Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Oh, George.Follow

#152 Nov 26 2013 at 11:38 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Idigg wrote:
Yeah, I don't bother reading half he sh*t you type,
Which is why you fail to understand. Can't claim that I don't say things when you don't read them.

Idigg wrote:
And your definitions are ridiculous.

Not according to dictionaries.

To clarify your confusion, we consider Equality in the legal sense of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, not true equality. I gave you a perfect example of paying someone more for having more children vs paying someone more for seniority. Both are unequal, but one is considered fair because the OPPORTUNITY to have seniority is EQUAL. As you said, life isn't fair, that's the whole reason why there's a differentiation between the words. As a society, we decide if actions are FAIR or not and as result a part of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.

Idigg wrote:
Wait, so you DIDN'T answer the question, then? Because from what I can tell, all you did was point to "effects" of the DADT repeal and use them to show why it was unfair to the straight people for DADT to have been repealed.

Idigg wrote:
Yeah, I don't bother reading half he sh*t you type,
And people wonder why I reference posts..Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#153 Nov 27 2013 at 12:48 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
That's a lot of words to address someone you know is incapable of fully comprehending it.


That's why I have Alma on ignore.

Okay, it's a reason.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#154 Nov 27 2013 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,638 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
That's a lot of words to address someone you know is incapable of fully comprehending it.


Lol, I was waiting for my food to cook. Not enough time to do much else, and my tumblr dash was uninteresting.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#155 Nov 27 2013 at 6:22 PM Rating: Excellent
5 days later, about what I expected. Years & years of him saying it's ok to discriminate due to sexual orientation because we discriminate against other things & Alma's not a bigot because not everything is fair &/or equal.

So to recap, he's still most likely a homophobe who's too cowardly to tell anyone when discrimination due to sexual orientation isn't bigoted when it isn't for religious reasons.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#156 Nov 28 2013 at 3:27 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Omega wrote:
5 days later, about what I expected. Years & years of him saying it's ok to discriminate due to sexual orientation because we discriminate against other things & Alma's not a bigot because not everything is fair &/or equal.


I never argued that.

Omega wrote:
So to recap, he's still most likely a homophobe who's too cowardly to tell anyone when discrimination due to sexual orientation isn't bigoted when it isn't for religious reasons.


5 days later, still making stuff up. No matter what I say, you will continue to go in circles on random tangents unless what I say is bigoted. Ironically, making you a bigot by definition.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#157 Nov 28 2013 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Omega wrote:
5 days later, about what I expected. Years & years of him saying it's ok to discriminate due to sexual orientation because we discriminate against other things & Alma's not a bigot because not everything is fair &/or equal.


I never argued that.

Omega wrote:
So to recap, he's still most likely a homophobe who's too cowardly to tell anyone when discrimination due to sexual orientation isn't bigoted when it isn't for religious reasons.


5 days later, still making stuff up. No matter what I say, you will continue to go in circles on random tangents unless what I say is bigoted. Ironically, making you a bigot by definition.

There's a way out. Keep searching.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#158Almalieque, Posted: Nov 28 2013 at 4:38 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) WTFRU talking about? I've been quoting my own responses to debunk their accusations that they clearly made up because they either didn't read or chose not to accept it. I'm not sure why you expect me to join their circus and chase my tail with responses when I've already given them.
#159 Nov 28 2013 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
You could grow a pair instead of making us wait years for your balls to drop.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#160 Nov 28 2013 at 9:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:

There's a way out. Keep searching.


WTFRU talking about? I've been quoting my own responses to debunk their accusations that they clearly made up because they either didn't read or chose not to accept it. I'm not sure why you expect me to join their circus and chase my tail with responses when I've already given them.

How's that been workin' for ya?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#161Almalieque, Posted: Nov 29 2013 at 6:15 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Actually pretty good. The BS card is automatically pulled when people claim that I never said something or "it didn't make sense", yet somehow after I quote it again, it magically makes sense. It saves me so much more time to say "Page 14" than chase the magical dragon. It answer the question without participating in the nonsense.
#162 Nov 29 2013 at 6:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
I'm not going to elaborate as its even more pointless than simply stating what I'm about to say and you wouldn't give it a 2nd thought coming from me, but it should still be said:

Your perception is not matching reality on this one.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#163Almalieque, Posted: Nov 29 2013 at 6:34 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Please elaborate. I know that you troll a lot, but I'm attentive enough to know that you have a better idea of what's going on than most others on this forum.
#164 Nov 29 2013 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
You could grow a pair instead of making us wait years for your balls to drop.


Why would you wait for that? Do you have amorous intentions towards Alma?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#165 Nov 30 2013 at 12:48 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
You could grow a pair instead of making us wait years for your balls to drop.


Why would you wait for that? Do you have amorous intentions towards Alma?


Of course he does. He has a hard time keeping ma balls out of his mouth.

