First, let me say that I don't want to make any assumptions about you. I respect you, I respect that you are discussing this hot topic so civilly, and more than that I would not think any less or more of your views regardless of whether they come from your religious authority or you come to them on your own.
I mentioned the (by implication, Christian) bible just because most RtL proponets are Christians; no comment on you personally at all. Honestly.
You say you consider the gametes in semen to be more like skin cells. These are human life, but they are not a human being. So, by your definition, masturbation is not murder. You claim that spilling seed does not destroy life. This is quite reasonable and logical. You are not out on a limb with this assertion either. Many, many people agree with you.
But let's say that I don't.
I say that each sperm is a life that could have been. That should have been.
A skin cell will never become a human being. But this is a sperm. Becomnig a human being is what God made it to do.
You can say that a sperm is not a human being because, unlike the fertilized ovum, it isn't going to mature into an adult all by itself. But I say that a fertilized ovum is not going to mature into an adult all by itself either. It, just like the sperm, depends on billions of other cells within the woman, without them it is every bit as doomed as the sperm.
I can quote the bible to back me up. Of course, we differ over its interpretation, but this is what scholars have been doing for millenia - differing over how to interpret the bible. I also have science to back me up. And of course, we differ over the interpretation of scientific data and claim conflicting things are facts.
In the meantime, I demand that you stop masturbating, on pain of prison or death. Prison or death is our punishment for murderers.
I have thought about this question a lot since you asked it, and I decided that I want to try the best I can to give you some perspective on the other school of thought. I really don't want to persuade you of anything - I respect your difference of opinion. But I'd like to try to teach you about others' beliefs. And a good lesson is interactive, so let's start with a question.
Does masturbation destroy life?
All of those cells you're discarding around you are possible people that will never be.
Am I right that you can even find some oblique biblical support for this view?
I see what you're saying. I've thought about the education factor too, with respect to the apparent double-standard. But the problem is, that was why the objection to stem cell research stuck out to me in the first place.
I could understand many people not realizing how IVF worked, so IVF would be under the radar in a way.
But I am struggling with your perspective on the two technologies. Stem cell and IVF are both advances in medical science, it's just that IVF is now part of our everyday life while stem cell work is still in the lab, contemplating clinical trials. I saw stem cell research as far more obscure that IVF. Fertility clinics are a big industry, operating all across the country, doing marketing and advertising... and my perspective was that IVF got mountains of TV coverage, because, naturally, it was a medical breakthrough of science-fiction proportions.
So it was only when the concern over stem cell research began to heat up that I began to wonder why IVF didn't seem to be held up along with it. A lot of the action is coordinated through organizations with well-educated, intelligent leaders, which is I think how stem cell research came into the spotlight to begin with. I couldn't - still can't, yet - figure it out.
I think the issue makes people emotional, and no side can claim to have stayed on the high ground.
Your idea about purpose is really interesting - this is the kind of answer I was hoping to get, because I honestly hadn't heard it before.
Do you mind if I ask a kind of tricky question? I assure you I'm doing it out of curiousity, and respectfully.
What if every doctor who worked on stem cells took a kind of official, perhaps even legal, vow to use their work and knowledge towards creating and preserving life? Do you think that could overcome some objections to research on stem cells?
My question is, do they put the same amount of energy into opposing IVF as they do stem cell research, or abortion. In other words, is there a double-standard?
I have no idea what people think about this. It might be a legitimate argument to say, because IVF allows us to create life where it wouldn't have been possible, we consider it acceptable after all. I just don't know.
Thank you. I do appreciate moral issue and regardless of specifics I respect the seriousness with which many people take life in any form.
But, if you don't mind, I'm trying to understand something specific. It could be just me, but I don't see the same level of concern about these three apparently equivalent things: stem cell research, abortion, and fertility clinics.
I don't think it's quite what you said so far, but is it your belief that IVF does receive the same amount of protest as stem cell research?
And, can I add another question: do you believe IVF is protested as heavily as abortion?
I have a question, I am seriously, honestly just looking for more knowledge about this.
Leaving aside your religious or personal beliefs about the rights of stem cells and embryos, about which reasonable people can disagree... and about whether federal funding should pay for something versus should it be allowed at all (another entirely lively discussion)... is it true that there is a double standard for fertility clinics?
I have been reading about fertility clinic procedures that involve activities with embryos, on quite a large scale, that should seem objectionable to RtL advocates concerned with stem cell research. But I don't perceive the same kind of advocacy against IVF activities that result in the destruction of microscopic life, as I do against stem cell research.
I am not a doctor. I know that IVF involves harvesting eggs and fertilizing them en masse, then transplanting a few back to the mother and discarding the rest.
So:
Assuming you consider microscopic human life sacred, is this morally distinguishable somehow from stem cell research?
Is it actually the case that RtL advocates do oppose IVF as much as stem cell research?
Oh, it could be a coverup. But inventory tracking in a secure environment would be a compelx system, a minor failure of which would look exactly like what we've seen.
The confusion, it turns out, was created by inventory bar codes produced for computer disks that have never been written, a department official told AFP on condition of anonymity.
On the other hand, as far as I can tell, this mistake, if it was that, is the best thing that ever happened to the place - there were multiple, serious problems with security and safety on the site that were addressed as a result of the hunt.
"Although multiple investigations have confirmed that the 'missing' disks never existed, the major weaknesses in controlling classified material revealed by this incident are absolutely unacceptable, and the University of California must be held accountable for them," Brooks said in a statement.
"Of even greater concern are significant safety weaknesses which came to light at approximately the same time," he added.
No mod points today, but mod points aren't enough praise for putting this so well anyway.
It's a shame that transparent piece of the "repetoire" needs to be rebutted afresh every day, isntead of being dispensed with trivially like the FAQ it is.
Try running an assembly off a remote store or even run a method through a remote channel.
I'm aware that the default security configuration in.NET is not Pants Down for remote code.
I don't want to confuse "attack" with "mistake." What about problems in local unmanaged code that we wrote ourselves?
Unmanaged isn't any different than writing a program and using JNI to talk to it.
I don't know how good a comparison this is.
Any VM must use "managed" code to interface with lower-level "unmanaged" code. This is what you see in any core library: wrapper objects that invoke unmanaged native code. No PC is "managed" down to the silicon - although some Java embedded devices literally are.
The difference is in how that boundary works. In Java, JNI is deliberately very rudimentary and extremely low level. It is designed exclusively to allow access to native routines - not bit twiddling within the VM itself. It's use is vehemently discouraged by policy (100% pure etc etc) and JNI use in the field is rare as a result.
