Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
CNN Can't Do The Mueller Report Math
25 views
Skip to first unread message
Ubiquitous
Apr 22, 2019, 5:10:36 AM4/22/19
to
If there’s one thing we’ve learned in the Internet age, it’s that journalists
make a lot of mistakes. (Believe me, I’ve made my share of boneheaded ones.)
But there are a few areas where journalistic ignorance really seems to
persist, and basic math is one of them. With that in mind, look at this chyron
from CNN last night, passed on to me by an old colleague. Notice anything
wrong?
https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Mueller-768x576.jpg
I’m pretty confident my nine-year-old could look at that and tell me that 36
is not 12.43 percent of 448. Thirty-six divided by 448 is 0.0803, or 8 percent
almost right on the nose. However, 448 divided by 36 is 12.44, so it appears
that someone did the math exactly backwards, slapped the percent symbol on the
end, and put it on the air. (How they got 12.43 instead of 12.44 is further
puzzling.)
Anyway, perhaps this isn’t the most consequential error ever, but it does seem
very illustrative of a particular problem. Math is hugely important to
journalism, and it’s important to remember that a great many journalistic
mistakes go unnoticed.
How many articles have you read where there are lots of numbers flying around
and you have no idea how the author extrapolated them? It’s always a good
thing to keep in mind as you digest the news that there’s a good possibility
what you’re reading is in error in some significant way. Yet few people bother
to do much beyond passively take in information.
Years ago, the writer Michael Crichton defined this as the “Gell-Mann Amnesia
effect“:
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows.
You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know
well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You
read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no
understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the
article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—
reversing cause and effect. I call these the ‘wet streets cause
rain’ stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read
with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story,
and then turn the page to national or international affairs,
and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more
accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You
turn the page, and forget what you know.
One positive thing to come out of the Trump era is that another media critic,
whom I am related to by marriage, has noted that we might be seeing the end of
Gell-Mann Amnesia. When entire news operations dedicate themselves over a
period of years to trying to undo an election result they campaigned against
and never saw coming, it’s pretty hard to look at the news the same way again.
You realize that their reporting doesn’t add up—sometimes quite literally.
--
Democrats (2016): We must believe the results of the Mueller investigation!
Democrats (2019): We don't believe the results of the Mueller investigation!
make a lot of mistakes. (Believe me, I’ve made my share of boneheaded ones.)
But there are a few areas where journalistic ignorance really seems to
persist, and basic math is one of them. With that in mind, look at this chyron
from CNN last night, passed on to me by an old colleague. Notice anything
wrong?
https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Mueller-768x576.jpg
I’m pretty confident my nine-year-old could look at that and tell me that 36
is not 12.43 percent of 448. Thirty-six divided by 448 is 0.0803, or 8 percent
almost right on the nose. However, 448 divided by 36 is 12.44, so it appears
that someone did the math exactly backwards, slapped the percent symbol on the
end, and put it on the air. (How they got 12.43 instead of 12.44 is further
puzzling.)
Anyway, perhaps this isn’t the most consequential error ever, but it does seem
very illustrative of a particular problem. Math is hugely important to
journalism, and it’s important to remember that a great many journalistic
mistakes go unnoticed.
How many articles have you read where there are lots of numbers flying around
and you have no idea how the author extrapolated them? It’s always a good
thing to keep in mind as you digest the news that there’s a good possibility
what you’re reading is in error in some significant way. Yet few people bother
to do much beyond passively take in information.
Years ago, the writer Michael Crichton defined this as the “Gell-Mann Amnesia
effect“:
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows.
You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know
well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You
read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no
understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the
article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—
reversing cause and effect. I call these the ‘wet streets cause
rain’ stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read
with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story,
and then turn the page to national or international affairs,
and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more
accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You
turn the page, and forget what you know.
One positive thing to come out of the Trump era is that another media critic,
whom I am related to by marriage, has noted that we might be seeing the end of
Gell-Mann Amnesia. When entire news operations dedicate themselves over a
period of years to trying to undo an election result they campaigned against
and never saw coming, it’s pretty hard to look at the news the same way again.
You realize that their reporting doesn’t add up—sometimes quite literally.
--
Democrats (2016): We must believe the results of the Mueller investigation!
Democrats (2019): We don't believe the results of the Mueller investigation!
FPP
Apr 22, 2019, 6:19:10 AM4/22/19
to
On 4/21/19 2:20 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> If there’s one thing we’ve learned in the Internet age, it’s that journalists
> make a lot of mistakes. (Believe me, I’ve made my share of boneheaded ones.)
> But there are a few areas where journalistic ignorance really seems to
> persist, and basic math is one of them. With that in mind, look at this chyron
> from CNN last night, passed on to me by an old colleague. Notice anything
> wrong?
>
> https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Mueller-768x576.jpg
>
> I’m pretty confident my nine-year-old could look at that and tell me that 36
> is not 12.43 percent of 448. Thirty-six divided by 448 is 0.0803, or 8 percent
> almost right on the nose. However, 448 divided by 36 is 12.44, so it appears
> that someone did the math exactly backwards, slapped the percent symbol on the
> end, and put it on the air. (How they got 12.43 instead of 12.44 is further
> puzzling.)
"Heartfelt condolences from the people of the United States to the
> If there’s one thing we’ve learned in the Internet age, it’s that journalists
> make a lot of mistakes. (Believe me, I’ve made my share of boneheaded ones.)
> But there are a few areas where journalistic ignorance really seems to
> persist, and basic math is one of them. With that in mind, look at this chyron
> from CNN last night, passed on to me by an old colleague. Notice anything
> wrong?
>
> https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Mueller-768x576.jpg
>
> I’m pretty confident my nine-year-old could look at that and tell me that 36
> is not 12.43 percent of 448. Thirty-six divided by 448 is 0.0803, or 8 percent
> almost right on the nose. However, 448 divided by 36 is 12.44, so it appears
> that someone did the math exactly backwards, slapped the percent symbol on the
> end, and put it on the air. (How they got 12.43 instead of 12.44 is further
> puzzling.)
people of Sri Lanka on the horrible terrorist attacks on churches and
hotels that have killed at least 138 million people and badly injured
600 more. We stand ready to help!" Trump said in a tweet Sunday morning."
And I'm pretty confident that 138,000,000 dead would be the equivalent
of more than TEN Holocausts.
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
Rhino
Apr 22, 2019, 7:36:10 AM4/22/19
to
media as well. Back in the late 80s when I was living in Toronto, we had
a very unfortunate spike in the murder rate. While the annual homicide
count had been quite stable in the low 50s for many years, this
particular year it went to 88. I still remember the anchor saying
solemnly that this marked a 15% increase! The truth, of course, is that
this marks a considerably larger increase: it's actually a SIXTY PERCENT
INCREASE. I watched that particular newscast pretty much every night and
I never heard them announce a correction. I'm not sure if I was the only
viewer who ever noticed the mistake - I never told them about it - or if
they were simply too embarrassed to make a correction.
It also occurs to me that this "error" may have been a deliberate
misstatement of the facts to reduce concern among the citizenry or to
take the heat off police or politicians for dubious policies or
practices that they had followed, although I'm more inclined to think it
was just inept math. After all, journalists are not required to have
math credits to qualify for journalism school or to graduate from it.
Ditto, of course, for pretty much any other subject they cover. They
aren't normally medical doctors or scientists or engineers either. In
fact, they don't need to be competent at anything beyond writing to
graduate. (Given the atrocious grammar and even spelling I see in some
stories, I'm not convinced that their writing skills are particularly
high either!) Therefore, it's hard to take them seriously when they
offer technical information about pretty much anything.
Mind you, I don't want to say that the errors made by journalists were
all deliberate lies. In most cases, they are simply regurgitating
something that they or a fellow journalist saw somewhere and the source
material was inadvertently - or in some cases deliberately - in error.
TV dramas try to give the impression that journalists check facts
thoroughly before publishing but I have to admit to a lot of skepticism
on that point, particularly with regards to the whole Trump collusion
investigation.
> One positive thing to come out of the Trump era is that another media critic,
> whom I am related to by marriage, has noted that we might be seeing the end of
> Gell-Mann Amnesia. When entire news operations dedicate themselves over a
> period of years to trying to undo an election result they campaigned against
> and never saw coming, it’s pretty hard to look at the news the same way again.
> You realize that their reporting doesn’t add up—sometimes quite literally.
>
>
get journalists to clean up their act. I think the vast majority of them
are too far gone, irrevocably committed to their role as advocates for
"progressivism" rather than purveyors of fact. Things *could* change if
the owners of the media put their feet down and insist on higher
standards of journalism but I expect a lot of them are just as obsessed
with their political points of view as their journalists and won't
relent until they see truly massive bites out of their bottom lines, as
evidenced by mass desertions from their TV channels, newspapers and
websites. I'm hoping the eventual settlements from the whole Nick
Sandmann affair make a major contribution to adjusting the thinking of
the journalists and the media owners.
