1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AUDIO.OPINION

  • Lemon pulls a Stephen

    From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 17 09:02:08 2023
    He redefines "inartful".

    "The reference I made to a woman’s ‘prime’ this morning was inartful and irrelevant, as colleagues and loved ones have pointed out, and I regret it. A woman’s age doesn't define her either personally or professionally. I have countless women in
    my life who prove that every day," he wrote.

    What a moron. How's this for inartful but still the blunt truth.
    If he wasn't gay AND black they would have dump him a long time ago.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to ScottW on Fri Feb 17 10:19:47 2023
    On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 12:02:09 PM UTC-5, ScottW wrote:
    He redefines "inartful".

    "The reference I made to a woman’s ‘prime’ this morning was inartful and irrelevant, as colleagues and loved ones have pointed out, and I regret it. A woman’s age doesn't define her either personally or professionally. I have countless women in
    my life who prove that every day," he wrote.

    What a moron. How's this for inartful but still the blunt truth.
    If he wasn't gay AND black they would have dump him a long time ago.

    ScottW

    He was missing on air this morning.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fascist Flea@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 17 11:48:24 2023
    mINE109 wrote:

    He redefines "inartful".
    Let me remind you arguing by definition is a thing I've been calling you
    on for years.

    Shmoos deny the existence of so-called "hypocrisy". Unless a "leftie"
    says something that scares them, of course.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Fri Feb 17 13:45:50 2023
    On 2/17/23 11:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
    He redefines "inartful".

    Let me remind you arguing by definition is a thing I've been calling you
    on for years.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 17 16:12:54 2023
    On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/17/23 11:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
    He redefines "inartful".
    Let me remind you arguing by definition is a thing I've been calling you
    on for years.

    Let me know when the oxford has your new language defined so we can
    know wtf you inartfully mean.
    Until then, expect me to keep shoving your abuse of language back in your face.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Fri Feb 17 19:08:03 2023
    On 2/17/23 6:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/17/23 11:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
    He redefines "inartful".
    Let me remind you arguing by definition is a thing I've been calling you
    on for years.

    Let me know when the oxford has your new language defined so we can
    know wtf you inartfully mean.
    Until then, expect me to keep shoving your abuse of language back in your face.

    Ever notice you take stuff that happens to you and push it back on
    others? Projection, the Freudians call it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 17 23:16:02 2023
    On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:08:06 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/17/23 6:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/17/23 11:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
    He redefines "inartful".
    Let me remind you arguing by definition is a thing I've been calling you >> on for years.

    Let me know when the oxford has your new language defined so we can
    know wtf you inartfully mean.
    Until then, expect me to keep shoving your abuse of language back in your face.
    Ever notice you take stuff that happens to you and push it back on
    others? Projection, the Freudians call it.

    There is a difference between using imprecise language (inartful - Scott)
    and changing definitions (deceitful - Steve)
    Oh! Whatabout me? coarse language (mean)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to Art Sackman on Sat Feb 18 08:59:33 2023
    On 2/18/23 1:16 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:08:06 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/17/23 6:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/17/23 11:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
    He redefines "inartful".
    Let me remind you arguing by definition is a thing I've been calling you >>>> on for years.

    Let me know when the oxford has your new language defined so we can
    know wtf you inartfully mean.
    Until then, expect me to keep shoving your abuse of language back in your face.
    Ever notice you take stuff that happens to you and push it back on
    others? Projection, the Freudians call it.

    There is a difference between using imprecise language (inartful - Scott)
    and changing definitions (deceitful - Steve)

    You mixed that up. Scott says I'm "inartful," a word he got from Don
    Lemon. Plus I'm not deceitful, especially in contrast to Scott's
    constant trolling stuff he doesn't necessarily believe himself.

    Oh! Whatabout me? coarse language (mean)

    Yes, you allow yourself to go Yosemite Sam when you don't like what I
    say. This hurts you more than it hurts me.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 18 08:08:10 2023
    On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 6:59:35 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/18/23 1:16 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:08:06 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/17/23 6:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/17/23 11:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
    He redefines "inartful".
    Let me remind you arguing by definition is a thing I've been calling you >>>> on for years.

    Let me know when the oxford has your new language defined so we can
    know wtf you inartfully mean.
    Until then, expect me to keep shoving your abuse of language back in your face.
    Ever notice you take stuff that happens to you and push it back on
    others? Projection, the Freudians call it.