Edited, Nov 30th 2013 8:49am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#166 Nov 30 2013 at 10:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,205 posts
TIL Alma has a hard time keeping his balls out of other dudes' mouths.
____________________________
Banh
#167 Nov 30 2013 at 10:58 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Omega is the one that is obsessed with my sexuality.. I'm starting to think that he is a closet case.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#168 Nov 30 2013 at 5:43 PM Rating: Excellent
The "I'm rubber your glue" defense. How very grown up of you.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#169 Nov 30 2013 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
I know you are but what am I.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#170 Nov 30 2013 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,589 posts
A garbage man.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#171 Nov 30 2013 at 8:29 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,699 posts
Who's Pee Wee, and who's Francis?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#172 Nov 30 2013 at 8:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Colbert wrote:
"Rather than provide any services for **** people, the government should refuse to provide them to everyone. Because once a **** person gets something, it gets their **** all over it. That's why I think we should shut down the fire department. If I find out that fire fighters also rescue **** people, suddenly it will seem **** for me to have their calendar."


Sounds like it coulda been an Alma quote!
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#173 Nov 30 2013 at 10:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
The "I'm rubber your glue" defense. How very grown up of you.


So are you saying that you haven't been overly infatuated with my sexuality? You know, given the fact that is the only thing you ever mention ever when discussing anything ever with me regardless of the topic ever? Did I mention ever?

I understand the intent of your comeback, but at what point does someone stop and think that there must be something more to your tactics? You talk about being "grown up", but your actions of bullying is very childish, which usually encompasses hidden feelings. In this case, I compared you to the elementary school boy who constantly picks on the girl who he likes. If I'm wrong, then maybe you should change your actions... walk like a duck, talk like a duck, etc.

You are speaking very bombastically to believe that any form of an "attack" on you is some immature child's game given without thought. Surely as much as you defend homosexuality, you wouldn't have a problem with coming out yourself.

Edited, Dec 1st 2013 1:14pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#174 Nov 30 2013 at 11:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I doth protest too much.

#175 Dec 02 2013 at 9:44 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
So many homosexual claims being made.

Clarification please everyone.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#176 Dec 02 2013 at 9:46 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,638 posts
Elinda wrote:
So many homosexual claims being made.

Clarification please everyone.


The **** agenda is proceeding as planned.

The endgame is upon us.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#177 Dec 02 2013 at 3:39 PM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Almalieque wrote:

So are you saying that you haven't been overly infatuated with my sexuality? You know, given the fact that is the only thing you ever mention ever when discussing anything ever with me regardless of the topic ever? Did I mention ever?


Omega isn't the only one who got 'that' vibe from you. Just sayin'.

#178 Dec 09 2013 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,589 posts
"He didn't do it, and am not pressing charges." she says.

Wonder which of the two of them is more nuts? I'm sure they'll make a lovely couple, and excellent neighbors.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#179 Dec 09 2013 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
**
574 posts
Wow. I really don't understand some women. Must be all that "he's only mean cause he likes you they get feed as kids or crazy just attracts crazy.
____________________________
.
#180 Dec 09 2013 at 8:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,589 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
or crazy just attracts crazy.
That's where my money is.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#181 Dec 09 2013 at 9:53 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
Wow. I really don't understand some women. Must be all that "he's only mean cause he likes you they get feed as kids or crazy just attracts crazy.

People like to fuick famous people. Don't over-complicate it. The gender of either person doesn't really enter into it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#182 Dec 09 2013 at 9:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
For certain values of "famous".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#183 Dec 09 2013 at 10:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,182 posts
Notorious, then.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#184 Dec 10 2013 at 2:31 AM Rating: Good
******
43,404 posts
He's no OJ.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#185 Dec 10 2013 at 7:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Drew Peterson (cop suspected of murdering his third wife, recently convicted of murdering his second wife) managed to have a girlfriend during the whole trial. You'd think "on trial for murder of spouse and suspected of murdering other spouse" would be a deal breaker but I guess it's no "used a Groupon at the restaurant for our first date".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#186 Dec 10 2013 at 8:00 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
For certain values of "famous".

No, doesn't seem to matter much, really. Famous for curing Polio or famous for killing children, the famous part is really all that matters.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#187 Dec 10 2013 at 1:52 PM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Drew Peterson (cop suspected of murdering his third wife, recently convicted of murdering his second wife) managed to have a girlfriend during the whole trial. You'd think "on trial for murder of spouse and suspected of murdering other spouse" would be a deal breaker but I guess it's no "used a Groupon at the restaurant for our first date".