--
Rhino
FPP
Apr 22, 2019, 7:48:24 AM4/22/19
to
were killed in the attacks yesterday?
I mean, he *is* the president. He ought to know how stupid the idea
that anyone could kill that many people at once without a nuke.
BTR1701
Apr 22, 2019, 11:25:16 AM4/22/19
to
In article <xs6dnakM26maGCDB...@giganews.com>,
about things I knew a lot about and realized how horrible, inaccurate,
and often intentionally misleading they were, I just assumed every story
was written in the same slip-shod manner.
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> How many articles have you read where there are lots of numbers flying around
> and you have no idea how the author extrapolated them? It's always a good
> thing to keep in mind as you digest the news that there's a good possibility
> what you're reading is in error in some significant way. Yet few people
> bother to do much beyond passively take in information.
>
> Years ago, the writer Michael Crichton defined this as the "Gell-Mann
> Amnesia effect":
>
> Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows.
> You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know
> well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You
> read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no
> understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the
> article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward--
> How many articles have you read where there are lots of numbers flying around
> and you have no idea how the author extrapolated them? It's always a good
> thing to keep in mind as you digest the news that there's a good possibility
> what you're reading is in error in some significant way. Yet few people
> bother to do much beyond passively take in information.
>
> Years ago, the writer Michael Crichton defined this as the "Gell-Mann
> Amnesia effect":
>
> Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows.
> You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know
> well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You
> read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no
> understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the
> reversing cause and effect. I call these the wet streets cause
> rain’ stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read
> with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story,
> and then turn the page to national or international affairs,
> and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more
> accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You
> turn the page, and forget what you know.
I've always done the exact opposite. Once I started reading articles
> rain’ stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read
> with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story,
> and then turn the page to national or international affairs,
> and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more
> accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You
> turn the page, and forget what you know.
about things I knew a lot about and realized how horrible, inaccurate,
and often intentionally misleading they were, I just assumed every story
was written in the same slip-shod manner.
Ubiquitous
Apr 22, 2019, 1:26:26 PM4/22/19
to
no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
thinking on it.
> Ubiquitous wrote:
>> One positive thing to come out of the Trump era is that another media
>> critic, whom I am related to by marriage, has noted that we might be
>> seeing the end of Gell-Mann Amnesia. When entire news operations dedicate
>> themselves over a period of years to trying to undo an election result
>> they campaigned against and never saw coming, it's pretty hard to look
>> at the news the same way again. You realize that their reporting doesn't
>> add up—sometimes quite literally.
>
>I'm nowhere near as optimistic that this will serve as a corrective and
>get journalists to clean up their act. I think the vast majority of them
>are too far gone, irrevocably committed to their role as advocates for
>"progressivism" rather than purveyors of fact. Things *could* change if
>the owners of the media put their feet down and insist on higher
>standards of journalism but I expect a lot of them are just as obsessed
>with their political points of view as their journalists and won't
>relent until they see truly massive bites out of their bottom lines, as
>evidenced by mass desertions from their TV channels, newspapers and
>websites. I'm hoping the eventual settlements from the whole Nick
>Sandmann affair make a major contribution to adjusting the thinking of
>the journalists and the media owners.
It's been happening for awhile; I don't see any changes, not to mention dep
>> One positive thing to come out of the Trump era is that another media
>> critic, whom I am related to by marriage, has noted that we might be
>> seeing the end of Gell-Mann Amnesia. When entire news operations dedicate
>> themselves over a period of years to trying to undo an election result
>> they campaigned against and never saw coming, it's pretty hard to look
>> at the news the same way again. You realize that their reporting doesn't
>> add up—sometimes quite literally.
>
>I'm nowhere near as optimistic that this will serve as a corrective and
>get journalists to clean up their act. I think the vast majority of them
>are too far gone, irrevocably committed to their role as advocates for
>"progressivism" rather than purveyors of fact. Things *could* change if
>the owners of the media put their feet down and insist on higher
>standards of journalism but I expect a lot of them are just as obsessed
>with their political points of view as their journalists and won't
>relent until they see truly massive bites out of their bottom lines, as
>evidenced by mass desertions from their TV channels, newspapers and
>websites. I'm hoping the eventual settlements from the whole Nick
>Sandmann affair make a major contribution to adjusting the thinking of
>the journalists and the media owners.
thinking on it.
Rhino
Apr 22, 2019, 2:41:24 PM4/22/19
to
> I mean, he *is* the president. He ought to know how stupid the idea
> that anyone could kill that many people at once without a nuke.
>
exaggeration....
--
Rhino
Rhino
Apr 22, 2019, 3:02:04 PM4/22/19
to
want to know, at least to some extent, what is going on in the world, or
at least the part that affects us, and we want to have someone tell us
in a reasonably concise and engaging way. That's what the media purports
to give us. But, as you say, as soon as you look closely at what the
media says, you see the glaring inaccuracies. A lot of us will assume
that given the specialized nature of a particular article, it's
understandable that they got it wrong and then decide to give them the
benefit of the doubt with respect to other articles and assume they are
more-or-less accurate.
Honestly, I still tend to belong to that group of media consumers. But
given the things we've seen in the media in the past decade, it's harder
and harder to believe ANYTHING they say beyond the most basic facts,
like today being Monday.
It's extremely hard to determine how much of the bad information is
deliberate and how much is sheer ignorance, gullibility and laziness. We
simply don't see how the news is gathered, edited and published so that
we can see the malice. I'm still inclined to think errors are
inadvertent for the most part, although I feel the percentage of
deliberate error has gone way up in recent years. Two plus years of "the
walls are closing in" and "unnamed sources" in the Mueller investigation
plus the fiasco of the Sandmann Affair should make anyone skeptical if
not outright cynical.
Many media outlets are going to have to do a LOT of work to regain a
reasonable level of credibility. If they don't, they will go out of
business. The people who were gullible enough to have believed them in
the past will move on to other sources of information that don't insult
them by lying to their faces. Apparently, MSNBC and CNN are already
seeing sharp declines in viewership now that the Mueller report has come
out.
--
Rhino
Rhino
Apr 22, 2019, 3:05:18 PM4/22/19
to
> And I'm pretty confident that 138,000,000 dead would be the equivalent
> of more than TEN Holocausts.
entire 20th century.
--
Rhino
Ubiquitous
Apr 22, 2019, 3:43:54 PM4/22/19
to
subject.
--
"Rhino, when do I say things I *can't* back up with citations of
fact? Go ahead... go and find something I stated as fact that you
don't think I can back up."
-- FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
Ubiquitous
Apr 22, 2019, 3:55:43 PM4/22/19
to
mistyped/misspoke about it (and fixed it), not that this excuses CNN's
malfeasance.
>> I mean, he *is* the president. He ought to know how stupid the idea
>> that anyone could kill that many people at once without a nuke.
>
>Knowing you, it's either an outright fabrication or a massive
>exaggeration....
Rhino
Apr 22, 2019, 4:21:49 PM4/22/19
to
On 2019-04-22 3:55 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
>> On 2019-04-22 7:48 AM, FPP wrote:
>>> On 4/22/19 7:36 AM, Rhino wrote:
>
>>>> I'm nowhere near as optimistic that this will serve as a corrective
>>>> and get journalists to clean up their act. I think the vast majority
>>>> of them are too far gone, irrevocably committed to their role as
>>>> advocates for "progressivism" rather than purveyors of fact. Things
>>>> *could* change if the owners of the media put their feet down and
>>>> insist on higher standards of journalism but I expect a lot of them
>>>> are just as obsessed with their political points of view as their
>>>> journalists and won't relent until they see truly massive bites out of
>>>> their bottom lines, as evidenced by mass desertions from their TV
>>>> channels, newspapers and websites. I'm hoping the eventual settlements
>>>> from the whole Nick Sandmann affair make a major contribution to
>>>> adjusting the thinking of the journalists and the media owners.
>>>
>>> So why do you excuse Trump's tweet where he claimed 138,000,000 people
>>> were killed in the attacks yesterday?
>>
>> I didn't excuse that! Hell, this is the first I'm hearing of it.
>
> That's projection on FPP's part, as usual, but I think I heard that Trump
> mistyped/misspoke about it (and fixed it), not that this excuses CNN's
> malfeasance.
>
FPP really IS desperate if he has to use a corrected typo to slam Trump....
