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 » You know.... (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: You know....
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm on a number of Internet forums, only a handful of which are even remotely dedicated to political topics, and on EVERY ONE, someone -- usually it's the same two or three guys at each place (and they're always guys) -- winds up bringing up the same conservative talking point, on the same day, usually with a link back to Brit Hume or a recent Charon article.

So I've got to ask: what makes conservatives do this? Why can you count on a stable of conservatives to immediately jump on an article and reprint it without fact-checking across the entire Internet on a weekly basis? Does this have any effect on national politics?

Specifically, to Baldar and Lambert: when you link here or at Hatrack to the recent article of interest, are there other forums you visit where you do the same thing? If so, what impulse drives you (and, by extension, thousands of others) to share this information? If not, why do you only share it here?


Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They are a good source of information, well written and reflect some of our views. Tom do you use sources of information that reflect your views? I might suggest that you cease worrying about something that is, petty at best, and find out if the information is accurate based on your sources. If it is not, then challenge it, if it is accurate, what is your problem with relaying a truthful view?

I find it somewhat interesting that you point to the conservative point of view for this but completely ignore the liberals who do likewise, this includes Paul, Eddie, and many many others. You don't even raise a valid point with your question, you just show the same old bias.


Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  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 
"I might suggest that you cease worrying about something that is, petty at best..."

See, that's the thing that I find interesting -- because, when Ev or Eddie or somebody posts some link on this forum, they're generally the ONLY people who post that link, anywhere I visit; I'm not deluged with identical articles across the Web.

There's an active liberal blog community that tends to reference each other, I hear, but I tend to avoid blogs like the plague -- and in the FORUM community, conservatives post the vast majority of the links. I was trying to figure out why.

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited March 03, 2003).]


Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No they aren't Tom, others do it to. If it were just Eddie and Ev, I would point out that so far it is just Baldar and William. You see Tom you don't really check the facts very well and then you toss out an accusation. You say they are 'GENERALLY THE ONLY'. Now how can we be the only ones "generally" or are you saying that we do it more often then some others (and yet you only mention two on one side and there are two on the other side of the coin).

You say conservatives post the vast majority. Sorry, but you have generally exercized a dearth of facts in your other "opinions" so I find it difficult to accept what you say is true.

If what you state has a bearing in reality beyond your opinion then perhaps an explanation may also be that conservatives tend to review authoritative opinion rather than spew out unsubstantiated facts. You know like "why do conservatives reference so many sites while liberals tend not to?"

Seems to me you seek a debate in either an unarmed fashion where facts are concerned or where there is no debate in that both sides tend to reference their opinions to various news sources and opinion journalists.


Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  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 
Don't be a silly prig, Jeff.

I've made it very clear in both my posts so far in this thread that I'm speaking purely from anecdotal, personal evidence. If you've encountered a different story -- if, for example, you've visited several forums where a handful of liberals post the same core stories the day they're released in whatever newsletter liberals read religiously -- go ahead and mention them. Heck, provide links; I'd be intrigued.

In my experience with the Web -- which is pretty broad, but I'll gladly admit is not encyclopedic -- it seems that most liberal crossposting is limited to blog shout-outs. You're welcome to disagree, but don't foolishly ask for STATS for an opinion.

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited March 03, 2003).]


Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Insulting me doesn't change the fact that have certainly not made it clear that it is anecdotal, if anything you specifically pointed out to two people who happened to take the conservative view, and did not in any area state it was an opinion. You state it as fact, and while you can laughingly toss off that you "really" consider it opinion, I suggest you make sure you insert that phrase in your future posts where your facts are purely "anecdotal".

Since I have shown that both pot and kettle seem to be the same color by raising the issue that both spectrums of political thought reference others, what exactly is your beef, other than conservatives doing the same thing liberals do?

If you give an opinion, then state it clearly and it will be treated as such, if you give it as fact, then back it up.

As to admitting that it is an opinion I can only tell you you don't know what your talking about, given that the only anecdotal example that you presented was countered with two equally anecdotal examples which seem to indicate you don't even have a basis anecdotally to back your opinion. In short, you simply want to pique conservatives and slyly attempt to insinuate some kind of inferiority. A polite insult if you will. I don't buy it and you should go fishing elsewhere or at least find better bait.


Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  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 
"certainly not made it clear that it is anecdotal, if anything you specifically pointed out to two people who happened to take the conservative view"

*blink* Um, Jeff, that's actually the DEFINITION of "anecdotal."

"what exactly is your beef, other than conservatives doing the same thing liberals do?"

It's not a beef. It's an honest question, because I DON'T think it's something that liberals do, and I haven't perceived liberals doing it. If you HAVE seen liberals doing it on other forums, would you tell me which forums, and which articles they tend to frequently quote? Frankly, I'm interested in what motivates you -- and so many other conservatives -- to reprint this kind of stuff on a weekly basis.

"given that the only anecdotal example that you presented was countered with two equally anecdotal examples which seem to indicate you don't even have a basis anecdotally to back your opinion."

Well, no, not really. You seem to have missed the REST of my anecdote -- which is that the articles to which you and Lambert tend to link are articles that, when I visit the many other forums I visit, OTHER conservatives also link -- generally within the same day, like a kind of massmind. On the other hand, I don't observe this same phenomenon with the articles that Eddie and Everard cite. If you DO observe this, please provide links to the appropriate forums; I suspect I'd find them fascinating.



Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 869

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is just another one of Tom's "Oh you conservatives are so evil/rude and we liberals deficate marble" observations. He makes them every now and again.

I don't know if he really believes them or just says them to get the conservatives upset. But he's done it before and he'll do it again.

Just ignore them and they'll quickly scroll off the front page.

Pix


Posts: 385 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your right Pixiest, he's trolling again.
Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paercival
Member
Member # 92

 - posted      Profile for Paercival   Email Paercival   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
this is by no means Tom being insulting. He is noticing a trend amongst conservatives and is wondering if liberals do it too. Or, why conservatives do this.
Posts: 203 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Liberals do not enter into Tom's equation. He specifically wanted to torment conservatives.
Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KenBean
Member
Member # 603

 - posted      Profile for KenBean   Email KenBean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi Tom

I don't blog...whatever that means

I do read conservative type articles and I do prefer FOX news. Maybe its just because I don't like being called a rube and a neofacist etc. by the overwhelming majority of publishers and media giants.

I sorta' like being spoken to with respect.
I sorta' like opinions to be identified as such right up front, rather than presented as "facts of undeniable validity... News."

The main problem I see with "internet news", or in fact "internet anything" is that I go to get a sip of water...and get a fire hose crammed down my throat...(or elsewhere )

...Too much info...of dubious accuracy.

I truly have totally quit reading one conservative source: (News Max)

They are so whiney and slanted, and predictable...that again I get disgusted.

Conversely, I do enjoy reading George Will's counterpoints to the vast majority of pundits on the other side of issues.

I genuinely appreciate Lambert's posts here. Somehow he keeps a "civil tongue in his head"
and just plows through the drivel with some serious thought...and questions too.

I tried to email him the other day to say simply "thank you" for one post...only to find out his e mail address has changed.
(No, not that one )
Best regards
Bean


Posts: 1539 | Registered: Dec 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 
Well, no, Jeff. I'm perfectly willing to hear that there are liberal newsletters and the sort that do the same thing, and can freely accept that I just haven't ever stumbled across them -- but, again, I'd love to see some links. I specifically brought this up, though, because I was struck by the fact that, on all the web sites I visit, it's ONLY conservative articles -- and often the same conservative articles -- that are cut and pasted in waves like this.

(And yes, this IS anecdotal. Cope. Or if you have COUNTER-anecdotes, of examples of hundreds of identical liberal-leaning articles cross-posted to hundreds of forums all over the 'Net within ours of the release of the original, just let me know.)

I find this fascinating, and was specifically wondering about the motivations of those of you who participate in that wave of reposting. I'm really NOT trolling; I was just wondering what inspired you to take part in that kind of movement.

-----

BTW, Ken, thanks for taking my post at face value. I like Lambert, too.

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited March 03, 2003).]


Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again I have to wonder at the "Oliver Stonesque" conspiracy page you are reading. I don't "take part" in any real movement (more of that slant you always try to insert in your posts). If I find an article interesting or articulate, I tend to want to share in an effort to get responses to weaknesses I may have missed, and also I might find it articulates well my position. Seeing your apparent fear of my plagarism I would think that you would applaud such a move, or is it perhaps that liberals tend to plagarize more and get caught less?