    There is a difference between using imprecise language (inartful - Scott) and changing definitions (deceitful - Steve)
    You mixed that up. Scott says I'm "inartful,"

    and numb to sarcasm.

    a word he got from Don
    Lemon. Plus I'm not deceitful, especially in contrast to Scott's
    constant trolling stuff he doesn't necessarily believe himself.

    Oh the horror, I post stuff from media I don't necessarily believe.

    Ever consider I'm pointing out the deceit and deception of said media?

    I'm going to have issue a revision to Stephen's list of BS rules.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Feb 18 10:48:49 2023
    On 2/18/23 10:08 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 6:59:35 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/18/23 1:16 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:08:06 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/17/23 6:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-8, mINE109
    wrote:
    On 2/17/23 11:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
    He redefines "inartful".
    Let me remind you arguing by definition is a thing I've
    been calling you on for years.

    Let me know when the oxford has your new language defined so
    we can know wtf you inartfully mean. Until then, expect me to
    keep shoving your abuse of language back in your face.
    Ever notice you take stuff that happens to you and push it back
    on others? Projection, the Freudians call it.

    There is a difference between using imprecise language (inartful
    - Scott) and changing definitions (deceitful - Steve)
    You mixed that up. Scott says I'm "inartful,"

    and numb to sarcasm.

    You don't say.

    a word he got from Don Lemon. Plus I'm not deceitful, especially in
    contrast to Scott's constant trolling stuff he doesn't necessarily
    believe himself.

    Oh the horror, I post stuff from media I don't necessarily believe.

    Yes, in the context of what you're saying about me.

    Ever consider I'm pointing out the deceit and deception of said
    media?

    Then why don't you agree with me when I point out the deceit and
    deception of said media?

    I'm going to have issue a revision to Stephen's list of BS rules.

    You're still going on Arnie's rules, especially the bit about never
    admitting common ground.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 18 10:12:24 2023
    On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:48:51 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/18/23 10:08 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 6:59:35 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/18/23 1:16 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
    On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 8:08:06 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/17/23 6:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:45:53 AM UTC-8, mINE109
    wrote:
    On 2/17/23 11:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
    He redefines "inartful".
    Let me remind you arguing by definition is a thing I've
    been calling you on for years.

    Let me know when the oxford has your new language defined so
    we can know wtf you inartfully mean. Until then, expect me to
    keep shoving your abuse of language back in your face.
    Ever notice you take stuff that happens to you and push it back
    on others? Projection, the Freudians call it.

    There is a difference between using imprecise language (inartful
    - Scott) and changing definitions (deceitful - Steve)
    You mixed that up. Scott says I'm "inartful,"

    and numb to sarcasm.
    You don't say.
    a word he got from Don Lemon. Plus I'm not deceitful, especially in
    contrast to Scott's constant trolling stuff he doesn't necessarily
    believe himself.

    Oh the horror, I post stuff from media I don't necessarily believe.
    Yes, in the context of what you're saying about me.

    Rest assured when I question your knowledge and intelligence,
    I believe it.


    Ever consider I'm pointing out the deceit and deception of said
    media?
    Then why don't you agree with me when I point out the deceit and
    deception of said media?

    Because you claim not to watch and often only have a 3rd party distorted perception. It's "hearsay" and inadmissible.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Feb 18 15:47:48 2023
    On 2/18/23 12:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:48:51 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/18/23 10:08 AM, ScottW wrote:
    Ever consider I'm pointing out the deceit and deception of said
    media?
    Then why don't you agree with me when I point out the deceit and
    deception of said media?

    Because you claim not to watch and often only have a 3rd party distorted perception. It's "hearsay" and inadmissible.

    How are direct quotes and transcripts "distorted"?

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/02/tucker-carlson-text-messages-dominion-lawsuit-fox-news.html

    • On Nov. 21, Carlson sent a text saying it was “shockingly reckless” to accuse Dominion of fraud without some proof, which, he insisted, “there isn’t.” He also referred to Powell as a “nutcase.”

    Unquote.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 19 17:24:16 2023
    On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:47:51 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/18/23 12:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:48:51 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/18/23 10:08 AM, ScottW wrote:
    Ever consider I'm pointing out the deceit and deception of said
    media?
    Then why don't you agree with me when I point out the deceit and
    deception of said media?

