I will reconstruct the crime.

Post #44,259 by Brandioch 7/2/02 2:06:38 PM Reply	I will reconstruct the crime. #1. There is a discussion about "bias" in the media. #2. mmoffitt posts a link to a book "on bended knee" indicating that there is media "bias" and the media went easy on Regan. #3. you post TWO links. one to mediaresearch.org which offers analysis of a BOOK titled " Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News". This book and analysis seem to support your position that there is a "liberal" bias in the media. and you post another link to Amazon about another book (Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News) Oh, wait. IT'S THE SAME FUCKING BOOK!!! All mediaresearch.org did was to to do some followup "research" to reach the same conclusions as that book. Note, that book was SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED in the article you linked to. #4. I point to ANOTHER article on mediaresearch.org to show that they are NOT unbiased researchers. My reference showed them supporting global warming because it could lead to longer growing seasons. They are a bunch of fucking idiots with blatant agendas. #5......... . .. ... Current post. You've claimed that it was the OTHER link that you were talking about. The one that goes to the book review. You know, the book review of the book that is mentioned in the article on the site I posted the other link to. So, you claim that I should look at the reviews on Amazon? Strangely enough, those reviews have even LESS substance than the mediaresearch.org site. Once again, (I'm sure, not for the last time), I do not CARE HOW MANY IDIOTS YOU CAN FIND TO AGREE WITH YOU. 1,000 idiots are still a bunch of idiots. They don't get less idiotic in groups. You are NOT impressing me by your CONTINUED attempts at veracity via groupthink.
Post #44,268 by bepatient 7/2/02 3:26:31 PM Reply	You do whatever you like dear. You are dismissing something based on something completely unrelated. Your call I guess. T'ain't worth it. You're right. The entire press is full of Rush Limbaugh wannabes. Simple. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,275 by Brandioch 7/2/02 5:02:15 PM Reply	"Bias" is completely unrelated? No. I've established that mediaresearch.org has a bias. I've established that their bias is so overwhelming they can say that global warming is a "good thing" (tm). Again, once it's been established that said "genetic researcher" is a klansman, how much further do you have to go to show his research is biased and untrustworthy? The entire press is full of Rush Limbaugh wannabes. So, given your past behaviour, your retreat to irrelevent strawmen is your admission of failure. Nope, they're not. But their boss's boss' bosses know which side their bread is buttered on. Republican means big media conglomorates. Which mean big salaries for the big bosses. The little news anchors know not to rock the boat too much. Keep the bosses happy and you'll keep your job.
Post #44,286 by bepatient 7/2/02 6:28:27 PM Reply	Like I said... ...you do whatever you like. I admit nothing. I simply quit wasting finger motions on you. Neither you nor this point are worth it. Global warming isn't a strawman...but Limbaugh wannabe's are. Thats a classic. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,290 by Brandioch 7/2/02 6:38:13 PM Reply	Again, their position on global warming shows their bias. I never said that the media was full of Rush wannabes. You implied that such was my position. Therefore, that is a strawman. I said that THAT PARTICULAR SITE is heavily biased. More than "heavily" biased. They are so biased they are delusional. This is evidenced by their claims that global warming is a "good thing" (tm). Therefore, referencing their position on global warming is substantiating my claims that they are "biased". Therefore, you using that site to substantiate your position that there is a "liberal bias" in the media is faulty. Hence, my klansman/"genetic research" reference. Again, for those unwilling to see. I did not disprove your position. Just your substantiation. Or, rather, I illustrated how the group you used for substantiation are delusional. Hence, not a useful reference.
Post #44,291 by bepatient 7/2/02 6:39:40 PM Reply	Whatever. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,341 by Brandioch 7/3/02 10:47:40 AM Reply	So, your point is that a book store will sell it? You don't like that I've pointed out that the site doing an "analysis" of the book was delusionally biased. Instead you keep refering me to the OTHER link. The link to amazon.com A book store. You "support" for this book is that a book store will sell this book. [link\|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0395951054/qid=1025707762/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/102-2128288-9836121\|Another book sold by amazon.com] And look how many stars the reviewers give THAT one! So it MUST be right.
Post #44,283 by Ashton 7/2/02 5:39:55 PM Reply	Refs. be damned than.. So: It IS a Religious Thing with you, Beep - right? Selective data taking is ever a wondrous thing .. esp. when trying to prove a negative. SO no matter the source: if'n it don't prove Librul Bias IS: it must be 'selective', ergo.. not as Clean as your selections: ergo false. Yup, guess Circle-Jerk is the mode; doggerel is the aim. You Win the locus of points around the Circle. For creative definitions of 'win'. Wagg-Edd - you gotta bid for this one! Ashton who prefers rectilinear not polar coordinates, for geometrical obfuscation amongst the debate-impaired.

Welcome to IWETHEY!