| 0 |
Subject: WorldNetDaily's credible sources...
Posted by: biliruben
- Sustainer [3502218] Thu, Nov 29, 2001, 15:20
include The Onion.
A writer for a favered "news" outlet here at on Guru's politics board uses this parody by The Onion as evidence that kids are being made "vulnerable to demonic activity and possible infestation". The only catch is they quote the parody as gospel, so to speak.
The details are outlines over at Snopes.
Maybe this should give us pause to consider the credibility of some of the other of WND's so called "sources". |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 53 | James K Polk
ID: 53113860
Sun, Dec 09, 2001, 01:26
|
Oh, and besides the Lewinsky story, remind me again why Drudge is such a valuable media bypass?
The guy has made a career out of having one inside source at the right time. He's a hack, and even he knows it.
|
| 54 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 258492618
Sun, Dec 09, 2001, 09:32
|
Mr. President, just a quick, but important correction: Hilary Clinton never said that there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy." She said that there was a "vast, right-wing conspiracy." The inclusion of the comma makes all the difference in the argument. Conservatives tended to drop the comma early to make the argument look shrill, and in the reprints most of the media didn't check.
Drudge: As I've said before, the man either is a bad writer or bad editor. He's everything that is wrong about the "new media," since he doesn't see the need to have a system of checks & balances in his reporting. In this, he's simply a new form of yellow-journalism.
Hell, even the rags sometimes get one right (see the genesis for the Gennifer Flowers story and Clinton). This doesn't mean that suddenly they gain credibility.
pd
|
| 55 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Sun, Dec 09, 2001, 10:18
|
Ohh he's a hack, please define what you mean by hack cause I don't see him being wrong more often than mainstream media. I don't see him deliberately making up stories to suit his agenda like mainstream reporters have been caught doing. And most importantly I don't see him spiking stories because they hurt his own agenda like mainstream media.
Not only do I honor and respect Drudge but I too demand an APOLOGY from mainstream media!
And at this point, I demand an apology from the main press. Not from Clinton. None of us are in a position to forgive crimes of this nature, and no one would believe he was sorry for anything anyway, other than getting caught. But this apology needs to come from the press, with those red lights on back there. They have vilified good and courageous people: Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, Ken Starr, a host of others.
[long applause]
They have been brutalized publicly, humiliated, scorned, pilloried, for having the courage to do what is right. I’m sorry they weren’t attractive enough, or didn’t have the right social circles, to satisfy the press. They have been courageous and right, and an apology is in order for the recognition these people had the moral courage to do the right thing. The press today should exercise humility, if nothing else, and their victims need that recognition that they are heroes, not traitors. Scott Ritter, the gentleman who testified . . .
[long applause]
Dare I say Gary Aldrich . . . and the names go on and on, and a lot of them are silent. My sources through the past year have been concerned citizens in and out of government who do not want to be named. These are the people that I hold close to my heart and I’ll take with me - Matt Drudge in an Address before the Wednesday Morning Club
|
| 56 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Sun, Dec 09, 2001, 10:36
|
But Maureen Dowd wrote a real slap—that now there’s a Salon, a Matt Drudge, and a Larry Flynt. How are we supposed to live in this environment and how are we supposed to discern between what is private and public, and blah blah blah, just dripping with red fingernail polish. I wrote a little flash on the Internet saying, "Maureen. I learned it from you!"
You had a front-page story back when I was in diapers about Nancy Reagan having an affair with Frank Sinatra—you put it on the front page of the New York Times with your byline, you probably entered it as a Pulitzer!
Why would anyone defend mainstream media when they can't see the hypocritical incongruity between putting Nancy Reagan's sex life on the front page of the 'Grey Lady' and spiking the stories of countless victims of Clinton's inappropriate conduct and slandering the sources whenever they couldn't successfully silence them?
It says a lot when the mainstream media go along with Clinton's plan to label anyone who reveals his abuse of women and his government position to acquire them as bimbo's.