You decide, but I find you posts to be more reflective of your slant than I do of any anecdotal "opinion" you might have in regard to posting other articles.


Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  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 
"If I find an article interesting or articulate, I tend to want to share in an effort to get responses to weaknesses I may have missed, and also I might find it articulates well my position."

See, that's part of the thing that interests me. You're by no means the only conservative who reposts articles like this across the forums I frequent, and it's possible that they ALL do so spontaneously, for the same reasons you do. I find this fascinating, because it's an interesting chance -- in my growing opinion -- to get a good sociological look at a self-forming and self-policing subculture.

You're looking for a trap, Jeff, and being all defensive and insulting in expectation that I'm going to jump out from behind a bush and yell "gotcha" when you reveal something potentially embarrassing. Don't. For one thing, it's not my style. For another, it gets in the way of discussing what I really find cool about this: whether all of you Internet conservatives recognize that you're part of a subculture, whether there was a conscious self-identification that occurred, whether there's some form of internal policing of the culture -- and how the growth of this subculture is affecting national politics in general.

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited March 03, 2003).]


Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, I don't look for traps I walk into them and then bludgeon the person who set them up.

No it seems you are focusing on conservatives rather than asking the more legitimate question as to why people in general do such things.

Why not ask liberals about their sub culture (your position indicates that conservatives are somehow a minority rather than a quiet majority or even on parity).

You see, everything you say seems to somehow lessen or make inferior positions held by others or conservatives. As a former journalist you know what you are doing, and I find your position most disengenuos when you attempt to foist your view as fact and claim neutrality to an "innocent" question when the very basis of your question denigrates the view others might have. Words like "subculture" and "movement" implying some fringe group when that is not the case. Your entire question in its phrasing speficically pointed towards conservatives versus the general question of why people in general sometimes post articles, speaks to that.

I am not being defensive but cogent of your ability to manipulate words. I suggest that you also are aware of what you are doing while claiming neutrality which puts you in a poor light indeed.

Thats what I mean about insulting politely pull away the mask and the same feral beast exists in you Tom. Be honest when you write the posts, I try to be.

[This message has been edited by Baldar (edited March 03, 2003).]


Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You can argue I give you too much credit in your ability to write, but I know your posts well enough to know that isn't true either. You are a very good writer and thoughtful of what you write, so it would be foolish for me to assume you would be that ignorant of the words you use.
Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  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 
*sigh*
Baldar, I'm using the phrase "subculture" to specifically describe the SUBCULTURE of passionately conservative Internet users. Would you disagree with its application here? If you would, what would you -- assuming you to believe yourself a member of this culture -- prefer instead? For that matter, do you believe such a subculture exists at all?

Based on my own anecdotal evidence, again, it seems obvious to me that such a subculture DOES exist -- but you're welcome to try to dissuade me. As I've said before, I know I haven't seen the whole Internet.

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited March 03, 2003).]


Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom

This sounds like you are identifying some sort of right wing conspiracy.

There is none. Like talk radio, the internet has been seized upon by conservatives because it is a territory not under near total control by liberals. That conservatives feel free enough to individually replicate the same source simultaneously should not indicated some sort ow worker bee level of control, but rather, it should indicate to you that perhapse there are just as many conservatives as liberals and that they collectively have strong beliefs that prompt them to express them with vigor.

The annecdotal aspect is that like a liberal media bias, proving the specifics is very difficult. I have read research which indeed points out that major media has a liberal bias, and a heavy one at that. The exceptions seem to be the internet and the talk radio format. Right now liberals are screaming about parity on talk radio. They simply do not understand that along with conservative listeners, shows like limbaugh also attract liberals and moderates because they are entertaining, and in the case of limbaugh factually correct even if he presents fact in conservative bias. Yet liberal scream at how unfair limbaughs success is.

In a simular way you seem to be screaming about conservatives posting simultaneous things on web sites. I will tell you one thing, conservatives in america do tend to get their information from very simular sources. Where a liberal can get his news from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, and quite a few others, conservatives tend to get their news from only FoxNews, or CSPAN. So when something resonates well with their viewers, conservatives all basiclly get the resonnace from a single report. For example, often when I watch FoxNews, something will be reported which I find to be amazing. I dont post anything about it on Ornery because I know that some one who is conservative, and a member of Ornery, has just seen the exact same thing and is already typing a post for Ornery about it.