    Because you claim not to watch and often only have a 3rd party distorted perception. It's "hearsay" and inadmissible.
    How are direct quotes and transcripts "distorted"?

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/02/tucker-carlson-text-messages-dominion-lawsuit-fox-news.html

    • On Nov. 21, Carlson sent a text saying it was “shockingly reckless” to
    accuse Dominion of fraud without some proof, which, he insisted, “there isn’t.” He also referred to Powell as a “nutcase.”

    Unquote.

    Because by your own reference Tucker didn't push the dominion theory. He challenged it.

    "Carlson did not push the outlandish and completely unfounded conspiracy theories by Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell that Dominion’s voting machines had rigged the election for Biden; the host even pushed back against Powell during one
    interview segment on his primetime show. Carlson, though, also never let his viewers know the extent to which he felt the claims were “ludicrous” and “totally off the rails” at the time, as the brief reveals he did in private in text messages to
    his producers and fellow hosts. "

    OMG....it's now a matter of degree that he didn't push back. GMAFB.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Mon Feb 20 10:03:33 2023
    On 2/19/23 7:24 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:47:51 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/18/23 12:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:48:51 AM UTC-8, mINE109
    wrote:
    On 2/18/23 10:08 AM, ScottW wrote:
    Ever consider I'm pointing out the deceit and deception of
    said media?
    Then why don't you agree with me when I point out the deceit
    and deception of said media?

    Because you claim not to watch and often only have a 3rd party
    distorted perception. It's "hearsay" and inadmissible.
    How are direct quotes and transcripts "distorted"?

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/02/tucker-carlson-text-messages-dominion-lawsuit-fox-news.html


    • On Nov. 21, Carlson sent a text saying it was “shockingly reckless” to
    accuse Dominion of fraud without some proof, which, he insisted,
    “there isn’t.” He also referred to Powell as a “nutcase.”

    Unquote.

    Because by your own reference Tucker didn't push the dominion theory.
    He challenged it.

    "Carlson did not push the outlandish and completely unfounded
    conspiracy theories by Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney
    Powell that Dominion’s voting machines had rigged the election for
    Biden; the host even pushed back against Powell during one interview
    segment on his primetime show. Carlson, though, also never let his
    viewers know the extent to which he felt the claims were “ludicrous”
    and “totally off the rails” at the time, as the brief reveals he did
    in private in text messages to his producers and fellow hosts."

    OMG....it's now a matter of degree that he didn't push back.
    GMAFB.

    Yes, that goes to malice and disregard for the truth:

    "Ex.143, Scott 362:5-363:19. November 19, after the Giuliani/Powell
    press conference, Carlson very carefully tried to thread his own needle.
    On one hand, he said publicly on his show that what Powell was
    describing would amount to the single greatest crime in American history
    but she never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of requests.

    On the other, however, he did not say what he believed privately that
    she was lying. Instead, he closed by saying, Maybe Sidney Powell will
    come forward soon with details on exactly how this happened, and
    precisely who did it. We are certainly hopeful that she will."

    From Dominion's motion. So maybe Carlson is off the hook and only
    sinned by omission.

    More:

    "That day, Trump disavowed Powell and stated that she did not represent
    Trump or the campaign. Carlson told Ingraham: Powell's a nut, as you
    said at the outset. It totally wrecked my weekend. Wow I had to try to
    make the WH disavow her, which they obviously should have done long
    before "

    Ingraham responds: No serious lawyer could believe what they were
    saying. Carlson replies: But they said nothing in public. Pretty
    disgusting. That same weekend, Tucker texted his Executive Producer
    Justin Wells: "We won the battle with Powell. Thank god."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 20 16:34:05 2023
    On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 8:03:35 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/19/23 7:24 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:47:51 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/18/23 12:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:48:51 AM UTC-8, mINE109
    wrote:
    On 2/18/23 10:08 AM, ScottW wrote:
    Ever consider I'm pointing out the deceit and deception of
    said media?
    Then why don't you agree with me when I point out the deceit
    and deception of said media?

    Because you claim not to watch and often only have a 3rd party
    distorted perception. It's "hearsay" and inadmissible.
    How are direct quotes and transcripts "distorted"?