> no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
>> On 2019-04-22 7:48 AM, FPP wrote:
>>> On 4/22/19 7:36 AM, Rhino wrote:
>
>>>> I'm nowhere near as optimistic that this will serve as a corrective
>>>> and get journalists to clean up their act. I think the vast majority
>>>> of them are too far gone, irrevocably committed to their role as
>>>> advocates for "progressivism" rather than purveyors of fact. Things
>>>> *could* change if the owners of the media put their feet down and
>>>> insist on higher standards of journalism but I expect a lot of them
>>>> are just as obsessed with their political points of view as their
>>>> journalists and won't relent until they see truly massive bites out of
>>>> their bottom lines, as evidenced by mass desertions from their TV
>>>> channels, newspapers and websites. I'm hoping the eventual settlements
>>>> from the whole Nick Sandmann affair make a major contribution to
>>>> adjusting the thinking of the journalists and the media owners.
>>>
>>> So why do you excuse Trump's tweet where he claimed 138,000,000 people
>>> were killed in the attacks yesterday?
>>
>> I didn't excuse that! Hell, this is the first I'm hearing of it.
>
> That's projection on FPP's part, as usual, but I think I heard that Trump
> mistyped/misspoke about it (and fixed it), not that this excuses CNN's
> malfeasance.
>
>>> I mean, he *is* the president. He ought to know how stupid the idea
>>> that anyone could kill that many people at once without a nuke.
>>
>> Knowing you, it's either an outright fabrication or a massive
>> exaggeration....
>
> Yes, just a predictible attempt at "tu quoque" on FPP's part.
>
--
FPP
Apr 22, 2019, 5:39:50 PM4/22/19
to
why not?
Just be careful you don't drive that SUV over the edge of the earth some
day!
FPP
Apr 22, 2019, 5:43:26 PM4/22/19
to
You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect info,
can you?
Well, can you? If you can, go for it!
Here, because we all know you can't do anything for yourself:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/trump-tweets-millions-killed-sri-lanka-blasts.html
FPP
Apr 22, 2019, 5:45:10 PM4/22/19
to
#FekNooze, right?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/trump-tweets-millions-killed-sri-lanka-blasts.html
FPP
Apr 22, 2019, 5:46:28 PM4/22/19
to
moviePig
Apr 22, 2019, 6:00:21 PM4/22/19
to
On 4/22/2019 4:21 PM, Rhino wrote:
> On 2019-04-22 3:55 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
>>> On 2019-04-22 7:48 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/19 7:36 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'm nowhere near as optimistic that this will serve as a corrective
>>>>> and get journalists to clean up their act. I think the vast majority
>>>>> of them are too far gone, irrevocably committed to their role as
>>>>> advocates for "progressivism" rather than purveyors of fact. Things
>>>>> *could* change if the owners of the media put their feet down and
>>>>> insist on higher standards of journalism but I expect a lot of them
>>>>> are just as obsessed with their political points of view as their
>>>>> journalists and won't relent until they see truly massive bites out of
>>>>> their bottom lines, as evidenced by mass desertions from their TV
>>>>> channels, newspapers and websites. I'm hoping the eventual settlements
>>>>> from the whole Nick Sandmann affair make a major contribution to
>>>>> adjusting the thinking of the journalists and the media owners.
>>>>
>>>> So why do you excuse Trump's tweet where he claimed 138,000,000 people
>>>> were killed in the attacks yesterday?
>>>
>>> I didn't excuse that! Hell, this is the first I'm hearing of it.
>>
>> That's projection on FPP's part, as usual, but I think I heard that Trump
>> mistyped/misspoke about it (and fixed it), not that this excuses CNN's
>> malfeasance.
>>
> FPP really IS desperate if he has to use a corrected typo to slam Trump....
Unless there's a key that types out the word "million", no thinking
> On 2019-04-22 3:55 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
>>> On 2019-04-22 7:48 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/19 7:36 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'm nowhere near as optimistic that this will serve as a corrective
>>>>> and get journalists to clean up their act. I think the vast majority
>>>>> of them are too far gone, irrevocably committed to their role as
>>>>> advocates for "progressivism" rather than purveyors of fact. Things
>>>>> *could* change if the owners of the media put their feet down and
>>>>> insist on higher standards of journalism but I expect a lot of them
>>>>> are just as obsessed with their political points of view as their
>>>>> journalists and won't relent until they see truly massive bites out of
>>>>> their bottom lines, as evidenced by mass desertions from their TV
>>>>> channels, newspapers and websites. I'm hoping the eventual settlements
>>>>> from the whole Nick Sandmann affair make a major contribution to
>>>>> adjusting the thinking of the journalists and the media owners.
>>>>
>>>> So why do you excuse Trump's tweet where he claimed 138,000,000 people
>>>> were killed in the attacks yesterday?
>>>
>>> I didn't excuse that! Hell, this is the first I'm hearing of it.
>>
>> That's projection on FPP's part, as usual, but I think I heard that Trump
>> mistyped/misspoke about it (and fixed it), not that this excuses CNN's
>> malfeasance.
>>
> FPP really IS desperate if he has to use a corrected typo to slam Trump....
politician could realistically have made such a typo.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
FPP
Apr 22, 2019, 6:05:49 PM4/22/19
to
Remember... these are from the guy who bragged about being a great
student. The guy who bragged about being a "stable genius".
And, now, I get to laugh at Rhino once again!
Here are a few of your guy's gems, from the man who thinks he "has the
BEST words":
- "Covfefe" (? Your guess is as good as mine!)
- "The possibility of lasting peach" (peace)
- 'John Huntsman' (Jon Huntsman Jr, his own ambassador in the OFFICIAL
Nomination PRESS RELEASE)
- "W.H. Council" (Counsel, as in "lawyer")
- "Unpresidented" (unprecedented)
- "Tapp my phones" (related to Jake Tapper, mebbe?)
- "No challenge is to great" (Except spelling, apparently. It am hard.)
-"Attaker," (attacker) "San Bernadino," (Bernardino) "Denmakr" (Denmark)
- "Teresa May" (Theresa)
- "Hearby," "here by" (This one is a two-fer. It's hereby, for the record.)
-"W.E.B. DeBois" (W.E.B. DuBois)
-"Secretary of Educatuon"(Must be his great educatuon he gotted in skool!)
-"Thr coverage about me … gas been so false and angry" (Well, who the
fuck can argue about THAT!)
-"Columbia" (Is that anywhere near "Denmakr")
"Honered to serve" (Which, he never did.)
-"Our deepest apologizes" (THIS WAS TO APOLOGIZE FOR AN EARLIER TYPO,
FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!!!.)
These are but a few. What have YOU been smocking, Rhino?
Think I'm lying again? Please, go ahead and ask me for a citation, so I
can make you look like a fool twice today!
trotsky
Apr 22, 2019, 6:10:25 PM4/22/19
to
Rick Moranis doing Dick Cavett: "How wonderfully inane."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U-AH0CVhHQ
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
FPP
Apr 22, 2019, 6:13:02 PM4/22/19
to
BTR1701
Apr 22, 2019, 6:27:03 PM4/22/19
to
order to spin his way out of the lie, he claimed that whole-word typos are
a thing.
Of course I'm sure that's another one of those deals that only applies when
he does it.
BTR1701
Apr 22, 2019, 6:27:04 PM4/22/19
to
FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect info,
> can you?
I did, just last week, when you accused me of posting an article that Ed
> You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect info,
> can you?
posted.
moviePig
Apr 22, 2019, 7:07:22 PM4/22/19
to
anyone whose business (or hobby, or passing acquaintance) is world
affairs could never have seen or put "million" in a two-sentence post
without doing a double-take setting off alarm bells. I think that,
until someone told him, he didn't recognize the implausibility.
Rhino
Apr 22, 2019, 7:31:52 PM4/22/19
to
teeth - and no one has produced a screen shot of this alleged error so
it remains a possibility that it IS a lie - it's a friggin' typo as even
Slate says themselves. They didn't even have to do anything to get it
fixed: whoever writes Trump's tweets fixed it on their own in just 20
minutes. As usual from you, a big ol' nothing-burger.
I don't know how your TDS hasn't gotten you confined to a mental health
facility - or in an early grave. That much foaming-at-the-mouth rage,
sustained for so long, can't be good for your mental or physical health.
--
Rhino
Rhino
Apr 22, 2019, 7:35:50 PM4/22/19
to
Mueller finds him guilty of collusion. Oh, wait....
> Think I'm lying again? Please, go ahead and ask me for a citation, so I
> can make you look like a fool twice today!
you in an insane asylum yet.
--
Rhino
FPP
Apr 22, 2019, 7:54:14 PM4/22/19
to
United States.
That's different than a random typo.
FPP
Apr 22, 2019, 7:56:50 PM4/22/19
to
From conservative publications, like the Washington Examiner, moron.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-tweets-138-million-killed-in-sri-lanka-blasts
How stupid must you want me to make you look in a single day?
This is THREE, and the say ain't over yet!
FPP
Apr 22, 2019, 7:57:52 PM4/22/19
to
admitted my mistake.
FPP
Apr 22, 2019, 8:04:49 PM4/22/19
to
Keep it up! As I have repeatedly stated, Mueller (or any other
prosecutor) will NEVER find anybody GUILTY of collusion.
