talk Monday morning about what mistakes the quarterback 
made during the game, claiming that they know better (having watched the 
whole game).  The fact that the fans are not under the same pressure as 
the Quarterback, and have access to different information (views from TV 
cameras, rather than being on the field) doesn't seem to matter to these 
people.  They just think that the QBs are idiots, and they are better.

The implication here is that, whatever mistakes Bush may have made 
during office, those complaining about him aren't likely to have done 
any better were they in his situation.

(I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, and 
lots of people could have done better.  Not Gore, but I'd probably even 
vote for Hillary over Bush if there were another election.)

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message