OT: Roger Ebert on bullies.

On Jun 22, 5:11=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 3:51=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 4:38=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 3:25=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 22, 4:04=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > On Jun 22, 2:52=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 22, 3:45=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>=
wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 22, 2:29=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 2:55=A0pm, "[email protected]" <keith...@gmail.=
com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 1:22=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 1:59=A0pm, "[email protected]" <keith...@gm=
ail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 9:43=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]=
m> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 10:30=A0am, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail=
.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Robatoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmai=
l.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are simila=
r in that they both are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stew=
art admits often that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects e=
veryone to believe his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is t=
hat more factual
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> information is available from the Daily Show=
.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate =
of mine back when CB
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> radio was the big fad.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with=
nothing to say, a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> place to say it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear=
anything a place to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN=
, MSNBC, and CNBC.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Combined.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable ne=
twork shows, with O'Reilly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > at the top of the list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 For May, in general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs cont=
ributed)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 2. USA 2.8 million
> > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 3. ESPN 2.1 million
> > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 4. FOX 2.0 million
> > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 5. Nick 1.6 million
> > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 23. CNN 767,000
> > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 24. MSNBC 756,000
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (CNBC didn't even make the list)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > =A0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-2=
009-cable-rankings-t_n_...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Okay.. that's FOX. What is Billo The Clown's share?=
You said, and I
> > > > > > > > > > > > quote: "O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MS=
NBC, and CNBC.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Combined."
> > > > > > > > > > > > That would be inaccurate.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Hardly.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never min=
d the Network
> > > > > > > > > > > > numbers.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Read and weep.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Now, why would I weep?
>
> > > > > > > > > > >http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-rating=
s-for-thursday-...
>
> > > > > > > > > > Question # 1. Who is this numbers guy?
>
> > > > > > > > > Who cares? =A0They aren't his numbers. =A0He's reporting =
other's. =A0This
> > > > > > > > > information is *easy* to find. =A0DYADGS.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Question # 2 Where is Olberman on that list?
>
> > > > > > > > > Why don't you read?
>
> > > > > > > > > > If you're going to point to a list, make it one that is=
relevant...
> > > > > > > > > > like this one:
> > > > > > > > > >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats=
-oreilly-f_n_...
>
> > > > > > > > > 1. Huffington, from a *YEAR* ago (really, you can't do be=
tter than
> > > > > > > > > that to show your bias.
>
> > > > > > > > YOU actually DARE to use the word bias?? =A0LOL
>
> > > > > > > YOU have the facts clearly against you, yet stick with your b=
ias.
> > > > > > > Yes, you are biased into blindness.
>
> > > > > > > > > 2. One week, touted as the *ONLY* time it's happened.
>
> > > > > > > > Perhaps it was the only time, But it did. And it will happe=
n again.
>
> > > > > > > Want to change the subject again? =A0You clearly lost the arg=
ument,
> > > > > > > though in your own clouded mind you've somehow "won". =A0Befo=
re you
> > > > > > > speak such nonsense again, perhaps you should spend a minute =
or two
> > > > > > > with Google.
>
> > > > > > > > > 3. Do some research. =A0You've totally lost it (if indeed=
you ever had
> > > > > > > > > it).
>
> > > > > > > > I have and who are you again to tell me I have lost it? Oh,=
wait...
>
> > > > > > > Yes, you have lost it. =A0You're so blind with hate you can't=
see how
> > > > > > > silly your argument is.
>
> > > > > > > > I'm wasting valuable time here...
>
> > > > > > > Clearly you are. =A0You have no interest in the *facts*.
>
> > > > > > > > Idiot.
>
> > > > > > > Indeed you are.
>
> > > > > > I am an idiot indeed for engaging in any kind of discussion wit=
h an
> > > > > > asshole who throws the word 'hate' around like that.
> > > > > > You disgust me, but I don't hate you, Fuckface. You're not impo=
rtant
> > > > > > enough for me to hate you.
>
> > > > > I said nothing about hating me, though your words speak quite lou=
dly.
>
> > > > > > You are more like that wee bit of dog-shit on my shoe... annoyi=
ng, but
> > > > > > not enough to hate....it wipes off easy..see?
>
> > > > > Your hate is more than apparent in this group.
>
> > > > > > Buh BYE!!
>
> > > > > Why do I care that you have to announce that you're running away,
> > > > > after clearly shown to be a fool. =A0You cold have simply run awa=
y, or
> > > > > you *could* have spent a minute with Google before showing your
> > > > > incredible ignorance.
>
> > > > Weak, son...weak.
>
> > > Your argument certainly has been, all along.
>
> > > > Tim is a bully, you are an idiot.
>
> > > You really need a mirror, Mr. Pot.
>
> > > > NEXT!
>
> > > Don't run away mad.
>
> > Don't flatter yourself.
>
> No one discussing anything with you flatters themselves. =A0You're too
> stupid for that.
>
> > .
> > .
> > Mr.Pot...LMAO..... that's rich....
>
> You obviously don't own a mirror. =A0I can certainly understand why.

Okay, the Mr. Pot thing was funny. Now you're back to stupid again.

On Jun 22, 4:04=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2:52=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 3:45=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 2:29=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 22, 2:55=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > On Jun 22, 1:22=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 22, 1:59=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>=
wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 22, 9:43=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 10:30=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wr=
ote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Robatoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> w=
rote:
> > > > > > > > > >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in tha=
t they both are
> > > > > > > > > >>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admi=
ts often that
> > > > > > > > > >>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone =
to believe his
> > > > > > > > > >>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more=
factual
> > > > > > > > > >>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine =
back when CB
> > > > > > > > > >>> radio was the big fad.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing=
to say, a
> > > > > > > > > >>> place to say it.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anythin=
g a place to
> > > > > > > > > >> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC,=
and CNBC.
> > > > > > > > > >> Combined.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
>
> > > > > > > > > 1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
> > > > > > > > > 2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable network sh=
ows, with O'Reilly
> > > > > > > > > at the top of the list.
> > > > > > > > > =A0 For May, in general
> > > > > > > > > =A0 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs contributed)
> > > > > > > > > =A0 2. USA 2.8 million
> > > > > > > > > =A0 3. ESPN 2.1 million
> > > > > > > > > =A0 4. FOX 2.0 million
> > > > > > > > > =A0 5. Nick 1.6 million
> > > > > > > > > =A0 ...
> > > > > > > > > =A0 23. CNN 767,000
> > > > > > > > > =A0 24. MSNBC 756,000
> > > > > > > > > (CNBC didn't even make the list)
> > > > > > > > > =A0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-2009-cabl=
e-rankings-t_n_...
>
> > > > > > > > Okay.. that's FOX. What is Billo The Clown's share? You sai=
d, and I
> > > > > > > > quote: "O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and=
CNBC.
> > > > > > > > Combined."
> > > > > > > > That would be inaccurate.
>
> > > > > > > Hardly.
>
> > > > > > > > How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind the Ne=
twork
> > > > > > > > numbers.
>
> > > > > > > Read and weep.
>
> > > > > > Now, why would I weep?
>
> > > > > > >http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-ratings-for-th=
ursday-...
>
> > > > > > Question # 1. Who is this numbers guy?
>
> > > > > Who cares? =A0They aren't his numbers. =A0He's reporting other's.=
=A0This
> > > > > information is *easy* to find. =A0DYADGS.
>
> > > > > > Question # 2 Where is Olberman on that list?
>
> > > > > Why don't you read?
>
> > > > > > If you're going to point to a list, make it one that is relevan=
t...
> > > > > > like this one:
> > > > > >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-oreilly=
-f_n_...
>
> > > > > 1. Huffington, from a *YEAR* ago (really, you can't do better tha=
n
> > > > > that to show your bias.
>
> > > > YOU actually DARE to use the word bias?? =A0LOL
>
> > > YOU have the facts clearly against you, yet stick with your bias.
> > > Yes, you are biased into blindness.
>
> > > > > 2. One week, touted as the *ONLY* time it's happened.
>
> > > > Perhaps it was the only time, But it did. And it will happen again.
>
> > > Want to change the subject again? =A0You clearly lost the argument,
> > > though in your own clouded mind you've somehow "won". =A0Before you
> > > speak such nonsense again, perhaps you should spend a minute or two
> > > with Google.
>
> > > > > 3. Do some research. =A0You've totally lost it (if indeed you eve=
r had
> > > > > it).
>
> > > > I have and who are you again to tell me I have lost it? Oh, wait...
>
> > > Yes, you have lost it. =A0You're so blind with hate you can't see how
> > > silly your argument is.
>
> > > > I'm wasting valuable time here...
>
> > > Clearly you are. =A0You have no interest in the *facts*.
>
> > > > Idiot.
>
> > > Indeed you are.
>
> > I am an idiot indeed for engaging in any kind of discussion with an
> > asshole who throws the word 'hate' around like that.
> > You disgust me, but I don't hate you, Fuckface. You're not important
> > enough for me to hate you.
>
> I said nothing about hating me, though your words speak quite loudly.
>
> > You are more like that wee bit of dog-shit on my shoe... annoying, but
> > not enough to hate....it wipes off easy..see?
>
> Your hate is more than apparent in this group.
>
> > Buh BYE!!
>
> Why do I care that you have to announce that you're running away,
> after clearly shown to be a fool. =A0You cold have simply run away, or
> you *could* have spent a minute with Google before showing your
> incredible ignorance.

Weak, son...weak.

Tim is a bully, you are an idiot.

NEXT!