Never, ever. That's because (listen up, idiot) "collusion" is not a
crime. It isn't something that you COULD ever be found guilty of, dimwit.
And, for the FIFTH time in a single day, let me point out how stupid you
are in a single post.
An investigator will NEVER EVER find someone guilty in a report.
As even the person with the lowest IQ in a room will tell you, FINDING
SOMEONE GUILTY requires a legal proceeding.
Fuck, will you NOTHING intelligent today? You should shut up while
you're ahead.
(Fat chance, right?)
BTR1701
Apr 22, 2019, 8:54:37 PM4/22/19
to
In article <q9lke0$vb4$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 4/22/19 6:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect
> >> info, can you?
> >
> > I did, just last week, when you accused me of posting an article
> > that Ed posted.
>
> That wasn't "info", counseliar. That was opinion.
No, it was a statement of what you claimed to be fact, not opinion.
As for it not being information-- all data is information, opinion or
not.
wrote:
> On 4/22/19 6:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect
> >> info, can you?
> >
> > I did, just last week, when you accused me of posting an article
> > that Ed posted.
>
> That wasn't "info", counseliar. That was opinion.
As for it not being information-- all data is information, opinion or
not.
BTR1701
Apr 22, 2019, 8:56:08 PM4/22/19
to
In article <q9lkc1$vb4$3...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 4/22/19 7:31 PM, Rhino wrote:
> > I don't know how your TDS hasn't gotten you confined to a mental health
> > facility - or in an early grave. That much foaming-at-the-mouth rage,
> > sustained for so long, can't be good for your mental or physical health.
>
> Yes, they have produced screenshots.
According to you, screen shots aren't valid proof. They can be
Photoshopped.
Your rules.
wrote:
> On 4/22/19 7:31 PM, Rhino wrote:
> > I don't know how your TDS hasn't gotten you confined to a mental health
> > facility - or in an early grave. That much foaming-at-the-mouth rage,
> > sustained for so long, can't be good for your mental or physical health.
>
> Yes, they have produced screenshots.
Photoshopped.
Your rules.
BTR1701
Apr 22, 2019, 8:58:08 PM4/22/19
to
In article <JOrvE.366864$rB.2...@fx39.iad>,
saying it can't be a typo because he didn't notice it doesn't grok.
moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On 4/22/2019 6:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/22/2019 4:21 PM, Rhino wrote:
> >>>>
> >>> FPP really IS desperate if he has to use a corrected typo to slam
> >>> Trump....
> >>
> >> Unless there's a key that types out the word "million", no thinking
> >> politician could realistically have made such a typo.
> >
> > Nope. I made that argument a while ago with regard to one FPP's lies. In
> > order to spin his way out of the lie, he claimed that whole-word typos are
> > a thing.
> >
> > Of course I'm sure that's another one of those deals that only applies when
> > he does it.
>
> 'Whole-word typos' *are* a thing, I've made a few. But I maintain that
> anyone whose business (or hobby, or passing acquaintance) is world
> affairs could never have seen or put "million" in a two-sentence post
> without doing a double-take setting off alarm bells.
The very definition of a typo is a mistake that one does not notice, so
> On 4/22/2019 6:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/22/2019 4:21 PM, Rhino wrote:
> >>>>
> >>> FPP really IS desperate if he has to use a corrected typo to slam
> >>> Trump....
> >>
> >> Unless there's a key that types out the word "million", no thinking
> >> politician could realistically have made such a typo.
> >
> > Nope. I made that argument a while ago with regard to one FPP's lies. In
> > order to spin his way out of the lie, he claimed that whole-word typos are
> > a thing.
> >
> > Of course I'm sure that's another one of those deals that only applies when
> > he does it.
>
> 'Whole-word typos' *are* a thing, I've made a few. But I maintain that
> anyone whose business (or hobby, or passing acquaintance) is world
> affairs could never have seen or put "million" in a two-sentence post
> without doing a double-take setting off alarm bells.
saying it can't be a typo because he didn't notice it doesn't grok.
BTR1701
Apr 22, 2019, 9:00:44 PM4/22/19
to
In article <q9lcb5$ngu$3...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 4/22/19 11:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <xs6dnakM26maGCDB...@giganews.com>,
> > Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >
> >> How many articles have you read where there are lots of numbers flying
> >> around and you have no idea how the author extrapolated them? It's
> >> always a good thing to keep in mind as you digest the news that
> >> there's a good possibility what you're reading is in error in some
> >> significant way. Yet few people bother to do much beyond passively
> >> take in information.
> >>
> >> Years ago, the writer Michael Crichton defined this as the "Gell-Mann
> >> Amnesia effect":
> >>
> >> Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows.
> >> You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know
> >> well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You
> >> read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no
> >> understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the
> >> article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward--
> >> reversing cause and effect. I call these the wet streets cause
> >> rainน stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read
wrote.
wrote:
> On 4/22/19 11:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <xs6dnakM26maGCDB...@giganews.com>,
> > Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >
> >> How many articles have you read where there are lots of numbers flying
> >> around and you have no idea how the author extrapolated them? It's
> >> always a good thing to keep in mind as you digest the news that
> >> there's a good possibility what you're reading is in error in some
> >> significant way. Yet few people bother to do much beyond passively
> >> take in information.
> >>
> >> Years ago, the writer Michael Crichton defined this as the "Gell-Mann
> >> Amnesia effect":
> >>
> >> Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows.
> >> You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know
> >> well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You
> >> read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no
> >> understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the
> >> article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward--
> >> reversing cause and effect. I call these the wet streets cause
> >> with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story,
> >> and then turn the page to national or international affairs,
> >> and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more
> >> accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You
> >> turn the page, and forget what you know.
> >
> > I've always done the exact opposite. Once I started reading articles
> > about things I knew a lot about and realized how horrible, inaccurate,
> > and often intentionally misleading they were, I just assumed every story
> > was written in the same slip-shod manner.
> Well, we KNOW you think dictionaries aren't where words are defined, so
> why not?
Why not what? Your response makes no logical sense in relation to what I
> >> and then turn the page to national or international affairs,
> >> and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more
> >> accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You
> >> turn the page, and forget what you know.
> >
> > I've always done the exact opposite. Once I started reading articles
> > about things I knew a lot about and realized how horrible, inaccurate,
> > and often intentionally misleading they were, I just assumed every story
> > was written in the same slip-shod manner.
> Well, we KNOW you think dictionaries aren't where words are defined, so
> why not?
wrote.
Rhino
Apr 22, 2019, 9:31:17 PM4/22/19
to
number. That proves nothing. And it's still a freaking typo in any case,
not the end of the fucking universe!
>
> How stupid must you want me to make you look in a single day?
> This is THREE, and the say ain't over yet!
>
You're the stupid one here: you still can't produce direct proof that
> How stupid must you want me to make you look in a single day?
> This is THREE, and the say ain't over yet!
>
such a tweet ever happened after multiple attempts although you insist
there is such proof. You're as bad as the media with its insistence that
Trump was guilty of collusion when no such proof was ever found.
--
Rhino
Rhino
Apr 22, 2019, 9:32:14 PM4/22/19
to
Unfortunately, FPP isn't such an individual....
--
Rhino
Rhino
Apr 22, 2019, 9:39:30 PM4/22/19
to
should have said "when Mueller finds evidence of collusion"! Big whoop!
If that's the sole proof you have of my alleged "stupidity", you've got
a whole lot of nothing much against me - and not a damned thing on
Trump, which is by far the more important point.
But you go on and gloat over your "triumph": it's all the satisfaction
you're likely to get in this life. I won't be so petty as to deny you
that. It's not like you've got anything else to feel good about.
--
Rhino
Rhino
Apr 22, 2019, 9:41:34 PM4/22/19
to
On 2019-04-22 7:54 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 4/22/19 7:07 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 4/22/2019 6:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/22/2019 4:21 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> FPP really IS desperate if he has to use a corrected typo to slam
>>>>> Trump....
>>>>
>>>> Unless there's a key that types out the word "million", no thinking
>>>> politician could realistically have made such a typo.
>>>
>>> Nope. I made that argument a while ago with regard to one FPP's lies. In
>>> order to spin his way out of the lie, he claimed that whole-word
>>> typos are
>>> a thing.
>>>
>>> Of course I'm sure that's another one of those deals that only
>>> applies when
>>> he does it.
>>
>> 'Whole-word typos' *are* a thing, I've made a few. But I maintain
>> that anyone whose business (or hobby, or passing acquaintance) is
>> world affairs could never have seen or put "million" in a two-sentence
>> post without doing a double-take setting off alarm bells. I think
>> that, until someone told him, he didn't recognize the implausibility.
>
> This was an official statement from the Office of the President of the
> United States.
> That's different than a random typo.
