Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Fox most trusted name in news (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Fox most trusted name in news
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And you didn't see Jon Stewart skewer Olbermann.
*blink* This assertion surprises me, because Pyrtolin strikes me as a Jon Stewart fan who's very likely to have seen most of the newsworthy moments on his show, either on the original broadcast or replayed on the Internet a day or so later.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cronkite is still warm in his grave, and now this. Anything that shows itself on TV these days is entertainment, where the news gets its material from things that happen and the commentators are like critics reviewing reality shows. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are the only two who embrace their role wholeheartedly and honestly.

Viking_longship is right. The critical function kicks in when you actually have to do the work of reading to learn about it. I almost never watch anything on TV other than sports or House, but I read online news about 2-3 hours a day.

I feel an irresistible urge to say that we're not any better here on Ornery. Kenmeer is the only one here who embraces his role.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"And you didn't see Jon Stewart skewer Olbermann."

As bringer told us, he sees what he sees. I've started bathing with my clothes on.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I almost never watch anything on TV other than sports or House, but I read online news about 2-3 hours a day."

Remove the sports and add the occasional episode of 2&1/2 Men or Big Bang Theory, and I match you except on all the news reading. I used to but have greatly reduced the text news diet.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bringer
Member
Member # 6546

 - posted      Profile for bringer   Email bringer       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by bringer:
Pyre,

No. You didn't see Olbermann. And you didn't see him apologize only to add more. And you didn't see Jon Stewart skewer Olbermann. Apparently that means that you want it to be so, even if it isn't.
Your just throwing names out.
And it ain't so.

No, I did see those. And while pointedly rude and tenuous, it doesn't even begin to hold a candle to the constant, actively manipulative lies that Back and Hannity feed their audiences. Especially in as much as Olbermann admitted that Stewart was, without qualification, right that he'd gone too far and should dial back the rhetoric.
I didn't say that you didn't watch Olbermann and Stewart.
I said that you didnt see Olbermann and Stewart. I would add that you didn't hear them either.

This is a phenomena known by Simon and Garfunkel in that some accept that part that they want to accept and disregard the rest.

Posts: 328 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/keith-admits-his-rhetoric-has-been-over-to

This has all parts of the exchange pretty well, including Olbermann's real apology after his nose was rubbed in it. Is there something more that I'm missing here?

I have yet to see Beck or Hannity even acknowledge that they're in the wrong, never mind make any indication that they'll try to be more responsible in the future.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is a phenomena known by Simon and Garfunkel in that some accept that part that they want to accept and disregard the rest.
I believe the quote (from "The Boxer") is "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-da-da."

So I assume this means that you consider Pyrtolin a Real Man. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Exactly. Because the best way to stay informed and get the unbiased truth is to get all your news from bloggers who hold exactly the same opinion as you

Hardly.

The best way to stay informed would be to read a wide variety of sources from multiple viewpoints, and take into account your sources known biases and come to your own conclusions. Television is a medium that lends itself to serious manipulation of your emotions, and offers the greatest flexibility for the 'news orgs' to omit, distort, edit and deceive. They ALL do it. Turn off the TV and read for your news. You will be far better informed.

Anyone that thinks they are "informed" because they spend hours watching TV "NEWS" -- right-wing FOX, or left-wing network -- is fooling themselves.

Not that I'm doubting that you've transcended the partisan divide and reached the clarity of unbiased enlightenment, but... is your response to this really to point out that the "other guys" have (probably) done something similar?

[LOL] "Probably," Adam? This is PRECISELY why I pointed this out. The most amusing aspect of observing "right" vs. "left" debate in this country is the willfully ignorant or plain old myopia BOTH sides engage in.

Kinda like George W. Bush supporters telling the liberals that the Democrats spend too much when they're in power...

Or Obama voters talking about how electing him is gonna bring CHANGE to Washington...

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
This is a phenomena known by Simon and Garfunkel in that some accept that part that they want to accept and disregard the rest.
I believe the quote (from "The Boxer") is "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-da-da."