I will not be lectured ad infinitum by would-be defenders of women's rights who enabled a serial sexual predator who industrialized sexual harrassment. In point of fact I can come up with the multiple cases where victims not just of sexual harrassment but of his raping have witnesses who were told at the time of the attack that he raped them. Put that in your Anita Hill pipe. We know for a fact mainstream media won't.
|
| 57 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 61181823
Sun, Dec 09, 2001, 10:41
|
Is he going somewhere? We can only hope. And what's the point of posting Drude's rantings as a rebuttal to the charge that he's a hack? To show that he tries to fob off resposibility in reporting onto others? True, true.
MD is apparently feeling so demanding of others, he's forgotten to be demanding of himself. And let me see here, Baldwin: Since you can find singular examples in the mainstream media that are worse than Drudge at particular times, he's not more wrong than they are?
What's wrong with Drudge is not just that he doesn't check sources, that he doesn't corraborate, or even that he's so smug about his importance and status as an "outsider" (all are true, and should cause anyone who is an active consumer of news to knock his credibility down a few pegs). He seems to report others' criticism of his reporting as equally important as other "news" stories. He's a self-publicist with a gossip-columnist mentality. If he didn't have anyone to attack he wouldn't have anything to do, and that's really not the kind of news I want to get.
pd
|
| 58 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 61181823
Sun, Dec 09, 2001, 10:45
|
Let me be more clear: Drudge pointing out problems with the media's reporting of Clinton (and frankly, I know of no president who get ripped by the press more often or with more ferocity than Clinton) has nothing to do with Drudge's own reporting. It doesn't make him a good reporter. It doesn't even make him a good critic.
pd
|
| 59 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Sun, Dec 09, 2001, 10:51
|
The alternate media expose while the mainstream media simply pose
We must remember that the Washington Post discovered the
Lippo/China scandal more than a year late. The entire corrupt
network of Lippo, Riady, Stephens, BCCI, Worthen Bank and Bill
Clinton was revealed in a September 1995 American Spectator story
by James Ring Adams. His story, "The Bamboo Network" even covered
the notorious John Huang, now under investigation for espionage.
These revelations were covered up by the mainstream press. (The
be fair, we also missed the significance of the story at the
time.)
Lippo resurfaced in February 1996, during public Whitewater
hearings where Webster Hubbell was asked what he did for the
money he received from Lippo after he resigned from the Justice
Department under a cloud. Hubbell would not say. Now every
citizen could smell a rat and the alternative media went into
overdrive. What was the response of the mainstream media? A
disinformation campaign. The New Republic referred to the
question as "Chertoff's first major gaffe." Oh, really?
A month before the 1996 election, William Safire took up the
Lippo-Hubbell issue in his column. Again the mainstream reaction
was silence.
It was not until after Bill Clinton had been safely
reelected, that the mainstream media discovered the
Lippo/China/Huang scandal. And now they played it as their own, not crediting the 1995 TAS article. In reality, they have done
nothing but fill in the details in the corrupt network exposed by
James Ring Adams.
We have often wondered about this curious reversal of the mainstream media. What was its purpose? Was it to get Clinton safely reelected (The Washington Post endorsed Bill Clinton in 1996, well knowing the Chinese infiltration of his administration), and then hit him when he cannot be reelected and therefore has nothing to lose? Was it to try to rebuild some of the credibility they had destroyed during four years of cover-up or the administration? Or was it simply Bob Woodward's fear of missing the second Watergate scandal, leaving the glory to someone else?
But we will never forget who covered up the Whitewater investigation, who spread White House disinformation on the Vince Foster investigation, who spiked the Mena story, who spiked the BCCI story, and who helped re-elect a corrupt President.
|
| 60 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Sun, Dec 09, 2001, 14:20
|
. I think what we have here in many ways is a step forward. You know, the old days of Walter Cronkite and that's the way it is, or when The New York Times or The Washington Post and a handful of other media organizations set the tone and the agenda for news coverage in America [something Mr Polk swears never happened] are gone. And I think some of the people who practice that style of journalism are now bemoaning its loss, and I still think, despite the Matt Drudges and despite some of the more unfortunate aspects of the new media world, what we're really seeing is a democratization of the media. And that's quite healthy. We need alternative sources of journalism. - Dave Talbot of Salon
|
| 62 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Sun, Dec 09, 2001, 14:58
|
The problem when the purported gatekeeper of what is considered established truth, what the public's perceives as it's watchdog are indistinguishable from Democrat Party Lackeys...