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>>
>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they both are
>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits often that
>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to believe his
>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more factual
>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>>
>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back when CB
>> radio was the big fad.
>>
>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to say, a place
>> to say it.
>>
>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I wonder if you foaming right-haters even listen to the
> aforementioned.
> As someone not in bed with either the left or right, I make it a point
> to listen and read to the popular voices of both. Whether we are
> talking
> about O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Colbert, Maher, Olberman or
> <insert your favorite left/right commentator> they have much in
> common:
>
> 1) They are first entertainers with a profit motive
> 2) They seek to provoke, often via hyperbole
> 3) They are *commentators* not news reporters
> 4) They all preach to (their respective) converted whipping them into
> an ideological frenzy
>
> That said - again having listened to both sides pretty thoroughly -
> the righties are largely winning this corner of the cultural debate
> for a number of clear reasons:
>
> 1) They are entertaining - the left is mostly just embittered and
> shrill.
>
> 2) The right more often (not always) attacks on issues of policy, the
> left (most often) attacks individuals - the public will listen to
> the latter and really dislikes the former.
>
> 3) Within the right commentary and policy attacks there are nuggets
> of actual journalism. Left commentary has very little of this.
> A couple years ago I was on assignment in a place where the only
> such show available was O'Reilly. I started out not wanting to
> listen or like this guy at all. I didn't like his style, his
> rightwing populism, and his shoutdowns to his opponents. Then,
> I listened to what he was doing. In the middle of all the
> entertainment/ policy attacks, and all the rest, I started to hear
> real news I wasn't getting anywhere else. This guy goes after the
> judges that give light sentences to repeat pederasts - something
> *everyone* regardless of political views should support. This
> guys goes after congress critters that refuse to be held
> accountable. This guy crosses political ideology lines and goes
> after national issues like illegal immigration and its real cost to
> us all. Instead we hear the left howling about just how mean old
> Bill is. In actual fact, he is far, far, far, more evenhanded in
> his treatment of this President and the far left, the Mahers, the
> Olbermans, and the Colbers ever are to the right. Is it "balanced"?
> No, not really. But it is far more "fair" than what I hear from
> the screeching left.
>
> 4) All media is biased in one way or another because it is full of,
> well, people. But the right popular media is *way* more honest
> about distinguishing what is news and what is their commentary.
> Listen to a day of CNN or ABC commentary, then do the same for FOX,
> it's not even close. On FOX, it is pretty clear what is hard news
> and what is conservative commentary. Most of the rest of the
> mainstream media denies its mancrush on Obama, and purposely blends
> news and commentary together as one. This is profoundly dishonest.
> I do not begrudge anyone their right to speak their piece - it is
> an essential component of a healthy democracy. But to purposely
> blur what is factual, what is supposition, and what is fact -
> something the mainstream liberal media does constantly - is just
> plain lying. I am not choosing sides here (both sides disappoint
> me regularly), but the left - in my direct and repeated
> observations - is far less honest about what it is doing and it is
> *purposeful* in its dilution of news with commentary.
>
>
> 40% of Americans are self-identified conservatives, 20% Liberal, and
> the rest are independents, libertarians, greens, and moderates that
> vote on issues not just a party or ideological formula. It is thus no
> accident that while liberal organs like the New York Times (and its
> affiliated publications) are failing spectacularly, Limabaugh
> continues to hit it out of the park, O'Reilly is far and away the
> biggest cable TV commentator with some 5 Million people watching his
> show in aggregate (original and rebroadcast) daily. It is no accident
> that Air America was a laughable failure by comparison. You cannot
> alienate 40% of your potential audience with dishonesty, personal
> attacks, and bad manners, and then act shocked that you're losing
> market share.
>
> Limbaugh often makes me chuckle and O'Reilly occasionally makes me
> think. Maher, Colbert, Olberman make me wince - not because of their
> views (which are not surprising to me) but because they are so
> incredibly dull, shrill, uninteresting, and generally crass. I rather
> think this translates to the larger population. Maher, as one
> example,
> would essentially be mute if he could not curse or otherwise be vulgar
> on his show. Even the relatively lowbrow incantations of Ann Coulter
> look smart by comparison (and she regularly slaps him into sputtering
> almost-silence when she is on with him).
>
> As always, the right is bad, the left is dangerous. I understand,
> but disagree with the right. But I loathe the popular left. You
> can have dialog with the right, you cannot with the left. The popular
> media demonstrates this regularly. The right is thus winning the
> commentary battle by a mile and it is for good reason ... the left
> counterpoint
> is puerile, vulgar, mean, crass, and very low class by comparison...
>

Very well thought out - congratulations.

Consider the business model: If 40% of the nation is conservative, 60% is
not. So Murdoch starts Fox and gets 40% of the TV viewing audience, leaving
the three major networks (and some cable networks) to divvy up the remaining
60%.

Simple arithmetic means that Fox gets twice as many viewers (ultimately) as,
say, ABC. That's twice the ad revenue.

Murdoch also owns Harper-Collins, Zondervan, NY Post, Wall Street Journal,
Barron's, Dow Jones Industrial Average, 20th Century Fox, Sky News, National
Geographic Channel, MySpace, Hulu, and bunches of other stuff.

If the Fox critics would just go to sleep -- Sleep ... Sleep ... and be born
again into a world without fear and hate!

On Jun 22, 8:47=A0am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:11:11 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anything a place to do it=
.
> >O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC. Combined.
>
> and mcdonald's sells more food than the Palm.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Watsonhttp://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

There are also more PC's than Macs. More cockroaches than people.

On Jun 22, 1:08=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 6:37 am, Chuck <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Upscale wrote:
> >>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>> insert your favourite left/right commentator> they have much in comm=
on:
> >>> The real irony here is that out of all the people who have visited th=
is
> >>> newsgroup with absolutely nothing to contribute, you are the worst of=
them.
> >>> Of course, this type of topic is your speciality. It deals with peopl=
e who
> >>> offer nothing, give nothing and whine all the while doing it. For you=
, it's
> >>> identical to looking in a mirror.
> >> As Tim said. You attack the person and not the message. Rave on!
>
> > Tim conveniently skirted the actual point of Ebert's article. It is
> > about bullies.
> > So if you reintroduce the original point of my ORIGINAL post, what you
> > get is an acetate overlay of the exact points that Ebert makes, but
> > this time in Tim's voice.
> > Tim does exactly the same thing that O'Reilly and other bullies do.
> > Exactly the same. Same modus operandi. Textbook bully tactics.
> > So Upscale is correct. Tim is talking into a mirror.
>
> OK, cite a single instance of "bullying" (as defined by Ebert) in
> my post above. =A0You can't.

You TELLING me I can't?=A0

> I criticize what I perceive to be
> the much greater dishonesty of the left when blending news and
> commentary.

Divisive rhetoric. Misdirection. Straw, by the ton.

>=A0I cite factual demographic information.

WTF? Man, you're really reaching.

>=A0I comment
> upon my experience in actually listening to O'Reilly for the
> first time.

There you go. You have given O'Reilly your blessing. I'm not surprised
as you two have so much in common. Loofa anyone?

>=A0I comment on the boring and vulgar nature of his
> ideological opponents.

So you support a bully. And you are one and act like one.
You can't handle somebody in your face and telling you are a bully.
So, we are blessed with more of your rhetoric, straw men, red
herrings, almost truths and misdirection.
Then, as soon as somebody tells you to go fuck yourself, it HAS to
come from a Leftist, right?
That was MY comment on the boring and vulgar nature of you as an
ideological opponent.

> Your inability or unwillingness (I don't know which) to respond to
> such a post thoughtfully does not constitute bullying or anything
> else on my part - it reflects a rhetorical inadequacy on yours.

Why waste more beautiful words when a simple 'fuck you' will suffice?
Your man Cheney has said that bad word before. So has your hero Bush.
Somehow I don't think Obama uses it much. Hmmmmmm.

> > So, Chuck, now explain where the person of Tim and the messages of Tim
> > differ. Tim relies heavily on the fact that bullshit baffles brains.
>
> I rely heavily on the fact that a good many on the left don't have the
> factual content, courtesy, and intellectual skills to debate ideas
> fairly.

'Fairly' in your lingo means: as long as they agree with your
assessments.

>This is demonstrated on the Wreck quite regularly. The
> quickest way to undermine defenders of left ideology is to let them
> speak freely. They inevitably devolve into profanity, personal
> attacks, and denial of factual statements.
>

More Left/Right divisive rhetoric. This is getting soooo boring.

Good thing I'm not allergic to straw or I'd be sneezing my ass off.

Would you LOOK at the time?? My adhesive has set up, so gotto
run...till next time when I have some extra time.

Robatoy wrote:
> I find Jon Stewart entertaining. Can't stand Colbert.
> I'm quite fond of Olberman's way of exposing hypocrisy. He backs it up
> with footage of Limbaugh's, Beck's, and Billo The Clown's
> transgressions.

Yeah, I get a kick out of Olberman ragging on Palin for being a former
sportscaster...

On Jun 22, 7:35=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > I find Jon Stewart entertaining. Can't stand Colbert.
> > I'm quite fond of Olberman's way of exposing hypocrisy. He backs it up
> > with footage of Limbaugh's, Beck's, and Billo The Clown's
> > transgressions.
>
> Yeah, I get a kick out of Olberman ragging on Palin for being a former
> sportscaster...

Didn't O'Reilly report for ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT?
Wasn't Limbaugh a sportscaster as well?

On Jun 22, 2:52=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 3:45=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 2:29=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 2:55=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > > On Jun 22, 1:22=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 22, 1:59=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 22, 9:43=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 22, 10:30=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > > > > Robatoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wro=
te:
> > > > > > > > >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that =
they both are
> > > > > > > > >>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits=
often that
> > > > > > > > >>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to=
believe his
> > > > > > > > >>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more f=
actual
> > > > > > > > >>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>
> > > > > > > > >>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine ba=
ck when CB
> > > > > > > > >>> radio was the big fad.
>
> > > > > > > > >>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing t=
o say, a
> > > > > > > > >>> place to say it.
>
> > > > > > > > >>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>
> > > > > > > > >> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anything =
a place to
> > > > > > > > >> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, a=
nd CNBC.
> > > > > > > > >> Combined.
>
> > > > > > > > > Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
>
> > > > > > > > 1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
> > > > > > > > 2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable network show=
s, with O'Reilly
> > > > > > > > at the top of the list.
> > > > > > > > =A0 For May, in general
> > > > > > > > =A0 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs contributed)
> > > > > > > > =A0 2. USA 2.8 million
> > > > > > > > =A0 3. ESPN 2.1 million
> > > > > > > > =A0 4. FOX 2.0 million
> > > > > > > > =A0 5. Nick 1.6 million
> > > > > > > > =A0 ...
> > > > > > > > =A0 23. CNN 767,000
> > > > > > > > =A0 24. MSNBC 756,000
> > > > > > > > (CNBC didn't even make the list)
> > > > > > > > =A0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-2009-cable-=
rankings-t_n_...
>
> > > > > > > Okay.. that's FOX. What is Billo The Clown's share? You said,=
and I
> > > > > > > quote: "O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and C=
NBC.
> > > > > > > Combined."
> > > > > > > That would be inaccurate.
>
> > > > > > Hardly.
>
> > > > > > > How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind the Netw=
ork
> > > > > > > numbers.
>
> > > > > > Read and weep.
>
> > > > > Now, why would I weep?
>
> > > > > >http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-ratings-for-thur=
sday-...
>
> > > > > Question # 1. Who is this numbers guy?
>
> > > > Who cares? =A0They aren't his numbers. =A0He's reporting other's. =
=A0This
> > > > information is *easy* to find. =A0DYADGS.
>
> > > > > Question # 2 Where is Olberman on that list?
>
> > > > Why don't you read?
>
> > > > > If you're going to point to a list, make it one that is relevant.=
..
> > > > > like this one:
> > > > >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-oreilly-f=
_n_...
>
> > > > 1. Huffington, from a *YEAR* ago (really, you can't do better than
> > > > that to show your bias.
>
> > > YOU actually DARE to use the word bias?? =A0LOL
>
> > YOU have the facts clearly against you, yet stick with your bias.
> > Yes, you are biased into blindness.
>
> > > > 2. One week, touted as the *ONLY* time it's happened.
>
> > > Perhaps it was the only time, But it did. And it will happen again.
>
> > Want to change the subject again? =A0You clearly lost the argument,
> > though in your own clouded mind you've somehow "won". =A0Before you
> > speak such nonsense again, perhaps you should spend a minute or two
> > with Google.
>
> > > > 3. Do some research. =A0You've totally lost it (if indeed you ever =
had
> > > > it).
>
> > > I have and who are you again to tell me I have lost it? Oh, wait...
>
> > Yes, you have lost it. =A0You're so blind with hate you can't see how
> > silly your argument is.
>
> > > I'm wasting valuable time here...
>
> > Clearly you are. =A0You have no interest in the *facts*.
>
> > > Idiot.
>
> > Indeed you are.
>
> I am an idiot indeed for engaging in any kind of discussion with an
> asshole who throws the word 'hate' around like that.
> You disgust me, but I don't hate you, Fuckface. You're not important
> enough for me to hate you.