So I assume this means that you consider Pyrtolin a Real Man. [Smile]

Oh. I thought, Pyrtolin was a woman.
Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Probably," Adam? This is PRECISELY why I pointed this out.
See, you are missing the irony of that parenthetical. I said "probably" because you were throwing up a " the other side does it too" defense (which is lame), without even bothering to check if it was actually true:

quote:
Wasn't there a similar sort of thing about Sarah Palin's children? Her downs syndrome baby? I don't know...
In other words, don't get your pesky facts in the way of my dogma. Not exactly selling the idea that switching to libertarianism has removed any blinders.

You know, I respect the fact that you were able to re-assess your world-view and change your political position, and that you can acknowledge that you were wrong in the past on certain issues. But honestly, ever since you were "born again", you have become the most rigidly dogmatic poster on this board. Its like you've found the "right answer" and don't want to be bothered to think anymore, much less re-examine any premises. Combined with you're cheerfully open contempt for those who aren't "saved" yet, it makes dialogue with you seem both pointless and annoying.

And, to save you the trouble, yes, I know that I only see it this way because I have been brainwashed by the media into a mindless follower of communist ideology. Point conceded, lets move on.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
the other side does it too" defense (which is lame), without even bothering to check if it was actually true:

What is their to check? That left wing pundits have said personally slanderous things about right wing political figures and their families in the 15 years since Limbaugh made the one point you use as the single defining moment of the man's entire career as a right wing ideological blowhard?

I'm not making a "your side does it too!" defense. Just pointing out that your outrage over a personal attack from one side of the aisle while being blissfully unaware from what's coming from your own side is rather myopic.


But honestly, ever since you were "born again", you have become the most rigidly dogmatic poster on this board. Its like you've found the "right answer" and don't want to be bothered to think anymore, much less re-examine any premises. .

I re-examine my premises constantly and continually.

The dogmatic premises I see permeating this forum is that whenever I try and point out fallacies, hypocrisies and faults with the "left," all the lefty's almost always revert to some variation of "Daruma acts like he's no longer a right winger, but we all know that's not true."

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
the other side does it too" defense (which is lame), without even bothering to check if it was actually true:

What is their to check? That left wing pundits have said personally slanderous things about right wing political figures and their families in the 15 years since Limbaugh made the one point you use as the single defining moment of the man's entire career as a right wing ideological blowhard?

Actually, I called it the low point of his career. If you know of another, please share it. Its also, in my experience, the lowest moment in modern punditry. Again, I'm open to alternatives.


quote:

I'm not making a "your side does it too!" defense. Just pointing out that your outrage over a personal attack from one side of the aisle while being blissfully unaware from what's coming from your own side is rather myopic.


This is exactly what I was just referring to; cheerfully open contempt. I've happily shared my opinion that Garafalo is potentially as vile and obnoxious pundit as Limbaugh, and often point out people like George Will as being credits to the trade, despite holding very different views from myself. The fact that I don't qualify each and every critique of Limbaugh is that I've never acted like a partisan here, and feel no need to emphatically declare that I'm not one. The only people who've ever leveled that accusation at me are G2 and you; but you both level that accusation at every non-conservative, so I don't tend to pay it much attention.

quote:

But honestly, ever since you were "born again", you have become the most rigidly dogmatic poster on this board. Its like you've found the "right answer" and don't want to be bothered to think anymore, much less re-examine any premises. .

I re-examine my premises constantly and continually.

The dogmatic premises I see permeating this forum is that whenever I try and point out fallacies, hypocrisies and faults with the "left," all the lefty's almost always revert to some variation of "Daruma acts like he's no longer a right winger, but we all know that's not true."

Well, I certainly don't doubt that you are no longer a republican style conservative, but your views seem pretty consistent with the libertarian far-right. But its not your views that I'm talking about, its how you act on this forum. For starters, you seem to think that anyone who doesn't share your views, and to the same degree, is not just wrong but blindingly stupid for not "getting it". Many people here are wrong ( [Smile] ), but I don't know of any regular poster who isn't intellegent. Indeed, this is without question the smartest forum I've ever visited. WarrsawPact was probably the smartest teenager I've ever encountered, and I don't recall ever agreeing with a word he wrote. Its not really that hard to respect people's intellect while disagreeing.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bringer
Member
Member # 6546

 - posted      Profile for bringer   Email bringer       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Olbermann said this:

"You were right. I have been a little over the top lately. Point taken. Sorry"

...about having said this:

"In Scott Brown, we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees."