Everyone can hammer on the fixed Java API, and at some point we trust that lower-level foundation. We then declare that our own Java code, built on top of it, is "safe" and "managed."
In.NET, if I understand correctly, the attitude is very different.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?ur l=/library/en-us/dnreal/html/realworld06012004.asp They encourage the use of unmanaged code, and the framework makes it much, much easier to use. It's billed as a feature.
We slip in unmanaged C# to fiddle with buffers to do parsing or whatever. This is not going to C like in JNI, but just quick-and-dirty cheating within the VM. There is no such thing as "unmanaged Java."
So you can cheat the VM and make C# a little faster. But now no one is looking over your shoulder. Your new unmanaged code may have problems. You are not safe in your VM anymore (nor are you portable). Meanwhile you still have the overhead of running that way.
It often comes up in the Java community that people wish JNI did more work for you, so that it would be easier to use. But we always come back to the same answer: if you make JNI easy, and start encouraging its use (going the Microsoft route), soon everyone is using it. There is no more portability and you lose security and stability. Great for MS, of course. But if we really don't care about that, why not just back away from the VM in a more orderly fashion altogether?
When.NET was first announced and the details began to be known, there were a number of lively discussions here about it. The "feature" of running unmanaged code was hotly debated, but the debate seemed to me to be entirely one-sided. It seemed clear unmanaged code is another classic Microsoft mistake - trading sugary convenience today for billions in headaches for their customers tomorrow. I went looking for someone to convince me otherwise and didn't succeed. Maybe now?
There is great value in a "managed" system like the Java VM. It gives us an extraordinary amount of safety that we are frankly unaccustomed to. People are still gradually learning how to think about it, but you see more and more security-critical projects going "Java only" as they figure it out.
There is also obviously no way we can do everything that way. For hot code, we work at lower levels, put in more work, and (for now) accept the additional risks. Note that the constant stream of ugly worldwide security problems is gradually but now noticeably decreasing our apetite for doing everything that way.
As far as I can tell, by allowing unmanaged code in the runtime,.NET gives you only the worst of both worlds.
You get all the overhead of the VM, but you don't really get safety.
I know perfectly well you can tell the.NET runtime not to allow unmanaged code. That doesn't matter, because the choice is there, "unmanaged" is still a huge problem.
Either it is avoided by everyone (everyone recognizes that it's a mistake), or we all begin to use it (it's in XYZ library), and then we all end up allowing unmanaged code, and we are no longer safe.
I've so enjoyed your latest comments. So glad you are still
unable to stop yourself.
I said that they were proud that they were left-wing, and
it is found in this quote (from their own web site). If they
were not happy with it, they would hide it.
Note: not actually found in the quote
I never said they they were part of a conspiracy I don't
even believe in. So, no, it is not evidence of this. You keep
creating this "left wing conspiracy" stuff.
You don't have to admit to it.
If I say Ralph Nader is left wing, your response would be
that I said he was part of a vast conspiracy (and that he was
not left wing even if he admits it!).
Can't find things to criticize? Make up imaginary
things.
So, whenever you bring up vast conspiracies, you are
debating with yourself.
This isn't a debate. You never followed any of the normal
rules for that kind of thing. This is an AtariAmarok
masturbation session.
I never bring them up, and never argue them, except to
point again and again the fact that I never mentioned them to
begin with.
You bring up your conspiracy theory constantly. You just
like to call it other things. Like "truth" and "fact."
So? That's pretty obvious. It's the same thing.
In other words. Propaganda == weasel words for
propaganda.
We'll keep calling you on it, though.
It is rather misleading to use the lower-case word
"fairness" for specific "Fairness Doctrine".
Please, by all means, consider it corrected exactly as you
specify.
Fairness is fine with me. This long-dead doctrine is
not.
You like the concept, you just want to be sure you can be
unfair and silence critics. Check.
And, by the way, under the doctrine, some people were
able to advocate and some were not. At least without it, people
are more free to express themselves without offending
censors.
Hammering on a point refuted multiple times.
I referred specifically to their list of Limbaugh errors
(which contained a few FAIR errors)
Which are?
Please, in order.
I also object to a supposed responsible organization
getting into the gutter with Limbaugh by using juvenile insults
against all of their political opponents.
Repeating: Flippant headlines are both appropriate given the
subjects and not a factor in the truth of the articles.
Let's review: You hold on to your ludicrous claim about FAIR despite not providing any evidence or even one thing they've done you can link to and criticize specifically, and I hold on to my claim that you are a friend and supporter of Osama bin Laden, you go on to point out how that's all babble, and I completely agree... and then you go right back to babbling.
Do you want me to link to Franken's recent lie about
Kerry's military service records?
Yes!
Forewarned, though, I figure if I can maintain a 10-to-1
ratio of documented problems, in Limbaugh vs Franken, my point
stands.
To remind you, as an enticement, I really will admit I am
wrong and frankly apologize and thank you if you can back up
your points with any believable evidence.
I doubt it, though. You're a proven liar and you wouldn't
have waited this long to start now, here, where nobody will
even see it who cares.
The left-wing Limbaugh bashers are as sloppy as the
right-wing Franken bashers.
If you can ever demonstrate it, I will agree.
If you keep up your current behavior, you further prove
you're a bad liar.
I'm just here to point out that he is not the only hog
rolling in the dirt: Franken does, too, even though you would
excuse him beca use your politics are similar to his.
Oft-repeated baseless accusation. You still haven't answered: "I can point to a lot of work that documents Limbaughs lies. You cannot refute it. You cannot find documentation for anything Frank
Oh, look. The liar has reversed himself and made his "goodbye" a lie as well.
How fitting - he flip-flops on this too.
Look at how he thinks. It's not "propaganda" - it's people being able to advocate their political causes in media.
And really, let's not forget - without fairness, its some people being able to advocate their political causes in media. And others, not.
I have never called for censorship of such advocacy or other expression of political opinion.
Sure you have. I have carefully explained how.
You refuse to answer these explanations, choosing instead to stick to lies and repetition, which makes me think you know you have, rather than that you're just too dumb to get it.
I provided analysis of a few of FAIR's claims many items ago.
You were determined to smear them as liberal from the moment you first heard about them. You can't find a single thing in their work to object to, you let go a lot of innuendos with nothing to back them up, and you give a few links that do not show what you claim.
Your idea of analysis is a grave calamity.
They are both often liars
Except that they are not.
I can point to a lot of work that documents Limbaughs lies. You cannot refute it. You cannot find documentation for anything Franken has said that you think is dishonest, but claim you can. You then are forced to link in what you freely admit are additional conservative lies, that happen to be about Franken, yet claim that this is somehow equal.