For conservatives, media outlets are limited so when a red flag gets raised by FoxNews they are going to make the majority of Aamerican conservatives aware at the same exact time. For a liberal, the multiple outlets makes it harder for a red flag event to hit at the same time. So liberals may become aware of an issue over a long duration of time and they may post things on the internet about the issue, but because of the multiple outlets and the ability of liberals to have a choice of what media to watch, they donot come across as some conspiracy. The thing is because conservatives have almost no media control outside of Fox, and unfiltered sources such as CSPAn tend to be limited, when the conservatives lock on to an issue simultaneously, it must seem like a conspiracy to a liberal.

In the end, it is infact a simular path for both liberal and conservative arguments. Tom you feel that the posting pattern of conservatives indicates robotic mindless devotion. I say that the pattern you have seen idicates 1, that media outlets trusted by conservatives is limited and 2, that conservatives do thing in both qualitative and quanticative ways much differently from liberals. I would also like to point out that on most fourms, the liberal view is usually the more represented one and that it closely tracks with the views presented by CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, etc.

The amazing things about liberals is that they scream there is no liberal media bias, but when they identify a symptom of thius bias, they turn it around to make it a symptom of conservative bias. If there was more equitable distribution of trusted media outlets that were not biased, then conservatives would become dependant upon a variety of outlets which would remove the "symptom" of conservatives posting identical links .

Just a thought.


Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 
I just want to say that I feel that Tom in no way indicated that he believed there was a "conservative conspiracy" involved in the multiple postings of conservative newsletters. The fact that several of you have jumped on him for "saying" that shows to me that many conservatives are hyper-sensitive about the issue of conspiracy.

What Tom commented was that when certain newsletters were issued, several conservatives posted them on seperate forums posted the same articles. He did not say, or imply, that there was an organization behind this. It just seems to happen, and he is asking why.

It probably would have helped if Tom had given an example of this happening, but then it may have been an impression he got over several months, without a specific example he found. What piqued Tom the most, I believe, is that he noticed the same articles being linked, rather than a wide range of links that non-conservatives seem to cite.

I think Redskullvw touched upon a good explanation about there being only a limited number of conservative sources for conservatives to quote. I also believe it has to with the proselytizing impulse among conservatives. Because they believe they are in the minority, they feel they should disseminate information as quickly as possible. Sometimes it is to see if there are opposing opinions or something that was missed, as Baldar said, but mainly (I suspect) because they hope that it will persuade others that conservatives are right.

But whatever the reason, from what I read Tom did not accuse conservatives of any sort of conspiracy. And I would also like to hear why this occurs without the help of any sort of organization.


Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find it interesting that there is immediately a suspicion that Tom is immediately accused of trying to show that a vast right wing conspiracy exists...*Grin*


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 
The hardest thing about this is that if I had specifically said something like, "Now, I'm not saying this is a conspiracy," people would have accused me of being flippantly deceitful. As it is, because it didn't even OCCUR to me that someone might perceive my inquiry as some kind of trap designed to set up a "conspiracy," I'm being accused of using my skill with words to weave an elaborate SUGGESTION of conspiracy.

Sheesh.

Seriously, guys, I just thought it was interesting. I really don't notice this simultaneous adoption of talking points among liberals, OR among off-line conservatives, and was wondering if on-line conservatives were CONSCIOUSLY aware of the phenomenon or not -- and, if so, what they thought of it.

Clearly, this particular batch is not aware of it, and is even leery of the suggestion. So that's one question answered.

(I've asked this question on one other forum, one I moderate, and I'll see if the replies are similar in nature -- although I guarantee they won't be similar in TONE -- there. If so, I think redskull's suggestion of limited trusted media outlets for this subculture might explain a lot, and might point to some interesting social ramifications in the short term -- in the same way that slashdot has the ability to create phenomena within the limited circles of Linux fanatics.)

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited March 03, 2003).]


Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Grey - Tigger
Member
Member # 741

 - posted      Profile for Tom Grey - Tigger   Email Tom Grey - Tigger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I'm still a bit newish here, and I *DO* follow some blogs, and have looked at liberal/leftist stuff as well as conservative stuff.

The conservative e-stuff is better argued, more reason based, more fact based -- and they have links as sources to back them up.

