Jump to content

What happened to the Florida/covid post?


Randomguy
 Share

Go to solution Solved by Prophet Zacharia,

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, bikeman564™ said:

next thing you're going to tell me is, someone was dis'n Ohio :D

No one who had ever been in Ohio could possibly speak disrespectfully about the best state in the country!  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

Or me, I think.  Was it me?

Or me?  I tried to steer it in sexual direction.  Once again I got fucked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dottles said:

Or me?  I tried to steer it in sexual direction.  Once again I got fucked.

It usually gets weird when I steer a post in a sexual direction.  Especially true, since I am a virgin.

  • Haha 3
  • Hugs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

No one who had ever been in Ohio could possibly speak disrespectfully about the best state in the country!  

So, if I had never been to Ohio, I couldn't speak disrespectfully of Texas?  How does that work? :) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Randomguy said:

It usually gets weird when I steer a post in a sexual direction.  Especially true, since I am a virgin.

You fathered a child. Has the church been notified that a virgin man fathered a child? This is news. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wilbur, I have seen others echo what I say, yet you like to go after me.  Is it cause it is easier to bully me than others?

Not everyone likes the Washington Examiner.   I have posted things and others gave me a bad time cause of the news site.  Fine.  We don't all read the same things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dirtyhip said:

Wilbur, I have seen others echo what I say, yet you like to go after me.  Is it cause it is easier to bully me than others?

Not everyone likes the Washington Examiner.   I have posted things and others gave me a bad time cause of the news site.  Fine.  We don't all read the same things.

I have heard plenty of echoes the other way too, DH.  I  generally don't berate people for what they read.  I also tend to read from both sides of stories. I don't just read the Jerusalem Post, I also read the Times. You can form your own opinion by doing so. I don't like going after you at all but unlike some on here, I don't let people get away with cheap shots they instigate, just because they are women.  If you want to take me on in a discussion, do it. Don't try to shift blame when it doesn't go your way.  

The problem with debates these days is that people who feel they are morally superior because their version of progressiveness is the only correct one, buy so heavily into it, they find opposition repugnant and attack the messenger rather than the message.  This is one of the reason for division and actual hatred in society.  Step back from your own POV once in a while and consider both sides.  

 

  • Awesome 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dirtyhip said:

Washington Examiner. 

The examiner?  That is not exactly an unbiased news outrage site.  That is why I like Reuters and AP mostly.  Examiner, Fox, CNN, and buzzfeed are the types that mostly spin the wheel of propaganda, fun to see what mud is getting slung around, but you can't rely on opinions expressed there as being representative of center mass.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Once but that was like 2022 years ago!  :) 

Well, to be fair, there was no real documentation.  I'd of liked to see a paternity test on Jesus and find out the real story of Mary and who she was tarting with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

I have heard plenty of echoes the other way too, DH.  I  generally don't berate people for what they read.  I also tend to read from both sides of stories. I don't just read the Jerusalem Post, I also read the Times. You can form your own opinion by doing so. I don't like going after you at all but unlike some on here, I don't let people get away with cheap shots they instigate, just because they are women.  If you want to take me on in a discussion, do it. Don't try to shift blame when it doesn't go your way.  

The problem with debates these days is that people who feel they are morally superior because their version of progressiveness is the only correct one, buy so heavily into it, they find opposition repugnant and attack the messenger rather than the message.  This is one of the reason for division and actual hatred in society.  Step back from your own POV once in a while and consider both sides.  

 

Cheap shots, eh?  For not liking a newspaper?  I have barely posted lately.  I think you are projecting your anger this way.  

I have hardly even spoken with you or mentioned hardly anything around here.  You should check yourself. I went back and read and I am not sure what I said that was so upsetting for you to go after me.  Make no mistake, this time you are the aggressor.

I will not bother you, nor will I ever post on your threads again and please don't attack me in mine.  Fair?  I don't need people purposely trying to stress me out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dirtyhip said:

Cheap shots, eh?  For not liking a newspaper?  I have barely posted lately.  I think you are projecting your anger this way.  

I have hardly even spoken with you or mentioned hardly anything around here.  You should check yourself. I went back and read and I am not sure what I said that was so upsetting for you to go after me.  Make no mistake, this time you are the aggressor.