I said nothing about hating me, though your words speak quite loudly.

> You are more like that wee bit of dog-shit on my shoe... annoying, but
> not enough to hate....it wipes off easy..see?

Your hate is more than apparent in this group.

> Buh BYE!!

Why do I care that you have to announce that you're running away,
after clearly shown to be a fool. You cold have simply run away, or
you *could* have spent a minute with Google before showing your
incredible ignorance.

On Jun 22, 2:55=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 1:22=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 1:59=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 9:43=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 22, 10:30=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Robatoy wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > > > > >>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they b=
oth are
> > > > > >>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits often=
that
> > > > > >>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to belie=
ve his
> > > > > >>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more factual
> > > > > >>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>
> > > > > >>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back whe=
n CB
> > > > > >>> radio was the big fad.
>
> > > > > >>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to say,=
a
> > > > > >>> place to say it.
>
> > > > > >>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>
> > > > > >> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anything a plac=
e to
> > > > > >> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNB=
C.
> > > > > >> Combined.
>
> > > > > > Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
>
> > > > > 1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
> > > > > 2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable network shows, wit=
h O'Reilly
> > > > > at the top of the list.
> > > > > =A0 For May, in general
> > > > > =A0 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs contributed)
> > > > > =A0 2. USA 2.8 million
> > > > > =A0 3. ESPN 2.1 million
> > > > > =A0 4. FOX 2.0 million
> > > > > =A0 5. Nick 1.6 million
> > > > > =A0 ...
> > > > > =A0 23. CNN 767,000
> > > > > =A0 24. MSNBC 756,000
> > > > > (CNBC didn't even make the list)
> > > > > =A0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-2009-cable-rankin=
gs-t_n_...
>
> > > > Okay.. that's FOX. What is Billo The Clown's share? You said, and I
> > > > quote: "O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.
> > > > Combined."
> > > > That would be inaccurate.
>
> > > Hardly.
>
> > > > How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind the Network
> > > > numbers.
>
> > > Read and weep.
>
> > Now, why would I weep?
>
> > >http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-.=
..
>
> > Question # 1. Who is this numbers guy?
>
> Who cares? =A0They aren't his numbers. =A0He's reporting other's. =A0This
> information is *easy* to find. =A0DYADGS.
>
> > Question # 2 Where is Olberman on that list?
>
> Why don't you read?
>
> > If you're going to point to a list, make it one that is relevant...
> > like this one:
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-oreilly-f_n_...
>
> 1. Huffington, from a *YEAR* ago (really, you can't do better than
> that to show your bias.

YOU actually DARE to use the word bias?? LOL

> 2. One week, touted as the *ONLY* time it's happened.

Perhaps it was the only time, But it did. And it will happen again.

> 3. Do some research. =A0You've totally lost it (if indeed you ever had
> it).

I have and who are you again to tell me I have lost it? Oh, wait...
I'm wasting valuable time here...

Idiot.

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 22, 3:26 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>>>> How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind the Network
>>>>> numbers.
>>
>>>> Read and weep.
>>
>>> Now, why would I weep?
>>
>>>> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-...
>>
>>> Question # 1. Who is this numbers guy?
>>> Question # 2 Where is Olberman on that list?
>>
>>> If you're going to point to a list, make it one that is relevant...
>>> like this one:
>>
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-oreilly-f_n_...
>>
>> Question #1: He's an aggregator of A.C. Nielson number.
>>
>> Question #2:
>>
>> You'll note the qualifier in your reference: "This marks the first
>> time that
>> MSNBC has beaten Fox News in O'Reilly's 8pm time slot [for the 25-54
>> age
>> group] since June 2001.
>>
>> Another interesting tabulation for June
>> 18th:http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/06/19/cable-news-tv-ratings-for-thursd...
>>
>> 8PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
>> O'Reilly Factor Classic -3,246,000 viewers (762,000) (1,357,000)
>> CNN Money Summit-418,000 viewers (111,000) (131,000)
>> Countdown with K. Olbermann - 1,201,000 viewers (414,000) (619,000)
>> CNBC Reports- 116,000 viewers (44,000) (61,000)
>> Nancy Grace - 859,000viewers (288,000) (391,000)
>>
>> As you can see, O'Reilly, with 3.2 million viewers, outperformed
>> CNN, MSNBC,
>> CNBC, and CNN-Headline combined (2.6 million).
>>
>> I suspect the Huffington Post article which you referenced was an
>> outlier,
>> possibly having something to do with Olbermann doing the whole show,
>> that
>> one night, in a swim suit (Thank God it wasn't a Speedo!).
>
> You just snuggle up to Rush, Beck, Billo. Newt. If that is reality to
> you...good luck.... oh and Nancy Grace..she's on CNN right?

[Nancy Grace is on CNN-Headline]

I take your statement to be some kind of insult. You asked a question of how
O'Reilly compared to Oberman. I provided industry-standard tabulations. And
that engenders some form of approbation? Although, to be fair, your insult,
if it was an insult, is not nearly as excited as some you've directed at
others who disagree with your position. For that, I'm sort of grateful.
(Hey, I believe in rewarding positive changes in behavior!)

It's my experience that conservatives (like me) debate with facts (i.e.,
Nielson numbers) and liberals debate with emotions ("I feel your pain,"
"Hope," "Change," etc.)...

From a Transactional Analysis point of view, we conservatives generally (try
to) communicate in an adult-to-adult vector, while the liberals are often in
either a parent-to-child (words like "must," "should," "duty") or
child-to-child mode ("Whee!," "Fuck-it!," or "asshole!").

Unfortunately, "Hope" is not a strategy; "Change" is not a tactic.

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I don't. Pity you find an education so threatening.

You don't use education to threaten. You use it as a means to lord over
those less educated. Just because someone may not have the education you
have doesn't for one second mean that what they have to say and how they say
it is any less meaningful than your drivel.

And it *is* drivel that you espouse. Day in and and day out you use your
English language capabilities to vomit a form of verbal diahrrea. In fact,
it's all you do because you just don't have anything better to offer.

> I have never lied about you or anyone else to the very best of
> my knowledge.

That's because your mental state won't allow for the simple idea that you
mislead as a matter of course. You're so practiced in verbal gymnasitics
that every word you utter is a misleading presentation of the English
language. The really sad part is that you're smart enough to make a
contribution, but you waste whatever capability you have on drivel and
contribute exactly nothing. Coupled with your incessant complaining, whining
and how life is sticking it to you leaves one with the final realization
that you're not capable of anything else. It's just not in you to change
that. This fact is most evident by the years you've been here and have yet
to make *any* comments dealing with the topic of woodworking.

On Jun 21, 10:01=A0pm, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they both are
> entertainers that present made up news. =A0Stewart admits often that his
> is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to believe his
> pronouncements. =A0The truly sad situation is that more factual
> information is available from the Daily Show.

The Daily Show doesn't make up news - they're just as accurate about
the topics and events as any other news source. They just riff on the
commentary and lampoon everybody.

R

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I rely heavily on the fact that a good many on the left don't have the
> factual content, courtesy, and intellectual skills to debate ideas
> fairly. This is demonstrated on the Wreck quite regularly.

The only thing you rely on is the fact that you like to cause argument. This
is supposed to be a woodworking newsgroup and not your personal platform for
raising discussion on any subject that will cause dissention. This is
demonstrated by you on the rec without cessation.

On Jun 22, 1:22=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 1:59=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 9:43=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 10:30=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Robatoy wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > > > >>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
> > > > >>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they bot=
h are
> > > > >>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits often t=
hat
> > > > >>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to believe=
his
> > > > >>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more factual
> > > > >>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>
> > > > >>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back when =
CB
> > > > >>> radio was the big fad.
>
> > > > >>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to say, a
> > > > >>> place to say it.
>
> > > > >>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>
> > > > >> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anything a place =
to
> > > > >> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.
> > > > >> Combined.
>
> > > > > Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
>
> > > > 1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
> > > > 2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable network shows, with =
O'Reilly
> > > > at the top of the list.
> > > > =A0 For May, in general
> > > > =A0 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs contributed)
> > > > =A0 2. USA 2.8 million
> > > > =A0 3. ESPN 2.1 million
> > > > =A0 4. FOX 2.0 million
> > > > =A0 5. Nick 1.6 million
> > > > =A0 ...
> > > > =A0 23. CNN 767,000
> > > > =A0 24. MSNBC 756,000
> > > > (CNBC didn't even make the list)
> > > > =A0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-2009-cable-rankings=
-t_n_...
>
> > > Okay.. that's FOX. What is Billo The Clown's share? You said, and I
> > > quote: "O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.
> > > Combined."
> > > That would be inaccurate.
>
> > Hardly.
>
> > > How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind the Network
> > > numbers.
>
> > Read and weep.
>
> Now, why would I weep?
>
>
>
> >http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-...
>
> Question # 1. Who is this numbers guy?

Who cares? They aren't his numbers. He's reporting other's. This
information is *easy* to find. DYADGS.

> Question # 2 Where is Olberman on that list?

Why don't you read?

> If you're going to point to a list, make it one that is relevant...
> like this one:

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-oreilly-f_n_...

1. Huffington, from a *YEAR* ago (really, you can't do better than
that to show your bias.
2. One week, touted as the *ONLY* time it's happened.
3. Do some research. You've totally lost it (if indeed you ever had
it).

On Jun 22, 10:43=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 10:30=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Robatoy wrote:
> > > On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > >>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
> > >>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they both ar=
e
> > >>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits often that
> > >>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to believe his
> > >>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more factual
> > >>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>
> > >>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back when CB
> > >>> radio was the big fad.
>
> > >>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to say, a
> > >>> place to say it.
>
> > >>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>
> > >> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anything a place to
> > >> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.
> > >> Combined.
>
> > > Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
>
> > 1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
> > 2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable network shows, with O'Re=
illy
> > at the top of the list.
> > =A0 For May, in general
> > =A0 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs contributed)
> > =A0 2. USA 2.8 million
> > =A0 3. ESPN 2.1 million
> > =A0 4. FOX 2.0 million
> > =A0 5. Nick 1.6 million
> > =A0 ...
> > =A0 23. CNN 767,000
> > =A0 24. MSNBC 756,000
> > (CNBC didn't even make the list)
> > =A0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-2009-cable-rankings-t_n=
_...
>
> Okay.. that's FOX. What is Billo The Clown's share? You said, and I
> quote: "O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.
> Combined."
> That would be inaccurate.
>
> How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind the Network
> numbers.

Or better yet... How well does Billo The Clown do in the powerful
24-57 age group in prime time?