I think the leftists (not really liberal) are getting intellectually lazy. See Peggy Noonan's article (WSJ opinion, no link this time) to the Democratic Party.
They allow little debate; their pro-gov't spokesperson says their position, and talks about how stupid the Republicans are, and that's it -- they're boring.

And "not linking" is a measure of the PC; assumed positions, without facts or research, is enough to feel good.

This forum is quite cool, in great contrast; but when (if?) I start my own blog (s?), contributions will have to go down. (Google bought Blogger -- you DO use Google, don't you?)

Also Tom, I'd be interested in YOUR "interesting" leftists, if any; Kausfiles doesn't count...


Posts: 493 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  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 
Although I don't want to speak for Tom (since I may get it wrong), I don't believe he is referring to links per se in the posts. Rather, it is links to specific newsletters or specific articles that suddenly appear in several forums.

I find posts that contain good links to appear better researched than those who just state opinions, whether it be liberal or conservative. But when the post is primarily to display one link, then it is not so much research as disseminating opinion, especially if the link is an opinion piece.

It is when different posts on different forums display the same link or newsletter article that Tom is discussing.


Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  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 
I've already decided that I'm not going to introduce Ornery to any of the other political forums that I love. I did give this a lot of thought, and indeed used to recommend this site pretty highly about a year or so ago, but I'm treating it like a quarantined patient nowadays.

That said, if this place ever recovers, I'll be happy to give you a link or two.

-----

*nods to Wayward Son, and thanks him for clarifying*

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited March 03, 2003).]


Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom:

quote:
I've already decided that I'm not going to introduce Ornery to any of the other political forums that I love. I did give this a lot of thought, and indeed used to recommend this site pretty highly about a year or so ago, but I'm treating it like a quarantined patient nowadays.
That said, if this place ever recovers, I'll be happy to give you a link or two.

Is that supposed to make us feel bad or good? Your reason for making the statement would be illuminating indeed. Of course the second question is "why should we care?"


Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An emotional pique is so petty, like taking your ball and going home.
Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  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 
My reason for making the statement was to explain to Tigger why I'm not giving him any links to Ornery, and also -- as I'm sure you picked up on, unless you decided that you'd run out of other things to be contentious about on this thread *rolls eyes* -- to make clear to some of the posters here that I'm not proud enough of this site to share it with people.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BoonDockSaint
Member
Member # 279

 - posted      Profile for BoonDockSaint   Email BoonDockSaint   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some of these threads are amazing. I'll be sitting in the library immersed in cases full of people whining about a bunch of stuff that doesn't matter, and there will be a tiny smattering of cases with people whining about stuff that does matter. Then I will decide I need a break, and I will get online and Ornery is one of the places I check. Thankfully, thankfully, thankfully, on Ornery I get to read a bunch of threads with people whining....

Here comes the good part. The whining on Ornery is pure and obvious, whereas the whining in the cases is masked by the Law and the Judge's bias. (Every judge has the specific kind of whining they prefer the most.) The thing is, since you don't have to work for the whining on ornery, its just so much more fun to laugh at. TY all, and keep up the good work.

[This message has been edited by BoonDockSaint (edited March 03, 2003).]


Posts: 1094 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually I am very proud of this site, it deals with real issues and has a range of people who defend their positions with both strength and logic. While I don't agree with many things posted, it has made my sense of what is said sharper for the implications they present. When I tell people about this site I usually add, "don't come here expecting anyone to treat you more or less than the posts you present. You either know what you are talking about or you don't.

I think thats the best compliment I could pay any site.


Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KenBean
Member
Member # 603

 - posted      Profile for KenBean   Email KenBean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Guys

Back off just a little, OK?

Tom

I find it quite ornerous to just try to keep up with THIS forum, and to make a generous contribution when needed

I would enjoy throwing a t**d in the punchbowl on a liberal forum...just to stir them up and give them some flavor...but frankly do not have the time.

I do admire you for flavoring this forum, for the same reasons.

You keep us fired up and never complacent. Thank you.

Best regards
Bean


Posts: 1539 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KenBean
Member
Member # 603

 - posted      Profile for KenBean   Email KenBean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom

How about this?

Answer my question about exactly what Dubyah has done to EARN your distrust, and I will send you a check. (or a credit card number

Please make it first person, with no "he/she saids", and the check is in the mail.