This makes you the liar. Again.
I see now that you totally chose to ignore this bogus claim that Limbaugh was a liar on the CBS News story because he capitalized (?) News.
What claim? Link it please.
I provided a link to FAIR's own page about itself, that contained the admission.
That they are, in their own words:
"FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information."
And this is your "evidence" that they are part of the vast left-wing conspiracy.
What a riot.
Are you now claiming that admitting being "progressive" is not the same as admitting to being on the left? How is this different from someone admitting being "conservative" not being on the political right?
What I am saying is that you are twisting words. Progressive, liberal, and democrat are all different concepts, just as conservative and republican are different. You are not big on subtlety, I know - no meaning you can't twist.
You're trying to pass this paragraph off as an admission that FAIR is a "left wing pressure group."
Congratulations. You've fallen on your face again.
(applause)
He claims he is "a balance", not balanced. He always admits being conservative. In this (latter part), he is honest. "Source for real truth" is an example of his great arrogance
Look at how you have to torture his sleazy words to fit your pervse ideas of what "balance" is. He has claimed a great many things that aren't true, while professing to be the only source for the truth.
And yet you claim "he admits what he is."
So how is it that you can admit he is a liar, acknowledge he claims to be telling the truth, and then say he admits what he is?
I guess it's easy if you are as big a bold-faced liar as you are.
You can say they did, but you never gave any reason to believe you, and you gave dozens of reasons to know you are lying.
I deflated your appeal to emotion by pointing out what the word actually meant.
Do you mind if I say I kind of liked this line? "Appeal to emotion." I think you really were trying to end strong.
I'm surprised your singled out appealing to emotion, though. You are one of the least rational people I've met on slashdot, and that's saying something. I figured you would know that emotion is all you've got.
Your an apologist for propagandists, and a proponent of censorship in th mass media. You like to use weasel words to make it sound better, and it lets us know you realize how bad your ideas sound.
Thanks for your point-by-point deflation of Frankenlies. I knew they were wing-nuts anyway. The same is true of FAIR's war with Limbaugh.... the whole thing between them is a battle of equals.
You know what's great about our time together, AtariAmarok? Our conversation provides convenient, unimpeachable evidence that you are lying about this, and that you also probably know it.
Limbaugh really is a liar. Franken really is just calling him out, along with others like him. They are not equal or even close.
This is why you had to trot out that crap as a "response" to FAIR. This is why I can expose your right-wing propaganda point by point. This is also why you cannot do the same.
Pretending you don't have to is just a juvenile way of admitting it.
Repeating yourself so vehemently when caught is your way of telling us that you really don't like how completely busted you are, but don't know what else to do about it.
IYou are having trouble now that I stumbled upon FAIR admitting its own political bias.
You haven't provided FAIR admitting to anything; you are reduced to distorting the definitions of words in their misssion statement, and you have so far not found a single actual thing they have done that you can object to.
This shows us you are wrong, and your vehemence and bad behavior as a result tells us about your character.
they have obvious bias.
That you cannot find a single example of.
even Limbaugh does not make such a mistake
Here we see your lying really does know no bounds. The man notoriously promotes himself as balanced; indeed, as the only source for the real truth.
They, like Fox News
And here we have another example of what you love - grouping responsible organizations together with propaganda organizations, so that you can make the propaganda you like look better.
I hope some day you learn tolerance for differing opinions
As anyone reading our exchange would probably agree, in the face of your really awful behavior, I've shown more tolerance than most would. That's because I sense your contrition and embarassment, your struggle to make the facts fit your obviously wrong ideas - your inner torment with the inadequacy of the world to conform to your cheap second-hand dogma. It comes through in everything that you write.
Following OT into other discussions is against the rules, AA. I know you're frustrated - if you didn't know how badly you were exposed, you wouldn't have clung on nearly so tight.
You've been a good little soldier, AtariAmarok. But I know that, whether you wanted to or not, you learned something from this process. At least externally, you've learned the parameters of your beliefs - that they require both subtle and overt dishonesty, and when pushed, they force you to lie about things as obvious as the color of the sky. I know, you think you can hold all these whirling contradictions in check, so that you can win for the team. The world runs on the truth, though, whatever you claim, and the more you get pushed up against the difference, the more you will find fear and doubt infecting your feelings, subtly at first, but I suspect more as time goes on.
It's too bad it's goodbye, AtariAmarok. You don't have to leave. Anytime you want to add something, you know where to find me.
Do you want links to right-wing sites similar to the left-wing sites you use as your only authority?... Let me know if you want them.
You hold on to your ludicrous claim about FAIR despite not providing any evidence or even one thing they've done you can link to and criticize specifically, and I hold on to my claim that you are a friend and supporter of Osama bin Laden, you go on to point out how that's all babble, and I completely agree... and then you go right back to babbling.
So, babbling like a little baby, unable to make a better argument than that you should be able to ignore what you can't defend against... You are lost, AtariAmarok. You have reduced yourself to the status of a squealing baby who simply shouts "no."
You may love the sound of your babbling, but believe me, it only sounds good to you.
I don't think it would have much effect on cable news if applied to it.
You should have chosen a different sentence to quote. This is one you actually didn't answer. Now, onward to where you simply retread things that have already been questioned:
Fox would try to satisfy it by including token liberals on its shows.
Fox would lose with this nonsense. Put 5 democrats and 5 republicans in a room and tell them something is fair if 2/3 of them agree. The nonsense stops. Fox included.
someone like Alan Colmes
I notice you are ignoring I already pointed out that Hannity and Colmes is not a fair show; this too has been extensively commented on.
NPR liberals
Oh god, no - the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy is Invading!!
Is this much different?
Your imagination? From reality?
Yes!
have the government force them to give 3 hours to a ratings dog
Hah.
Mr. Unbiased and trustworthy here thinks having someone come on to answer the various ridiculous charges Limbaugh makes would be bad for ratings.
I've mentioned Moore, not
And I said "will" not "have"
They do not coordinate it with others or take marching orders.
Repeat after me.
There is no vast left-wing conspiracy. There is no vast left-wing conspiracy. There is no vast left-wing conspiracy.
Disney and GE are not trying to turn your babies liberal. LOL!
The same is true for right-wing media.
Actually, you are wrong once again. It is most definitely not true.
Do you really imagine all the conservative media outlets you see synchronize their points of view so well, and hammer out talking points so simultaneously by coincidence?
This coordination is necessary for a conspiracy theory.
Well, you said it...
Where have I claimed such? I haven't, and you know it.
Oh oh oh the liberals, they control Disney and GE and the New York Times, they're all out to get me, but I never said they have it coordinated, so it's not a vast left-wing conspiracy!