What was the difference between the one FBI File in the Nixon White House [for which someone went to prison] and the 900 the Clinton Administration appropriated? Other than no one hiring Craig Livingstone and no one being held accountable--the disinterest of the national media.
Watergate was broken, investigated and fanned to flames by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post. They kept the story alive, pursued and hounded the Nixon White House with the relentlessness of the posse chasing Butch and Sundance. They never gave up. They never stopped. No stone was too small to go unturned. Further, none could call this Partisanship or a Democratic Witch Hunt
since it was the media doing the digging
and investigating. With Whitewater, however, the media took a pass. Prior to 1994 when the Republicans assumed control of both the House and the Senate, nobody investigated Whitewater and/or the 900 FBI files.
After the Republicans became the majority party, and took up what the "investigative reporters" weren't interested in, the Democrats screamed, "Partisan Witchhunt!"
"Amen," intoned the media.
"Right wing conspiracy!"
screamed the Clintons.
"Amen," chanted the media.
"Vast right wing conspiracy!"
screeched the First Harpy.
"Amen," sang the media, and
spiked the story so deep the Chinese
claimed they'd discovered a new tree.
And the public believed because they assumed the media was the watchdog and if the Dobermans weren't interested, that had to be because there was no there there.
A watchdog that won't bark is worse than no watchdog at all, and in this case the watchdog is running interference. One thing we know is that any Republican scandal will be refreshed daily and any Democrat scandal will sink into a black hole of media indifference unless it has enuff sex in it to make it commercial.
|
| 63 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Sun, Dec 09, 2001, 15:18
|
(and frankly, I know of no president who get ripped by the press more often or with more ferocity than Clinton) -PD
Balderdash
1)you know Nixon and Reagan.
2)Clinton's own legal counsel office listed 23 scandals they needed to cover up and the media not only failed to report that memo [like they would have failed to report on same in a Nixon or Reagan admin.] not only failed to report that memo but gave him a pass on all of them and only focussed on one later sex scandal out of countless possible candidates. That is hardly relentless persecution. Sheesh
|
| 64 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 14112623
Sun, Dec 09, 2001, 17:08
|
Drudge is my home page. I wouldn't start a day without him.
|
| 65 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Wed, Dec 12, 2001, 17:24
|
Noted liberal reporter Nicholas Von Hoffman, on November 14 wrote:
As it is, the fear grows that he and the people around him are increasingly fogged-out and disoriented by the unconventional struggle of people who don’t fight by the rules taught at the Army War College.
The war in Afghanistan, the one he should never have declared, has run into trouble. Just a few weeks into it and it’s obvious that the United States is fighting blind. The enemy is unknown, and the enemy’s country is terra incognita. We have virtually no one we can trust who can speak the languages of the people involved. With all our firepower and our technical assets and our spy satellites, it looks like we don’t know if we’re coming or going. . . .
We are mapless, we are lost, and we are distracted by gusts of wishful thinking. That our high command could believe the Afghani peasantry or even the Taliban would change sides after a few weeks of bombing! This is fantasizing in high places. In the history of aerial bombardment, can you think of a single instance of the bombed embracing the bombers? Bombing always unites the bombees against the bombers, and—duh!—guess what the reaction has been in Afghanistan?
Er, duh! right back atcha there, Nick. Duh, duh, duh. Or should that be D'oh! instead? - instapundit
Maybe we need more than just liberal advice from the media, huh?
|
| 66 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 258492618
Wed, Dec 12, 2001, 19:56
|
Yikes, what an awful piece. The guy is looking for things that just aren't there. And I'm sure the "history of aerial bombing" is so rich and long that we can draw all sorts of lessons from it.
