Since I had done a blog post about that very same thing
several months ago, I posted a link to it in the comments section.
Then, the troll showed up. Since I often read the comments
sections of articles I read, I’ve seen this nitwit before. I think you may have
an idea of what transpires next.
Enjoy…
Bill Mancuso
FOX lies are an unending source for blogposts:
Patrick
If you believe they are so constant, why does a blog from
11/06/2011 go back to a chart from July 2010?
I realize Fox is biased toward the conservative side. Now, I
am here, reading what can only be considered a radically liberal page. [I
thought he was referring to my blog since he just referenced it with the chart
comment. Even if he was referring to this web article and not my blog, they
were also not “radically liberal.” Pointing out FOX is lying and providing
proof does not equate to someone being a radical opponent. The truth is not
biased. Even if it disagrees with your opinion.] Why? Because I don't trust ANYBODY to give me the truth. You are
biased. I am biased. I realized how biased the "unbiased" news was,
when I was listening to NPR news, and the reported stated; "Ever since the
Republicans stole back the majority in the house..." STOLE BACK?? So the
elections didn't matter?
No matter how hard we try, we put our own spin on things.
But I'm willing to be convinced that I am wrong, but I'm not going down easy.
Somebody is going to have to convince me that I am wrong, use facts, and
logical arguments. Till then, I will state my opinions, and unlike most, listen
to what the other side says. It's like the statement above yours "It's
been scientifically proven that watching Faux makes you uninformed. Case
closed."
Have you seen the study? From the study itself:
"..while moderates and liberals who watch Fox News do worse at answering
the questions than others, conservatives who watch Fox do no worse than people
who watch no news at all." So liberals that watch Fox, do worse at
answering questions than people that don't watch news at all.
Also, (this is a honest question), why do you think the
survey oversampled Republicans?
Bill Mancuso
You demand to be convinced of the truth with facts and
logical arguments?
FOX "News" puts up a wildly distorted chart to
present accurate information inaccurately for the sole purpose of making Obama
look bad. The chart is so distorted, it would insult a three-year-old's
intelligence. In other words, FOX blatantly lied.
Three charts are posted in the blog that present the same
exact information FOX used - only the information is presented accurately and
unbiased, accompanied by detailed, logical explanations. One of the charts
included is from the Conservative website, dailycapitalist, which also presents
the same information accurately. This is to show that the information is not
Liberally biased.
Your response? You ignore facts and logical arguments and
call the blog radically liberally biased because the facts and logical
arguments disagree with your obvious right-wing biased, FOX-supporting
viewpoint. Then you ramble on incoherently about completely unrelated material
for some reason.
You, Sir, are a clown.
However, I will consider that you are not biased and that
you simply have a weak understanding of basic math and geometry, which prevents
your comprehension of the accurately represented charts.
Also, (this is an honest pair of questions): To what survey
that oversampled Republicans are you referring? Do you mean the hypothetical
situation that is used as an example of how a biased survey could be used to
manipulate a statistic?
If so, I must assume your basic reading comprehension is on
par with your basic math and geometry skills.
Patrick
Yes, it's my reading skills that are substandard. That's why
when I was questioning the "study" they mentioned ("It's been
scientifically proven that watching Faux makes you uninformed. Case
closed." )
I made it pretty plain that was what I was referring. I
asked why Republicans were over sampled in the "Study" that showed
this. If you read the data on the study mentioned, you can see the data doesn't
really support the claim "fox makes you dumber". You see, I keep
hoping that someone will be motivated to go look at the data themselves,
because if I tell them what it says, they wont go look. They will just claim
that I'm a troll, on continue on in their blissful ignorance.
But since you choose to ignore that, feel free to live on in
your little bubble of ignoring those that disagree with you, calling them
names, and forgoing any chance to converse civilly.
I wasn't arguing the source for the Fox news data, or the
presentation. Are you as willing to research the data you see on this website?
No, I am sure you don't. If you did, you would find they have more one sided,
false, and twisted info than you can see on FOX.
Yep, it's MY reading skills that need help. Keep telling
yourself that.
Clown out.
Bill Mancuso
Dear Clown,
Since I never said one word about any "FOX makes you
dumber" study, why would you ask me why I thought something I never said I
thought? Especially since you had just prior asked me if I even saw the study.
You were not "pretty plain" as to what you were referring since the
event to which you referred did not happen. Also, the only study that involved
any opinion I may have had was in the hypothetical survey in my blog, which is
why I was confused by your pointless question. I was not ignoring or
disagreeing with you. You proved there is such a thing as a stupid question,
and not being prepared for it, it confused me.
As for name calling, why do you feel it's okay for you to do
it, but when someone returns your original volley, THEY are the ones foregoing
any chance to converse civilly?