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/02/tucker-carlson-text-messages-dominion-lawsuit-fox-news.html


    • On Nov. 21, Carlson sent a text saying it was “shockingly reckless” to
    accuse Dominion of fraud without some proof, which, he insisted,
    “there isn’t.” He also referred to Powell as a “nutcase.”

    Unquote.

    Because by your own reference Tucker didn't push the dominion theory.
    He challenged it.

    "Carlson did not push the outlandish and completely unfounded
    conspiracy theories by Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney
    Powell that Dominion’s voting machines had rigged the election for Biden; the host even pushed back against Powell during one interview segment on his primetime show. Carlson, though, also never let his
    viewers know the extent to which he felt the claims were “ludicrous” and “totally off the rails” at the time, as the brief reveals he did in private in text messages to his producers and fellow hosts."

    OMG....it's now a matter of degree that he didn't push back.
    GMAFB.
    Yes, that goes to malice and disregard for the truth:

    "Ex.143, Scott 362:5-363:19. November 19, after the Giuliani/Powell
    press conference, Carlson very carefully tried to thread his own needle.
    On one hand, he said publicly on his show that what Powell was
    describing would amount to the single greatest crime in American history
    but she never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of requests.

    On the other, however, he did not say

    Are you seriously supporting the idea that you can sue people for what they didn't say?
    How the mighty left has fallen.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fascist Flea@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 20 18:57:33 2023
    The dark cloud of all-consuming stupidity has birthed another Shmoo egg.

    On one hand, he said publicly on his show that what Powell was
    describing would amount to the single greatest crime in American history but she never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of requests.

    On the other, however, he did not say
    Are you seriously supporting the idea that you can sue people for what they didn't say?
    How the mighty left has fallen.

    No one can be this stupid. Not even the Shmooiest Shmoo.

    Admit you were "joking", or trolling, or trying to be "witty".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Tue Feb 21 09:54:11 2023
    On 2/20/23 6:34 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 8:03:35 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/19/23 7:24 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:47:51 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/18/23 12:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:48:51 AM UTC-8, mINE109
    wrote:
    On 2/18/23 10:08 AM, ScottW wrote:

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/02/tucker-carlson-text-messages-dominion-lawsuit-fox-news.html

    • On Nov. 21, Carlson sent a text saying it was “shockingly reckless” to
    accuse Dominion of fraud without some proof, which, he insisted,
    “there isn’t.” He also referred to Powell as a “nutcase.”

    Unquote.

    Because by your own reference Tucker didn't push the dominion theory.
    He challenged it.

    "Carlson did not push the outlandish and completely unfounded
    conspiracy theories by Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney
    Powell that Dominion’s voting machines had rigged the election for
    Biden; the host even pushed back against Powell during one interview
    segment on his primetime show. Carlson, though, also never let his
    viewers know the extent to which he felt the claims were “ludicrous” >>> and “totally off the rails” at the time, as the brief reveals he did >>> in private in text messages to his producers and fellow hosts."

    OMG....it's now a matter of degree that he didn't push back.
    GMAFB.
    Yes, that goes to malice and disregard for the truth:

    "Ex.143, Scott 362:5-363:19. November 19, after the Giuliani/Powell
    press conference, Carlson very carefully tried to thread his own needle.
    On one hand, he said publicly on his show that what Powell was
    describing would amount to the single greatest crime in American history
    but she never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of requests.

    On the other, however, he did not say

    Are you seriously supporting the idea that you can sue people for what they didn't say?
    How the mighty left has fallen.

    That's from the "Factual Background" section. For the "Argument," see
    beginning p. 46.

    https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23684885/230216-dominion-fox.pdf

    Interesting, considering how vigorously you posited the possibility you
    were "point[ing] out the deceit and deception of said media."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 21 09:25:36 2023
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:54:14 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/20/23 6:34 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 8:03:35 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/19/23 7:24 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:47:51 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/18/23 12:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:48:51 AM UTC-8, mINE109
    wrote:
    On 2/18/23 10:08 AM, ScottW wrote:

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/02/tucker-carlson-text-messages-dominion-lawsuit-fox-news.html

    • On Nov. 21, Carlson sent a text saying it was “shockingly reckless” to
    accuse Dominion of fraud without some proof, which, he insisted,
    “there isn’t.” He also referred to Powell as a “nutcase.” >>>>
    Unquote.