Bring my tinfoil hat! I need to protect my brain from dangerous truth rays and common sense particles.
Just look at yourself. Seriously, just look at yourself.
You are really sad.
It hasn't been all bad, though. You've given all of us an extensive study in an interesting new alternative to rational thought.
This, from the guy who gives "unbiased" "reliable" media commentary from a site called "cosmoetica".
Hmm, like poetry, you demonstrate how much of a scared, lying hypocrite you are, all in a few sentences.
The ratings system is the most accurate measure of how much the public trust is being served.
So, I take it you are backing off of your early assertion, and are ready to allow false advertising, and unlabeled pornography on TV? Even on saturday mornings?
The government says "no, you can't. This time must be given to someone else for what we think is "fair"".
Your creativeness in attributing absurd and unlikely bad things to Fairness knows no bounds.
The government would never say "no, you can't." They would say "allow this person time to respond."
What's really funny about this is that you are implying that there just isn't time to be fair, and if we forced poor broadcasters to be fair there just wouldn't be any time left over after all that fairness...
You slay me, AA.
Before they ran that Kerry piece, I heard nothing about how evil it was all over the media, including on Fox News.
I'm not surprised you haven't heard about it, since you have proven yourself really exceptionally ignorant. I would also be surprised if you would admit it anyway. Nonetheless, Sinclair's practices, which include conservative commentaries from its owners slipped into newscasts, are well documented.
Here's a nice list of watchdogs: left, center and right
We've already dispatched this fairly childish attack on FAIR.
it's rather clear that such advocacy is necessary for democracy
You have just cranked your Weaseling into 6th gear.
You claim that propaganda (on TV and radio) is necessary for a democracy.
I don't think I can really add anything to this...
You have stuck with the left wingers
Nope.
But I notice you have stuck with name calling, because you were too smart to make any actual substantive claims against them.
Go look at the right-wing sites and you will find examples for the other side as "good" as the ones you have given.
This is the heart of your lie, AtariAmarok. They are not as "good." In fact, they are not even close.
You provided a laughable hatchet job and a childish essay. You haven't marshalled a single coherent complaint against FAIR - and no links to back up any claims about them. No disputing any particular coverage of theirs.
You want to pretend they're "as 'good'" because that improves the really awful lying that goes on in these conservative propaganda instruments.
By the way, you earlier mentioned media consolidation. There is none.
AtariAmarok is, of course, hoping we will forget how his bogus arguments for the internet, cable and satellite have already been dealt with. He is also hoping we will ignore the trends underlying that court case - that increasingly, in a given market, a single company wants to own "everything" - the major television stations, radio stations, and the biggest newspapers.
Propaganda is not so bad! Let the few dozen people who control the mass media say whatever they want. Because no longer requiring them to give every american a voice... is censorship! Somehow!
Clear Channel, by the way, went from 40 stations to 1,225 since the last time the rules were relaxed, in 1996. That's a little less than a thousand more stations than its closest competitor.
Dominance? Talk about a vast right wing conspiracy! According to FAIR, Fox News has about a million daily viewers. Do you realize what a small share of the TV audience this is?
Compare this to a liberal propaganda news channel.
Identifying media outlets that are left-of-center is not the same as identifying a "VLWC".
That would be interesting, if you actually identified anything.
Your idea of identifying something is to insist on it. And then refuse to give any reason to believe you. And then when questioned pile on some fairly ridiculous ideas. And then start lying about something we can read close by on the screen.
I was referring to hoping you would back off on making stuff up...
There are now literally dozens of citeable, incontravertible instances of you "making stuff up" in this thread. Plus one more, apparently.
Also, we've established you believe questions regarding your formidable ability to invent "facts" are "pretty much off topic."
Yes, you did, when comparing right-wing media to left-wing media.
Let's see... where did I say it?
Nowhere. Now, let's try this again, without your acting insane.
"Did I say there was conservatism on one side and truth on the other? Anywhere, at any time? Even in jest?
No.
What I did say was that, despite your vast left-wing conspiracy theory, the reason the news stations were not the conservatives' friend was because it was not their job to be the conservatives' friends. It was their job to tell the truth. It was their job to be nobody's friend - to be impartial and fair."
I have a feeling like you are building up to something here. Perhaps a childish tantrum along the lines of "You did so say it, and it's true because I said so, nya nya nya!"
I hope you do have this in you. It is hard to explain why your contortions are so entertaining, but they really are. Please do not disappoint me.
I don't have one. You are working once again from a false premise.
To the contrary, you would actually be worthy of exemplifying the cause in the dictionary definition of vast left-wing conspiracy theory. Which would be fitting, considering you apparently think the dictionary is some kind of magical security blanket which makes you invulnerable to common sense once you are wrapped inside of it.
It works something like this. First, someone questions a conservative point of view. It could be a major TV network, as we have just been discussing, such as ABC news, or CNN, or it could be FAIR. Rather than consider their question, even for a moment, you automatically add them to the vast left-wing conspiracy instead.
Like magic, now you've avoided the question, and slandered an "enemy." All without the slightest shred of evidence! And you would have gotten away with it, too, except that many people have a brain, and it's very easy to see right through this tired little game.
You only distinguish yourself by a startling laziness in addition to paranoia, since most conspiracy theorists can usually produce a few shreds of "evidence" to support their claim, whereas you can barely bestir yourself to claim we should take you at your world.
Yet, there are right-wing watchdog groups that document their "offenses", just as left-wing groups like FAIR document the "offenses" of Fox News.
Your comment shows how well you know you are wrong.
As you point out, there are right-wing groups that produce fake documentation of "bias" - Fox News Network, for instance, but also a number of other outlets, from AIM down to a variety of blogs run by hobbyists. Note that there are no truly independent critics who claim that the major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) are part of the vast left-wing conspiracy. This is because the conspiracy is imaginary. The only serious people considering it are right-wing "hitmen."
Meanwhile: you still libel FAIR, and still provide nothing of substance to back up your claims. I wonder if you somehow think more of yourself for engaging in this kind of behavior? Does it give your ego a charge to lie for the Party?
Slashdot Mirror
First, let me say that I don't want to make any assumptions about you. I respect you, I respect that you are discussing this hot topic so civilly, and more than that I would not think any less or more of your views regardless of whether they come from your religious authority or you come to them on your own.
I mentioned the (by implication, Christian) bible just because most RtL proponets are Christians; no comment on you personally at all. Honestly.
You say you consider the gametes in semen to be more like skin cells. These are human life, but they are not a human being. So, by your definition, masturbation is not murder. You claim that spilling seed does not destroy life. This is quite reasonable and logical. You are not out on a limb with this assertion either. Many, many people agree with you.