Violent guy is alpha, Groupon guy is beta. Evolution at its finest.
#188 Dec 10 2013 at 2:29 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

People like to fuick famous people. Don't over-complicate it.
Famous people are not better fuckers. It's the fame and notoriety they crave.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#189 Dec 10 2013 at 3:04 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Drew Peterson (cop suspected of murdering his third wife, recently convicted of murdering his second wife) managed to have a girlfriend during the whole trial. You'd think "on trial for murder of spouse and suspected of murdering other spouse" would be a deal breaker but I guess it's no "used a Groupon at the restaurant for our first date".


Well obviously if you don't marry him, you're safe... duh.
#190 Dec 10 2013 at 6:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
I found this portion of the article "odd", to say the least:

Quote:
In the court document filed this week, Scheibe accuses police of pressuring her.

"When I was being questioned by police, I felt very intimidated," she said. "I was not allowed to call an attorney nor was I allowed to eat or drink anything for a very long time."

Heather Smith, a spokeswoman for the Seminole County Sheriff's Office, denied that claim.

"As you know, we provided media with the 911 call from Ms. Scheibe, which occurred prior to deputies responding," she said. "Apparently, Ms. Scheibe may have misspoken about the facts of her interview as she had access to her phone and was provided with food."


Is this a case of the reporter just butchering the quotes, or does the response in the second half of this section have nothing at all to do with the claim made in the first half? Also, poor writing (not surprising with today's media). First read of that last paragraph made me think that the police provided the media with the 911 call before they sent deputies to the home. Just something that jumped out at me as strange, then I read it again and realized that even once the whole vague anticedent thing is cleared up, it's still a completely irrelevant response to the initial claim.

If the spokeswoman is trying to say that the inconsistencies between the 911 call and her claims after the fact mean we shouldn't believe her claims about her treatment by police, then why not actually come out and say that (or write it)? There's a whole bit in the middle of that logical progression that's just plain missing. Dunno. Stuff like that bothers me. It makes me realize just how much of public perception is being driven by the equivalent of screaming monkeys banging on keyboards.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#191 Dec 11 2013 at 7:57 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
gbaji wrote:


If the spokeswoman is trying to say that the inconsistencies between the 911 call and her claims after the fact mean we shouldn't believe her claims about her treatment by police, then why not actually come out and say that (or write it)?
Because that is opinion. What she did say is factual stuff that happened.

You draw your own conclusions, but rarely are they the same conclusions others come to.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#192 Dec 11 2013 at 8:06 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts

Is this a case of the reporter just butchering the quotes, or does the response in the second half of this section have nothing at all to do with the claim made in the first half? Also, poor writing (not surprising with today's media). First read of that last paragraph made me think that the police provided the media with the 911 call before they sent deputies to the home. Just something that jumped out at me as strange, then I read it again and realized that even once the whole vague anticedent thing is cleared up, it's still a completely irrelevant response to the initial claim.

If the spokeswoman is trying to say that the inconsistencies between the 911 call and her claims after the fact mean we shouldn't believe her claims about her treatment by police, then why not actually come out and say that (or write it)? There's a whole bit in the middle of that logical progression that's just plain missing. Dunno. Stuff like that bothers me. It makes me realize just how much of public perception is being driven by the equivalent of screaming monkeys banging on keyboards.


No, it's in no way confusing or unclear. You're just stupid. Surely you must occasionally realize this is happening?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#193 Dec 11 2013 at 8:11 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,404 posts
Elinda wrote:
You draw your own conclusions, but rarely are they the same conclusions others come to.
He rarely draws his own conclusions. They're usually a week late, though.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#194 Dec 11 2013 at 8:12 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
You draw your own conclusions, but rarely are they the same conclusions others come to.
He rarely draws his own conclusions. They're usually a week late, though.

He traces the outlines and colors them in himself.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#195 Dec 11 2013 at 7:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Quote:
In the court document filed this week, Scheibe accuses police of pressuring her.

"When I was being questioned by police, I felt very intimidated," she said. "I was not allowed to call an attorney nor was I allowed to eat or drink anything for a very long time."

Heather Smith, a spokeswoman for the Seminole County Sheriff's Office, denied that claim.

"As you know, we provided media with the 911 call from Ms. Scheibe, which occurred prior to deputies responding," she said. "Apparently, Ms. Scheibe may have misspoken about the facts of her interview as she had access to her phone and was provided with food."



Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If the spokeswoman is trying to say that the inconsistencies between the 911 call and her claims after the fact mean we shouldn't believe her claims about her treatment by police, then why not actually come out and say that (or write it)?
Because that is opinion. What she did say is factual stuff that happened.


Sure, but it's not facts that in any way support her denial of the claim made by Scheibe that she was not allowed to call an attorney or eat or drink for a very long time.

Read it again. Then read it slowly. Don't inject any assumptions, just read what is literally written in the article. All that's there is one fact: That they provided the media with the 911 call, and the conclusion that "Apparently, Ms. Scheibe may have misspoken about the facts of her interview as she had access to her phone and was provided with food."