    Because by your own reference Tucker didn't push the dominion theory. >>> He challenged it.

    "Carlson did not push the outlandish and completely unfounded
    conspiracy theories by Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Sidney
    Powell that Dominion’s voting machines had rigged the election for
    Biden; the host even pushed back against Powell during one interview
    segment on his primetime show. Carlson, though, also never let his
    viewers know the extent to which he felt the claims were “ludicrous” >>> and “totally off the rails” at the time, as the brief reveals he did >>> in private in text messages to his producers and fellow hosts."

    OMG....it's now a matter of degree that he didn't push back.
    GMAFB.
    Yes, that goes to malice and disregard for the truth:

    "Ex.143, Scott 362:5-363:19. November 19, after the Giuliani/Powell
    press conference, Carlson very carefully tried to thread his own needle. >> On one hand, he said publicly on his show that what Powell was
    describing would amount to the single greatest crime in American history >> but she never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of requests.

    On the other, however, he did not say

    Are you seriously supporting the idea that you can sue people for what they didn't say?
    How the mighty left has fallen.
    That's from the "Factual Background" section. For the "Argument," see beginning p. 46.

    https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23684885/230216-dominion-fox.pdf

    Interesting, considering how vigorously you posited the possibility you
    were "point[ing] out the deceit and deception of said media."

    But not for what they haven't said.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Tue Feb 21 13:05:23 2023
    On 2/21/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:54:14 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

    That's from the "Factual Background" section. For the "Argument," see
    beginning p. 46.

    https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23684885/230216-dominion-fox.pdf

    Interesting, considering how vigorously you posited the possibility you
    were "point[ing] out the deceit and deception of said media."

    But not for what they haven't said.

    It is very interesting how accepting Fox viewers are to learn they were essentially being lied to. Here's actual proof your hosts didn't believe positions they pushed on their programs by espousing them or by hosting
    guests and not pushing back against them.

    I assume it's because they feel they are in on the con, that they can
    push for the results they want with these imperfect tools. A Fox viewer
    can condemn Sydney Powell on one hand but point on the other to the
    dozens of failed and now shown to be false lawsuits as evidence the
    election was stolen.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 21 19:28:39 2023
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:05:26 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:54:14 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

    That's from the "Factual Background" section. For the "Argument," see
    beginning p. 46.

    https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23684885/230216-dominion-fox.pdf

    Interesting, considering how vigorously you posited the possibility you
    were "point[ing] out the deceit and deception of said media."

    But not for what they haven't said.
    It is very interesting how accepting Fox viewers are to learn they were essentially being lied to.

    Accepting? Do you see Rudy on anymore?
    How about Sydney Powell?
    Nope...they've been banished.

    Now look at CNN. They're still trotting out Clapper.
    So how much do you like being lied to?


    Here's actual proof your hosts didn't believe
    positions they pushed on their programs by espousing them or by hosting guests and not pushing back against them.

    I never felt they pushed them. Many expressed doubt.
    They simply put people on who were pushing them and in court no less. That was news and worthy of being covered.
    There was a whole lot of questioning of the claims made and outright demands of proof that were never met.

    It's apparent to me you just like the idea of Fox being sued and from inside your bubble
    you have no clue what was really aired.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Wed Feb 22 08:53:05 2023
    On 2/21/23 9:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:05:26 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:54:14 AM UTC-8, mINE109
    wrote:

    That's from the "Factual Background" section. For the
    "Argument," see beginning p. 46.

    https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23684885/230216-dominion-fox.pdf >>>>


    Interesting, considering how vigorously you posited the
    possibility youwere "point[ing] out the deceit and deception of
    said media."

    But not for what they haven't said.
    It is very interesting how accepting Fox viewers are to learn they
    were essentially being lied to.

    Accepting? Do you see Rudy on anymore? How about Sydney Powell? Nope...they've been banished.

    Ingraham, Hannity and Dobbs are still on. And I refer to the lack of
    outrage from *viewers*. Carlson's concern were Fox to tell the truth,
    their viewers would switch to alternatives willing to lie.

    And the Rudy and Sydney disappearances may have some connection to the
    lawsuits filed against them by Dominion.

    Now look at CNN. They're still trotting out Clapper. So how much do
    you like being lied to?

    He's not lying, he's an infrequent guest not a high profile host, and I
    don't watch CNN.