>
Which makes it an "official" typo, instead of an "ordinary" typo. Gasp!
> On 4/22/19 7:07 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 4/22/2019 6:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/22/2019 4:21 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> FPP really IS desperate if he has to use a corrected typo to slam
>>>>> Trump....
>>>>
>>>> Unless there's a key that types out the word "million", no thinking
>>>> politician could realistically have made such a typo.
>>>
>>> Nope. I made that argument a while ago with regard to one FPP's lies. In
>>> order to spin his way out of the lie, he claimed that whole-word
>>> typos are
>>> a thing.
>>>
>>> Of course I'm sure that's another one of those deals that only
>>> applies when
>>> he does it.
>>
>> 'Whole-word typos' *are* a thing, I've made a few. But I maintain
>> that anyone whose business (or hobby, or passing acquaintance) is
>> world affairs could never have seen or put "million" in a two-sentence
>> post without doing a double-take setting off alarm bells. I think
>> that, until someone told him, he didn't recognize the implausibility.
>
> This was an official statement from the Office of the President of the
> United States.
> That's different than a random typo.
>
Can they impeach for that? I seem to remember that the phrasing says
something about "high crimes and misdemeanors". Does a presidential typo
count as a misdemeanor?
--
Rhino
moviePig
Apr 22, 2019, 10:21:34 PM4/22/19
to
https://twitter.com/JeffreyGuterman/status/1119917048002502657/photo/1
moviePig
Apr 22, 2019, 10:26:36 PM4/22/19
to
collusion” in his press conference before the report’s release, Mueller
is actually quite explicit that he did not address the question of
“collusion.” This is because, to his mind, the term is not precise
enough, nor does it fall within the ambit of what was essentially a
criminal investigation.'
moviePig
Apr 22, 2019, 10:32:35 PM4/22/19
to
wide-eyed middle-schooler, simply didn't recognize its absurdity.
Ubiquitous
Apr 22, 2019, 10:43:10 PM4/22/19
to
--
"Rhino, when do I say things I *can't* back up with citations of
fact? Go ahead... go and find something I stated as fact that you
don't think I can back up."
-- FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
Rhino
Apr 22, 2019, 11:48:35 PM4/22/19
to
On 2019-04-22 10:42 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
>> On 2019-04-22 8:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/19 7:31 PM, Rhino wrote:
>
>>>>> I don't know how your TDS hasn't gotten you confined to a mental health
>>>>> facility - or in an early grave. That much foaming-at-the-mouth rage,
>>>>> sustained for so long, can't be good for your mental or physical health.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, they have produced screenshots.
>>>
>>> According to you, screen shots aren't valid proof. They can be
>>> Photoshopped.
>>>
>>> Your rules.
>>>
>> Nice one! That would leave a mark on anyone with a shred of integrity.
>> Unfortunately, FPP isn't such an individual....
>
> Wait, didn't FPP claim that nothing you see on Twitter can be believed?
>
It wouldn't surprise me for a moment if he had. Not that it makes any
> no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
>> On 2019-04-22 8:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/19 7:31 PM, Rhino wrote:
>
>>>>> I don't know how your TDS hasn't gotten you confined to a mental health
>>>>> facility - or in an early grave. That much foaming-at-the-mouth rage,
>>>>> sustained for so long, can't be good for your mental or physical health.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, they have produced screenshots.
>>>
>>> According to you, screen shots aren't valid proof. They can be
>>> Photoshopped.
>>>
>>> Your rules.
>>>
>> Nice one! That would leave a mark on anyone with a shred of integrity.
>> Unfortunately, FPP isn't such an individual....
>
> Wait, didn't FPP claim that nothing you see on Twitter can be believed?
>
difference. You don't actually expect him to be consistent about
anything do you? Hypocrisy is the modus operandi of the Left - and
always has been.
I still remember a debate on my university campus back in the day. A
Marxist professor - when such professors were relatively rare - faced
off against a (non-Marxist) philosophy professor in a debate. All the
rules were agreed to beforehand and reconfirmed at the start of the
debate with both parties assenting. The two professors each had their
turn, the non-Marxist went first. The Marxist fancied himself on a roll
during his turn and tried to keep going after the moderator called time
on his turn; the Marxist kept going. The moderator tried to stop him,
politely, but the Marxist started denouncing the moderator, his
opponent, and pretty much the entire universe as a
capitalist/imperialist plot to oppress the workers or some such
bullshit. Basically, as soon as he wanted to ignore the rules he'd
agreed to, to press some imagined advantage, he discarded the rules
entirely.
I'm just reading a biography of Lenin and he did much the same in his
career. Before he seized power, he was constantly scheming and
intriguing. In his years of exile before the coup where he seized power,
he would stab anyone in the back for the slightest advantage, even
people he'd considered an ally and a friend a short time before. He
cared only about power and no one would stand in his way, even his own
closest followers. He manipulated EVERYONE so that he could carry out
his whims. He purported to champion workers and peasants yet he knew
none of either and had no interest in meeting such people. He himself
was comfortably middle class and had his mother, sisters, and wife look
after his personal needs, like meals and laundry, while exercising
tyranny over them: they were not allowed to make a single sound when he
was reading or writing papers. When money got tight for the Bolsheviks,
he wasn't above coaxing two of his minions to marry two sisters who had
money so that they could milk the women for their money, which of course
went into the Bolshevik treasury (except for the part embezzled by one
of the husbands).
> --
> "Rhino, when do I say things I *can't* back up with citations of
> fact? Go ahead... go and find something I stated as fact that you
> don't think I can back up."
> -- FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
Rhino
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 3:36:05 AM4/23/19
to
You chimed in and agreed with that lie.
I called YOU out on YOUR lie.
The only thing I had wrong was that it was "Ed" that started the topic,
and not you.
I fucked up the attribution. That's it.
Nothing I said about your lies was even remotely wrong.
You lied about what Pelosi did, and everybody called you out on it.
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 3:38:03 AM4/23/19
to
written evidence, from a trusted conservative source.
The screen shot was icing on the cake for somebody who wouldn't take
anything else.
You lose another argument, counseliar.
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 3:46:52 AM4/23/19
to
Please, tell me you're willing to go on the record with that, dimmy?
Here ya' go, moron-boy. Here is where you FIRST asked me for a "screen
shot" of the tweet:
On 4/22/19 7:31 PM, Rhino wrote:
> Meh. Even if this isn't a case of Slate and CNN lying through their
> teeth - and no one has produced a screen shot of this alleged error so
> it remains a possibility that it IS a lie.
> teeth - and no one has produced a screen shot of this alleged error so
So I did as asked. And here is you asking for it again:
On 4/22/19 9:31 PM, Rhino wrote:
> That's not a screenshot, that's an assertion that someone saw that
> number. That proves nothing. And it's still a freaking typo in any case,
> not the end of the fucking universe!
Then YOU asked for a "screen shot" (which should be "screenshot", BTW).
And I gave it to you.
Now you cackle while you fawn over the Fake Lawyer you think is so
damned smart.
I posted the truth. Then I posted proof of it. Then I gave YOU what
YOU asked for.
Too bad you're not bright enough to KNOW when you've lost the
argument... but, PLEASE!
Keep it up! I love making you look like the fool you are!
And, by all means follow your butt-boy over the cliff.
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 3:51:14 AM4/23/19
to
On 4/22/19 9:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <q9lcb5$ngu$3...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/22/19 11:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <xs6dnakM26maGCDB...@giganews.com>,
>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How many articles have you read where there are lots of numbers flying
>>>> around and you have no idea how the author extrapolated them? It's
>>>> always a good thing to keep in mind as you digest the news that
>>>> there's a good possibility what you're reading is in error in some
>>>> significant way. Yet few people bother to do much beyond passively
>>>> take in information.
>>>>
>>>> Years ago, the writer Michael Crichton defined this as the "Gell-Mann
>>>> Amnesia effect":
>>>>
>>>> Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows.
>>>> You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know
>>>> well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You
>>>> read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no
>>>> understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the
>>>> article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward--
>>>> reversing cause and effect. I call these the wet streets cause
>>>> rain¹ stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read
> In article <q9lcb5$ngu$3...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/22/19 11:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <xs6dnakM26maGCDB...@giganews.com>,
>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How many articles have you read where there are lots of numbers flying
>>>> around and you have no idea how the author extrapolated them? It's
>>>> always a good thing to keep in mind as you digest the news that
>>>> there's a good possibility what you're reading is in error in some
>>>> significant way. Yet few people bother to do much beyond passively
>>>> take in information.
>>>>
>>>> Years ago, the writer Michael Crichton defined this as the "Gell-Mann
>>>> Amnesia effect":
>>>>
>>>> Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows.
>>>> You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know
>>>> well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You
>>>> read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no
>>>> understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the
>>>> article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward--
>>>> reversing cause and effect. I call these the wet streets cause
>>>> with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story,
>>>> and then turn the page to national or international affairs,
>>>> and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more
>>>> accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You
>>>> turn the page, and forget what you know.