I did not see your #63 Baldwin. Nixon might, indeed, have surpassed Clinton in attacks. Of course, he resigned in disgrace and was commander-in-chief during an unpopular war. Did he deserve the criticism? Probably, as did Ford for his pardon.
As for #2, you, of course, buy the line that this was a laundry list of scandals. A scandal is the outcry that occurs after an event so these are clearly not scandals. Crimes you say? Admission of wrong-doing? Try this one out: Any good lawyer (and Clinton had some very good lawyers) is certain to find out his client's areas of weakness, particularly political weakness. For example, there might be a financial transaction for which there is not a lot of paperwork. Might not be a problem except for a lack of paperwork--political opponents would take the lack of paperwork as proof of wrongdoing, when in fact it might be simply a paperwork problem.
Every president, Bush included, had better have such a list of weak areas so that when thei opponents dig into those areas that they have either located proof to back up the innocent nature of those area or have adequate responses when asked.
That list was not areas of unexplored scandal or crime. It was the efforts of his legal advisors to prep their client.
pd
|
| 67 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Wed, Dec 12, 2001, 19:59
|
Have you seen this list that you understand better than I?
|
| 68 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Wed, Dec 12, 2001, 20:00
|
Because I have seen it.
|
| 69 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 258492618
Wed, Dec 12, 2001, 20:09
|
Yes, you linked to the information in another thread. Can't find the thread right now, unfortunately. Too busy reading The Onion. :)
pd
|
| 70 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Tue, Dec 25, 2001, 17:40
|
Dedicated to the glorious white knights of Mr. Polk's dreams
Media Casualties Mount As War Success Continues
(December 24, 2001 APUPI)
The ranks of print, web and broadcast pundits and journalists continue to be decimated by enemy action as the war progresses. The total number of casualties are becoming almost uncountable, and are overwhelming the limited field emergency facilities. This reporter got a first-hand view of the devastation and tragedy in a visit to a typical field hospital.
At the entrance the doctors, assisted by editors, are performing triage. They quickly sort through the injured, making snap decisions to place them in three categories: those who can be quickly bandaged up with some minor counseling and facts, and sent back to the front; those who continue to pontificate under the burden of so much maleducation and inability to think, and so many wrong ideas, broken syllogisms, and inappropriate conclusions, that they are beyond redemption; and those who are grievously confused, but can be saved with immediate attention.
The first thing that strikes you when you enter the infirmary is the smell. The stench assaults the nose--it's a pungent blend of moldering printer's ink and decaying sanctimony.
Inside, those who are lucid are still bewildered at the stunning reversal of fortune that caused so many casualties. One older reporter is a grizzled veteran of the successful Tet Offensive, in which a US victory on the ground had been successfully converted into an ignominious setback in the papers and television news, with little organized resistance.
"When we arrived at the front, everything was going our way, just as we expected. The US Air Force had been pounding the Taliban for weeks, with no obvious effect. We thought that the battlefield was prepared for a major propaganda advance. But just as we started to move out seriously, with fusillades of stories about Vietnam analogies, and the futility of just chasing down terrorists without addressing why the world hates us, the Taliban and Al Qaeda started to collapse without warning. We came under fire ourselves. Huge shellbursts of cruel reality and vicious satire were exploding all around us, and dangerous facts were whizzing just past our ears, sometimes right in one and out the other..."
The fire from the webloggers, or "bloggers," had been particularly devastating, with pinpoint accuracy and precision.
Dazed, he continued, "...it wasn't supposed to be like this. In basic journalism training, they told us we were the best and the brightest--we knew it all. How could a bunch of unpaid internet guys without journalism degrees or training tear us to pieces like that?"
"...My partner and I were working on a big story on the clear parallels between the American invasion of Afghanistan, and the failures of the British and Russia in the same place. But I haven't seen him here. Can you tell me what's happened to him?"
The doctor gently tells him that they're still trying to find out.