What's missing is how the one fact supports that conclusion. It doesn't. Not by itself. I get that we can make assumptions and fill in the blanks, but we really should not do that, and it's incredibly sloppy journalism to require us to do so.

Quote:
You draw your own conclusions, but rarely are they the same conclusions others come to.


That's because most people don't realize just how often they are influenced into taking positions via insinuation, innuendo, and implication, rather than taking them based on actual facts and logic. This is another example, which may be relatively harmless, but is still annoying. It's not this specific case that is at issue, but the trend of reporting which basically trains people to read into articles that which is not actually present. And that's leads us to the kinda of stories where everyone reads it and concludes X, until someone like me comes along and points out that the article doesn't actually say X at all. And then hilarity ensues as everyone (that's a good number of posters on this board) insist that they weren't being lied to or manipulated by the media.


Read only what's actually there, not what someone wants you to assume. That's all I'm saying.

Edited, Dec 11th 2013 5:34pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#196 Dec 12 2013 at 12:25 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
That's because most people don't realize just how often they are influenced into taking positions via insinuation, innuendo, and implication, rather than taking them based on actual facts and logic

True, on the other hand they also have the ability to realize when that is and isn't happening after the fact when they examine something more closely. A capacity you clearly lack, the ability to determine manipulative framing and conspiracy from mundane speech. It would be a valuable thing for you to someday acquire, as the ability to avoid being easily manipulated by word usage becomes utterly useless if you can never accurately determine when that's happening.

You are not more attuned to when this is happening than other people, you simply assume it to be happening when it is not.
Again, YOU ARE NOT MORE AWARE OF WHEN LANGUAGE IS BEING USED TO MANIPULATE READERS.
NOT.
NO
YOU =! UNDERSTAND WHEN THIS OCCURS
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#197 Dec 12 2013 at 12:33 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
gbaji wrote:

That's because most people don't realize just how often they are influenced into taking positions via insinuation, innuendo, and implication, rather than taking them based on actual facts and logic.

I call TROLL!
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#198 Dec 12 2013 at 12:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You'd think someone so attuned to these persuasive writing skills would be less prone to personally writing ten paragraphs of babble and then **** how everyone is misinterpreting what he said.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#199 Dec 12 2013 at 1:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
That's because most people don't realize just how often they are influenced into taking positions via insinuation, innuendo, and implication, rather than taking them based on actual facts and logic

True, on the other hand they also have the ability to realize when that is and isn't happening after the fact when they examine something more closely.


Which explains why I've on many occasions had to point out to people when they make assumptions about news articles that aren't actually supported by the statements in the articles themselves? Oh wait. It doesn't. Smash, if what you say were true, this wouldn't happen and we wouldn't be talking about it.


Clearly, people do allow vague language and innuendo in articles to color their perception of the "facts" of the story. Happens all the time. But you know that. See, all you have to do to disprove my claim is quote the facts stated in the article which support the refutation of the claim in question. Should be easy, but you can't do it. Want to know why? Because the article never actually provides such a thing. Yet, even after I pointed this out, posters insisted that it had. Strange, don't you think?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#200 Dec 12 2013 at 1:57 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,244 posts
Which explains why I've on many occasions had to point out to people when they make assumptions about news articles that aren't actually supported by the statements in the articles themselves? Oh wait. It doesn't.

This only occurs in your imagination. You understand that, right? The ONLY place where you're "pointing out other people's wrong assumptions" is in a fantasy land that has no basis in reality. If you'd like to link to you ever doing this, feel free. (just kidding, obviously).

Edit: Incidentally anyone else can obviously link to you THINKING you're doing this and then being wrong. That **** happens basically daily, along with "interesting" questions about things that make no sense and are inevitably answered simply. "It's interesting Obama won't release...what? He did. Oh." I mean that happens CONSTANTLY.

Edited, Dec 12th 2013 3:01pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#201 Dec 12 2013 at 9:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Which explains why I've on many occasions had to point out to people when they make assumptions about news articles that aren't actually supported by the statements in the articles themselves? Oh wait. It doesn't.

This only occurs in your imagination. You understand that, right? The ONLY place where you're "pointing out other people's wrong assumptions" is in a fantasy land that has no basis in reality. If you'd like to link to you ever doing this, feel free. (just kidding, obviously).


Was I wrong in this thread to point out that Git's assumption about the information in the article in question was wrong? No. I don't think so. This was an incredibly clear case of an article written specifically to make people believe one thing, even when all the facts said the exact opposite.

The proof, of course, being that someone read the article and then posted a thread about it stating something not just incorrect, but clearly stated in the article body to be false. Fact is that most people don't actually read for content. They skim the words and form opinions. And guess what? Writers know this. So I'll point it out when I see an example of this happening.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 43 All times are in CDT
Bijou, ElneClare, Iamadam, stupidmonkey, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (38)