On Jun 22, 1:59=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 9:43=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 10:30=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Robatoy wrote:
> > > > On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > > >>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
> > > >>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they both =
are
> > > >>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits often tha=
t
> > > >>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to believe h=
is
> > > >>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more factual
> > > >>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>
> > > >>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back when CB
> > > >>> radio was the big fad.
>
> > > >>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to say, a
> > > >>> place to say it.
>
> > > >>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>
> > > >> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anything a place to
> > > >> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.
> > > >> Combined.
>
> > > > Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
>
> > > 1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
> > > 2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable network shows, with O'=
Reilly
> > > at the top of the list.
> > > =A0 For May, in general
> > > =A0 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs contributed)
> > > =A0 2. USA 2.8 million
> > > =A0 3. ESPN 2.1 million
> > > =A0 4. FOX 2.0 million
> > > =A0 5. Nick 1.6 million
> > > =A0 ...
> > > =A0 23. CNN 767,000
> > > =A0 24. MSNBC 756,000
> > > (CNBC didn't even make the list)
> > > =A0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-2009-cable-rankings-t=
_n_...
>
> > Okay.. that's FOX. What is Billo The Clown's share? You said, and I
> > quote: "O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.
> > Combined."
> > That would be inaccurate.
>
> Hardly.
>
> > How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind the Network
> > numbers.
>
> Read and weep.

Now, why would I weep?
>
> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-...

Question # 1. Who is this numbers guy?
Question # 2 Where is Olberman on that list?

If you're going to point to a list, make it one that is relevant...
like this one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-oreilly-f_n_106298=
.html

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:53:30 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jun 21, 5:02 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Very informative. I see a few symptoms of those bullying techniques in
>> here.
>
>http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/the_oreilly_procedure.html


o'reilly is the illegitimate spawn of joe pyne.




Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Robatoy wrote:
> Very informative. I see a few symptoms of those bullying techniques in
> here.
I am trying to picture Roger Ebert atop a bull. I am going to lie down now.

On Jun 22, 3:45=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2:29=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 2:55=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 1:22=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 22, 1:59=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > On Jun 22, 9:43=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 22, 10:30=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Robatoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote=
:
> > > > > > > >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that th=
ey both are
> > > > > > > >>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits o=
ften that
> > > > > > > >>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to b=
elieve his
> > > > > > > >>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more fac=
tual
> > > > > > > >>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>
> > > > > > > >>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back=
when CB
> > > > > > > >>> radio was the big fad.
>
> > > > > > > >>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to =
say, a
> > > > > > > >>> place to say it.
>
> > > > > > > >>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>
> > > > > > > >> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anything a =
place to
> > > > > > > >> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and=
CNBC.
> > > > > > > >> Combined.
>
> > > > > > > > Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
>
> > > > > > > 1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
> > > > > > > 2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable network shows,=
with O'Reilly
> > > > > > > at the top of the list.
> > > > > > > =A0 For May, in general
> > > > > > > =A0 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs contributed)
> > > > > > > =A0 2. USA 2.8 million
> > > > > > > =A0 3. ESPN 2.1 million
> > > > > > > =A0 4. FOX 2.0 million
> > > > > > > =A0 5. Nick 1.6 million
> > > > > > > =A0 ...
> > > > > > > =A0 23. CNN 767,000
> > > > > > > =A0 24. MSNBC 756,000
> > > > > > > (CNBC didn't even make the list)
> > > > > > > =A0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-2009-cable-ra=
nkings-t_n_...
>
> > > > > > Okay.. that's FOX. What is Billo The Clown's share? You said, a=
nd I
> > > > > > quote: "O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNB=
C.
> > > > > > Combined."
> > > > > > That would be inaccurate.
>
> > > > > Hardly.
>
> > > > > > How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind the Networ=
k
> > > > > > numbers.
>
> > > > > Read and weep.
>
> > > > Now, why would I weep?
>
> > > > >http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-ratings-for-thursd=
ay-...
>
> > > > Question # 1. Who is this numbers guy?
>
> > > Who cares? =A0They aren't his numbers. =A0He's reporting other's. =A0=
This
> > > information is *easy* to find. =A0DYADGS.
>
> > > > Question # 2 Where is Olberman on that list?
>
> > > Why don't you read?
>
> > > > If you're going to point to a list, make it one that is relevant...
> > > > like this one:
> > > >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-oreilly-f_n=
_...
>
> > > 1. Huffington, from a *YEAR* ago (really, you can't do better than
> > > that to show your bias.
>
> > YOU actually DARE to use the word bias?? =A0LOL
>
> YOU have the facts clearly against you, yet stick with your bias.
> Yes, you are biased into blindness.
>
> > > 2. One week, touted as the *ONLY* time it's happened.
>
> > Perhaps it was the only time, But it did. And it will happen again.
>
> Want to change the subject again? =A0You clearly lost the argument,
> though in your own clouded mind you've somehow "won". =A0Before you
> speak such nonsense again, perhaps you should spend a minute or two
> with Google.
>
> > > 3. Do some research. =A0You've totally lost it (if indeed you ever ha=
d
> > > it).
>
> > I have and who are you again to tell me I have lost it? Oh, wait...
>
> Yes, you have lost it. =A0You're so blind with hate you can't see how
> silly your argument is.
>
> > I'm wasting valuable time here...
>
> Clearly you are. =A0You have no interest in the *facts*.
>
> > Idiot.
>
> Indeed you are.

I am an idiot indeed for engaging in any kind of discussion with an
asshole who throws the word 'hate' around like that.
You disgust me, but I don't hate you, Fuckface. You're not important
enough for me to hate you.
You are more like that wee bit of dog-shit on my shoe... annoying, but
not enough to hate....it wipes off easy..see?

Buh BYE!!

On Jun 21, 5:02=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Very informative. I see a few symptoms of those bullying techniques in
> here.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/the_oreilly_procedure.html

On Jun 22, 4:38=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 3:25=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 4:04=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 2:52=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 22, 3:45=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > On Jun 22, 2:29=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 22, 2:55=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>=
wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 22, 1:22=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 1:59=A0pm, "[email protected]" <keith...@gmail.=
com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 9:43=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 10:30=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]=
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Robatoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]=
m> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in=
that they both are
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart =
admits often that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects every=
one to believe his
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that =
more factual
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of m=
ine back when CB
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> radio was the big fad.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with not=
hing to say, a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> place to say it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear any=
thing a place to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MS=
NBC, and CNBC.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Combined.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable networ=
k shows, with O'Reilly
> > > > > > > > > > > at the top of the list.
> > > > > > > > > > > =A0 For May, in general
> > > > > > > > > > > =A0 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs contribu=
ted)
> > > > > > > > > > > =A0 2. USA 2.8 million
> > > > > > > > > > > =A0 3. ESPN 2.1 million
> > > > > > > > > > > =A0 4. FOX 2.0 million
> > > > > > > > > > > =A0 5. Nick 1.6 million
> > > > > > > > > > > =A0 ...
> > > > > > > > > > > =A0 23. CNN 767,000
> > > > > > > > > > > =A0 24. MSNBC 756,000
> > > > > > > > > > > (CNBC didn't even make the list)
> > > > > > > > > > > =A0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-2009-=
cable-rankings-t_n_...
>
> > > > > > > > > > Okay.. that's FOX. What is Billo The Clown's share? You=
said, and I
> > > > > > > > > > quote: "O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC,=
and CNBC.
> > > > > > > > > > Combined."
> > > > > > > > > > That would be inaccurate.
>
> > > > > > > > > Hardly.
>
> > > > > > > > > > How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind th=
e Network
> > > > > > > > > > numbers.
>
> > > > > > > > > Read and weep.
>
> > > > > > > > Now, why would I weep?
>
> > > > > > > > >http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-ratings-fo=
r-thursday-...
>
> > > > > > > > Question # 1. Who is this numbers guy?
>
> > > > > > > Who cares? =A0They aren't his numbers. =A0He's reporting othe=
r's. =A0This
> > > > > > > information is *easy* to find. =A0DYADGS.
>
> > > > > > > > Question # 2 Where is Olberman on that list?
>
> > > > > > > Why don't you read?
>
> > > > > > > > If you're going to point to a list, make it one that is rel=
evant...
> > > > > > > > like this one:
> > > > > > > >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-ore=
illy-f_n_...
>
> > > > > > > 1. Huffington, from a *YEAR* ago (really, you can't do better=
than
> > > > > > > that to show your bias.
>
> > > > > > YOU actually DARE to use the word bias?? =A0LOL
>
> > > > > YOU have the facts clearly against you, yet stick with your bias.
> > > > > Yes, you are biased into blindness.
>
> > > > > > > 2. One week, touted as the *ONLY* time it's happened.
>
> > > > > > Perhaps it was the only time, But it did. And it will happen ag=
ain.
>
> > > > > Want to change the subject again? =A0You clearly lost the argumen=
t,
> > > > > though in your own clouded mind you've somehow "won". =A0Before y=
ou
> > > > > speak such nonsense again, perhaps you should spend a minute or t=
wo
> > > > > with Google.
>
> > > > > > > 3. Do some research. =A0You've totally lost it (if indeed you=
ever had
> > > > > > > it).
>
> > > > > > I have and who are you again to tell me I have lost it? Oh, wai=
t...
>
> > > > > Yes, you have lost it. =A0You're so blind with hate you can't see=
how
> > > > > silly your argument is.
>
> > > > > > I'm wasting valuable time here...
>
> > > > > Clearly you are. =A0You have no interest in the *facts*.
>
> > > > > > Idiot.
>
> > > > > Indeed you are.
>
> > > > I am an idiot indeed for engaging in any kind of discussion with an
> > > > asshole who throws the word 'hate' around like that.
> > > > You disgust me, but I don't hate you, Fuckface. You're not importan=
t
> > > > enough for me to hate you.
>
> > > I said nothing about hating me, though your words speak quite loudly.
>
> > > > You are more like that wee bit of dog-shit on my shoe... annoying, =
but
> > > > not enough to hate....it wipes off easy..see?
>
> > > Your hate is more than apparent in this group.
>
> > > > Buh BYE!!
>
> > > Why do I care that you have to announce that you're running away,
> > > after clearly shown to be a fool. =A0You cold have simply run away, o=
r
> > > you *could* have spent a minute with Google before showing your
> > > incredible ignorance.
>
> > Weak, son...weak.
>
> Your argument certainly has been, all along.
>
> > Tim is a bully, you are an idiot.
>
> You really need a mirror, Mr. Pot.
>
> > NEXT!
>
> Don't run away mad.

Don't flatter yourself.
.
.
.
.
Mr.Pot...LMAO..... that's rich....

On Jun 22, 9:43=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 10:30=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Robatoy wrote:
> > > On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > >>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
> > >>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they both ar=
e
> > >>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits often that
> > >>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to believe his
> > >>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more factual
> > >>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>
> > >>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back when CB
> > >>> radio was the big fad.
>
> > >>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to say, a
> > >>> place to say it.
>
> > >>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>
> > >> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anything a place to
> > >> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.
> > >> Combined.
>
> > > Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
>
> > 1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
> > 2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable network shows, with O'Re=
illy
> > at the top of the list.
> > =A0 For May, in general
> > =A0 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs contributed)
> > =A0 2. USA 2.8 million
> > =A0 3. ESPN 2.1 million
> > =A0 4. FOX 2.0 million
> > =A0 5. Nick 1.6 million
> > =A0 ...
> > =A0 23. CNN 767,000
> > =A0 24. MSNBC 756,000
> > (CNBC didn't even make the list)
> > =A0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-2009-cable-rankings-t_n=
_...
>
> Okay.. that's FOX. What is Billo The Clown's share? You said, and I
> quote: "O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.
> Combined."
> That would be inaccurate.