..on the eve of the election of a U.S. Senator.
Don't overlook this part, even Jon labeled this the worst part, and you watch Olbermann saying it with a gulp and a blink....:

"OLBERMANN: Specifically, this past Sunday, when a man at a Brown rally shouted they should, quote, "shove a curling iron up Martha Coakley`s butt," Brown responded by answering, "We can do this." Or, if that remark was unconnected to the shout, he never refuted, condemned, nor disassociated himself from the call to violence and even sexual assault."

So I maintain that this display needed to be seen. Watching the faces, seeing the facial tics, and recognizing frame by frame what was being attempted (sabotaging Brown's lead) by any words necessary.

[ January 28, 2010, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: bringer ]

Posts: 328 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For starters, you seem to think that anyone who doesn't share your views, and to the same degree, is not just wrong but blindingly stupid for not "getting it".

What can I say...I've been here a long time...and I remember.

I remember how the "right" and the "left" have basically traded arguments and premises interchangeably.

Many things Bush & the GOP did were endless thread topics full of pointed criticism and snarky slander...

...and now some of the same things that were so vehemently opposed than - well, let's just say the script has flipped in many ways now that Obama is in and the DNC runs the show in Congress.

I have lost patience with observing the partisan dialectical divide dictate the direction of debate...which in turn probably makes me lean heavily into the direction of contemptuous misanthropy.

I think I have grasped the larger picture here (not the forum, I mean the root corruptions of our current society on decline - and of course, my point of view regarding the "big picture" is also the very hammer people use to try and bash me with the "crazy" label), and I do get angry at the various arguments put forth that justify, promote or escalate the situation...and I can admit that I have let that anger at the 'system' manifest in personal vehemence to various members here when debating.

I get your criticism...point taken. [Embarrassed]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bringer
Member
Member # 6546

 - posted      Profile for bringer   Email bringer       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/judd_gregg_to_msnbc_youve_got.html


More of the same. Judd Gregg sounds off at MSNBC while on MSNBC.

Posts: 328 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I didn't say that you didn't watch Olbermann and Stewart. I said that you didnt see Olbermann and Stewart. I would add that you didn't hear them either."

Yeah, how true. How soon we forget that they're really David Icke lizard people allied with Queen Elizabeth.

You are exceptionally full of ****, bringer, and that takes some doing around here.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems a little cowardly to bully the new guy with that kind of language, Kenmeer, since if bringer responds in kind to your provocations, the pack you've traveled with in recent months will be at his throat.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well hell, I think you're full of **** too, Pete, but I doubt anyone here will follow my lead in echoing that sentiment, at least so frankly.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love you too, pumpkin.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now go to bed. You're getting cranky, old man.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bringer
Member
Member # 6546

 - posted      Profile for bringer   Email bringer       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So there's a 'pack'. Thanks for the heads up. And I do dangle my throat out there.

Kenmeer, without any attempt to offend you, I would observe that you reach a certain threshold, and then you exhibit symptoms of some kind of literary 'tourrettes'. Then you go for the throat.

But that's me trying to see you. I am sorry. I will desist. It's a habit.

Posts: 328 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not much pack action compared to how things used to be. But some of the old pack animals are still around, and old habits die hard, so if you get two or more people making personal attacks at you on the same thread, take a break before two become a dozen. And don't reply in kind.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or -- and this is just a suggestion, mind -- try not being full of ****. Some people manage it.

When your argument relies on your claim that you can see into Keith Olbermann's soul better than anyone else on the thread, you've really hit a sort of rhetorical bottom.

[ January 29, 2010, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bringer, be a poetaster to your heart's content, but whatever else you do, don't stand between Pete and Kenmeer.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So maybe Daruma is dogmatic. He's defending a particularly unpopular dogma on both the left and right. The prevailing mentality in America these days is "Give me liberty, unless there is a risk of death, poverty or other people having the liberty to do things I personally find objectionable."

I'd be angry too, heck I am angry.

Some dogmas no one seems to question.

"We have to make the world safe for democracy." Why? We have a responsibility to keep America safe for democracy, but other people in other countries should be responsible for their country.

"Isolationsim led to the rise of Hittler."
No, punishing Germany for going to war to support an ally in WW I, thus wrecking the economy of Germany and humiliating the German people led to to the rise of Hittler. Isolationism kept us out of the war long enough for Hittler to make the fatal mistake of invading the Soviet Union.