I will not bother you, nor will I ever post on your threads again.  Fair?

If you want to carry on with this, open the thread so we can all read it.   In regards to posting, I really don't care if you post in my threads or not.  You aren't a factor in my life other than as a casual conversationalist here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dirtyhip said:

Cheap shots, eh?  For not liking a newspaper?  I have barely posted lately.  I think you are projecting your anger this way.  

I have hardly even spoken with you or mentioned hardly anything around here.  You should check yourself. I went back and read and I am not sure what I said that was so upsetting for you to go after me.  Make no mistake, this time you are the aggressor.

I will not bother you, nor will I ever post on your threads again.  Fair?

I unlocked it so everyone can see it. Really, you should reread. 
 

Last weekend I said I didn’t like the biased Washington examiner. Lots of people do not like it. 
 

since that, you took it into other threads.  
 

I don’t get why you go after Susan and myself cause we have a different view than you. You do. You berate her and I each chance you get

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

The examiner?  That is not exactly an unbiased news outrage site.  That is why I like Reuters and AP mostly.  Examiner, Fox, CNN, and buzzfeed are the types that mostly spin the wheel of propaganda, fun to see what mud is getting slung around, but you can't rely on opinions expressed there as being representative of center mass.

I know of no "center mass" news site.  The only choice one has is to read many and to attempt to understand why each is reporting what they are reporting.  That way you may be able to calculate an approximate center mass for the surrounding bullet clusters.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

I know of no "center mass" news site.  The only choice one has is to read many and to attempt to understand why each is reporting what they are reporting.  That way you may be able to calculate an approximate center mass for the surrounding bullet clusters.

NPR 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dirtyhip said:

I don’t get why you go after Susan and myself cause we have a different view than you. You do. You berate her and I each chance you get

I actually don't pursue either of you but coincidentally, you have similar traits, agendas and approaches so when either decide to attack, I will let you have it right back.  You have both done it in the past 2 days.  Results were the same.  Do you see me attack, Petite or Kirby or Airehead?   No, because we respect one another and respect their rights to their own opinions.  They discuss, they don't attack.   But I am very done with this, DH.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, denniS said:

NPR 

Nope.  All sources have some sort of bias.  It may be benign or it may be quite active but human beings are just not capable of presenting the news as anything other than raw numbers without some personal beliefs leaking in.  In the case of the more benign it may be as simple as what data is published and what is not depending on the authors choice of what he or she believes is important to the story.  In the more active bias the numbers are hand selected to fit a certain naritive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, maddmaxx said:

Nope.  All sources have some sort of bias.  It may be benign or it may be quite active but human beings are just not capable of presenting the news as anyother than raw numbers without some personal beliefs leaking in.  In the case of the more benign it may be as simple as what data is published and what is not depending on the authors choice of what he or she believes is important to the story.  In the more active bias the numbers are hand selected to fit a certain naritive.

AllSides Media Bias Rating: Center

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/npr-media-bias

A Center media bias rating does not necessarily mean a source is unbiased, neutral, perfectly reasonable, or credible. It simply means the source or writer rated does not predictably publish perspectives favoring either end of the political spectrum — conservative or liberal.

A Center outlet may not show much predictable bias, or its bias leans to the left and right equally at different times. A media outlet with a Center rating may omit important perspectives, or run individual articles that display bias, while not displaying a lot of predictable bias in its content overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the link.

NPR online news has a Center bias, though close to Lean Left.

I'll stand on the concept that there is no such thing as an unbiased news source.  There are indeed some that come close but close is all there is and it's not true all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

From the link.

NPR online news has a Center bias, though close to Lean Left.

I'll stand on the concept that there is no such thing as an unbiased news source.  There are indeed some that come close but close is all there is and it's not true all the time.

I think AP is pretty close to “just the fax, ma’am”. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Philander Seabury said:

I think AP is pretty close to “just the fax, ma’am”. 

So long as all the facts are presented and fact checked then maybe.  

Patriots 24 Dolphins 33 is relatively unbiased.  Dolphins beat Patriots 33 to 24 begins to impart some semantic bias.  Dolphins spoil Patriots late season attempt to get a good seed in playoffs 33/24 is a bit more biased.  All are "just the facts" but propaganda is the art of using facts the way you need to.  One can proceed to the extreme..........Patriots choke against Dolphins.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

From the link.