>>>
>>> I've always done the exact opposite. Once I started reading articles
>>> about things I knew a lot about and realized how horrible, inaccurate,
>>> and often intentionally misleading they were, I just assumed every story
>>> was written in the same slip-shod manner.
>
>> Well, we KNOW you think dictionaries aren't where words are defined, so
>> why not?
>
> Why not what? Your response makes no logical sense in relation to what I
> wrote.
Why not just assume that every story was written in a slipshod manner,
>>>> and then turn the page to national or international affairs,
>>>> and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more
>>>> accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You
>>>> turn the page, and forget what you know.
>>>
>>> I've always done the exact opposite. Once I started reading articles
>>> about things I knew a lot about and realized how horrible, inaccurate,
>>> and often intentionally misleading they were, I just assumed every story
>>> was written in the same slip-shod manner.
>
>> Well, we KNOW you think dictionaries aren't where words are defined, so
>> why not?
>
> Why not what? Your response makes no logical sense in relation to what I
> wrote.
since you don't accept what the meaning of words are.
Does this help you remember what you just wrote, or not?
Now, go ahead... ask me "What not"?
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 3:52:55 AM4/23/19
to
On 4/22/19 10:42 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
>> On 2019-04-22 8:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/19 7:31 PM, Rhino wrote:
>
>>>>> I don't know how your TDS hasn't gotten you confined to a mental health
>>>>> facility - or in an early grave. That much foaming-at-the-mouth rage,
>>>>> sustained for so long, can't be good for your mental or physical health.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, they have produced screenshots.
>>>
>>> According to you, screen shots aren't valid proof. They can be
>>> Photoshopped.
>>>
>>> Your rules.
>>>
>> Nice one! That would leave a mark on anyone with a shred of integrity.
>> Unfortunately, FPP isn't such an individual....
>
> Wait, didn't FPP claim that nothing you see on Twitter can be believed?
Yup. Which is why I provided 2 non-twitter citations.
> no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
>> On 2019-04-22 8:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/19 7:31 PM, Rhino wrote:
>
>>>>> I don't know how your TDS hasn't gotten you confined to a mental health
>>>>> facility - or in an early grave. That much foaming-at-the-mouth rage,
>>>>> sustained for so long, can't be good for your mental or physical health.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, they have produced screenshots.
>>>
>>> According to you, screen shots aren't valid proof. They can be
>>> Photoshopped.
>>>
>>> Your rules.
>>>
>> Nice one! That would leave a mark on anyone with a shred of integrity.
>> Unfortunately, FPP isn't such an individual....
>
> Wait, didn't FPP claim that nothing you see on Twitter can be believed?
(Just ask somebody to help you with explaining what I just said.)
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 3:54:58 AM4/23/19
to
It sure is!
https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1119922389507293186/photo/1
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 3:57:38 AM4/23/19
to
There is no definition in the Constitution. It was deliberately left
vague, so that Congress can do whatever they want with it.
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 3:59:55 AM4/23/19
to
official documents and official White House Statements.
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 4:04:34 AM4/23/19
to
Mueller would NEVER charge him with "collusion". Don't you GET that?
There were shit-tons of evidence Mueller FOUND of collusion. Like
Trump's campaign manager giving Trump campaign polling data to a Russian
oligarch.
But collusion isn't a crime. It never, ever was. What you're fumbling
with is the idea of "conspiracy". Now THAT can be a crime.
Jesus, will you fucking learn *SOMETHING*? Do you have that capacity,
Rhino?
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 4:05:41 AM4/23/19
to
good, and today was an exceptionally good day in that regard!
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 4:07:04 AM4/23/19
to
Now, for the $10,000 prize, explain that to Rhino.
That boy just ain't gettin' it.
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 4:19:19 AM4/23/19
to
http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/archive
Look for "Apr 21, 2019 05:48:20 AM"
Do you think you can handle that all by yourself?
Maybe we can finally put your latest bit of idiocy to bed now?
trotsky
Apr 23, 2019, 6:42:41 AM4/23/19
to
On 4/23/2019 2:36 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 4/22/19 8:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <q9lke0$vb4$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/22/19 6:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect
>>>>> info, can you?
>>>>
>>>> I did, just last week, when you accused me of posting an article
>>>> that Ed posted.
>>>
>>> That wasn't "info", counseliar. That was opinion.
>>
>> No, it was a statement of what you claimed to be fact, not opinion.
>>
>> As for it not being information-- all data is information, opinion or
>> not.
>
> Nope. "Ed" started a topic that was a complete lie.
> You chimed in and agreed with that lie.
> I called YOU out on YOUR lie.
>
> The only thing I had wrong was that it was "Ed" that started the topic,
> and not you.
> I fucked up the attribution. That's it.
That may well be true but in true Thanny von Twinkles fashion he'll see
> On 4/22/19 8:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <q9lke0$vb4$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/22/19 6:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect
>>>>> info, can you?
>>>>
>>>> I did, just last week, when you accused me of posting an article
>>>> that Ed posted.
>>>
>>> That wasn't "info", counseliar. That was opinion.
>>
>> No, it was a statement of what you claimed to be fact, not opinion.
>>
>> As for it not being information-- all data is information, opinion or
>> not.
>
> Nope. "Ed" started a topic that was a complete lie.
> You chimed in and agreed with that lie.
> I called YOU out on YOUR lie.
>
> The only thing I had wrong was that it was "Ed" that started the topic,
> and not you.
> I fucked up the attribution. That's it.
this as subject matter for at least forty or fifty more messages. He's
still talking about Antifa and New Black Panthers for fuck's sake.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Ubiquitous
Apr 23, 2019, 7:07:34 AM4/23/19
to
no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
losing debates here.
>On 2019-04-22 10:42 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
>>> On 2019-04-22 8:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/22/19 7:31 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>> I don't know how your TDS hasn't gotten you confined to a mental health
>>>>>> facility - or in an early grave. That much foaming-at-the-mouth rage,
>>>>>> sustained for so long, can't be good for your mental or physical
>>>>>> health.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, they have produced screenshots.
>>>>
>>>> According to you, screen shots aren't valid proof. They can be
>>>> Photoshopped.
>>>>
>>>> Your rules.
>>>
>>> Nice one! That would leave a mark on anyone with a shred of integrity.
>>> Unfortunately, FPP isn't such an individual....
>>
>> Wait, didn't FPP claim that nothing you see on Twitter can be believed?
>
>> no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
>>> On 2019-04-22 8:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/22/19 7:31 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>>> I don't know how your TDS hasn't gotten you confined to a mental health
>>>>>> facility - or in an early grave. That much foaming-at-the-mouth rage,
>>>>>> sustained for so long, can't be good for your mental or physical
>>>>>> health.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, they have produced screenshots.
>>>>
>>>> According to you, screen shots aren't valid proof. They can be
>>>> Photoshopped.
>>>>
>>>> Your rules.
>>>
>>> Nice one! That would leave a mark on anyone with a shred of integrity.
>>> Unfortunately, FPP isn't such an individual....
>>
>> Wait, didn't FPP claim that nothing you see on Twitter can be believed?
>
>It wouldn't surprise me for a moment if he had. Not that it makes any
>difference. You don't actually expect him to be consistent about
>anything do you? Hypocrisy is the modus operandi of the Left - and
>always has been.
FPP's inconsistency is one of the few comsistent things he does, besides
>difference. You don't actually expect him to be consistent about
>anything do you? Hypocrisy is the modus operandi of the Left - and
>always has been.
losing debates here.
Ubiquitous
Apr 23, 2019, 7:11:19 AM4/23/19
to
--
Democrats (2016): We must believe the results of the Mueller investigation!
Democrats (2019): We don't believe the results of the Mueller investigation!
NoBody
Apr 23, 2019, 7:37:22 AM4/23/19
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 19:56:49 -0400, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 4/22/19 7:31 PM, Rhino wrote:
>On 4/22/19 7:31 PM, Rhino wrote:
>> On 2019-04-22 5:45 PM, FPP wrote:
>> I don't know how your TDS hasn't gotten you confined to a mental health
>> facility - or in an early grave. That much foaming-at-the-mouth rage,
>> sustained for so long, can't be good for your mental or physical health.
>
>Yes, they have produced screenshots. Many of them.
>> facility - or in an early grave. That much foaming-at-the-mouth rage,
>> sustained for so long, can't be good for your mental or physical health.
>
> From conservative publications, like the Washington Examiner, moron.
>
>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-tweets-138-million-killed-in-sri-lanka-blasts
>
>
>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-tweets-138-million-killed-in-sri-lanka-blasts
>
>How stupid must you want me to make you look in a single day?
>This is THREE, and the say ain't over yet!