Hardly.

> How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind the Network
> numbers.

Read and weep.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-april-=
9/16518

On Jun 22, 3:49=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >>> Tim does exactly the same thing that O'Reilly and other bullies do.
> >>> Exactly the same. Same modus operandi. Textbook bully tactics.
> >>> So Upscale is correct. Tim is talking into a mirror.
> >> OK, cite a single instance of "bullying" (as defined by Ebert) in
> >> my post above. =A0You can't.
>
> > You TELLING me I can't?
>
> I am defying you to do so because I know you can't.
>
>
>
> >> I criticize what I perceive to be
> >> the much greater dishonesty of the left when blending news and
> >> commentary.
>
> > Divisive rhetoric. Misdirection. Straw, by the ton.
>
> Bull, more bull, and yet more very nonresponsive bull. =A0You
> cannot comment on my *perception* - you can disgree with it,
> but calling it all the things you have is not a response, it
> is (as it your constant custom) a giant rhetorical dodge.
>
>
>
> >> =A0I cite factual demographic information.
>
> > WTF? Man, you're really reaching.
>
> http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=3Ddemographic
>
> When I say "...the population is self-identified as 40% conservative,
> 20% liberal ...." this is factual information, demographic
> in nature. =A0It could be wrong or out of date information (in which
> case I'd welcome an authoritative correction), but it is not
> "reaching" in any sense of the word, at least not among
> competent English speakers.
>
>
>
> >> =A0I comment
> >> upon my experience in actually listening to O'Reilly for the
> >> first time.
>
> > There you go. You have given O'Reilly your blessing. I'm not surprised
> > as you two have so much in common. Loofa anyone?
>
> Ah, I see you have emptied your bag of ideas and are back
> on the personal attack. =A0I have not given him my blessing. =A0I
> merely note that I have actually listened to him at some length -
> something his loudest critics seem to almost never do - especially
> here.
>
>
>
> >> =A0I comment on the boring and vulgar nature of his
> >> ideological opponents.
>
> > So you support a bully. And you are one and act like one.
>
> Wrong on both counts. =A0O'Reilly sometimes says and does things
> with which I agree. =A0Often he holds positions with which I
> disagree. =A0But I've also made it clear that I object to his
> shoutdowns (for much the same reason I object to your use of
> foul language, your not-to subtle anti-Semitism, your gratuitous
> and intentional ad hominem arguments and so on - because
> it's bad manners and doesn't move the discussion forward).
>
> > You can't handle somebody in your face and telling you are a bully.
> > So, we are blessed with more of your rhetoric, straw men, red
> > herrings, almost truths and misdirection.
> > Then, as soon as somebody tells you to go fuck yourself, it HAS to
> > come from a Leftist, right?
>
> I just *knew* you could control yourself. =A0We're what - 3 posts or
> so into this exchange and you're off to the vulgarity races.
>
> > That was MY comment on the boring and vulgar nature of you as an
> > ideological opponent.
>
> As I said, nothing speaks louder than letting your side have their
> free speech without exception. =A0You routinely start threads, can't
> defend your position, and resort to school yard name calling and
> mud throwing. =A0N.B. =A0That I disagree with righties just as strongly
> and, with only one exception I can recall, have never seen this
> kind of behavior on their part. =A0It's interesting that you on the
> radical left (and yes, that's what you are no matter how much you've
> claimed otherwise in the past, your defense of the far left speaks
> volumes) - the great self anointed defenders of free speech -
> protest the loudest when you actually encounter someone engaging
> in such free speech. =A0You can't defend you ideas? =A0Don't start
> threads stating them and expect to go unchallenged.
>
>
>
> >> Your inability or unwillingness (I don't know which) to respond to
> >> such a post thoughtfully does not constitute bullying or anything
> >> else on my part - it reflects a rhetorical inadequacy on yours.
>
> > Why waste more beautiful words when a simple 'fuck you' will suffice?
>
> Because I am a mannered adult. =A0Because I debate ideas not people.
>
> > Your man Cheney has said that bad word before. So has your hero Bush.
> > Somehow I don't think Obama uses it much. Hmmmmmm.
>
> >>> So, Chuck, now explain where the person of Tim and the messages of Ti=
m
> >>> differ. Tim relies heavily on the fact that bullshit baffles brains.
> >> I rely heavily on the fact that a good many on the left don't have the
> >> factual content, courtesy, and intellectual skills to debate ideas
> >> fairly.
>
> > 'Fairly' in your lingo means: as long as they agree with your
> > assessments.
>
> No, "fairly" in the context of being honest in the debate, sticking
> to the topics, not diluting it with your personal assaults.
> Let's see if we can give you an object lesson from which you
> may learn. =A0In the previous political thread here, I had
> an extended discussion with Mr. Huntress. =A0We disagree pretty
> fundamentally on the issues in question. =A0We managed to disagree
> politely, with respect for each other, and along the way, I at least,
> learned some new things. =A0There was no profanity, personal assault,
> or cheap shots that characterizes so much of what you post. We left
> the discussion still disagreeing but without the rancor or hard
> feelings that, again, seem to be what you strive to achieve.
> THAT is what "fairly" means.
>
>
>
> >> This is demonstrated on the Wreck quite regularly. The
> >> quickest way to undermine defenders of left ideology is to let them
> >> speak freely. They inevitably devolve into profanity, personal
> >> attacks, and denial of factual statements.
>
> > More Left/Right divisive rhetoric. This is getting soooo boring.
>
> However boring, it is fundamentally true.
>
>
>
> > Good thing I'm not allergic to straw or I'd be sneezing my ass off.
>
> > Would you LOOK at the time?? My adhesive has set up, so gotto
> > run...till next time when I have some extra time.
>
> If you're going to continue this, at least you could learn to
> swear with some slight hint of class:
>
> =A0 =A0http://www.trevorstone.org/curse/
>
> ... At least it may increase your vocabulary.
>

You see, Tim, I don't give a rat's ass about what your idea of
etiquette is. I use whatever language suits me to express my ideas and
feelings. If I think you're behaving like an over-educated bully who
insists on covering up a lack of ideas with flowery language, I will
tell you so. No need to invoke the brainwashing from seminary school.
You have one giant weakness and maybe it is cruel of me to keep
dangling bait in front of you, but it is fun.
Just a flicker of a lure and here comes Tim marching in with every
tool in his pouch: <insert any and all of your clich=E9s>.
I used to be fascinated with some of your choices of words..like that
'foaming' you always talk about, and in my mind's eye I see a
Einsteinian hairdo with frantic motions and foam around the corners of
your mouth. Quite entertaining, really.
But then there is that dirty, bully side that fabricates lies about
people, myself included.
For instance, I am not an anti-Semite, get it right, I'm anti Zionist,
again, a manifestation of my dislike for bullies... and I don't care
how many times you want to repeat your baseless accusations, they will
not become true. Again a sign of your bullying.

But go ahead, keep your frantic frothing and foaming on a high wick
and you'll keep entertaining me, but please get some new material
because it's all repeat upon repeat now.

*poof*

On Jun 22, 3:51=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 4:38=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 3:25=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 4:04=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > > On Jun 22, 2:52=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 22, 3:45=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 22, 2:29=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 22, 2:55=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]=
m> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 1:22=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 1:59=A0pm, "[email protected]" <keith...@gmai=
l.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 9:43=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]>=
wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 10:30=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]=
om> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Robatoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.=
com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar =
in that they both are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewar=
t admits often that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects eve=
ryone to believe his
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is tha=
t more factual
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of=
mine back when CB
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> radio was the big fad.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with n=
othing to say, a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> place to say it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear a=
nything a place to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, =
MSNBC, and CNBC.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Combined.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable netw=
ork shows, with O'Reilly
> > > > > > > > > > > > at the top of the list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 For May, in general
> > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs contri=
buted)
> > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 2. USA 2.8 million
> > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 3. ESPN 2.1 million
> > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 4. FOX 2.0 million
> > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 5. Nick 1.6 million
> > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 23. CNN 767,000
> > > > > > > > > > > > =A0 24. MSNBC 756,000
> > > > > > > > > > > > (CNBC didn't even make the list)
> > > > > > > > > > > > =A0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-200=
9-cable-rankings-t_n_...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Okay.. that's FOX. What is Billo The Clown's share? Y=
ou said, and I
> > > > > > > > > > > quote: "O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNB=
C, and CNBC.
> > > > > > > > > > > Combined."
> > > > > > > > > > > That would be inaccurate.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Hardly.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind =
the Network
> > > > > > > > > > > numbers.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Read and weep.
>
> > > > > > > > > Now, why would I weep?
>
> > > > > > > > > >http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-ratings-=
for-thursday-...
>
> > > > > > > > > Question # 1. Who is this numbers guy?
>
> > > > > > > > Who cares? =A0They aren't his numbers. =A0He's reporting ot=
her's. =A0This
> > > > > > > > information is *easy* to find. =A0DYADGS.
>
> > > > > > > > > Question # 2 Where is Olberman on that list?
>
> > > > > > > > Why don't you read?
>
> > > > > > > > > If you're going to point to a list, make it one that is r=
elevant...
> > > > > > > > > like this one:
> > > > > > > > >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-o=
reilly-f_n_...
>
> > > > > > > > 1. Huffington, from a *YEAR* ago (really, you can't do bett=
er than
> > > > > > > > that to show your bias.
>
> > > > > > > YOU actually DARE to use the word bias?? =A0LOL
>
> > > > > > YOU have the facts clearly against you, yet stick with your bia=
s.
> > > > > > Yes, you are biased into blindness.
>
> > > > > > > > 2. One week, touted as the *ONLY* time it's happened.
>
> > > > > > > Perhaps it was the only time, But it did. And it will happen =
again.
>
> > > > > > Want to change the subject again? =A0You clearly lost the argum=
ent,
> > > > > > though in your own clouded mind you've somehow "won". =A0Before=
you
> > > > > > speak such nonsense again, perhaps you should spend a minute or=
two
> > > > > > with Google.
>
> > > > > > > > 3. Do some research. =A0You've totally lost it (if indeed y=
ou ever had
> > > > > > > > it).
>
> > > > > > > I have and who are you again to tell me I have lost it? Oh, w=
ait...
>
> > > > > > Yes, you have lost it. =A0You're so blind with hate you can't s=
ee how
> > > > > > silly your argument is.
>
> > > > > > > I'm wasting valuable time here...
>
> > > > > > Clearly you are. =A0You have no interest in the *facts*.
>
> > > > > > > Idiot.
>
> > > > > > Indeed you are.
>
> > > > > I am an idiot indeed for engaging in any kind of discussion with =
an
> > > > > asshole who throws the word 'hate' around like that.
> > > > > You disgust me, but I don't hate you, Fuckface. You're not import=
ant
> > > > > enough for me to hate you.
>
> > > > I said nothing about hating me, though your words speak quite loudl=
y.
>
> > > > > You are more like that wee bit of dog-shit on my shoe... annoying=
, but
> > > > > not enough to hate....it wipes off easy..see?
>
> > > > Your hate is more than apparent in this group.
>
> > > > > Buh BYE!!
>
> > > > Why do I care that you have to announce that you're running away,
> > > > after clearly shown to be a fool. =A0You cold have simply run away,=
or
> > > > you *could* have spent a minute with Google before showing your
> > > > incredible ignorance.
>
> > > Weak, son...weak.
>
> > Your argument certainly has been, all along.
>
> > > Tim is a bully, you are an idiot.
>
> > You really need a mirror, Mr. Pot.
>
> > > NEXT!
>
> > Don't run away mad.
>
> Don't flatter yourself.