"Tell me, doc, will I ever be able to write again? Will anyone ever believe me?"
She just smiles, and pats his hand.
She takes me aside after we leave the bedside and tells me softly, "I don't think that he's well enough to take the news right now. But his partner was transferred to the Des Moines Daily Dispatch to do obits."
The carnage might not have been so horrendous had these been fresh reporters, but many of them were already suffering battle fatigue from two previous disastrous campaigns: the eight-year war to convince the American people that Bill Clinton was a great president, and the more recent year-and-a-half futile struggle, lost decisively three months ago, to portray George W. Bush as an ineffective idiot. The final rout at the Battle of the Pardons had taken much out of them, and after Bush achieved his 90% approval rating in September, they weren't really prepared to be thrown into the Afghan breach.
Many lie in a delirium, still unable to comprehend the incomprehensible. A woman named Maureen lies, pathetically, in a fetal position. She rocks back and forth, gently cradling her keyboard in her arms, as she whimpers, barely audible, "quagmire, murky...they're bogged down--they must be bogged down...quagmire..."
For some, a lucky few, catatonia is a blessed escape. One poor wretch named Ted just sits up in his bed all day. His brow is furrowed, and his eyes are unfocused, or focused on some distant unreality, unseeable by the rest of us.
Old newsroom veterans call it the "thousand-word stare." They've all seen it--that look you get as you gaze intently at a blank computer screen, in a futile attempt to conjure up some words that will somehow spin an obvious and just victory into humiliating and immoral failure.
He had been leading a frontal assault on common sense, when he was cut down in a withering fire of logic and irony by a brigade of blogger sharpshooters and fact checkers. The hits were effective, but not always clean. He lived, but his syntax was badly mangled, and his credibility was shattered beyond any hope of salvaging it.
Down the hall come blood-curdling screams from an emergency surgical unit. The doctor explains, "We're low on anaesthetics. We've requisitioned supplies, but it's hard to get anyone to respond. For some reason, there seems to be very little sympathy for these people."
The cries of agony continue--it is almost unbearable to hear. "Sometimes, the only way to save them is emergency removal of fatally-flawed precepts and paradigms. There's no time to do it gently."
For some, though, perhaps death would be kinder. One man, by the name of Robert, had to have so many false assumptions, invalid premises, and logical fallacies removed that there was little left. They couldn't excise the last vestiges of self loathing--to do so would have left him with nothing at all. Now, he just wanders the halls with a bandage on his head, like a post-post-modernist zombie. He mutters under his breath, "I'm a Western oppressor. I'm a tool of the phallocentric oligarchy. Beat me...stone me. Spank me...spank me hard..."
An orderly brushes past him, wearing nose plugs. He is carrying, at arms' length, a slop-bucket full of stale cliches, failed paradigms and illogical conclusions, in search of some place to dump them where they won't contaminate the local educational system.
Even for those who will eventually recover, the road to becoming productive may be long and painful. Many have experienced nothing their entire lives except misreporting war and politics, and are untrained and unfit for anything else. Without some way of transitioning them back into civil society, they will remain a dangerous source of social instability. The necessary rehabilitation can often involve months, even years, of special therapy, to regain, or in some cases, to achieve for the first time, the use of their minds.
Many will require relearning, or even unlearning, many things they've always taken for granted. They will have to start at the very beginning, with Logic 101. After months of painful mental exercises and thought, they will be gradually eased into actual history, rhetoric, and economics courses, as their minds grow stronger.
I stop by one of the therapy centers to observe.
"Now Sunera, let's try this again. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore...?"
Sunera frowns, and sweat appears on her forehead. Hesitantly, she ventures, "Therefore...Socrates is the basis of male-centered western patriarchal violence that continues to brutalize women and grind them under its bootheels...?"
"No, Sunera," the therapist explains patiently. "We're practicing logic here. Lo-gic. Remember what I told you about logic?"
I close the door quietly. It will indeed be a long and hard road.
As I leave, I see a general at the entrance with a doctor, staring at the row of beds.