"Everybody deserves a fair shake"
No everybody deserves equal protection under the law. Everyone deserves equal access to the benefits of the system they pay into. Life isn't fair. I was born dyslexic and asthmatic, not fair but that's life.

"We have to protect out allies"
Okay but let them protect themselves first. Europe collectively is the second largest military spender. Why are we maintaining bases there?


"Capitalism and Socialism are poles"
Capitalism as we know it is socialism by other means and heavily supported by the state.

Freedom means you have the freedom to fail, to become an addict, to be a racist, a sexist, hate the United States, worship satan, to fall in love with bad irresponsible people, to jerk off to porn all day, to not give your children every advantage (but no NOT physically or sexually abuse them) and generally be disagreeable.

Freedom also means we get to come on this board and get on eachother's nerves.

Thank God we're free.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"you exhibit symptoms of some kind of literary 'tourrettes'. Then you go for the throat."

I often think of myself as having a form of 'social Tourette's'. But this 'throat' jive is just jive. There are no throats here, no lives, fortunes, or sacred honors (except for those who divulge confidences, which is another matter.)

It's not about your or anyone's great big floppy *ego*.

Al, if you wish to aggrandize the (probably) intractable anti-relationship I enjoy w/Pete, go for it, but it serves no good purpose that I can see.

For some time now, it has been Pete seeking personal 1-st name basis responses from me although I told him awhile back I wish he wouldn't. I don't mind him addressing ideas I express, quoted verbatim or not, and I sometimes address ideas he posts, quoted verbatim or not, but the insistence on a conflict between two online personae is Pete's, not mine.

I gather that some people like to watch?

[ January 29, 2010, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
I don't find it appealing, but bringer may not realize what Pete is trying to sucker him into.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
Bringer, be a poetaster to your heart's content, but whatever else you do, don't stand between Pete and Kenmeer.

Al, you got it wrong, I stepped in between Kenmeer and bringer, when 'meer started going after him. And stepping between (rather than cheering from the sidelines) can actually calm things down when it gets hot -- and you haven't even been here long enough to know what hot is.

As for "first name basis," I have no idea what Kenmeer means. I don't think he knows what he means either. Kenmeer's even moodier than I am, and the same stylistic patterns that delight him in one mood, enrage him in another mood. If it was something as simple as calling him "Mr. Livermaile," that would keep him from going off on me, I'd do that (rather than sustaining this ridiculous sustained low-grade hostility against someone who I'm rather fond of, just to keep the peace). But I suspect that Kenmeer/Mr. L is making one of his eliptical metaphors of the exact sort that Mr. L praises or attacks bringer for making, depending on Mr. L's mood at the time.

Or maybe I'm wrong and there really is something I can do or stop doing that would straighten this out. I'll keep an open mind.

[ January 29, 2010, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
I don't find it appealing, but bringer may not realize what Pete is trying to sucker him into.


OK, I'll bite. What am I trying to sucker bringer into? How is bringer harmed by my telling him to not call Kenmeer a **** when Kenmeer calls him a ****?

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Davidson:
[bla bla bla] ... full of **** ... [bla bla bla]

Like I said, bringer, it's not an impressive pack compared to days gone by.

[ January 29, 2010, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bringer
Member
Member # 6546

 - posted      Profile for bringer   Email bringer       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

you said:

"When your argument relies on your claim that you can see into Keith Olbermann's soul better than anyone else on the thread, you've really hit a sort of rhetorical bottom."

I did not claim to see better. I gave validity to what Jon Stewart saw. Because I saw it independently as well. Then I witnessed to you what we both saw. And I affirmed what Paul Simon saw.

How do we often prove the offenses around us, if not by seeing and witnessing? That you don't want my particular witness is understandable, but there are others and you can't silence us all.

Posts: 328 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That you don't want my particular witness is understandable, but there are others and you can't silence us all.
Yes, you're just one of an oppressed legion of Jon Stewart viewers lining up to tell people who watch his show that you saw it, too, and interpreted it differently. Fight the power, man. *laugh*

[ January 29, 2010, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I don't find it appealing, but bringer may not realize what Pete is trying to sucker him into."