No one discussing anything with you flatters themselves. You're too
stupid for that.

> .
> .
> Mr.Pot...LMAO..... that's rich....

You obviously don't own a mirror. I can certainly understand why.

On Jun 21, 6:26=A0pm, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > Very informative. I see a few symptoms of those bullying techniques in
> > here.
>
> I am trying to picture Roger Ebert atop a bull. =A0I am going to lie down=
now.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/the_oreilly_procedure.html

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 21, 6:26 pm, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> Very informative. I see a few symptoms of those bullying techniques in
>>> here.
>> I am trying to picture Roger Ebert atop a bull. I am going to lie down now.
>
> http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/the_oreilly_procedure.html

The man hasn't lost any brain cells...
mahalo,
jo4hn

In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:

>We could as easily argue:
>
>"US porn revenue exceeds the combined revenues of ABC, CBS, and NBC."
>http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics
>.html#anchor2

The obvious inference -- that people enjoy watching porn more than they enjoy
watching ABC, CBS, and NBC -- is probably the correct inference as well.

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 22, 7:35 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> I find Jon Stewart entertaining. Can't stand Colbert.
>>> I'm quite fond of Olberman's way of exposing hypocrisy. He backs it
>>> up with footage of Limbaugh's, Beck's, and Billo The Clown's
>>> transgressions.
>>
>> Yeah, I get a kick out of Olberman ragging on Palin for being a
>> former sportscaster...
>
> Olberman thinks that is funny as well. He was a former sportscaster
> and can tell the wheat from the chaff. Palin was a former sportscaster
> and can't tell her ass from her elbow.
> Similar roots, totally different development.
> I get a kick out of that as well.

Yeah, but how many people have seen Olberman in a swim suit?

Also Palin got more votes for governor than Olberman has viewers.

Anyway, sportscasting has a mixed-bag as far as career advancement. Dennis
Miller went on to various forms of success. John Madden has made a fortune
in video games. Don Meredith did about two TV shows. Howard Cosell is dead.
Marv Albert became a famous band leader ... no, wait.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they both are
>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits often that
>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to believe his
>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more factual
>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>
> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back when CB
> radio was the big fad.
>
> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to say, a place
> to say it.
>
> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>

And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anything a place to do it.
O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC. Combined.

<[email protected]> wrote:
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:


Na, na, na, nah.

Lew

Tim's point, early on in this thread, has SO proven to be true. This
discussion reminds me of Ann Coulter's book, How to Talk to a Liberal
(If you Must). Coulter points out how the typical liberal will, even
when the facts are in front of him, proving him wrong, continue to
argue, ignoring the evidence, and resort to profanity and name-calling.
Tim called it well and Robatoy proved it.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jun 22, 3:25 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 4:04 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 22, 2:52 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 22, 3:45 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 22, 2:29 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 22, 2:55 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 1:22 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 1:59 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 9:43 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 10:30 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they both are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits often that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to believe his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more factual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back when CB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> radio was the big fad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to say, a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place to say it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anything a place to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Combined.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable network shows, with O'Reilly
>>>>>>>>>>> at the top of the list.
>>>>>>>>>>> For May, in general
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs contributed)
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. USA 2.8 million
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. ESPN 2.1 million
>>>>>>>>>>> 4. FOX 2.0 million
>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Nick 1.6 million
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> 23. CNN 767,000
>>>>>>>>>>> 24. MSNBC 756,000
>>>>>>>>>>> (CNBC didn't even make the list)
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-2009-cable-rankings-t_n_...
>>>>>>>>>> Okay.. that's FOX. What is Billo The Clown's share? You said, and I
>>>>>>>>>> quote: "O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.
>>>>>>>>>> Combined."
>>>>>>>>>> That would be inaccurate.
>>>>>>>>> Hardly.
>>>>>>>>>> How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind the Network
>>>>>>>>>> numbers.
>>>>>>>>> Read and weep.
>>>>>>>> Now, why would I weep?
>>>>>>>>> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-...
>>>>>>>> Question # 1. Who is this numbers guy?
>>>>>>> Who cares? They aren't his numbers. He's reporting other's. This
>>>>>>> information is *easy* to find. DYADGS.
>>>>>>>> Question # 2 Where is Olberman on that list?
>>>>>>> Why don't you read?
>>>>>>>> If you're going to point to a list, make it one that is relevant...
>>>>>>>> like this one:
>>>>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-oreilly-f_n_...
>>>>>>> 1. Huffington, from a *YEAR* ago (really, you can't do better than
>>>>>>> that to show your bias.
>>>>>> YOU actually DARE to use the word bias?? LOL
>>>>> YOU have the facts clearly against you, yet stick with your bias.
>>>>> Yes, you are biased into blindness.
>>>>>>> 2. One week, touted as the *ONLY* time it's happened.
>>>>>> Perhaps it was the only time, But it did. And it will happen again.
>>>>> Want to change the subject again? You clearly lost the argument,
>>>>> though in your own clouded mind you've somehow "won". Before you
>>>>> speak such nonsense again, perhaps you should spend a minute or two
>>>>> with Google.
>>>>>>> 3. Do some research. You've totally lost it (if indeed you ever had
>>>>>>> it).
>>>>>> I have and who are you again to tell me I have lost it? Oh, wait...
>>>>> Yes, you have lost it. You're so blind with hate you can't see how
>>>>> silly your argument is.
>>>>>> I'm wasting valuable time here...
>>>>> Clearly you are. You have no interest in the *facts*.
>>>>>> Idiot.
>>>>> Indeed you are.
>>>> I am an idiot indeed for engaging in any kind of discussion with an
>>>> asshole who throws the word 'hate' around like that.
>>>> You disgust me, but I don't hate you, Fuckface. You're not important
>>>> enough for me to hate you.
>>> I said nothing about hating me, though your words speak quite loudly.
>>>> You are more like that wee bit of dog-shit on my shoe... annoying, but
>>>> not enough to hate....it wipes off easy..see?
>>> Your hate is more than apparent in this group.
>>>> Buh BYE!!
>>> Why do I care that you have to announce that you're running away,
>>> after clearly shown to be a fool. You cold have simply run away, or
>>> you *could* have spent a minute with Google before showing your
>>> incredible ignorance.
>> Weak, son...weak.
>
> Your argument certainly has been, all along.
>
>> Tim is a bully, you are an idiot.
>
> You really need a mirror, Mr. Pot.
>
>> NEXT!
>
> Don't run away mad.

"DGDevin" wrote:

> What cracks me up about Rush is that the "family values" crowd takes
> him seriously. Imagine if some left-wing commentator had a history
> including being thrice-divorced, addicted to narcotic painkillers,
> sex tourism, investigated on multiple drug charges--well, clearly
> such a person is an example of moral decay blah blah. But for some
> reason Rush gets a pass, his character goes unquestioned by those
> who listen to his ranting. Amazing.


When the pickins are slim, ya takes what you can get, especially if
thought is not required.

Lew

Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>> How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind the Network
>>> numbers.
>>
>> Read and weep.
>
> Now, why would I weep?
>>
>> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-...
>
> Question # 1. Who is this numbers guy?
> Question # 2 Where is Olberman on that list?
>
> If you're going to point to a list, make it one that is relevant...
> like this one:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-oreilly-f_n_106298.html

Question #1: He's an aggregator of A.C. Nielson number.

Question #2:

You'll note the qualifier in your reference: "This marks the first time that
MSNBC has beaten Fox News in O'Reilly's 8pm time slot [for the 25-54 age
group] since June 2001.

Another interesting tabulation for June 18th:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/06/19/cable-news-tv-ratings-for-thursday-june-18/21119#more-21119

8PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
O'Reilly Factor Classic -3,246,000 viewers (762,000) (1,357,000)
CNN Money Summit-418,000 viewers (111,000) (131,000)
Countdown with K. Olbermann - 1,201,000 viewers (414,000) (619,000)
CNBC Reports- 116,000 viewers (44,000) (61,000)
Nancy Grace - 859,000viewers (288,000) (391,000)

As you can see, O'Reilly, with 3.2 million viewers, outperformed CNN, MSNBC,
CNBC, and CNN-Headline combined (2.6 million).

I suspect the Huffington Post article which you referenced was an outlier,
possibly having something to do with Olbermann doing the whole show, that
one night, in a swim suit (Thank God it wasn't a Speedo!).

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:aSB%[email protected]...
> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they both are
>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits often that his is
>> a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to believe his
>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more factual information
>> is available from the Daily Show.
>
> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back when CB radio
> was the big fad.
>
> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to say, a place to
> say it.
>
> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>
> Lew

Oh, the irony ...

"Max" wrote:

> Naw, there has to be either Hippopotamus or Blue Whale ancestry in
> there somewhere.

Neither species deserve that.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

> Now about Rush?

What cracks me up about Rush is that the "family values" crowd takes him
seriously. Imagine if some left-wing commentator had a history including
being thrice-divorced, addicted to narcotic painkillers, sex tourism,
investigated on multiple drug charges--well, clearly such a person is an
example of moral decay blah blah. But for some reason Rush gets a pass, his
character goes unquestioned by those who listen to his ranting. Amazing.

On Jun 22, 6:02=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Did you like the curse generator?

The what?

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:agB%[email protected]...
> "Tom Watson" wrote:
>
>> o'reilly is the illegitimate spawn of joe pyne.
>
> It took lung cancer to do it, but Pyne finally mellowed out the last few
> months of his life.
>
> Now about Rush?
>
> The syphilitic miscarriage of a mongoloid gang bang maybe?
>
> Lew

Naw, there has to be either Hippopotamus or Blue Whale ancestry in there
somewhere.

Max

"jo4hn" wrote:

> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they both are
> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits often that
> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to believe his
> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more factual
> information is available from the Daily Show.

Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back when CB
radio was the big fad.

He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to say, a place
to say it.

Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.

Lew

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 22, 6:37 am, Chuck <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Upscale wrote:
>>> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> insert your favourite left/right commentator> they have much in common:
>>> The real irony here is that out of all the people who have visited this
>>> newsgroup with absolutely nothing to contribute, you are the worst of them.
>>> Of course, this type of topic is your speciality. It deals with people who
>>> offer nothing, give nothing and whine all the while doing it. For you, it's
>>> identical to looking in a mirror.
>> As Tim said. You attack the person and not the message. Rave on!
>
> Tim conveniently skirted the actual point of Ebert's article. It is
> about bullies.
> So if you reintroduce the original point of my ORIGINAL post, what you
> get is an acetate overlay of the exact points that Ebert makes, but
> this time in Tim's voice.
> Tim does exactly the same thing that O'Reilly and other bullies do.
> Exactly the same. Same modus operandi. Textbook bully tactics.
> So Upscale is correct. Tim is talking into a mirror.