"Where do they find people like this?," he asks in amazement.
The doctor answers, quietly, "As long as there are schools of journalism, we will never run out..."
(Copyright 2001, by Rand Simberg)
|
| 71 | Baldwin
ID: 487442022
Sat, Aug 28, 2004, 03:52
|
Butt...we must never lose this classic...why #70 is one of my favorite pieces of writing of all time.
|
| 72 | James K Polk
ID: 2914090
Sat, Aug 28, 2004, 04:36
|
Then you are sadly unread, my friend.
|
| 73 | Baldwin
ID: 487442022
Sat, Aug 28, 2004, 11:42
|
I live to read, Polk.
|
| 74 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719
Sun, Aug 29, 2004, 21:41
|
No, you live to insert HTML bold tags in article excerpts ;)
|
| 75 | Baldwin
ID: 417442918
Sun, Aug 29, 2004, 22:05
|
Those are reading aids for those who do not live to read. Those I feel can't or won't get the main point, or refuse to spend the time to get to the main point. They are not there because I am trying to draw undue attention.
|
| 76 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719
Sun, Aug 29, 2004, 22:07
|
I'm just kidding with you, Baldwin.
|
| 77 | Baldwin
ID: 417442918
Sun, Aug 29, 2004, 22:08
|
*polk*
|
| 78 | biliruben
ID: 441182916
Tue, Sep 14, 2004, 13:48
|
More idiocy from Baldwin's favorite rag:
But what if Mr. One-Heartbeat-Away in the White House had a daughter who was a masochist who fell in love with a sadist? (And she loved being beaten, as much as her lover enjoyed beating her.)
Would Mr. Cheney have announced in Davenport his support of weddings with leather dresses, whips and chains?
As Eugene Volokh points out, sadists and masochists have always been able to legally marry.
|
| 79 | Baldwin
ID: 40826115
Tue, Sep 14, 2004, 17:47
|
We don't have to applaud them.
|
| 80 | biliruben
ID: 441182916
Tue, Sep 14, 2004, 18:02
|
The point is, you'd think someone writing articles on the subject would at least know that it isn't illegal for a couple who enjoys that sort of thing to marry.
I could give a rats-arse if you applaud or not. I boo incompetence in one's chosen profession, which this author exhibits to an embarrassing degree. Any publication that chooses to employ him begs not to be taken more seriously than Weekly World News.
|
| 81 | Baldwin
ID: 40826115
Tue, Sep 14, 2004, 18:06
|
Since the article only mentions support not legalization of sado-masochism you can commence booing your own incompetence in reading and commenting on that piece whenever you like.
|
| 82 | biliruben
ID: 441182916
Tue, Sep 14, 2004, 18:12
|
Sorry. Check his next one. (if you read the Volokh link you would have seen it)
If sodomists and sadomasochists should be allowed to obtain marriage licenses, what other happiness-pursuers should be denied?
Commence with sputtering and back-peddling in your absurd defense your conservative grocery line-level trash.
|
| 83 | Baldwin
ID: 40826115
Tue, Sep 14, 2004, 18:37
|
My first reading tells me that Kinsolving is pointing out the e-mailers eagerness to see all forms of perversion receive the approval of society. I don't see him make the mistake of saying perverted heteros can't marry at the present time as you and Volohk contend.
|
| 84 | Baldwin
ID: 40826115
Tue, Sep 14, 2004, 18:48
|
BTW I have never met or read a single conservative who wanted the police checking bedrooms for deviant sex.
Just drop the dishonest strawman argument whenever your sense of shame compels you.
Liberals do have the capacity to feel shame right Bili?
|
| 85 | biliruben
ID: 441182916
Tue, Sep 14, 2004, 18:51
|
How, exactly, do you explain sodomy and oral sex having been (and still being, in a few, I believe) illegal in so many states then, Baldwin? The liberals voted them there?