But let's say that I don't.
I say that each sperm is a life that could have been. That should have been.
A skin cell will never become a human being. But this is a sperm. Becomnig a human being is what God made it to do.
You can say that a sperm is not a human being because, unlike the fertilized ovum, it isn't going to mature into an adult all by itself. But I say that a fertilized ovum is not going to mature into an adult all by itself either. It, just like the sperm, depends on billions of other cells within the woman, without them it is every bit as doomed as the sperm.
I can quote the bible to back me up. Of course, we differ over its interpretation, but this is what scholars have been doing for millenia - differing over how to interpret the bible. I also have science to back me up. And of course, we differ over the interpretation of scientific data and claim conflicting things are facts.
In the meantime, I demand that you stop masturbating, on pain of prison or death. Prison or death is our punishment for murderers.
I have thought about this question a lot since you asked it, and I decided that I want to try the best I can to give you some perspective on the other school of thought. I really don't want to persuade you of anything - I respect your difference of opinion. But I'd like to try to teach you about others' beliefs. And a good lesson is interactive, so let's start with a question.
Does masturbation destroy life?
All of those cells you're discarding around you are possible people that will never be.
Am I right that you can even find some oblique biblical support for this view?
Maybe you're right. I can't figure it out, though. IVF was new and exciting once too, not so long ago.
I see what you're saying. I've thought about the education factor too, with respect to the apparent double-standard. But the problem is, that was why the objection to stem cell research stuck out to me in the first place.
I could understand many people not realizing how IVF worked, so IVF would be under the radar in a way.
But I am struggling with your perspective on the two technologies. Stem cell and IVF are both advances in medical science, it's just that IVF is now part of our everyday life while stem cell work is still in the lab, contemplating clinical trials. I saw stem cell research as far more obscure that IVF. Fertility clinics are a big industry, operating all across the country, doing marketing and advertising... and my perspective was that IVF got mountains of TV coverage, because, naturally, it was a medical breakthrough of science-fiction proportions.
So it was only when the concern over stem cell research began to heat up that I began to wonder why IVF didn't seem to be held up along with it. A lot of the action is coordinated through organizations with well-educated, intelligent leaders, which is I think how stem cell research came into the spotlight to begin with. I couldn't - still can't, yet - figure it out.
I think the issue makes people emotional, and no side can claim to have stayed on the high ground.
Your idea about purpose is really interesting - this is the kind of answer I was hoping to get, because I honestly hadn't heard it before.
Do you mind if I ask a kind of tricky question? I assure you I'm doing it out of curiousity, and respectfully.
What if every doctor who worked on stem cells took a kind of official, perhaps even legal, vow to use their work and knowledge towards creating and preserving life? Do you think that could overcome some objections to research on stem cells?
I know that's true.
My question is, do they put the same amount of energy into opposing IVF as they do stem cell research, or abortion. In other words, is there a double-standard?
I have no idea what people think about this. It might be a legitimate argument to say, because IVF allows us to create life where it wouldn't have been possible, we consider it acceptable after all. I just don't know.
Thank you. I do appreciate moral issue and regardless of specifics I respect the seriousness with which many people take life in any form.
But, if you don't mind, I'm trying to understand something specific. It could be just me, but I don't see the same level of concern about these three apparently equivalent things: stem cell research, abortion, and fertility clinics.
I don't think it's quite what you said so far, but is it your belief that IVF does receive the same amount of protest as stem cell research?
And, can I add another question: do you believe IVF is protested as heavily as abortion?
I have a question, I am seriously, honestly just looking for more knowledge about this.
Leaving aside your religious or personal beliefs about the rights of stem cells and embryos, about which reasonable people can disagree... and about whether federal funding should pay for something versus should it be allowed at all (another entirely lively discussion)... is it true that there is a double standard for fertility clinics?
I have been reading about fertility clinic procedures that involve activities with embryos, on quite a large scale, that should seem objectionable to RtL advocates concerned with stem cell research. But I don't perceive the same kind of advocacy against IVF activities that result in the destruction of microscopic life, as I do against stem cell research.
I am not a doctor. I know that IVF involves harvesting eggs and fertilizing them en masse, then transplanting a few back to the mother and discarding the rest.
So:
Assuming you consider microscopic human life sacred, is this morally distinguishable somehow from stem cell research?
Is it actually the case that RtL advocates do oppose IVF as much as stem cell research?
Oh, it could be a coverup. But inventory tracking in a secure environment would be a compelx system, a minor failure of which would look exactly like what we've seen.
The confusion, it turns out, was created by inventory bar codes produced for computer disks that have never been written, a department official told AFP on condition of anonymity.
On the other hand, as far as I can tell, this mistake, if it was that, is the best thing that ever happened to the place - there were multiple, serious problems with security and safety on the site that were addressed as a result of the hunt.
"Although multiple investigations have confirmed that the 'missing' disks never existed, the major weaknesses in controlling classified material revealed by this incident are absolutely unacceptable, and the University of California must be held accountable for them," Brooks said in a statement.
"Of even greater concern are significant safety weaknesses which came to light at approximately the same time," he added.
No mod points today, but mod points aren't enough praise for putting this so well anyway.
It's a shame that transparent piece of the "repetoire" needs to be rebutted afresh every day, isntead of being dispensed with trivially like the FAQ it is.
Yes! Thank you.
Ghoul, you are a gentleman, and a scholar.
...and all the comments that I've seen so far.
What did he actually write that made google unhappy?
Everything I've seen on his blog so far is pretty innocuous.
Not for long...
I don't think I missed the point at all. JNI and unmanaged code are not the same, and I think comparing them is deceptive.
I went into some detail about this here.
I'm sure you'll gloat about...
.NET is not Pants Down for remote code.
.NET, if I understand correctly, the attitude is very different.
r l= /library/en-us/dnreal/html/realworld06012004.asp
Relax.
Try running an assembly off a remote store or even run a method through a remote channel.
I'm aware that the default security configuration in
I don't want to confuse "attack" with "mistake." What about problems in local unmanaged code that we wrote ourselves?
Unmanaged isn't any different than writing a program and using JNI to talk to it.
I don't know how good a comparison this is.
Any VM must use "managed" code to interface with lower-level "unmanaged" code. This is what you see in any core library: wrapper objects that invoke unmanaged native code. No PC is "managed" down to the silicon - although some Java embedded devices literally are.
The difference is in how that boundary works. In Java, JNI is deliberately very rudimentary and extremely low level. It is designed exclusively to allow access to native routines - not bit twiddling within the VM itself. It's use is vehemently discouraged by policy (100% pure etc etc) and JNI use in the field is rare as a result.
