pirate

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:17:11 -0800, "David Snedeker"

wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:14:35 -0600, Conan The Librarian

wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote:

What's a Molly Ivin's? Google....... Ahhhh, the lefts answer to
Rush
Limbaugh.

Er ... no.

Actually, Chuck, not all that far off. Coincidentally, a very similar
subject
came up in a couple of the (Bob) Schieffer School of Journalism
ceremony-related
events , and as I've said before, many knowledgeable _journalists_,
many
of who
are also honest liberals, think she's a self-important bozo, just
like
the old
Palm Beach Pillpopper hisownself. And ol' Dan Blather gets put right
there with
'em (look at what Cronkite said), actually, maybe even the king of 'em
(which
surprised me somewhat, or at least, that they'd be so openly vocal,
considering
the circumstances...)


You've got a big mouth about lib journalists. Lets see you name ONE right
wing pussy reporter

Maybe Hugh Hefner? Bob Guccione? Larry Flynt...no, probably not...

who has half the experience of Dan Rather,

Half the experience doing what? Details, girl, details!

covering combat with American troops from the front lines.

Yeah, he was brave enough to cover 'em, but not to join 'em...and
by-the-by, he
isn't the only reporter to have "covered combat"

Name one Dickey.

Betts


Not even close. This just shows the whole board exactly how full of **** you
are. You know squat about squat and with all your dick talk Im thinking
that the theory that you are actually some 14 year old shut-in just might be
true.

Dave

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:30:30 -0800, "David Snedeker"

wrote:


Name one Dickey.

Betts


Not even close. This just shows the whole board exactly how full of ****
you
are. You know squat about squat and with all your dick talk Im thinking
that the theory that you are actually some 14 year old shut-in just might
be
true.

Like I told you several years ago, I'll try to find the time to debate
with a
thinking man, I'll make time to banter with a funny man, and if I have
time, I
might even talk to a crazy man, but I won't waste time arguing with a
foolish
man.

R

And yet (to borrow a line), "here you are."

Fact is your slam at Rather is, like many of your views, based on squat, and
wrapped in squat. No one would argue that Rather was not a lib. But no one
so well known put his skin on the line to report what American soldiers
actually faced in combat more than Dan Rather (and his camera people). And
that is exactly why right-wing fanatics and whackjobs cannot bring
themselves even to acknowledge the man's courage. He showed the truth of
combat. Pompous, egotistical, lib, blah, blah, blah, but one fantastic
reporter. And if you cannot acknowledge that, you are just some
bull****ting clown.

And that line about you debating (?) . . . you don't have the attention span
for debate. You know how to be irritating and sometimes get off a funny
line but thats about it.

Dave

Conan The Librarian wrote:




I'm hoping Waldo will give me one of his special yaller parachute super
secret Nawth Cackalacky troutkiller flies. :-)

yeehaw...another snipe hunt is on! bring your credit cardS...wally has
a lot of those flies. g

jeff

Jeff Miller wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

I'm hoping Waldo will give me one of his special yaller parachute
super secret Nawth Cackalacky troutkiller flies. :-)

yeehaw...another snipe hunt is on! bring your credit cardS...wally has
a lot of those flies. g

You mean his "special foam humpy"?


Chuck Vance (who'll be checking the hook points of any flies he
buys at Waldo's shop ;-)

wrote:

Again IMO, and apparently in the opinion of many _journalists_ with a full
spectrum of personal politics, Rather, Limbaugh, Ivins, and similar are
self-important partisan bozos who are perfectly willing to play it fast and
loose with "facts" if it suits whatever goal that might have at that moment.

I won't dispute Limbaugh and Ivins, though I think the magnitude of
Limbaugh's false characterizations is in a different league from Ivins'.
Hell, Rush sets up and knocks down so many strawmen during the course
of any single show, that I'm surprised he desn't get a rash. :-)

As for Rather -- aside from the well-publicized incident regarding
Dubya's service in the NG, I don't see how he can be classed in the smae
category as either of the others. If there is evidence out there that
he has consistently played fast-and-loose with the facts, I'd be
interested in seeing it.

(FWIW, if you haven't already seen it, this might interest you:
http://www.rathergate.com/CBS_report.pdf It's an amazingly-detailed
"report of the independent review planel" on the CBS incident.)

While Ivins and Limbaugh don't quite hold themselves out as _journalists_
(although Ivins really dances around it),

Ahem. Rush is the one who fluctuates between being an "entertainer"
and a high-profile political player/right-wing frontman depending on the
audience/situation. Ivins makes no bones about being a commentator.

they certainly don't discourage others
from doing so. And while that _might_ be arguably OK, their sub rosa "feeding"
of those doing so isn't.