NPR online news has a Center bias, though close to Lean Left.

I'll stand on the concept that there is no such thing as an unbiased news source.  There are indeed some that come close but close is all there is and it's not true all the time.

Be honest Max, there is no pleasing you. You called me out for posting an article from the NYTimes. I think it was a recipe or an article about health. Nothing political in it and you called it political. It wasn't.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, denniS said:

Be honest Max, there is no pleasing you. You called me out for posting an article from the NYTimes. I think it was a recipe or an article about health. Nothing political in it and you called it political. It wasn't.

 

I don't seem to recall calling you out?  However, opening a discussion about it with "there is no pleasing you" displays a remarkable amount of bias.  :nodhead:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

I don't seem to recall calling you out?  However, opening a discussion about it with "there is no pleasing you" displays a remarkable amount of bias.  :nodhead:

I'm trying to be honest. Your negativity brings me down. It really does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

I actually don't pursue either of you but coincidentally, you have similar traits, agendas and approaches so when either decide to attack, I will let you have it right back.  You have both done it in the past 2 days.  Results were the same.  Do you see me attack, Petite or Kirby or Airehead?   No, because we respect one another and respect their rights to their own opinions.  They discuss, they don't attack.   But I am very done with this, DH.  

Susan and I do not attack.  We have opinions and we openly state them. 

i am done with this too.  Please don't bother me anymore.   I will avoid you as well. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thank You 1
  • Awesome 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chris... said:

Is this where we post about anti vaxxers drinking their own urine?

I saw that guy, too, really level-headed.  Made me wonder how one starts drinking their own urine, is it in coffee or tea?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...do any of you people actually know the history of the Washington Examiner ?

It's pretty easily researched.  They used to give the print edition away free way back when they started up, because you get what you pay for. :)

 

spacer.png

 

Now, because the internet has made all our lives so much better, I'm not 1000% certain they even print it any more.

I used to love it back then, because the free newsprint sheets are so handy for a variety of hobby tasks and paper training your puppy.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Page Turner said:

...first, you let yourself get really, really thirsty.:nodhead:

And really, really enthusiastic.  I suppose if you spend all your time resending articles about urine drinking amongst your 100 best buddies, it starts to sound all kinds of normal after a while, as long as you are all nutcases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington Examiner

The publication now known as the Washington Examiner began its life as a handful of suburban news outlets known as the Journal Newspapers, distributed not in Washington D.C. itself, but only in the suburbs of Washington: Montgomery Journal, Prince George's Journal, and Northern Virginia Journal.[7] Philip Anschutz purchased the parent company, Journal Newspapers Inc., in October 2004.[3][8][9] On February 1, 2005, the paper's name changed to the Washington Examiner, and it adopted a logo and format similar to those of another newspaper then owned by Anschutz, San Francisco Examiner.[7]

The Washington Examiner became increasingly influential in conservative political circles, hiring much of the talent from The Washington Times.[10] The website DCist wrote in March 2013: "Despite the right-wing tilt of [the Examiner's] editorial pages and sensationalist front-page headlines, it also built a reputation as one of the best local sections in D.C."[11] The newspaper's local coverage also gained attention, including a write-up by The New York Times,[12] for contributing to the arrest of more than 50 fugitives through a feature that each week spotlighted a different person wanted by law enforcement agencies.

In March 2013, the company announced that it would stop printing a daily edition in June and refocus on national politics. The print edition was converted to a weekly magazine, while the website was continually updated.[13] The new format was compared to that of The Hill.[5][13] In December 2018, Clarity Media announced that the magazine would become a publicly available, expanded print magazine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chris... said:

Is this where we post about anti vaxxers drinking their own urine?

I miss your sense of humor. 

 

4 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

This post is festivus all over again!  I am going to go look for the pole...

I've got a lot of problems with you people.

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dirtyhip said:

Susan and I do not attack.  We have opinions and we openly state them. 

i am done with this too.  Please don't bother me anymore.   I will avoid you as well. 

 

 

This sounds like a reasonable accommodation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...