Everyone can hammer on the fixed Java API, and at some point we trust that lower-level foundation. We then declare that our own Java code, built on top of it, is "safe" and "managed."
In
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?u
They encourage the use of unmanaged code, and the framework makes it much, much easier to use. It's billed as a feature.
We slip in unmanaged C# to fiddle with buffers to do parsing or whatever. This is not going to C like in JNI, but just quick-and-dirty cheating within the VM. There is no such thing as "unmanaged Java."
So you can cheat the VM and make C# a little faster. But now no one is looking over your shoulder. Your new unmanaged code may have problems. You are not safe in your VM anymore (nor are you portable). Meanwhile you still have the overhead of running that way.
It often comes up in the Java community that people wish JNI did more work for you, so that it would be easier to use. But we always come back to the same answer: if you make JNI easy, and start encouraging its use (going the Microsoft route), soon everyone is using it. There is no more portability and you lose security and stability. Great for MS, of course. But if we really don't care about that, why not just back away from the VM in a more orderly fashion altogether?
When .NET was first announced and the details began to be known, there were a number of lively discussions here about it. The "feature" of running unmanaged code was hotly debated, but the debate seemed to me to be entirely one-sided. It seemed clear unmanaged code is another classic Microsoft mistake - trading sugary convenience today for billions in headaches for their customers tomorrow. I went looking for someone to convince me otherwise and didn't succeed. Maybe now?
.NET gives you only the worst of both worlds.
.NET runtime not to allow unmanaged code. That doesn't matter, because the choice is there, "unmanaged" is still a huge problem.
There is great value in a "managed" system like the Java VM. It gives us an extraordinary amount of safety that we are frankly unaccustomed to. People are still gradually learning how to think about it, but you see more and more security-critical projects going "Java only" as they figure it out.
There is also obviously no way we can do everything that way. For hot code, we work at lower levels, put in more work, and (for now) accept the additional risks. Note that the constant stream of ugly worldwide security problems is gradually but now noticeably decreasing our apetite for doing everything that way.
As far as I can tell, by allowing unmanaged code in the runtime,
You get all the overhead of the VM, but you don't really get safety.
I know perfectly well you can tell the
Either it is avoided by everyone (everyone recognizes that it's a mistake), or we all begin to use it (it's in XYZ library), and then we all end up allowing unmanaged code, and we are no longer safe.
I said that they were proud that they were left-wing, and it is found in this quote (from their own web site). If they were not happy with it, they would hide it.
Note: not actually found in the quote
I never said they they were part of a conspiracy I don't even believe in. So, no, it is not evidence of this. You keep creating this "left wing conspiracy" stuff.
You don't have to admit to it.
If I say Ralph Nader is left wing, your response would be that I said he was part of a vast conspiracy (and that he was not left wing even if he admits it!).
Can't find things to criticize? Make up imaginary things.
So, whenever you bring up vast conspiracies, you are debating with yourself.
This isn't a debate. You never followed any of the normal rules for that kind of thing. This is an AtariAmarok masturbation session.
I never bring them up, and never argue them, except to point again and again the fact that I never mentioned them to begin with.
You bring up your conspiracy theory constantly. You just like to call it other things. Like "truth" and "fact."
So? That's pretty obvious. It's the same thing.
In other words. Propaganda == weasel words for propaganda.
We'll keep calling you on it, though.
It is rather misleading to use the lower-case word "fairness" for specific "Fairness Doctrine".
Please, by all means, consider it corrected exactly as you specify.
Fairness is fine with me. This long-dead doctrine is not.
You like the concept, you just want to be sure you can be unfair and silence critics. Check.
And, by the way, under the doctrine, some people were able to advocate and some were not. At least without it, people are more free to express themselves without offending censors.
Hammering on a point refuted multiple times.
I referred specifically to their list of Limbaugh errors (which contained a few FAIR errors)
Which are?
Please, in order.
I also object to a supposed responsible organization getting into the gutter with Limbaugh by using juvenile insults against all of their political opponents.
Repeating: Flippant headlines are both appropriate given the subjects and not a factor in the truth of the articles.
Let's review: You hold on to your ludicrous claim about FAIR despite not providing any evidence or even one thing they've done you can link to and criticize specifically, and I hold on to my claim that you are a friend and supporter of Osama bin Laden, you go on to point out how that's all babble, and I completely agree... and then you go right back to babbling.
Do you want me to link to Franken's recent lie about Kerry's military service records?
Yes!
Forewarned, though, I figure if I can maintain a 10-to-1 ratio of documented problems, in Limbaugh vs Franken, my point stands.
To remind you, as an enticement, I really will admit I am wrong and frankly apologize and thank you if you can back up your points with any believable evidence.
I doubt it, though. You're a proven liar and you wouldn't have waited this long to start now, here, where nobody will even see it who cares.
The left-wing Limbaugh bashers are as sloppy as the right-wing Franken bashers.
If you can ever demonstrate it, I will agree.
If you keep up your current behavior, you further prove you're a bad liar.
I'm just here to point out that he is not the only hog rolling in the dirt: Franken does, too, even though you would excuse him beca use your politics are similar to his.
Oft-repeated baseless accusation. You still haven't answered: "I can point to a lot of work that documents Limbaughs lies. You cannot refute it. You cannot find documentation for anything Frank
Oh, look. The liar has reversed himself and made his "goodbye" a lie as well.
How fitting - he flip-flops on this too.
Look at how he thinks. It's not "propaganda" - it's people being able to advocate their political causes in media.
And really, let's not forget - without fairness, its some people being able to advocate their political causes in media. And others, not.
I have never called for censorship of such advocacy or other expression of political opinion.
Sure you have. I have carefully explained how.
You refuse to answer these explanations, choosing instead to stick to lies and repetition, which makes me think you know you have, rather than that you're just too dumb to get it.
I provided analysis of a few of FAIR's claims many items ago.
You were determined to smear them as liberal from the moment you first heard about them. You can't find a single thing in their work to object to, you let go a lot of innuendos with nothing to back them up, and you give a few links that do not show what you claim.
Your idea of analysis is a grave calamity.
They are both often liars
Except that they are not.
I can point to a lot of work that documents Limbaughs lies. You cannot refute it. You cannot find documentation for anything Franken has said that you think is dishonest, but claim you can. You then are forced to link in what you freely admit are additional conservative lies, that happen to be about Franken, yet claim that this is somehow equal.
This makes you the liar. Again.
I see now that you totally chose to ignore this bogus claim that Limbaugh was a liar on the CBS News story because he capitalized (?) News.