OK, cite a single instance of "bullying" (as defined by Ebert) in
my post above. You can't. I criticize what I perceive to be
the much greater dishonesty of the left when blending news and
commentary. I cite factual demographic information. I comment
upon my experience in actually listening to O'Reilly for the
first time. I comment on the boring and vulgar nature of his
ideological opponents.

Your inability or unwillingness (I don't know which) to respond to
such a post thoughtfully does not constitute bullying or anything
else on my part - it reflects a rhetorical inadequacy on yours.

>
> So, Chuck, now explain where the person of Tim and the messages of Tim
> differ. Tim relies heavily on the fact that bullshit baffles brains.

I rely heavily on the fact that a good many on the left don't have the
factual content, courtesy, and intellectual skills to debate ideas
fairly. This is demonstrated on the Wreck quite regularly. The
quickest way to undermine defenders of left ideology is to let them
speak freely. They inevitably devolve into profanity, personal
attacks, and denial of factual statements.


Great minds discuss ideas;
Average minds discuss events;
Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Tom Watson" wrote:

> o'reilly is the illegitimate spawn of joe pyne.

It took lung cancer to do it, but Pyne finally mellowed out the last
few months of his life.

Now about Rush?

The syphilitic miscarriage of a mongoloid gang bang maybe?

Lew


Lew

On Jun 21, 10:34=A0pm, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 10:01=A0pm, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they both are
> > entertainers that present made up news. =A0Stewart admits often that hi=
s
> > is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to believe his
> > pronouncements. =A0The truly sad situation is that more factual
> > information is available from the Daily Show.
>
> The Daily Show doesn't make up news - they're just as accurate about
> the topics and events as any other news source. =A0They just riff on the
> commentary and lampoon everybody.
>
> R
I find Jon Stewart entertaining. Can't stand Colbert.
I'm quite fond of Olberman's way of exposing hypocrisy. He backs it up
with footage of Limbaugh's, Beck's, and Billo The Clown's
transgressions.

On Jun 22, 10:30=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
> >>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they both are
> >>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits often that
> >>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to believe his
> >>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more factual
> >>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>
> >>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back when CB
> >>> radio was the big fad.
>
> >>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to say, a
> >>> place to say it.
>
> >>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>
> >> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anything a place to
> >> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.
> >> Combined.
>
> > Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
>
> 1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
> 2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable network shows, with O'Reil=
ly
> at the top of the list.
> =A0 For May, in general
> =A0 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs contributed)
> =A0 2. USA 2.8 million
> =A0 3. ESPN 2.1 million
> =A0 4. FOX 2.0 million
> =A0 5. Nick 1.6 million
> =A0 ...
> =A0 23. CNN 767,000
> =A0 24. MSNBC 756,000
> (CNBC didn't even make the list)
> =A0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-2009-cable-rankings-t_n_.=
..

Okay.. that's FOX. What is Billo The Clown's share? You said, and I
quote: "O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.
Combined."
That would be inaccurate.

How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind the Network
numbers.

On Jun 22, 3:25=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 4:04=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 2:52=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 3:45=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > > On Jun 22, 2:29=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 22, 2:55=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 22, 1:22=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 22, 1:59=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]=
m> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 9:43=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 10:30=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> =
wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Robatoy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>=
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in t=
hat they both are
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart ad=
mits often that
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyon=
e to believe his
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that mo=
re factual
> > > > > > > > > > >>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of min=
e back when CB
> > > > > > > > > > >>> radio was the big fad.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothi=
ng to say, a
> > > > > > > > > > >>> place to say it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anyth=
ing a place to
> > > > > > > > > > >> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNB=
C, and CNBC.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Combined.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
>
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable network =
shows, with O'Reilly
> > > > > > > > > > at the top of the list.
> > > > > > > > > > =A0 For May, in general
> > > > > > > > > > =A0 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs contribute=
d)
> > > > > > > > > > =A0 2. USA 2.8 million
> > > > > > > > > > =A0 3. ESPN 2.1 million
> > > > > > > > > > =A0 4. FOX 2.0 million
> > > > > > > > > > =A0 5. Nick 1.6 million
> > > > > > > > > > =A0 ...
> > > > > > > > > > =A0 23. CNN 767,000
> > > > > > > > > > =A0 24. MSNBC 756,000
> > > > > > > > > > (CNBC didn't even make the list)
> > > > > > > > > > =A0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-2009-ca=
ble-rankings-t_n_...
>
> > > > > > > > > Okay.. that's FOX. What is Billo The Clown's share? You s=
aid, and I
> > > > > > > > > quote: "O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, a=
nd CNBC.
> > > > > > > > > Combined."
> > > > > > > > > That would be inaccurate.
>
> > > > > > > > Hardly.
>
> > > > > > > > > How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind the =
Network
> > > > > > > > > numbers.
>
> > > > > > > > Read and weep.
>
> > > > > > > Now, why would I weep?
>
> > > > > > > >http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-ratings-for-=
thursday-...
>
> > > > > > > Question # 1. Who is this numbers guy?
>
> > > > > > Who cares? =A0They aren't his numbers. =A0He's reporting other'=
s. =A0This
> > > > > > information is *easy* to find. =A0DYADGS.
>
> > > > > > > Question # 2 Where is Olberman on that list?
>
> > > > > > Why don't you read?
>
> > > > > > > If you're going to point to a list, make it one that is relev=
ant...
> > > > > > > like this one:
> > > > > > >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-oreil=
ly-f_n_...
>
> > > > > > 1. Huffington, from a *YEAR* ago (really, you can't do better t=
han
> > > > > > that to show your bias.
>
> > > > > YOU actually DARE to use the word bias?? =A0LOL
>
> > > > YOU have the facts clearly against you, yet stick with your bias.
> > > > Yes, you are biased into blindness.
>
> > > > > > 2. One week, touted as the *ONLY* time it's happened.
>
> > > > > Perhaps it was the only time, But it did. And it will happen agai=
n.
>
> > > > Want to change the subject again? =A0You clearly lost the argument,
> > > > though in your own clouded mind you've somehow "won". =A0Before you
> > > > speak such nonsense again, perhaps you should spend a minute or two
> > > > with Google.
>
> > > > > > 3. Do some research. =A0You've totally lost it (if indeed you e=
ver had
> > > > > > it).
>
> > > > > I have and who are you again to tell me I have lost it? Oh, wait.=
..
>
> > > > Yes, you have lost it. =A0You're so blind with hate you can't see h=
ow
> > > > silly your argument is.
>
> > > > > I'm wasting valuable time here...
>
> > > > Clearly you are. =A0You have no interest in the *facts*.
>
> > > > > Idiot.
>
> > > > Indeed you are.
>
> > > I am an idiot indeed for engaging in any kind of discussion with an
> > > asshole who throws the word 'hate' around like that.
> > > You disgust me, but I don't hate you, Fuckface. You're not important
> > > enough for me to hate you.
>
> > I said nothing about hating me, though your words speak quite loudly.
>
> > > You are more like that wee bit of dog-shit on my shoe... annoying, bu=
t
> > > not enough to hate....it wipes off easy..see?
>
> > Your hate is more than apparent in this group.
>
> > > Buh BYE!!
>
> > Why do I care that you have to announce that you're running away,
> > after clearly shown to be a fool. =A0You cold have simply run away, or
> > you *could* have spent a minute with Google before showing your
> > incredible ignorance.
>
> Weak, son...weak.

Your argument certainly has been, all along.

> Tim is a bully, you are an idiot.

You really need a mirror, Mr. Pot.

> NEXT!

Don't run away mad.

On Jun 22, 2:29=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2:55=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 1:22=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 1:59=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > > On Jun 22, 9:43=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 22, 10:30=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Robatoy wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > > > > > >>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they=
both are
> > > > > > >>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits oft=
en that
> > > > > > >>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to bel=
ieve his
> > > > > > >>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more factu=
al
> > > > > > >>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>
> > > > > > >>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back w=
hen CB
> > > > > > >>> radio was the big fad.
>
> > > > > > >>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to sa=
y, a
> > > > > > >>> place to say it.
>
> > > > > > >>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>
> > > > > > >> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anything a pl=
ace to
> > > > > > >> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and C=
NBC.
> > > > > > >> Combined.
>
> > > > > > > Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
>
> > > > > > 1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
> > > > > > 2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable network shows, w=
ith O'Reilly
> > > > > > at the top of the list.
> > > > > > =A0 For May, in general
> > > > > > =A0 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs contributed)
> > > > > > =A0 2. USA 2.8 million
> > > > > > =A0 3. ESPN 2.1 million
> > > > > > =A0 4. FOX 2.0 million
> > > > > > =A0 5. Nick 1.6 million
> > > > > > =A0 ...
> > > > > > =A0 23. CNN 767,000
> > > > > > =A0 24. MSNBC 756,000
> > > > > > (CNBC didn't even make the list)
> > > > > > =A0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-2009-cable-rank=
ings-t_n_...
>
> > > > > Okay.. that's FOX. What is Billo The Clown's share? You said, and=
I
> > > > > quote: "O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.
> > > > > Combined."
> > > > > That would be inaccurate.
>
> > > > Hardly.
>
> > > > > How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind the Network
> > > > > numbers.
>
> > > > Read and weep.
>
> > > Now, why would I weep?
>
> > > >http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday=
-...
>
> > > Question # 1. Who is this numbers guy?
>
> > Who cares? =A0They aren't his numbers. =A0He's reporting other's. =A0Th=
is
> > information is *easy* to find. =A0DYADGS.
>
> > > Question # 2 Where is Olberman on that list?
>
> > Why don't you read?
>
> > > If you're going to point to a list, make it one that is relevant...
> > > like this one:
> > >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-oreilly-f_n_.=
..
>
> > 1. Huffington, from a *YEAR* ago (really, you can't do better than
> > that to show your bias.
>
> YOU actually DARE to use the word bias?? =A0LOL

YOU have the facts clearly against you, yet stick with your bias.
Yes, you are biased into blindness.

> > 2. One week, touted as the *ONLY* time it's happened.
>
> Perhaps it was the only time, But it did. And it will happen again.

Want to change the subject again? You clearly lost the argument,
though in your own clouded mind you've somehow "won". Before you
speak such nonsense again, perhaps you should spend a minute or two
with Google.

> > 3. Do some research. =A0You've totally lost it (if indeed you ever had
> > it).
>
> I have and who are you again to tell me I have lost it? Oh, wait...

Yes, you have lost it. You're so blind with hate you can't see how
silly your argument is.

> I'm wasting valuable time here...

Clearly you are. You have no interest in the *facts*.

> Idiot.

Indeed you are.