Agreed on that. However, "feeding" works both ways, and Rush is
certainly "fed" by the conservative powers-that-be.


Chuck Vance

"Conan The Librarian" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Agreed on that. However, "feeding" works both ways, and Rush is
certainly "fed" by the conservative powers-that-be.


Yeah, and Rush ain't doing hillbilly heroin anymore so them damn libs can't
use the phony excuse that his opinions and trustworthiness are about what
you'd expect from a junky. He's clean, mostly anyway. Right? And those drugs
were for his anal warts anyway, which he did not develop on-the-job as a
cowboy on the Ramrod Ranch, despite persistent rumors. All just damn rumors.
Right? :-)

Dave

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:20:30 -0600, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

wrote:

Again IMO, and apparently in the opinion of many _journalists_ with a full
spectrum of personal politics, Rather, Limbaugh, Ivins, and similar are
self-important partisan bozos who are perfectly willing to play it fast and
loose with "facts" if it suits whatever goal that might have at that moment.

I won't dispute Limbaugh and Ivins, though I think the magnitude of
Limbaugh's false characterizations is in a different league from Ivins'.
Hell, Rush sets up and knocks down so many strawmen during the course
of any single show, that I'm surprised he desn't get a rash. :-)

First of all, I try to keep my review of Limbaugh and Ivins to the merest
possible bit, so I cannot readily discuss the minutiae of what would make which
of the two the bigger smug self-important hack. However, I am confident in the
knowledge that the practical fact is that it would be a horserace.

As for Rather -- aside from the well-publicized incident regarding
Dubya's service in the NG, I don't see how he can be classed in the smae
category as either of the others.

Um, so a lil ol' bit of fast-n-loose ain't REALLY all that bad, huh? Well, OK -
go and boink some lil' honey and then go and tell your wife/SO/girlfriend that
it was only a lil' ol' bit of foolin' around, or take a lil' ol' gun into rob a
bank of a lil' ol' bit of cash and see how far the "aw, it was just a lil' ol'
bit of armed robbery" defense goes...

If there is evidence out there that
he has consistently played fast-and-loose with the facts, I'd be
interested in seeing it.

Well, it's out there. As a hint, I would offer that a reporter NOT reporting on
something that should be reported, but doesn't jibe with their political
beliefs/agenda, is just as bad as reporting something obviously hinkey because
it does. And another hint: who else had a chance at the documents Rather
supposedly was given?

(FWIW, if you haven't already seen it, this might interest you:
http://www.rathergate.com/CBS_report.pdf It's an amazingly-detailed
"report of the independent review planel" on the CBS incident.)

"Independent?" Please...wanna buy some ocean-front property in Arizona? I've
got some amazingly-detailed maps...just ignore the "This copy of Adobe Photoshop
property of Kinko's" watermark...

While Ivins and Limbaugh don't quite hold themselves out as _journalists_
(although Ivins really dances around it),

Ahem. Rush is the one who fluctuates between being an "entertainer"
and a high-profile political player/right-wing frontman depending on the
audience/situation. Ivins makes no bones about being a commentator.

Again, right on Limbaugh and wrong on Ivins...she regularly pimps her past
"journalism," and from her Creators Syndicate bio: "She became an independent
journalist in 2001 writing her column for Creators Syndicate."

they certainly don't discourage others
from doing so. And while that _might_ be arguably OK, their sub rosa "feeding"
of those doing so isn't.

Agreed on that. However, "feeding" works both ways, and Rush is
certainly "fed" by the conservative powers-that-be.

No, he isn't, at least not on any regular basis. He is thought of about like
Ivins.

TC,
R

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:20:30 -0600, Conan The Librarian
wrote:

SNIP lots of assertions, nothing specific, just like Guckert the Right-wing
Prostitute/Reporter funded by Deano's Texas buddy's. Good ole big lie
tactics a la Roy Cohn.

No, he isn't, at least not on any regular basis. He is thought of about
like
Ivins.



Same old, same old. Lots of pie hole, no facts, no substance. Notice that
Deano doesn't point to a specific lie the he can attribute to Molly Ivins.
That could be checked. The problem is that Ivins' column is an OPINION
piece, and appears in EDITORIAL sections of papers, and Deano's Ivy
education apparently did not include learning much about newspapers, and the
difference between news reporting and the Ed/Op parts of the paper.

Dave

wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:20:30 -0600, Conan The Librarian

wrote:

I won't dispute Limbaugh and Ivins, though I think the magnitude
of
Limbaugh's false characterizations is in a different league from
Ivins'.
Hell, Rush sets up and knocks down so many strawmen during the
course
of any single show, that I'm surprised he desn't get a rash. :-)

First of all, I try to keep my review of Limbaugh and Ivins to the
merest
possible bit, so I cannot readily discuss the minutiae of what would
make which
of the two the bigger smug self-important hack. However, I am
confident in the
knowledge that the practical fact is that it would be a horserace.