As for you claiming to not argue the source or the
presentation of the FOX data, I believe you calling my blog 'radically
liberally biased' adds 'liar' to your clownish repertoire.
You said, "No matter how hard we try, we put our own
spin on things. But I'm willing to be convinced that I am wrong, but I'm not
going down easy. Somebody is going to have to convince me that I am wrong, use
facts, and logical arguments. Till then, I will state my opinions, and unlike
most, listen to what the other side says." You again are lying. You do not
listen to what the other side says. You are not willing to be convinced. You do
not care about facts. You do not care about logical arguments. All of these
tactics were employed when explaining logically, factually and without spin by
using unaltered math and geometry why the FOX chart was intentionally
misrepresenting the numbers to make Obama look bad. Your mindless, bumper sticker
response was that it is a radically liberal blog.
As for your claim that NPR said Republicans stole back the
House majority (I can't verify that since you provided no proof, just an
unsubstantiated claim), I think you meant that Republicans claimed Obama stole
the 2008 Presidential election. Here are just a few articles:
As for your claim that the data in the study (that somebody
who wasn't me was talking about) doesn't support the claim that FOX makes you
dumber (actually, it's 'uninformed' - you changed it to 'dumber'), your very
own quote from the study would state otherwise. You might want to work on those
reading and comprehension skills after all.
And here's some fun reading. Feel free to call it radically
liberally biased, ignore it, and lie about something else.
[The follow-up study…]
Business Insider: STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All
[…to this original study.
I did not include this one in the original post. I was trying not to
further confuse an already confused mind. It didn’t work. I’m including it now
for those who wish to be up to date on things.]:
And just because you personally don't like facts, that does
not mean they are "one sided, false, and twisted." That means YOU are
"one sided, false, and twisted."
Sincerely,
"Radical Liberal"
Patrick
Bill,
I didn't say anybody stole an election, and in spite of your
valiant effort to show others screaming about a stolen election, what I said
was just the opposite. I didn't say anyone stole an election, rather I was
surprised that NPR referred to it as stolen. Can you understand that? I was
expressing my first realization of media bias. I'm happy you found all the
links about stolen elections.
Then I referred to a claim, repeated above your post , as an
example of bias. I thought you would be capable of making the connection.
I see you link to a site that refers to the study, I
referred to, but not to the original data from the study. That data is what I
was questioning. Did you look at that data? I bet you will now, but I also bet
you didn't before, you just accepted whatever bias the writer had, and that was
the point.
Did Fox show a biased graphic? Yep. Did I ever say Fox
wasn't biased? Nope. Ever see a biased story on this site? Duh! [He forgot
to add “Winning” to emphasize he is as clear-minded and rational as Charlie
Sheen after a few eight balls.]
The whole point was that bias is everywhere, and most folks
are more than willing to accept whatever bias is there, as long as it agrees
with what they already believe. I am biased, but I am also willing to listen to
the other side, and to try and dig down to the original data, and see what it
says, not just what some pundit tells me it says.
What the best way to get the other side to stop listening?
Calling them a clown would probably be a good start.
Bill Mancuso
Patrick,
I did not say YOU said somebody stole an election. I said,
"As for your claim that NPR said Republicans stole back the House
majority..." I'm sure THAT was pretty plain. If it wasn't, just scroll up
and re-read the original. Keep working on those reading and comprehension
skills, little buddy. You'll get there.
You claimed NPR claimed Republicans stole an election and I
pointed out that you gave no proof of your claim. All you gave as your example
of media bias is that you said it. I, however, pointed out that Republicans are
the ones always claiming elections are stolen AND I provided proof. Can you
understand that? I'm happy that you continue to prove me correct by ignoring
facts and switching to different lies. At this point, I still don't know if NPR
said what you claim they allegedly said because you still have not provided any
proof. If you ever do decide to provide proof, I will accept it. I won't call
you a radical conservative in a similar fashion to your biased, close-minded
response. THAT would be a true example of using facts to convince someone.
Of course, the proof you provide can't be more manipulated
FOX horse-pucky. If it is, I will be forced to dissect its contents and expose
it for the standard FOX shit it truly is.
Yes, the study says exactly what is in the quote you posted,
but you say that it doesn't say what it says. Please read again the quote of
the study that you posted. And do try to comprehend its meaning. Also, the
information you are quoting is the data from the original survey done by
Fairleigh Dickinson University in November, 2011, which I read in a pdf file.
The link I posted is a May, 2012 Fairleigh Dickinson University follow-up
survey to their original survey. I just posted the most current results. I did
look at the data. Apparently, I looked at more data than you, which may be why
you are confused.
Did you ever say FOX wasn't biased? No, you just said the
facts that truthfully refute their lies came from a radically liberally biased
blog.