On Jun 22, 3:26=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> >>> How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind the Network
> >>> numbers.
>
> >> Read and weep.
>
> > Now, why would I weep?
>
> >>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-..=
.
>
> > Question # 1. Who is this numbers guy?
> > Question # 2 Where is Olberman on that list?
>
> > If you're going to point to a list, make it one that is relevant...
> > like this one:
>
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-oreilly-f_n_...
>
> Question #1: He's an aggregator of A.C. Nielson number.
>
> Question #2:
>
> You'll note the qualifier in your reference: "This marks the first time t=
hat
> MSNBC has beaten Fox News in O'Reilly's 8pm time slot [for the 25-54 age
> group] since June 2001.
>
> Another interesting tabulation for June 18th:http://tvbythenumbers.com/20=
09/06/19/cable-news-tv-ratings-for-thursd...
>
> 8PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
> O'Reilly Factor Classic -3,246,000 viewers (762,000) (1,357,000)
> CNN Money Summit-418,000 viewers (111,000) (131,000)
> Countdown with K. Olbermann - 1,201,000 viewers (414,000) (619,000)
> CNBC Reports- 116,000 viewers (44,000) (61,000)
> Nancy Grace - 859,000viewers (288,000) (391,000)
>
> As you can see, O'Reilly, with 3.2 million viewers, outperformed CNN, MSN=
BC,
> CNBC, and CNN-Headline combined (2.6 million).
>
> I suspect the Huffington Post article which you referenced was an outlier=
,
> possibly having something to do with Olbermann doing the whole show, that
> one night, in a swim suit (Thank God it wasn't a Speedo!).

You just snuggle up to Rush, Beck, Billo. Newt. If that is reality to
you...good luck.... oh and Nancy Grace..she's on CNN right?

On Jun 22, 6:37=A0am, Chuck <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
> > "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> insert your favourite left/right commentator> they have much in common=
:
>
> > The real irony here is that out of all the people who have visited this
> > newsgroup with absolutely nothing to contribute, you are the worst of t=
hem.
>
> > Of course, this type of topic is your speciality. It deals with people =
who
> > offer nothing, give nothing and whine all the while doing it. For you, =
it's
> > identical to looking in a mirror.
>
> As Tim said. You attack the person and not the message. Rave on!

Tim conveniently skirted the actual point of Ebert's article. It is
about bullies.
So if you reintroduce the original point of my ORIGINAL post, what you
get is an acetate overlay of the exact points that Ebert makes, but
this time in Tim's voice.
Tim does exactly the same thing that O'Reilly and other bullies do.
Exactly the same. Same modus operandi. Textbook bully tactics.
So Upscale is correct. Tim is talking into a mirror.

So, Chuck, now explain where the person of Tim and the messages of Tim
differ. Tim relies heavily on the fact that bullshit baffles brains.

Now go to my OP which says: "Very informative. I see a few symptoms of
those bullying techniques in
here."

Point made, game, set, match.

On Jun 22, 10:06=A0pm, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim's point, early on in this thread, has SO proven to be true. =A0This
> discussion reminds me of Ann Coulter's book, How to Talk to a Liberal
> (If you Must). Coulter points out how the typical liberal will, even
> when the facts are in front of him, proving him wrong, continue to
> argue, ignoring the evidence, and resort to profanity and name-calling.
> =A0 =A0 Tim called it well and Robatoy proved it.
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 3:25 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Jun 22, 4:04 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 22, 2:52 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 22, 3:45 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 22, 2:29 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jun 22, 2:55 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrot=
e:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 22, 1:22 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 1:59 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wr=
ote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 9:43 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 10:30 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Robatoy wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "jo4hn" wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that the=
y both are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits of=
ten that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to be=
lieve his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more fact=
ual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back =
when CB
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> radio was the big fad.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to s=
ay, a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> place to say it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anything a p=
lace to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and =
CNBC.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Combined.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable network shows,=
with O'Reilly
> >>>>>>>>>>> at the top of the list.
> >>>>>>>>>>> =A0 For May, in general
> >>>>>>>>>>> =A0 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs contributed)
> >>>>>>>>>>> =A0 2. USA 2.8 million
> >>>>>>>>>>> =A0 3. ESPN 2.1 million
> >>>>>>>>>>> =A0 4. FOX 2.0 million
> >>>>>>>>>>> =A0 5. Nick 1.6 million
> >>>>>>>>>>> =A0 ...
> >>>>>>>>>>> =A0 23. CNN 767,000
> >>>>>>>>>>> =A0 24. MSNBC 756,000
> >>>>>>>>>>> (CNBC didn't even make the list)
> >>>>>>>>>>> =A0http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-2009-cable-ra=
nkings-t_n_...
> >>>>>>>>>> Okay.. that's FOX. What is Billo The Clown's share? You said, =
and I
> >>>>>>>>>> quote: "O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CN=
BC.
> >>>>>>>>>> Combined."
> >>>>>>>>>> That would be inaccurate.
> >>>>>>>>> Hardly.
> >>>>>>>>>> How does Billo stack up against Olberman? Never mind the Netwo=
rk
> >>>>>>>>>> numbers.
> >>>>>>>>> Read and weep.
> >>>>>>>> Now, why would I weep?
> >>>>>>>>>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/10/cable-news-ratings-for-thur=
sday-...
> >>>>>>>> Question # 1. Who is this numbers guy?
> >>>>>>> Who cares? =A0They aren't his numbers. =A0He's reporting other's.=
=A0This
> >>>>>>> information is *easy* to find. =A0DYADGS.
> >>>>>>>> Question # 2 Where is Olberman on that list?
> >>>>>>> Why don't you read?
> >>>>>>>> If you're going to point to a list, make it one that is relevant=
...
> >>>>>>>> like this one:
> >>>>>>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-oreilly-=
f_n_...
> >>>>>>> 1. Huffington, from a *YEAR* ago (really, you can't do better tha=
n
> >>>>>>> that to show your bias.
> >>>>>> YOU actually DARE to use the word bias?? =A0LOL
> >>>>> YOU have the facts clearly against you, yet stick with your bias.
> >>>>> Yes, you are biased into blindness.
> >>>>>>> 2. One week, touted as the *ONLY* time it's happened.
> >>>>>> Perhaps it was the only time, But it did. And it will happen again=
.
> >>>>> Want to change the subject again? =A0You clearly lost the argument,
> >>>>> though in your own clouded mind you've somehow "won". =A0Before you
> >>>>> speak such nonsense again, perhaps you should spend a minute or two
> >>>>> with Google.
> >>>>>>> 3. Do some research. =A0You've totally lost it (if indeed you eve=
r had
> >>>>>>> it).
> >>>>>> I have and who are you again to tell me I have lost it? Oh, wait..=
.
> >>>>> Yes, you have lost it. =A0You're so blind with hate you can't see h=
ow
> >>>>> silly your argument is.
> >>>>>> I'm wasting valuable time here...
> >>>>> Clearly you are. =A0You have no interest in the *facts*.
> >>>>>> Idiot.
> >>>>> Indeed you are.
> >>>> I am an idiot indeed for engaging in any kind of discussion with an
> >>>> asshole who throws the word 'hate' around like that.
> >>>> You disgust me, but I don't hate you, Fuckface. You're not important
> >>>> enough for me to hate you.
> >>> I said nothing about hating me, though your words speak quite loudly.
> >>>> You are more like that wee bit of dog-shit on my shoe... annoying, b=
ut
> >>>> not enough to hate....it wipes off easy..see?
> >>> Your hate is more than apparent in this group.
> >>>> Buh BYE!!
> >>> Why do I care that you have to announce that you're running away,
> >>> after clearly shown to be a fool. =A0You cold have simply run away, o=
r
> >>> you *could* have spent a minute with Google before showing your
> >>> incredible ignorance.
> >> Weak, son...weak.
>
> > Your argument certainly has been, all along.
>
> >> Tim is a bully, you are an idiot.
>
> > You really need a mirror, Mr. Pot.
>
> >> NEXT!
>
> > Don't run away mad.

Well! If you're going to invoke Coulter...well..

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:30:20 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Robatoy wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 7:11 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they both are
>>>>> entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits often that
>>>>> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to believe his
>>>>> pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more factual
>>>>> information is available from the Daily Show.
>>>
>>>> Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back when CB
>>>> radio was the big fad.
>>>
>>>> He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to say, a
>>>> place to say it.
>>>
>>>> Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>>>
>>> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anything a place to
>>> do it. O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC.
>>> Combined.
>>
>> Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)
>
>1. Fox is the network for the rest of us.
>2. Fox, in general, has 12 of the top 13 cable network shows, with O'Reilly
>at the top of the list.
> For May, in general
> 1. TNT 3.5 million viewers (NBA playoffs contributed)
> 2. USA 2.8 million
> 3. ESPN 2.1 million
> 4. FOX 2.0 million
> 5. Nick 1.6 million
> ...
> 23. CNN 767,000
> 24. MSNBC 756,000
>(CNBC didn't even make the list)
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/may-2009-cable-rankings-t_n_211471.html





Argumentum ad populum. Fallacious, or in O'Reilly's case, phallacious
reasoning.

We could as easily argue:


"US porn revenue exceeds the combined revenues of ABC, CBS, and NBC."
http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-pornography-statistics.html#anchor2

What point does your reasoning make, exactly?


Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On Jun 22, 7:11=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > "jo4hn" wrote:
>
> >> Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they both are
> >> entertainers that present made up news. =A0Stewart admits often that
> >> his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to believe his
> >> pronouncements. =A0The truly sad situation is that more factual
> >> information is available from the Daily Show.
>
> > Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back when CB
> > radio was the big fad.
>
> > He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to say, a place
> > to say it.
>
> > Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
>
> And O'Reilly give those who don't want to hear anything a place to do it.
> O'Reilly's audience is greater than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC. Combined.

Your point? (As inaccurate as it is)

"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> insert your favourite left/right commentator> they have much in common:

The real irony here is that out of all the people who have visited this
newsgroup with absolutely nothing to contribute, you are the worst of them.

Of course, this type of topic is your speciality. It deals with people who
offer nothing, give nothing and whine all the while doing it. For you, it's
identical to looking in a mirror.

On Jun 21, 5:02=A0pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Very informative. I see a few symptoms of those bullying techniques in
> here.

Are you the Oracle, or Ebert?

R

On Jun 22, 7:35=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > I find Jon Stewart entertaining. Can't stand Colbert.
> > I'm quite fond of Olberman's way of exposing hypocrisy. He backs it up
> > with footage of Limbaugh's, Beck's, and Billo The Clown's
> > transgressions.
>
> Yeah, I get a kick out of Olberman ragging on Palin for being a former
> sportscaster...

Olberman thinks that is funny as well. He was a former sportscaster
and can tell the wheat from the chaff. Palin was a former sportscaster
and can't tell her ass from her elbow.
Similar roots, totally different development.
I get a kick out of that as well.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "DGDevin" wrote:
>
>> What cracks me up about Rush is that the "family values" crowd takes
>> him seriously. Imagine if some left-wing commentator had a history
>> including being thrice-divorced, addicted to narcotic painkillers,
>> sex tourism, investigated on multiple drug charges--well, clearly
>> such a person is an example of moral decay blah blah. But for some
>> reason Rush gets a pass, his character goes unquestioned by those
>> who listen to his ranting. Amazing.
>
>
> When the pickins are slim, ya takes what you can get, especially if
> thought is not required.
>
> Lew
>
>

Hence our current President ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/