($50 per hour...no questions asked)

Best regards
Bean


Posts: 1539 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry to be so late getting here, but my time is limited and I often seem to come in at the end of interesting threads. In this particular one, Im completely flabbergasted by TomD's spin. In earlier threads, I was often as not calling Tom to task for using Liberal news sources. This is certainly a nice switcheroo. If I'm not mistaken until this forum at Ornery started to drill deep inside Tom's head, he was very much a Salonreposter - and defended very vehemently the level-headed and balanced reviews coming out of Salon. Does anyone else recall the numerous times we pointed out minor discrepancies of fact that he was putting forward on the basis of such Liberal spin web sites? I know that I personally made the point many times in general and directly to Tom how the Liberal news seemed to be orchestrated and in lock-step with the DNC focus groups.

One such item that may jog all your memories was the use of "Gravitas" during the Presidential election campaign, when every single Liberal talking head on TV, radio, and in all the forums simultaneously began discussing the supposed relative lack of "gravitas" by Bush. It took about a week and-a-half for the public opinion polls to come back, and miraculously the american public believed by a landslide that it was not Bush who was lacking, but Gore. Instantly, the word "gravitas" vanished form the American lexicon. Brokaw, Jennings, Rather, Russert, Matthews, Moyers, Leno, and Letterman suddenly dropped its usage.

I've pointed out numerous times directly to Tom, how the Clichés and hot-button terms, phrases, ans talking points were a Democratic monolpoly. I pointed out how the Conservatives were at a disadvantage because thay had to refute a cliché with logic that had to be explained and supported. It is hard to refute a 5-word cliché like "tax cuts for the rich". It takes a lot of words to point out what the tax structure is, how the rich pay far more than a fair share, and how the poor and middle income brackets benefit even more than the acursed rich. Of course, by that time the Liberal talking heads have already thrown out the "Republicans want to take away Social Security" cliché and Meet The Press has already cut away from the single Conservative on a five-person panel as the other Liberals pile on to close the show.

As far as saying that all conservative posters only get their info from one or two web sites - that is a damn lie. Almost every quote I've seen in here from Conservatives are pulled from the AP, UPI, Wall Street Journal, Times, Post, Free Press, or News. ocassionally in a spirited discussion, where a person is challenged to post the source of such info, that person is forced to resort to a Google search to locate the original article - only to find that the papers and news magazines have moved the documents. The only easily searcheable reprints of these archived articles are often found on Free Republic, Banner of Liberty, and such. Many times Tom has beat me up on sources - not admitting that the original source was not where it was archived.

Doesn't make me bad for knowing where to find hard to find info, it just makes others biased for pejorative comments about "where we are getting our radical ideas".

I do post a lot of economic info from Jude Wanniski, because his information is so insightful and relevant. Where else should I go? Berkley's Econ website so we can learn all about discredited Keynesian theory?

You know, you can't go wrong to go to Drudge and look at his Current Interest headlines. Nine times out of ten, he even gives you relative web sites and bibliography. His stories come from everywhere, he is just a good ingatherer of interesting news. Is this wrong, Tom?

One of the things to get over, Tom, is assigning ownership of certain quotes and ideas that you disagree with to whatever dubious web site happens to repeat them. Just because World net Daily reprints an article from the Wall Street Journal, doesn't make either source evil. The article the info came from is probably just quoting a speech some flack gave before Congress, so whoever printed it is irrelevant - getting the facts out is what counts. Saying that Conservatives respond in lock-step when they are just following current events as it occurs is lame. saying they are just repeating what Rush Limbaugt or Alan Keyes told them to say is bereft of plausibility. Those Conservative voices are popular because they reflect what is thought by their audience - not the other way around.

Note to Ken Bean, Sorry to've left my old email address up. It was correct in my profile from clicking the icon, but not when I clicked "profile." Why that should be I have no idea. I just changed my email address, received a new password, (without knowing it) and spent a good deal of time in a circular exercise of futility trying to get it straightened out. Everything is copacetic now. (BTW: if anyone is interested, get a big kick by looking up the etymology of "copacetic.")


Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 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 
"If I'm not mistaken until this forum at Ornery started to drill deep inside Tom's head, he was very much a Salonreposter - and defended very vehemently the level-headed and balanced reviews coming out of Salon."