BTW, Volokh certainly isn't a liberal.
|
| 86 | biliruben
ID: 441182916
Tue, Sep 14, 2004, 18:59
|
Strike that. Since the Lawrence ruling last year, sodomy laws have been deemed unconstitutional.
|
| 87 | Baldwin
ID: 40826115
Tue, Sep 14, 2004, 22:30
|
Community standards.
|
| 88 | biliruben
ID: 406171015
Tue, Sep 14, 2004, 23:37
|
If you refuse to put two and two together and come to the obvious conclusion that "community standards" making sodomy and oral sex illegal leads to "the community," i.e. nosey conservatives, arresting people in their own bedrooms as was done in Lawrence, than I will cease to rub your nose in it. Just realize you have your head deep, deep, uh..., in the sand.
|
| 89 | Baldwin
ID: 40826115
Wed, Sep 15, 2004, 05:43
|
Bili, the same people who didn't want British troops [or our own] quartered in their homes, don't want police invading their bedrooms. Just admit to yourself at least that it was a useful strawman but he's been exposed.
|
| 90 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 10:51
|
WND's main market competitor is going out of business
|
| 91 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 10:57
|
I have no idea what you are talking about there, MBJ. The two have nothing in common.
|
| 92 | Perm Dude
ID: 32642268
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 10:58
|
Big news, indeed. Maybe we'll see Polk back on these boards...
:)
|
| 93 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 11:09
|
Come on Baldwin, I's just joshin' ya'
|
| 94 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Thu, Jul 26, 2007, 13:03
|
The two have nothing in common.
well, you mean, other than being works of fiction, right?
|
| 95 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 406342621
Fri, Jul 27, 2007, 12:24
|
The following link could have gone into the WTF or Interesting Links threads, too.
WND Link: The Female Teachers List
The principal's wife...
The softball coach...
The former Miss Texas contestant...
The former model and beauty-pageant contestant...
|
| 96 | Perm Dude
ID: 48622711
Fri, Jul 27, 2007, 12:34
|
Some of those women are pretty good looking, and others are just butt...
|
| 97 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Jul 27, 2007, 12:35
|
By my count, of 102 listed female teachers accused and/or convicted of inapropriate activity with students, 6 were cases involving female students.
More evidence to contradict the social conservative myth that homosexuals are any more likely to be pedophiles.
|
| 98 | biliruben
ID: 35112816
Fri, Jul 27, 2007, 13:00
|
First, is a 25 year old having sex with a 17 year old pedophilia? I don't think I would categorize it as that.
Second, it depends on the rate of lesbianism in the population. If it's 2%, it's evidence for the "myth", if it's 12%, it's evidence against. I don't think I've seen a number I would have confidence in.
|
| 99 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Jul 27, 2007, 13:18
|
Hmm fair enough.
|
| 100 | Perm Dude
ID: 48622711
Fri, Jul 27, 2007, 15:40
|
First, is a 25 year old having sex with a 17 year old pedophilia?
That word doesn't occur anywhere in that article, bili. They call the "women predators on campus" among other things (which, it seems to me, is a truthful statement).
In general you might be right, bili, except that nearly all these women were in positions of authority over the students in question, even the 17 year olds. And that makes it wrong.
|
| 101 | biliruben
ID: 35112816
Fri, Jul 27, 2007, 16:41
|
I was responding to the last sentence of MITH 97, PD.
I certainly agree that there many things that are wrong that aren't pedophilia, obviously.
Take our president...
... please.
I'll get me coat.
We had a real problem with one of our professors in my old department using her authority over students to induce them to try some girl on girl action. Very wrong, though all were of legal age, and she eventually was drummed out of the university for it. The wheels of justice turned a bit slowly for my taste, however.
|
| 102 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 2624281
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 02:35
|
bili, to every good story is a beginning, middle and end.
Where is the juicy middle? ;) ;) ;)
|
| 103 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Jul 28, 2007, 10:59
|
the juicy middle, was written by George Carlin when he said;
"These boys being *ahem* 'molested' by their hot 24 yr old teachers are NOT victims. I have another term for them........lucky bstrds."
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|