Ah, I see. While I must caveat with this paraphrase: "what (I believe) Pete is trying to sucker him into", I think I now understand what you meant.

[ January 29, 2010, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW, since we're seeing into souls and things that don't submit to empirical confirmation, I'll submit my new theory: bringer is Al Wessex's alter ego.

Hey, why I should I be the only one accused of HPD? (Hydratic Personality Disorder)

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Or maybe I'm wrong and there really is something I can do or stop doing that would straighten this out. I'll keep an open mind."

I asked you some time ago to not address me personally. Not only do I weary of this crap, but many others have repeatedly expressed their annoyed ennui at the tenor of exchange that happens when we address each other personally. They're not at all interested in how we see each other as persons or personae. Me too.

But you love to address my remarks both with my name and with whatever history (real or imagined) you associate with the posting persona called Kenmeer, particularly as he has interacted with the posting persona known as Pete at Home.

It would be a great favor to us all if you would address my ideas, words, syntax, whatever as they stand themselves without draping them in your beliefs and feelings about this Kenmeer persona.

My guess is that most Orneryans would be grateful.

[ January 29, 2010, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Without taking a side, here, let me just note that people can agree with each other without it constituting pack behavior, and could even take a side in a name calling contest without it being a strictly partisan decision. [Smile]

KL, to be fair, you do seem invested in the antagonism as well. Don't know how it'll simmer down without one or the other just dropping it.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Viking...thanks. That was a great post. lost amidst the drama.

IMO, there's no worse topic on Ornery...than talking about Ornery.

[Exploding]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"KL, to be fair, you do seem invested in the antagonism as well."

Well, duh. Whatever *is* your point? That sometimes I'm surly? Tell me something I don't know. Or, if you must belabor the obvious, delegate the job to her.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yikes, get on an airplane and the weather is totally different when you land...

"OK, I'll bite. What am I trying to sucker bringer into? How is bringer harmed by my telling him to not call Kenmeer a **** when Kenmeer calls him a ****?"

Given that bringer is a first class cyber identity standing on his own posts, I think you're trying to egg Kenmeer on to joust with you. He says he won't bite in very direct and strong terms, which means he did, so you win. But in fairness, even acknowledging the bait you dangled is playing, and posting is playing is posting, so you both can feel that you held your ground and met your objective.

"BTW, since we're seeing into souls and things that don't submit to empirical confirmation, I'll submit my new theory: bringer is Al Wessex's alter ego."

Since I can't refute a negative (when exactly did I stop being bringer?), I'll just assert the affirmative that I am not Alfred, Lord Wessex, King of England. Don't assume he is me just because his syntax has improved lately and mine has degraded. OTOH, I also don't believe he is bringer. Is anybody anybody?

We get like this -- picking lint off each others' posts -- because we enjoy the act of talking but we're not saying much ourselves (my latest theory). I say this because g2 passes for evangelical and Daruma as politically ecumenical, but both are near beer to those heady brews, at best. People here seem to be mourning for days past instead of building an archive of thought that later sneerers will longingly look back on with mawkish sentimentality like what some now apply.

My humble opinion is that most of you are smarter than you look and smarter than me. Or I wouldn't be here, and if you prove me wrong I'll rekindle my lantern and continue my journey to find a place where that might be true.

[ January 29, 2010, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Al Wessex ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Without taking a side, here, let me just note that people can agree with each other without it constituting pack behavior,

Sure. And when a group of wolves surround someone and take bites out of you from different sides, you could say that they are all manifesting agreement in how good you taste. [Razz]

If a bunch of people disagree with you about a substantive matter, you might feel picked on or overwhelmed, but that's not what I'm calling pack behavior. If they are all piping in to make hostile personal remarks about someone, that does come off as pack behavior.

[ January 29, 2010, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
I asked you some time ago to not address me personally.

Do you mean directly, as I am now? Or do you mean talking about you as a poster, like you you were just doing to bringer on this thread?

If you mean the latter, and if you're willing to reciprocate (to me and to bringer) then we may have a deal.

quote:
But you love to address my remarks both with my name
That's kind of necessary to distinguish a response to something you've said from something someone else said. Avoidance of names is silly, awkward and fastidious. If you're serious about ending this rubbish, then don't toss in impractical poison pills.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1