Well, it actually has little to do with any effect this site has had on me. I don't repost Salon articles much anymore precisely because they're desperate for funding in the wake of the Burst, and have discovered that they get more subscribers when they swing left; ergo, they've made a conscious decision to become a kind of online Utne Reader. (It's also worth noting that, in my entire life, I have posted no more than ten or twelve links to various articles, whereas the posters I've referenced in this thread do it WEEKLY.) Now, there's nothing inherently WRONG with being just another Mother Jones, or a left-wing Drudge, but it does mean that I don't find their stuff often fair and balanced enough anymore to show to other people.

Which, if anything, might well give you pause.

As for the gravitas thing, what I find really intriguing is this: while I didn't notice all that many people arguing in unison that Bush lacked gravitas, I did notice the near-unanimous conservative counter-strategy to attack the apparent use of "gravitas" as a word choice. Lambert came on hot and heavy on this site with it, one of Salon's poor pet conservatives did exactly the same thing, Fox had two columnists write articles on the "phenomenon," and so forth -- to the point that, to me, the ANTI-"gravitas" backlash had more of a noticeable effect than any original "gravitas" campaign in the first place.

-------

I'm not going to get into a discussion here about whether sources like World Net Daily can be considered good sources or not, since that's way outside the scope of what I wanted to try to understand. What I'm seeing here is this, though: online conservatives -- on THIS forum, at least -- do not think of themselves as a community, even if they behave in almost all ways as if they are one, and are in fact hostile to such suggestions because they believe they carry hints of conspiracy.

I'm not sure how much the general suckiness and mean-spirited nature of Ornery is affecting these results, though, because I'm getting somewhat different results on another two forums: the conservatives there -- and I'm not just counting the two Freepers, who OF COURSE think of themselves as a community -- were actually pretty enthusiastic about redskull's suggestion, and spun off a number of intriguing theories about the effect limited media outlets have had on their society.

[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited March 04, 2003).]


Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thats the problem Tom, when opinions don't go your way there is an apparent "suckiness" or "mean spiritedness", when they do, everyone is "civil". William has called you out as someone who frequently posted (regardless of the reason) but your never mentioned that when you posted originally. And I might add you originally targeted only conservatives with that question, rather than apply the same question to yourself and posit some of the reasons liberals do likewise.

Those are the things you have overlooked and still avoid delving into. Look at your original post and see how your position has changed when more facts came to light.

Its not "sucky" here, its just not Tom's forum and that must rankle you a bit.


Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  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 
It amazes me how much misunderstanding there is about Tom's question. From what I've been reading in Tom's posts, Tom is not criticizing the use of links. He is not saying it is bad, that it shouldn't be done, or even that certain links are not as reliable as others (although he, as everyone else, doubtlessly believes that).

What he is pointing out is that some people have started threads with, "Hey, look at this article I found." Then, someone else on another forum starts a thread with, "Hey, look at this article I found," and links the same article. Then someone else on another forum does the same thing. And almost always it is a conservative article.

Notice a pattern? Is this pattern real? What is the reason behind the pattern? Is there a reason? These are the questions I see Tom asking.

He is not asking, "is there a conspiracy here? Are you guys organized? How can we stop you?" None of these questions are asked in his posts.

No, Tom is not a close friend of conservatism. But not everything he says is an attack. Why do you guys keep treating it like one?


Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually when Tom focus's in on conservatives as he did on his original post here, it usually is a set up for criticism. Tom doesn't like conservatives and he is against their ideas in general. If he had started with something akin to "look at what happens when people produce links" then your point would be valid Wayward. But the implication is there. Of course it was squelched when the criticism was squelched when the issue went from "conservatives" to people in general, which is Tom back peddling.

Why point out conservatives in the original post otherwise otherwise? To compliment them?


Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
leave
Member
Member # 466

 - posted      Profile for leave     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
paranoia makes the world go 'round
Posts: 138 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL, just because one is paranoid doesn't mean someone is not out to get them. The question is valid.
Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  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 
Tom pointed out conservatives because he only noticed it in conservatives.

Again, he was not talking about people posting links and quotes. He was pointing out that different people were posting the same links and posts at about the same time in different forums. These people were not part of a blog. And guess what? They happened to be conservative. And he asked, why is that?

He did not get a chance to to either criticize or compliment. But it was taken as an attack, although I don't see how.


Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

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