And FPP makes a typo in a post complaining about typos....
>This is THREE, and the say ain't over yet!
NoBody
Apr 23, 2019, 7:37:51 AM4/23/19
to
NoBody
Apr 23, 2019, 7:41:13 AM4/23/19
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 22:13:24 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
wrote:
Is *this* what your side has been reduced to, whining about typos???
Really, get a life.
wrote:
Really, get a life.
NoBody
Apr 23, 2019, 7:42:37 AM4/23/19
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 17:43:24 -0400, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why? Because you've caught me lying so, so many times before?
That would be a good start because *that* is true.
>You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect info,
>can you?
Really? We've been through this one many times before.
>
>Well, can you? If you can, go for it!
It's already been done and you run away.
That would be a good start because *that* is true.
>You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect info,
>can you?
>
>Well, can you? If you can, go for it!
It's already been done and you run away.
NoBody
Apr 23, 2019, 7:43:42 AM4/23/19
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 17:26:58 -0500, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect info,
>> can you?
>
being Ubi, even after being shown why he was wrong and that I posted
when Ubi was completely without power.
wrote:
>FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect info,
>> can you?
>
>I did, just last week, when you accused me of posting an article that Ed
>posted.
Let's not forget about the endless number of times he's accused me of
>posted.
being Ubi, even after being shown why he was wrong and that I posted
when Ubi was completely without power.
NoBody
Apr 23, 2019, 7:50:26 AM4/23/19
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 17:56:14 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <q9lke0$vb4$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>In article <q9lke0$vb4$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On 4/22/19 6:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> > FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect
>> >> info, can you?
>> >
>> > I did, just last week, when you accused me of posting an article
>> > that Ed posted.
>>
>> On 4/22/19 6:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> > FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect
>> >> info, can you?
>> >
>> > I did, just last week, when you accused me of posting an article
>> > that Ed posted.
>>
>> That wasn't "info", counseliar. That was opinion.
>
>No, it was a statement of what you claimed to be fact, not opinion.
>
>As for it not being information-- all data is information, opinion or
>not.
FPP turns into a real weasel when he's caught lying, doesn't he?
>
>No, it was a statement of what you claimed to be fact, not opinion.
>
>As for it not being information-- all data is information, opinion or
>not.
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 8:43:42 AM4/23/19
to
On 4/23/19 7:07 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
>> On 2019-04-22 10:42 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
>>>> On 2019-04-22 8:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/22/19 7:31 PM, Rhino wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I don't know how your TDS hasn't gotten you confined to a mental health
>>>>>>> facility - or in an early grave. That much foaming-at-the-mouth rage,
>>>>>>> sustained for so long, can't be good for your mental or physical
>>>>>>> health.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, they have produced screenshots.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to you, screen shots aren't valid proof. They can be
>>>>> Photoshopped.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your rules.
>>>>
>>>> Nice one! That would leave a mark on anyone with a shred of integrity.
>>>> Unfortunately, FPP isn't such an individual....
>>>
>>> Wait, didn't FPP claim that nothing you see on Twitter can be believed?
>>
>> It wouldn't surprise me for a moment if he had. Not that it makes any
>> difference. You don't actually expect him to be consistent about
>> anything do you? Hypocrisy is the modus operandi of the Left - and
>> always has been.
>
> FPP's inconsistency is one of the few comsistent things he does, besides
> losing debates here.
You're pretty worthless, and don't even rate a participation trophy.
> no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
>> On 2019-04-22 10:42 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> no_offlin...@example.com wrote:
>>>> On 2019-04-22 8:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/22/19 7:31 PM, Rhino wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I don't know how your TDS hasn't gotten you confined to a mental health
>>>>>>> facility - or in an early grave. That much foaming-at-the-mouth rage,
>>>>>>> sustained for so long, can't be good for your mental or physical
>>>>>>> health.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, they have produced screenshots.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to you, screen shots aren't valid proof. They can be
>>>>> Photoshopped.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your rules.
>>>>
>>>> Nice one! That would leave a mark on anyone with a shred of integrity.
>>>> Unfortunately, FPP isn't such an individual....
>>>
>>> Wait, didn't FPP claim that nothing you see on Twitter can be believed?
>>
>> It wouldn't surprise me for a moment if he had. Not that it makes any
>> difference. You don't actually expect him to be consistent about
>> anything do you? Hypocrisy is the modus operandi of the Left - and
>> always has been.
>
> FPP's inconsistency is one of the few comsistent things he does, besides
> losing debates here.
But at least you try to keep score.
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 8:46:04 AM4/23/19
to
The Panthers are going to have to wait until a black candidate says
something he gets pissy about.
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 8:47:12 AM4/23/19
to
moviePig
Apr 23, 2019, 9:33:47 AM4/23/19
to
moviePig
Apr 23, 2019, 9:37:34 AM4/23/19
to
particular "typo" shows credible evidence of not being one...
moviePig
Apr 23, 2019, 9:45:42 AM4/23/19
to
On 4/23/2019 7:37 AM, NoBody wrote:
moviePig
Apr 23, 2019, 9:48:00 AM4/23/19
to
BTR1701
Apr 23, 2019, 10:50:08 AM4/23/19
to
In article <q9mg5h$nql$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
trying to tie an unrelated matter to this for some kind of gotcha moment
or something.
wrote:
> On 4/22/19 9:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <q9lcb5$ngu$3...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/22/19 11:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <xs6dnakM26maGCDB...@giganews.com>,
> >>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> How many articles have you read where there are lots of numbers flying
> >>>> around and you have no idea how the author extrapolated them? It's
> >>>> always a good thing to keep in mind as you digest the news that
> >>>> there's a good possibility what you're reading is in error in some
> >>>> significant way. Yet few people bother to do much beyond passively
> >>>> take in information.
> >>>>
> >>>> Years ago, the writer Michael Crichton defined this as the "Gell-Mann
> >>>> Amnesia effect":
> >>>>
> >>>> Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows.
> >>>> You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know
> >>>> well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You
> >>>> read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no
> >>>> understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the
> >>>> article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward--
> >>>> reversing cause and effect. I call these the wet streets cause
> >>>> rain1 stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read
> On 4/22/19 9:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <q9lcb5$ngu$3...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/22/19 11:26 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <xs6dnakM26maGCDB...@giganews.com>,
> >>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> How many articles have you read where there are lots of numbers flying
> >>>> around and you have no idea how the author extrapolated them? It's
> >>>> always a good thing to keep in mind as you digest the news that
> >>>> there's a good possibility what you're reading is in error in some
> >>>> significant way. Yet few people bother to do much beyond passively
> >>>> take in information.
> >>>>
> >>>> Years ago, the writer Michael Crichton defined this as the "Gell-Mann
> >>>> Amnesia effect":
> >>>>
> >>>> Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows.
> >>>> You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know
> >>>> well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You
> >>>> read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no
> >>>> understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the
> >>>> article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward--
> >>>> reversing cause and effect. I call these the wet streets cause
> >>>> with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story,
> >>>> and then turn the page to national or international affairs,
> >>>> and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more
> >>>> accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You
> >>>> turn the page, and forget what you know.
> >>>
> >>> I've always done the exact opposite. Once I started reading articles
> >>> about things I knew a lot about and realized how horrible, inaccurate,
> >>> and often intentionally misleading they were, I just assumed every story
> >>> was written in the same slip-shod manner.
> >
> >> Well, we KNOW you think dictionaries aren't where words are defined, so
> >> why not?
> >
> > Why not what? Your response makes no logical sense in relation to what I
> > wrote.
>
> Why not just assume that every story was written in a slipshod manner,
> since you don't accept what the meaning of words are.
That still makes no logical sense in this context. It's like you're
> >>>> and then turn the page to national or international affairs,
> >>>> and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more
> >>>> accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You
> >>>> turn the page, and forget what you know.
> >>>
> >>> I've always done the exact opposite. Once I started reading articles
> >>> about things I knew a lot about and realized how horrible, inaccurate,
> >>> and often intentionally misleading they were, I just assumed every story
> >>> was written in the same slip-shod manner.
> >
> >> Well, we KNOW you think dictionaries aren't where words are defined, so
> >> why not?
> >
> > Why not what? Your response makes no logical sense in relation to what I
> > wrote.
>
> Why not just assume that every story was written in a slipshod manner,
> since you don't accept what the meaning of words are.
trying to tie an unrelated matter to this for some kind of gotcha moment
or something.
BTR1701
Apr 23, 2019, 10:55:09 AM4/23/19
to
In article <q9mf94$jbn$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 4/22/19 8:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <q9lke0$vb4$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
opinion.
> The only thing I had wrong was that it was "Ed" that started the topic,
Which isn't a matter of opinion. It's a statement of fact, which was
wrong, meaning that's an 'instance of you posting incorrect information'.
> I fucked up the attribution. That's it.