    Here's actual proof your hosts didn't believe positions they
    pushed on their programs by espousing them or by hosting guests and
    not pushing back against them.

    I never felt they pushed them. Many expressed doubt. They simply
    put people on who were pushing them and in court no less. That was
    news and worthy of being covered. There was a whole lot of
    questioning of the claims made and outright demands of proof that
    were never met.

    Yes, you were pointing to the number of lawsuits as evidence of voter irregularity even after they were rejected by the courts.

    Since it turns out network and hosts knew those claims were false, they
    can't use "just asking questions" as an excuse when they had the answers.

    It's apparent to me you just like the idea of Fox being sued and
    from inside your bubble you have no clue what was really aired.

    They made false claims about Dominion. How would you want that to be
    handled?

    I get to see plenty from you and Art. If it's out of left-field and
    makes no sense, somebody just finished watching Fox.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 22 09:11:25 2023
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:53:07 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 9:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:05:26 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:54:14 AM UTC-8, mINE109
    wrote:

    That's from the "Factual Background" section. For the
    "Argument," see beginning p. 46.

    https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23684885/230216-dominion-fox.pdf >>>>


    Interesting, considering how vigorously you posited the
    possibility youwere "point[ing] out the deceit and deception of
    said media."

    But not for what they haven't said.
    It is very interesting how accepting Fox viewers are to learn they
    were essentially being lied to.

    Accepting? Do you see Rudy on anymore? How about Sydney Powell? Nope...they've been banished.
    Ingraham, Hannity and Dobbs are still on.

    Dobbs show was cancelled over a year ago.

    But thanks for proving beyond any doubt you have no clue WTF you're talking about.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Wed Feb 22 12:08:26 2023
    On 2/22/23 11:11 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:53:07 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 9:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:05:26 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

    It is very interesting how accepting Fox viewers are to learn they
    were essentially being lied to.

    Accepting? Do you see Rudy on anymore? How about Sydney Powell?
    Nope...they've been banished.
    Ingraham, Hannity and Dobbs are still on.

    Dobbs show was cancelled over a year ago.

    Two out three ain't bad.

    But thanks for proving beyond any doubt you have no clue WTF you're talking about.

    No, I'm not an expert on the Fox lineup. Hmm...

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/07/media/lou-dobbs-fox-reliable/index.html

    "Why Fox News canceled Lou Dobbs

    Although Fox isn’t saying, the timing of Dobbs’ cancellation Friday
    appears to be no coincidence: It took place 24 hours after Dobbs and Fox
    were named in a $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit filed by voting
    technology company Smartmatic...

    But Dobbs wasn’t the only one espousing conspiracy theories on air.
    Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo, who were also named in the Smartmatic lawsuit, remain on Fox."

    There's so much low-hanging fruit for me. No wonder you fall back on
    insults.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 23 17:11:13 2023
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:08:28 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 11:11 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:53:07 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 9:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:05:26 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

    It is very interesting how accepting Fox viewers are to learn they
    were essentially being lied to.

    Accepting? Do you see Rudy on anymore? How about Sydney Powell?
    Nope...they've been banished.
    Ingraham, Hannity and Dobbs are still on.

    Dobbs show was cancelled over a year ago.
    Two out three ain't bad.

    66% is a D....unless you need equitable grading.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Art Sackman@21:1/5 to ScottW on Thu Feb 23 17:16:43 2023
    On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 8:11:14 PM UTC-5, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:08:28 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 11:11 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:53:07 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 9:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:05:26 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

    It is very interesting how accepting Fox viewers are to learn they >>>> were essentially being lied to.

    Accepting? Do you see Rudy on anymore? How about Sydney Powell?
    Nope...they've been banished.
    Ingraham, Hannity and Dobbs are still on.

    Dobbs show was cancelled over a year ago.
    Two out three ain't bad.
    66% is a D....unless you need equitable grading.

    ScottW


    In the interest of equity, Steve teaches his white students to make mistakes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Fri Feb 24 09:37:59 2023
    On 2/23/23 7:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:08:28 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 11:11 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:53:07 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 9:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:05:26 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

    It is very interesting how accepting Fox viewers are to learn they >>>>>> were essentially being lied to.

    Accepting? Do you see Rudy on anymore? How about Sydney Powell?
    Nope...they've been banished.
    Ingraham, Hannity and Dobbs are still on.

