On 5/13/2010 1:07 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> I don't know how you missed it. We spent the entire fracking end of
>> the Obama campaign, and most of the time, up until about 4 months ago,
>
> By not being in America?
>
> Or rather, I gather there was a bit of coverage of the whole USA
> election thing, but I purposely ignored it because I don't actually *care*.
lol Yeah, well. Still, my impression was that most of the rest of the 
world *tends* to have a clearer picture if what idiot things go on here, 
sometimes, than half the people living here. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2010 1:30 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 12-5-2010 23:13, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 5/11/2010 12:24 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> I don't know how you missed it.
>
> easy, we don't live there
>
>> We spent the entire fracking end of the Obama campaign, and most of
>> the time, up until about 4 months ago, listening to them whine about
>> Acorn, and blame them from just about everything from bad weather to
>> the oil spill, or at least try to use them as an "example" of the
>> stuff they where "fighting".
>
>
> I don't think this was reported apart from some of it during the
> campaign. I can only guess as to why not. One guess is that journalists
> here do not think it is important. A more likely guess is that it so
> much away from normal behaviour that they simply don't believe it. On
> this side of the ocean the journalists and networks are all independent
> from the government (except for italy). The idea that a broadcasting
> company would knowingly try to misinform people in order to destabilize
> the current government because that government is from another party is
> totally inconceivable (I think it is actually treason). There are a
> couple of people from the US that have repeatedly claimed that
> nonetheless that is what is happening. I cannot believe it.
Its been called treason, or close to that, by a few people here too. 
And, hell yes its going on. Its one idiot running the entire network, 
and hand picking right wingers, loud mouths, and clueless, but good 
looking, rubes, who will either lie, distort, or just repeat, out of 
shear ignorance, everything the people lying and distorting are saying. 
The key here is, "Its not run by the government", so technically, since 
their has been no direct connection made between government officials 
and the loonies on the network, other than them siding with them, they 
can't do much.

Basically though, you get similar insane bullshit in rag magazines, from 
my understanding, in some places, including Britain. What differs here 
is that its a major news network, being run by someone who should be 
publishing rag magazines.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Its been called treason, or close to that, by a few people here too.
> And, hell yes its going on. Its one idiot running the entire network,
> and hand picking right wingers, loud mouths, and clueless, but good
> looking, rubes, who will either lie, distort, or just repeat, out of
> shear ignorance, everything the people lying and distorting are saying.
> The key here is, "Its not run by the government", so technically, since
> their has been no direct connection made between government officials
> and the loonies on the network, other than them siding with them, they
> can't do much.
> 
> Basically though, you get similar insane bullshit in rag magazines, from
> my understanding, in some places, including Britain. What differs here
> is that its a major news network, being run by someone who should be
> publishing rag magazines.
> 

Now, now, the news on that network may actually be news. But the news
only runs from 12 noon to 1pm, and then again at 6pm to 7pm. The rest of
the day, it is not a news network, just a network with celebrities
covering "news worthy stories". Talk shows.

What bothers me is that the 'celebrity shows' say "well, we believe that
Politician Soandso is up to something." and then the news shows can then
later run a story that "Sources say Politician Soandso is up to
something." Later, this gets run back through the celebrities who can
say "News outlets report that Politician Soandso was doing something
illegal. See, we told you about this before they did, and we were
right." It ends up being a hilarious echo chamber.

But, in the USA, it can't be treason. They are not waging war, and they
are not giving aid and comfort to the declared enemies. Unless you count
the news media (in general) as making us more afraid, while fear is the
weapon of terrorists . . . well, hard to prove legally. Sedition, maybe,
but not treason. But if you want to invoke the Smith Act, go for it. It
is still on the books, and both sides have overstepped the bounds it
laid out. But by strict definition of even seditious conspiracy (§2384
of Title 18 USC) they haven't done anything wrong yet.

Free speech still means they can make up stories just this side of
slander and libel, if they do not incite a riot.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2010 8:37 PM, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> But, in the USA, it can't be treason. They are not waging war, and they
> are not giving aid and comfort to the declared enemies. Unless you count
> the news media (in general) as making us more afraid, while fear is the
> weapon of terrorists . . . well, hard to prove legally. Sedition, maybe,
> but not treason. But if you want to invoke the Smith Act, go for it. It
> is still on the books, and both sides have overstepped the bounds it
> laid out. But by strict definition of even seditious conspiracy (§2384
> of Title 18 USC) they haven't done anything wrong yet.
>
> Free speech still means they can make up stories just this side of
> slander and libel, if they do not incite a riot.
Yeah. Some of them are getting damn close though. Like the bozo recently 
commenting that it should be hunting season on Liberals, adding to a 
long list of other nuts, all obsessed with the idea that they need 
something like a populist SS, or other "special" group to route out 
people that think different. Only, if you claim I said it, I will say I 
didn't, and I will claim no one else on my show did either, or that 
anyone else in my party ever did, even if you have it ***on tape***.

Its getting damn tiring, first off. But, second off.. At this point 
there is almost nothing the left can accuse the right of, which could be 
legitimately called rhetoric, or even slander. Most of them just report 
what the right actually said, draw fairly reasonable conclusions from 
the pattern of behavior and statements being made, then sit back and 
wait for the person in question to a) back peddle as fast as possible, 
and b)deny actually specifically meaning any of it, that specific way. 
Most, it may be pointed out, even in the "talk show" sorts, are willing 
to admit they made a mistake, correct their statements, and honestly 
admit they got a fact wrong. About 10% of the time its quite comical, 
because it turns out the "correct" information makes the person 
complaining look even worse than the wrong information. They also have 
said, more than once, "Hell yes I am biased. Now lets hear you admit the 
same."

But, in any case, the other side not only lies about lying, about the 
lie that someone lied on their own show, when its possible to find the 
film clip of the original on Youtube in like 5 seconds flat, never mind 
at places like Media Watch, but all the other wackos then go one to 
repeat the original lie, or the lie about the lie, never acknowledging 
that anyone has figured out that *any* of it was *ever* wrong.

Claiming you are dealing with the same behavior by both sides at this 
point is nothing short of claiming that a magician like Criss Angel is 
the **same** as the Tarot card reader you dragged in from down the 
street, who claims that not only is *everything* they do real, but that 
everyone that claims to have heard them say it was fake a day ago, while 
being shown the video of doing so, where all lying, and its Criss that 
is the real con artist. After all, ***HE*** admits faking it.

Its like living in the damn twilight zone some days, when watching the 
ridiculous BS that has been going on, well.. at least since Bush 
deciding to go after Iraq and some of us got the odd suspicion that 
Bagdad Bob, or possibly his close cousin, was working for both the US to 
make up the things the administration was claiming, but couldn't 
actually manage to prove at all.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2010 1:14 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> I also eat - well, not *fish* and chips, but usually pie and chips or
> something. And no, it doesn't come wrapped in newspaper. That would be
> some kind of hazard, given the toxicity of the inks used. (!)


By pies, I assume you mean something like a meat pie, and not something 
like a fruit pie? (i.e. apple pie or cherry pie)


Was it ever the case that fish and chips were served in newspaper? Seems 
like that would at the very least cause an off taste.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Was it ever the case that fish and chips were served in newspaper? Seems
> like that would at the very least cause an off taste.

would you believe,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_and_chips#Vendors

they know everything, those wikipediaers.

Post a reply to this message

>> I also eat - well, not *fish* and chips, but usually pie and chips or
>> something. And no, it doesn't come wrapped in newspaper. That would be
>> some kind of hazard, given the toxicity of the inks used. (!)
> 
> 
> By pies, I assume you mean something like a meat pie, and not something 
> like a fruit pie? (i.e. apple pie or cherry pie)

Chicken pie, yes. ;-)

Either that or a sausage...

> Was it ever the case that fish and chips were served in newspaper? Seems 
> like that would at the very least cause an off taste.

Um... I have no idea. Obviously today it would be a major food hygene 
violation, but I suppose it's plausible it used to happen once upon a time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_and_chips#Vendors

Suggests that it really was true. (And, as we all know, Wikipedia is 
never wrong.)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:50:32 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Chicken pie, yes. ;-)
> 
> Either that or a sausage...

Or fish.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:42:00 -0400, Bill Pragnell wrote:

> Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Was it ever the case that fish and chips were served in newspaper?
>> Seems like that would at the very least cause an off taste.
> 
> would you believe,
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_and_chips#Vendors
> 
> they know everything, those wikipediaers.

Except for the meaning of "Malamanteau", apparently. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Chicken pie, yes. ;-)
>>
>> Either that or a sausage...
> 
> Or fish.

No. I hate fish.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message