What claim? Link it please.
I provided a link to FAIR's own page about itself, that contained the admission.
That they are, in their own words:
"FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information."
And this is your "evidence" that they are part of the vast left-wing conspiracy.
What a riot.
Are you now claiming that admitting being "progressive" is not the same as admitting to being on the left? How is this different from someone admitting being "conservative" not being on the political right?
What I am saying is that you are twisting words. Progressive, liberal, and democrat are all different concepts, just as conservative and republican are different. You are not big on subtlety, I know - no meaning you can't twist.
You're trying to pass this paragraph off as an admission that FAIR is a "left wing pressure group."
Congratulations. You've fallen on your face again.
(applause)
He claims he is "a balance", not balanced. He always admits being conservative. In this (latter part), he is honest. "Source for real truth" is an example of his great arrogance
Look at how you have to torture his sleazy words to fit your pervse ideas of what "balance" is. He has claimed a great many things that aren't true, while professing to be the only source for the truth.
And yet you claim "he admits what he is."
So how is it that you can admit he is a liar, acknowledge he claims to be telling the truth, and then say he admits what he is?
I guess it's easy if you are as big a bold-faced liar as you are.
They did.
... the whole thing between them is a battle of equals.
You can say they did, but you never gave any reason to believe you, and you gave dozens of reasons to know you are lying.
I deflated your appeal to emotion by pointing out what the word actually meant.
Do you mind if I say I kind of liked this line? "Appeal to emotion." I think you really were trying to end strong.
I'm surprised your singled out appealing to emotion, though. You are one of the least rational people I've met on slashdot, and that's saying something. I figured you would know that emotion is all you've got.
Your an apologist for propagandists, and a proponent of censorship in th mass media. You like to use weasel words to make it sound better, and it lets us know you realize how bad your ideas sound.
Thanks for your point-by-point deflation of Frankenlies. I knew they were wing-nuts anyway. The same is true of FAIR's war with Limbaugh.
You know what's great about our time together, AtariAmarok? Our conversation provides convenient, unimpeachable evidence that you are lying about this, and that you also probably know it.
Limbaugh really is a liar. Franken really is just calling him out, along with others like him. They are not equal or even close.
This is why you had to trot out that crap as a "response" to FAIR. This is why I can expose your right-wing propaganda point by point. This is also why you cannot do the same.
Pretending you don't have to is just a juvenile way of admitting it.
Repeating yourself so vehemently when caught is your way of telling us that you really don't like how completely busted you are, but don't know what else to do about it.
IYou are having trouble now that I stumbled upon FAIR admitting its own political bias.
You haven't provided FAIR admitting to anything; you are reduced to distorting the definitions of words in their misssion statement, and you have so far not found a single actual thing they have done that you can object to.
This shows us you are wrong, and your vehemence and bad behavior as a result tells us about your character.
they have obvious bias.
That you cannot find a single example of.
even Limbaugh does not make such a mistake
Here we see your lying really does know no bounds. The man notoriously promotes himself as balanced; indeed, as the only source for the real truth.
They, like Fox News
And here we have another example of what you love - grouping responsible organizations together with propaganda organizations, so that you can make the propaganda you like look better.
I hope some day you learn tolerance for differing opinions
As anyone reading our exchange would probably agree, in the face of your really awful behavior, I've shown more tolerance than most would. That's because I sense your contrition and embarassment, your struggle to make the facts fit your obviously wrong ideas - your inner torment with the inadequacy of the world to conform to your cheap second-hand dogma. It comes through in everything that you write.
Following OT into other discussions is against the rules, AA. I know you're frustrated - if you didn't know how badly you were exposed, you wouldn't have clung on nearly so tight.
You've been a good little soldier, AtariAmarok. But I know that, whether you wanted to or not, you learned something from this process. At least externally, you've learned the parameters of your beliefs - that they require both subtle and overt dishonesty, and when pushed, they force you to lie about things as obvious as the color of the sky. I know, you think you can hold all these whirling contradictions in check, so that you can win for the team. The world runs on the truth, though, whatever you claim, and the more you get pushed up against the difference, the more you will find fear and doubt infecting your feelings, subtly at first, but I suspect more as time goes on.
It's too bad it's goodbye, AtariAmarok. You don't have to leave. Anytime you want to add something, you know where to find me.
Do you want links to right-wing sites similar to the left-wing sites you use as your only authority? ... Let me know if you want them.
You hold on to your ludicrous claim about FAIR despite not providing any evidence or even one thing they've done you can link to and criticize specifically, and I hold on to my claim that you are a friend and supporter of Osama bin Laden, you go on to point out how that's all babble, and I completely agree... and then you go right back to babbling.
So, babbling like a little baby, unable to make a better argument than that you should be able to ignore what you can't defend against... You are lost, AtariAmarok. You have reduced yourself to the status of a squealing baby who simply shouts "no."
You may love the sound of your babbling, but believe me, it only sounds good to you.
I don't think it would have much effect on cable news if applied to it.
You should have chosen a different sentence to quote. This is one you actually didn't answer. Now, onward to where you simply retread things that have already been questioned:
Fox would try to satisfy it by including token liberals on its shows.
Fox would lose with this nonsense. Put 5 democrats and 5 republicans in a room and tell them something is fair if 2/3 of them agree. The nonsense stops. Fox included.
someone like Alan Colmes
I notice you are ignoring I already pointed out that Hannity and Colmes is not a fair show; this too has been extensively commented on.
NPR liberals
Oh god, no - the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy is Invading!!
Is this much different?
Your imagination? From reality?
Yes!
have the government force them to give 3 hours to a ratings dog
Hah.
Mr. Unbiased and trustworthy here thinks having someone come on to answer the various ridiculous charges Limbaugh makes would be bad for ratings.
I've mentioned Moore, not
And I said "will" not "have"
They do not coordinate it with others or take marching orders.
Repeat after me.
There is no vast left-wing conspiracy. There is no vast left-wing conspiracy. There is no vast left-wing conspiracy.
Disney and GE are not trying to turn your babies liberal. LOL!
The same is true for right-wing media.
Actually, you are wrong once again. It is most definitely not true.
Right wing media, from Rupert Murdoch's holdings to the many, many other groups, is extensively coordinated. This is well documented, and basically an "open secret," in that conservatives don't often bother to deny the roles and hierarchies operating within their movement.
Do you really imagine all the conservative media outlets you see synchronize their points of view so well, and hammer out talking points so simultaneously by coincidence?
This coordination is necessary for a conspiracy theory.
Well, you said it...
Where have I claimed such? I haven't, and you know it.