    Dobbs show was cancelled over a year ago.
    Two out three ain't bad.

    66% is a D....unless you need equitable grading.

    What grade is getting sued for a billion dollars?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 24 09:17:11 2023
    On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 7:38:02 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/23/23 7:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:08:28 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 11:11 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:53:07 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/21/23 9:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:05:26 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

    It is very interesting how accepting Fox viewers are to learn they >>>>>> were essentially being lied to.

    Accepting? Do you see Rudy on anymore? How about Sydney Powell?
    Nope...they've been banished.
    Ingraham, Hannity and Dobbs are still on.

    Dobbs show was cancelled over a year ago.
    Two out three ain't bad.

    66% is a D....unless you need equitable grading.
    What grade is getting sued for a billion dollars?

    Sounds like getting a grade for signing your name.
    In any case, if they're suing you....an F. You got nothing.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fascist Flea@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 24 09:16:30 2023
    mINE109 wrote:

    Dobbs show was cancelled over a year ago.
    Two out three ain't bad.

    66% is a D....unless you need equitable grading.
    What grade is getting sued for a billion dollars?

    How about T+?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to Fascist Flea on Fri Feb 24 13:46:11 2023
    On 2/24/23 11:16 AM, Fascist Flea wrote:
    mINE109 wrote:

    Dobbs show was cancelled over a year ago.
    Two out three ain't bad.

    66% is a D....unless you need equitable grading.
    What grade is getting sued for a billion dollars?

    How about T+?

    "Not satisfactory"? Of course, 66% is a landslide in an election.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Fri Feb 24 13:49:17 2023
    On 2/24/23 11:17 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 7:38:02 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/23/23 7:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 10:08:28 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/22/23 11:11 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 6:53:07 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 2/21/23 9:28 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:05:26 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:

    It is very interesting how accepting Fox viewers are to learn they >>>>>>>> were essentially being lied to.

    Accepting? Do you see Rudy on anymore? How about Sydney Powell?
    Nope...they've been banished.
    Ingraham, Hannity and Dobbs are still on.

    Dobbs show was cancelled over a year ago.
    Two out three ain't bad.

    66% is a D....unless you need equitable grading.
    What grade is getting sued for a billion dollars?

    Sounds like getting a grade for signing your name.
    In any case, if they're suing you....an F. You got nothing.

    That explains Dobbs, Giuliani and Powell, but not Bartiromo and Pirro
    who are still active.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 25 09:35:40 2023
    On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/24/23 11:16 AM, Fascist Flea wrote:
    mINE109 wrote:

    Dobbs show was cancelled over a year ago.
    Two out three ain't bad.

    66% is a D....unless you need equitable grading.
    What grade is getting sued for a billion dollars?

    How about T+?
    "Not satisfactory"? Of course, 66% is a landslide in an election.

    LoL.....Stephen's idea of the correct answer is purely based on popularity. And he works in teaching.
    Sure glad his isn't a RR worker. Wheels would be falling off every trip.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 25 09:38:58 2023
    And now he blames a lack of sleep due to his early morning schedule.

    Stephen....are you getting enough sleep? I think Art is keeping you up nights.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Feb 25 12:42:47 2023
    On 2/25/23 11:38 AM, ScottW wrote:
    And now he blames a lack of sleep due to his early morning schedule.

    Maybe trying to recreate the success of the CBS morning show at CNN by
    putting him in the Charlie Rose seat was asking for trouble.

    Stephen....are you getting enough sleep? I think Art is keeping you up nights.

    Worth it to keep up with the late night hosts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Feb 25 12:47:24 2023
    On 2/25/23 11:35 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 2/24/23 11:16 AM, Fascist Flea wrote:
    mINE109 wrote:

    Dobbs show was cancelled over a year ago.
    Two out three ain't bad.

    66% is a D....unless you need equitable grading.
    What grade is getting sued for a billion dollars?

    How about T+?
    "Not satisfactory"? Of course, 66% is a landslide in an election.

    LoL.....Stephen's idea of the correct answer is purely based on popularity.

    Not just mine: most elections require a majority of voters to
    demonstrate popularity. And I guess your fascination with ratings might
    have something to do with popularity as well.

    And he works in teaching.

    It's way different there. Opinions matter but they don't have to be
    popular and they aren't all equal.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)