That's nice. Unfortunately, you haven't addressed my point (see the
point about false characterizations and what I previously posted about
Limbaugh's tendency to make fun of people for accents, physical
appearance, etc.).

As for Rather -- aside from the well-publicized incident
regarding
Dubya's service in the NG, I don't see how he can be classed in the
smae
category as either of the others.

Um, so a lil ol' bit of fast-n-loose ain't REALLY all that bad, huh?
Well, OK -
go and boink some lil' honey and then go and tell your
wife/SO/girlfriend that
it was only a lil' ol' bit of foolin' around, or take a lil' ol' gun
into rob a
bank of a lil' ol' bit of cash and see how far the "aw, it was just a
lil' ol'
bit of armed robbery" defense goes...

Practicing your own strawmen, eh? :-)

If there is evidence out there that
he has consistently played fast-and-loose with the facts, I'd be
interested in seeing it.

Well, it's out there. As a hint, I would offer that a reporter NOT
reporting on
something that should be reported, but doesn't jibe with their
political
beliefs/agenda, is just as bad as reporting something obviously
hinkey because
it does. And another hint: who else had a chance at the documents
Rather
supposedly was given?

Why don't you tell me?

As to your assertion that Rather does not report on things because
they don't fit his beliefs -- please do share examples of that as well.

(FWIW, if you haven't already seen it, this might interest you:
http://www.rathergate.com/CBS_report.pdf It's an amazingly-detailed

"report of the independent review planel" on the CBS incident.)

"Independent?" Please...wanna buy some ocean-front property in
Arizona? I've
got some amazingly-detailed maps...just ignore the "This copy of
Adobe Photoshop
property of Kinko's" watermark...

Er ... you might want to look at the document before you disparage
it. (Since you're being so generous with hints, here's one for you:
It doesn't side with Rather.)

Ahem. Rush is the one who fluctuates between being an
"entertainer"
and a high-profile political player/right-wing frontman depending on
the
audience/situation. Ivins makes no bones about being a commentator.

Again, right on Limbaugh and wrong on Ivins...she regularly pimps her
past
"journalism," and from her Creators Syndicate bio: "She became an
independent
journalist in 2001 writing her column for Creators Syndicate."

Again, I'll happily share a hint with you: Ivins' column is on the
editorial page.

Agreed on that. However, "feeding" works both ways, and Rush is

certainly "fed" by the conservative powers-that-be.

No, he isn't, at least not on any regular basis. He is thought of
about like
Ivins.

And that's why Roger Ailes was a major player in getting his teevee
show going? And that's why Cheney and other right-wing bigwigs make
regular appearances on his radio show?


Chuck Vance

On 13 Mar 2005 06:35:25 -0800, "Conan The Librarian" wrote:


wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:20:30 -0600, Conan The Librarian
wrote:


I won't dispute Limbaugh and Ivins, though I think the magnitude
of
Limbaugh's false characterizations is in a different league from
Ivins'.

First, please either adjust your news client, or hand-edit your response.

That said, if I understand your points, your think Limbaugh's false
characterizations are worse than Ivins because they don't involve making fun of
accents or physical traits. OK, whatever floats your boat. IMO, in such
circumstances, false characterizations have no place, but those falsely
representing someone's vocal or physical traits are a lot less damaging to the
truth than those falsely representing the words themselves or physical actions.

You also believe that the "independent" review panel was both independent and
thorough. Again, OK, whatever floats your boat. It was neither "independent"
or "thorough," and I'm fairly certain I knew the results of it before many did.

Then, you defend Ivins by pointing out that her column is on the editorial page.
However, she calls herself a journalist when it's beneficial to her and falls
back on being "a op-ed columnist" when it's necessary, even mixing the usage
in such a way that would make serious journalist laugh, and apparently, such
self-serving waffling has worked on at least one, you. One thing I find
interesting is that many who lambaste Limbaugh cite Ivins and vice-versa, when
the truth is they are both self-serving, self-important bozos, neither of whose
"work" sensible people ought to take in the least bit seriously.

TC,
R


Hell, Rush sets up and knocks down so many strawmen during the
course
of any single show, that I'm surprised he desn't get a rash. :-)

First of all, I try to keep my review of Limbaugh and Ivins to the
merest
possible bit, so I cannot readily discuss the minutiae of what would
make which
of the two the bigger smug self-important hack. However, I am
confident in the
knowledge that the practical fact is that it would be a horserace.

That's nice. Unfortunately, you haven't addressed my point (see the
point about false characterizations and what I previously posted about
Limbaugh's tendency to make fun of people for accents, physical
appearance, etc.).