And posted incorrect information.
> Nothing I said about your lies was even remotely wrong. You lied
> about what Pelosi did, and everybody called you out on it.
Which is itself a lie, but has nothing to do with your claim that you've
never posted incorrect information. You have.
wrote:
> On 4/22/19 8:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <q9lke0$vb4$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/22/19 6:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> >>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect
> >>>> info, can you?
> >>>
> >>> I did, just last week, when you accused me of posting an article
> >>> that Ed posted.
> >>
> >> On 4/22/19 6:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> >>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect
> >>>> info, can you?
> >>>
> >>> I did, just last week, when you accused me of posting an article
> >>> that Ed posted.
> >>
> >> That wasn't "info", counseliar. That was opinion.
> >
> > No, it was a statement of what you claimed to be fact, not opinion.
> >
> > As for it not being information-- all data is information, opinion or
> > not.
>
> Nope. "Ed" started a topic that was a complete lie.
Irrelevant. You claimed I started the topic. That's not a matter of
> >
> > No, it was a statement of what you claimed to be fact, not opinion.
> >
> > As for it not being information-- all data is information, opinion or
> > not.
>
> Nope. "Ed" started a topic that was a complete lie.
opinion.
> The only thing I had wrong was that it was "Ed" that started the topic,
wrong, meaning that's an 'instance of you posting incorrect information'.
> I fucked up the attribution. That's it.
> Nothing I said about your lies was even remotely wrong. You lied
> about what Pelosi did, and everybody called you out on it.
Which is itself a lie, but has nothing to do with your claim that you've
never posted incorrect information. You have.
BTR1701
Apr 23, 2019, 10:57:18 AM4/23/19
to
In article <q9n1eb$6ga$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Muslims this week. Back to AOC next week. Maybe Antifa next week.
At least I vary it up, along with a fair amount of TV-related talk in
the mix.
You're a one-note dirge-- all Trump, all the time-- and you even get
pissy when *other* people don't talk enough about Trump to please you.
wrote:
> Muslims this week. Back to AOC next week. Maybe Antifa next week.
the mix.
You're a one-note dirge-- all Trump, all the time-- and you even get
pissy when *other* people don't talk enough about Trump to please you.
suzeeq
Apr 23, 2019, 11:10:41 AM4/23/19
to
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 4:27:16 PM4/23/19
to
On 4/23/19 9:47 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 4/23/2019 7:43 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 17:26:58 -0500, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect info,
>>>> can you?
>>>
>>> I did, just last week, when you accused me of posting an article that Ed
>>> posted.
>>
>> Let's not forget about the endless number of times he's accused me of
>> being Ubi, even after being shown why he was wrong and that I posted
>> when Ubi was completely without power.
>
> Meanwhile, though, let's thank god for that latter...
Yes We should always take what ol' Landslide Ubi says as true.
> On 4/23/2019 7:43 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 17:26:58 -0500, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect info,
>>>> can you?
>>>
>>> I did, just last week, when you accused me of posting an article that Ed
>>> posted.
>>
>> Let's not forget about the endless number of times he's accused me of
>> being Ubi, even after being shown why he was wrong and that I posted
>> when Ubi was completely without power.
>
> Meanwhile, though, let's thank god for that latter...
We've never known him to shade the truth, right?
We were completely without power for 3 days back in 2017. I had no
problems posting.
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 4:28:47 PM4/23/19
to
both posted identical messages at the same time.
And that was years before Landslide Ubi was without power.
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 4:31:40 PM4/23/19
to
in the world was off by over 137,900,000 people?
How does a typo like that happen, exactly?
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 4:32:31 PM4/23/19
to
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 4:33:45 PM4/23/19
to
Trump is the symptom. Republicans are the disease.
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 4:34:59 PM4/23/19
to
Too bad nobody was talking about "facts".
FPP
Apr 23, 2019, 4:35:40 PM4/23/19
to
trotsky
Apr 23, 2019, 7:09:43 PM4/23/19
to
On 4/23/2019 9:56 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <q9mf94$jbn$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/22/19 8:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <q9lke0$vb4$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/22/19 6:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect
>>>>>> info, can you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I did, just last week, when you accused me of posting an article
>>>>> that Ed posted.
>>>>
>>>> That wasn't "info", counseliar. That was opinion.
>>>
>>> No, it was a statement of what you claimed to be fact, not opinion.
>>>
>>> As for it not being information-- all data is information, opinion or
>>> not.
>>
>> Nope. "Ed" started a topic that was a complete lie.
>
> Irrelevant. You claimed I started the topic.
Are you going to lie and claim "Ed" isn't your sockpuppet then?
> In article <q9mf94$jbn$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/22/19 8:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <q9lke0$vb4$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/22/19 6:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect
>>>>>> info, can you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I did, just last week, when you accused me of posting an article
>>>>> that Ed posted.
>>>>
>>>> That wasn't "info", counseliar. That was opinion.
>>>
>>> No, it was a statement of what you claimed to be fact, not opinion.
>>>
>>> As for it not being information-- all data is information, opinion or
>>> not.
>>
>> Nope. "Ed" started a topic that was a complete lie.
>
> Irrelevant. You claimed I started the topic.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
BTR1701
Apr 24, 2019, 1:29:54 AM4/24/19
to
FPP
Apr 24, 2019, 5:40:19 AM4/24/19
to
The White House Communications Department puts out information all the time.
The overwhelming number of which are NOT facts.
FPP
Apr 24, 2019, 5:41:15 AM4/24/19
to
See: Almost anything Donald Trump has said in the last 3 years.
FPP
Apr 24, 2019, 5:46:43 AM4/24/19
to
Sure, "Ed" lied first, but you followed his lies with more of your own.
You accused her of wanting to censor the internet, when no such thing
happened.
That was a day BEFORE she passed a new version of Net Neutrality, which
would KEEP the internet free.
You can muddy the waters all you like, counseliar... but those are the
facts.
BTR1701
Apr 24, 2019, 10:55:12 AM4/24/19
to
fact he's been proven wrong again.
FPP: You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect
info, can you?
ME: <does just that>
FPP: Quick! Look over here at something else!
BTR1701
Apr 24, 2019, 10:55:53 AM4/24/19
to
In article <q9pavq$sro$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
Yes, like when you said I posted something that I didn't.
BTR1701
Apr 24, 2019, 10:56:51 AM4/24/19
to
In article <q9pau2$sro$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
Irrelevant. You issued a challenge to provide an example of you posting
incorrect information. I met your challenge.
incorrect information. I met your challenge.
FPP
Apr 24, 2019, 4:04:56 PM4/24/19
to
On 4/24/19 10:56 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> I did, just last week, when you accused me of posting an article
> that Ed posted.
Internet" article.
So that's another fucking lie, counseliar.
FPP
Apr 24, 2019, 4:06:08 PM4/24/19
to
You don't even have a passing acquaintance, much less "met" it.
FPP
Apr 24, 2019, 4:06:33 PM4/24/19
to
BTR1701
Apr 24, 2019, 9:43:58 PM4/24/19
to
false.
Has your need to win on Usenet gotten so bad that it's making you call
yourself a liar now?
BTR1701
Apr 24, 2019, 9:48:26 PM4/24/19
to
someone else started?
Let me refresh your memory:
You did claim that I started the "[OT] Pelosi Calls For Internet
Censorship" thread.
I did not in fact start that thread.
You *admitted* that you were wrong about that.
Therefore I have pointed to an instance of you posting incorrect
information, which was the challenge you made at the top of this post.
BTR1701
Apr 24, 2019, 9:50:26 PM4/24/19
to
FPP: You can't even point to a single instance of me posting incorrect
info, can you?
it by implying that you've never posted incorrect info.
FPP
Apr 25, 2019, 1:47:40 AM4/25/19
to
You lied about Pelosi, just like "Ed".
Both are well documented, counseliar.
FPP
Apr 25, 2019, 1:52:14 AM4/25/19
to
Providing information is what we call relaying information. One example
would be a quote, another would be information from an article.
Let me repeat, for the dull witted.
I got the attribution wrong. That's all.
You chimed in with "Ed's" lie that Nancy Pelosi wanted to censor the
internet.
You smeared her, and then doubled down on it.
That's it, and it's well documented.
I got a detail wrong. You lied about someone.
That's it, and it's well documented, counseliar.
This is simply your way of trying to muddy the waters that show you
lied. Willfully, and repeatedly.
FPP
Apr 25, 2019, 1:54:30 AM4/25/19
to
If you mean that I thought YOU started the thread... well, that isn't
information that I posted.
That was an error in attribution.
The info that I posted was that YOU were lying about what Pelosi said.
That was 100% correct.
trotsky
Apr 25, 2019, 5:52:01 AM4/25/19
to
trotsky
Apr 25, 2019, 5:52:44 AM4/25/19
to
sockpuppets.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages