Forums | MacLife

Tallgeese wrote:

See, isn't that better than saying I'm trying to smear you and that I'm a hypocrite?

Not when you did.

Tallgeese wrote:

I didn't. I interpreted your two statements in a fairly reasonable way and you would rather jump on me than clarify. I guess you're just a little touchy, if you considered that "lies and smear".

No, you took 2+2 and came up with 5 based on your own biases.

:: ushers Tallgeese into "free speech forum" ::

No, you were being totally reasonable.

Last edited by ShnickyShnack (2008-08-31 10:18 pm)

Farmerkev wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Someone tell me if I'm being an unreasonable liar here.
If someone says "group does X. Group does Y. Then group wonders why Z happens" is it totally unreasonable to think that they're implying that actions X and Y justify action Z?
Someone tell me why that's wrong and making 2 and 2 into 5.

Yes, it's unreasonable.
Pointing out actions and reactions does not justify the reactions.
Explanations aren't justifications and never have been.

Given the context of this thread, it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw.

Farmerkev wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Someone tell me if I'm being an unreasonable liar here.
If someone says "group does X. Group does Y. Then group wonders why Z happens" is it totally unreasonable to think that they're implying that actions X and Y justify action Z?
Someone tell me why that's wrong and making 2 and 2 into 5.

Yes, it's unreasonable.
Pointing out actions and reactions does not justify the reactions.
Explanations aren't justifications and never have been.

You're right. But I, like many people, are biased to assume that people often give explanations as justifications. Now why does that make me a hypocrite for being upset at the (failed) swiftboating of McCain or the smears against Palin from far-left blogs? As I see it, there's a difference between succumbing to a bias when making conclusions and just plain making up slander.

understanding... with your own biases, of course.

Sorry, was that also a vicious smear?

I guess I'll stop asking you to explain why you compared me to the Daily Kos smurfs. I forgot that your standard position is to sit on the low ground and mock everyone who talks about the high ground which to your perception is nonexistent.

Farmerkev wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Yes, it's unreasonable.
Pointing out actions and reactions does not justify the reactions.
Explanations aren't justifications and never have been.

You're right. But I, like many people, are biased to assume that people often give explanations as justifications. Now why does that make me a hypocrite for being upset at the (failed) swiftboating of McCain or the smears against Palin from far-left blogs? As I see it, there's a difference between succumbing to a bias when making conclusions and just plain making up slander.

My whole outlook has always been about the why something is happening the way it is.
Understanding in other words.

Yes, it's that cool calculation that led to kev's "feelings" for Jimmy Carter.

Colonel Panic wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

You're right. But I, like many people, are biased to assume that people often give explanations as justifications. Now why does that make me a hypocrite for being upset at the (failed) swiftboating of McCain or the smears against Palin from far-left blogs? As I see it, there's a difference between succumbing to a bias when making conclusions and just plain making up slander.

My whole outlook has always been about the why something is happening the way it is.
Understanding in other words.

Yes, it's that cool calculation that led to kev's "feelings" for Jimmy Carter.

Nope Freekout, I hate that sob with a passion and make no bones about my BIAS against that worthless piece of humanity.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Nah.

More like ....

Editor: Any footage of protests outside the convention?

Journalist: Nope, the protesters were kept in pens.

Editor: You sure? Bush, Cheney and McCain walking a gauntlet of shouting protesters would be great vid.

Journalist: Nah, nothing like that. Supporters only. Like the Oscars.

Editor: [yawns]

Journalist: I know. So anyway, we've got Wolf Blitzer booked to interview Cindy McCain ...

Editor: Any chance of a tough question or two?

Journalist: Nah, you know how it is ... softball only or we lose access.

Editor: Righty-ho.

is there a reason why the media can't have someone stationed inside the "pen" so as to give them coverage? JUst because they are kept outside of the convention doesn't mean that thyey still couldn't be covered.

I know, eh? Especially sine the press is so liberal!

So why aren't they not interviewing these people since they are clearly there? If Editors are yawning about coverage of protests because they are boring, then maybe they're really looking for sensationalism and not straight news.

resedit wrote:

Daniel wrote:

Farmerkev reminds me a lot of Sean Hannity having a puttering fit on the rare occasion Alan Colmes actually says something.

I've watched fox news a lot, and Alan Colmes talks every time.
Who do you think announces the commercial breaks and puts in the plug for Greta?

You wink, but that's about all he really does.

Farmerkev wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

Fox News? Not surprising then.

See, it makes perfect sense apparently.
Why on Earth would you want to get your protest message out and be heard?
Much better to cuss out people that ask if you have anything you want to tell the world.



Oh, and then bitch about how protesters are locked away.

If you are a protester you want you message to be heard not distorted and Fox has a history of doing the later.