Oh oh oh the liberals, they control Disney and GE and the New York Times, they're all out to get me, but I never said they have it coordinated, so it's not a vast left-wing conspiracy!
Bring my tinfoil hat! I need to protect my brain from dangerous truth rays and common sense particles.
Just look at yourself. Seriously, just look at yourself.
You are really sad.
It hasn't been all bad, though. You've given all of us an extensive study in an interesting new alternative to rational thought.
I can sense real desperation in the way you are quibbling over the webster dictionary's hostname.
Here, here's the word in every dictionary on the internet.
This, from the guy who gives "unbiased" "reliable" media commentary from a site called "cosmoetica".
Hmm, like poetry, you demonstrate how much of a scared, lying hypocrite you are, all in a few sentences.
The ratings system is the most accurate measure of how much the public trust is being served.
So, I take it you are backing off of your early assertion, and are ready to allow false advertising, and unlabeled pornography on TV? Even on saturday mornings?
The government says "no, you can't. This time must be given to someone else for what we think is "fair"".
Your creativeness in attributing absurd and unlikely bad things to Fairness knows no bounds.
The government would never say "no, you can't." They would say "allow this person time to respond."
What's really funny about this is that you are implying that there just isn't time to be fair, and if we forced poor broadcasters to be fair there just wouldn't be any time left over after all that fairness...
You slay me, AA.
Before they ran that Kerry piece, I heard nothing about how evil it was all over the media, including on Fox News.
I'm not surprised you haven't heard about it, since you have proven yourself really exceptionally ignorant. I would also be surprised if you would admit it anyway. Nonetheless, Sinclair's practices, which include conservative commentaries from its owners slipped into newscasts, are well documented.
Here's a nice list of watchdogs: left, center and right
We've already dispatched this fairly childish attack on FAIR.
it's rather clear that such advocacy is necessary for democracy
You have just cranked your Weaseling into 6th gear.
You claim that propaganda (on TV and radio) is necessary for a democracy.
I don't think I can really add anything to this...
You have stuck with the left wingers
Nope.
But I notice you have stuck with name calling, because you were too smart to make any actual substantive claims against them.
Go look at the right-wing sites and you will find examples for the other side as "good" as the ones you have given.
This is the heart of your lie, AtariAmarok. They are not as "good." In fact, they are not even close.
You provided a laughable hatchet job and a childish essay. You haven't marshalled a single coherent complaint against FAIR - and no links to back up any claims about them. No disputing any particular coverage of theirs.
You want to pretend they're "as 'good'" because that improves the really awful lying that goes on in these conservative propaganda instruments.
By the way, you earlier mentioned media consolidation. There is none.
That's absurd.
The biggest protest in history resulted in the FCC's pro-consolidation rules being overturned. The media companies are unhappy, because they want to consolidate even further than they are currently allowed.
AtariAmarok is, of course, hoping we will forget how his bogus arguments for the internet, cable and satellite have already been dealt with. He is also hoping we will ignore the trends underlying that court case - that increasingly, in a given market, a single company wants to own "everything" - the major television stations, radio stations, and the biggest newspapers.
Propaganda is not so bad! Let the few dozen people who control the mass media say whatever they want. Because no longer requiring them to give every american a voice... is censorship! Somehow!
Clear Channel, by the way, went from 40 stations to 1,225 since the last time the rules were relaxed, in 1996. That's a little less than a thousand more stations than its closest competitor.
But thanks for trying to weasel out of that too!
Dominance? Talk about a vast right wing conspiracy! According to FAIR, Fox News has about a million daily viewers. Do you realize what a small share of the TV audience this is?
Compare this to a liberal propaganda news channel.
Oops. There isn't one.
That is what we call dominance.
Identifying media outlets that are left-of-center is not the same as identifying a "VLWC".
...o
That would be interesting, if you actually identified anything.
Your idea of identifying something is to insist on it. And then refuse to give any reason to believe you. And then when questioned pile on some fairly ridiculous ideas. And then start lying about something we can read close by on the screen.
I was referring to hoping you would back off on making stuff up...
There are now literally dozens of citeable, incontravertible instances of you "making stuff up" in this thread. Plus one more, apparently.
Also, we've established you believe questions regarding your formidable ability to invent "facts" are "pretty much off topic."
Yes, you did, when comparing right-wing media to left-wing media.
Let's see... where did I say it?
Nowhere. Now, let's try this again, without your acting insane.
"Did I say there was conservatism on one side and truth on the other? Anywhere, at any time? Even in jest?
No.
What I did say was that, despite your vast left-wing conspiracy theory, the reason the news stations were not the conservatives' friend was because it was not their job to be the conservatives' friends. It was their job to tell the truth. It was their job to be nobody's friend - to be impartial and fair."
I have a feeling like you are building up to something here. Perhaps a childish tantrum along the lines of "You did so say it, and it's true because I said so, nya nya nya!"
I hope you do have this in you. It is hard to explain why your contortions are so entertaining, but they really are. Please do not disappoint me.
I don't have one. You are working once again from a false premise.
To the contrary, you would actually be worthy of exemplifying the cause in the dictionary definition of vast left-wing conspiracy theory. Which would be fitting, considering you apparently think the dictionary is some kind of magical security blanket which makes you invulnerable to common sense once you are wrapped inside of it.
It works something like this. First, someone questions a conservative point of view. It could be a major TV network, as we have just been discussing, such as ABC news, or CNN, or it could be FAIR. Rather than consider their question, even for a moment, you automatically add them to the vast left-wing conspiracy instead.
Like magic, now you've avoided the question, and slandered an "enemy." All without the slightest shred of evidence! And you would have gotten away with it, too, except that many people have a brain, and it's very easy to see right through this tired little game.
You only distinguish yourself by a startling laziness in addition to paranoia, since most conspiracy theorists can usually produce a few shreds of "evidence" to support their claim, whereas you can barely bestir yourself to claim we should take you at your world.
Yet, there are right-wing watchdog groups that document their "offenses", just as left-wing groups like FAIR document the "offenses" of Fox News.
Your comment shows how well you know you are wrong.
As you point out, there are right-wing groups that produce fake documentation of "bias" - Fox News Network, for instance, but also a number of other outlets, from AIM down to a variety of blogs run by hobbyists. Note that there are no truly independent critics who claim that the major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) are part of the vast left-wing conspiracy. This is because the conspiracy is imaginary. The only serious people considering it are right-wing "hitmen."
Meanwhile: you still libel FAIR, and still provide nothing of substance to back up your claims. I wonder if you somehow think more of yourself for engaging in this kind of behavior? Does it give your ego a charge to lie for the Party?
Just let them say whet they want to say.