Your whole point that bias is everywhere falls flat in that
my blog was not radically liberally biased, it simply relayed unadulterated
math and geometry to prove FOX was lying. Again, just because YOU don't agree
with the truth, that doesn't mean they are "one sided, false, and
twisted." No matter how hard you want them to be. That means YOU are
"one sided, false, and twisted." But then, Republicans view ANY
information that doesn't blindly fall in lock-step with them as biased, no
matter how neutral it is. THAT is the definition of being biased - which you
have admitted to. I'm glad you are forthcoming about the fact that you do not
care about facts.
And again, you obviously are not "willing to listen to
the other side, and to try and dig down to the original data, and see what it
says, not just what some pundit tells [you] it says" because your
knee-jerk reaction to the unbiased truth was to call it radical liberal bias.
What's the best way to get the other side to stop listening?
Call them a radical liberal. Oh, I forgot, it doesn't count when YOU call
someone a name FIRST. It's everyone ELSE who is the problem.
And you didn't stop listening because I called you a clown.
You weren't listening long before I typed my first word. THAT is why I called
you a clown.
And thanks for bringing to my attention the Fairleigh
Dickinson survey that shows FOX viewers are less informed than people who watch
Phineas and Ferb marathons all day. I'll be sure to show it to all my other
radically liberal friends - and even more radically conservative ones.
Patrick
Bill,
I don't have to prove to you what i heard. It was a personal
anecdote, from the 1990's. I don't really care if you accept it or not. I
didn't say anyone stole an election. I said the phraseology used made me aware
of the bias in the reporting.
The study that you now found still says the same thing as
before. A conservative watching MSNBC, or a liberal watching Fox, knows less
about current events than someone watching either.
As for manipulating facts, if this was to be an accurate
survey the demographics would be much better. For example, in the survey, 27%
of respondents were over 60, yet in the population, only 13% are over 65. Does
this effect the results?
The original question was "Also, (this is a honest
question), why do you think the survey oversampled Republicans?"
So, is there a chance you can answer the original question?
You have carried on for pages now about how I don't care about facts. Very
impressive. So now, again, do you have an answer?
Is this study as accurate as you want Fox to be?
Bill Mancuso
Patrick,
Why do you demand everyone ELSE must always prove their
claims here in the comments section that you haunt, but YOU don't have to? I'm
going to go ahead and check the 'hypocrite' box on your ever-growing clown
repertoire list. It all comes down to your proud admission of not caring,
doesn't it? You have your misinformed opinions and no facts or logical
arguments or proof of any kind to the contrary will you ever care about. No
matter how much you profess that you do. You will just keep twisting what you
said in order to try to wriggle away from being called out on your nonsense. Or
you will just ignore facts and switch the topic. After all, it is the
Republican way.
Or, am I misjudging you? Do you consider yourself a
Libertarian? Most Republicans these days who are so embarrassed to be called one
now like to pretend they're Libertarians - ignoring the fact that the two
ideologies are very different. (But then there's that 'not caring about facts'
thing that Republicans do so well.)
And again, since you've ignored twice now what I said, I'll
repeat this slowly enough for you to understand for this third time - I. Did.
Not. Say. You. Said. Someone. Stole. The. Election. Here. Is. The. Quote.
Again, "As for your claim that NPR said Republicans stole back the House
majority..." Do. You. Understand. Now?
And I repeat my answer to the repeating of your honest
question: I never said a single word about the survey. Why did you ask me what
I thought if I had no thoughts about it? And I STILL haven't expressed an
opinion on it. Was the second time
explaining this to you enough, or will you be ignoring it again to ask me a third time? They say that's the charm, after all.
Oh, wait, I know. You don't care that I never had any
thoughts about a survey that I never heard of until you brought it to my
attention. Which is why you ignored that fact and twisted it to make it seem
like I was just avoiding your question. You're just trying to score points in
some competition you're having in your head. You're not really interested in
accepting facts or learning information, are you? (Another Republican past
time.)
Also, (this is an honest question), why do you think KC and
the Sunshine Band is better than Abba? If you can demand explanations to
opinions never expressed, then so can I. So, is there a chance you will answer
the question?
And I do apologize for not addressing your very first
question, "If you believe they are so constant, why does a blog from
11/06/2011 go back to a chart from July 2010?" Permit me to remedy that
right now: It was just one example, Sir. Can you understand this? If you are
concerned about the constancy of FOX's lies, go type "fox news edits
video" in Google. The results are virtually endless.
Here, let me help you out with just a few (230) examples:
31 examples on this YouTube channel:
185 examples on this YouTube channel:
1 here:
1 here:
1 here:
1 here:
1 here:
6 here:
1 here:
1 here:
1 here:
Happy Independence Day!
And I never heard from him again.
Frankly, I think he gave up much easier than the average
right-wing, militant, fact-denier. That upsets me a bit. I do enjoy these
little back-and-forths.
Oh, well. There are sure to be others.
No comments:
Post a Comment