PDA

View Full Version : Anyone read about this?


olevetonahill
6/4/2010, 02:20 PM
Or know anything about this site ?

http://www.businessandmedia.org/commentary/2010/20100602150523.aspx
yermom
6/4/2010, 02:43 PM
Dan Gainor is The Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. His column appears each week on The Fox Forum.

;)
yermom
6/4/2010, 02:44 PM
while i don't agree with more taxes to bail them out, the 1st Amendment bit seems pretty tin-foil hat worthy
Leroy Lizard
6/4/2010, 02:56 PM
Two things come out of the policy initiative:

1 More funding for PBS and NPR (both very friendly to liberal ideals)

2. Establishing a journalism division of AmeriCorps (Bill Clinton's pet project that some have labeled a complete fraud)

The following constitutes an example of the garbage statements that appear throughout the document:


Various commentators agree that CPB funding needs to be increased, and many believe that NPR and PBS stations need to build and maintain strong newsrooms at the state and local levels

I am sure you can find "various commentators" that belong to the Communist Party and "many" that believe in Communist ideals, but that means squat. How many? What percentage? How many oppose it? What are their arguments? How does one counter their arguments?

How can one obtain a reasonable understanding of the situation when offered such an obviously biased document.

And this is the type of journalism they espouse.
Frozen Sooner
6/4/2010, 05:01 PM
some have labeled a complete fraud)
Followed by:


I am sure you can find "various commentators" that belong to the Communist Party and "many" that believe in Communist ideals, but that means squat. How many? What percentage? How many oppose it? What are their arguments? How does one counter their arguments?

Is pretty ****ing rich.
yermom
6/4/2010, 05:08 PM
Leroy is a pretty wealthy guy from my experience
Leroy Lizard
6/4/2010, 05:20 PM
Followed by:



Is pretty ****ing rich.

When my messages get printed as official federal policy then I will be sure to use very precise language.

You do understand that the citation protocols required of internet posts differs from official government documents, right?

You are a lawyer, right?

(Chalk this one up to "I must find something wrong with Leroy's post, no matter how asinine.")
Frozen Sooner
6/6/2010, 05:24 AM
When my messages get printed as official federal policy then I will be sure to use very precise language.

You do understand that the citation protocols required of internet posts differs from official government documents, right?

You are a lawyer, right?

(Chalk this one up to "I must find something wrong with Leroy's post, no matter how asinine.")

Correct. What you did was pretty asinine.

Pardon me. Some have called your posts asinine.

Your problem wasn't with citation form, your problem was with rhetorical style and a failure of logic. You were correct, for what it's worth-it WAS a failure of logic. It was also a failure you yourself were guilty of.

And to correct your apparent misconception, no, I am not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction.
Harry Beanbag
6/6/2010, 09:59 AM
Except for the internet you mean.
Frozen Sooner
6/6/2010, 11:08 AM
Everyone's an expert on the internet. Even when real-life experts tell them they're wrong.
Harry Beanbag
6/6/2010, 11:10 AM
There's no doubt about that. I think some people think Google is the equalizer.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
6/6/2010, 11:13 AM
When my messages get printed as official federal policy then I will be sure to use very precise language.

You do understand that the citation protocols required of internet posts differs from official government documents, right?

You are a lawyer, right?

(Chalk this one up to "I must find something wrong with Leroy's post, no matter how asinine.")Were you expecting any other kind of treatment?
RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
6/6/2010, 11:15 AM
In Snopes we (apparently, at least some of us) trust.
Leroy Lizard
6/6/2010, 11:52 AM
Correct. What you did was pretty asinine.

Pardon me. Some have called your posts asinine.

Your problem wasn't with citation form, your problem was with rhetorical style and a failure of logic. You were correct, for what it's worth-it WAS a failure of logic. It was also a failure you yourself were guilty of.

Once again, this is an Internet message board, not an official government document. The FTC policy is crafted from numerous board meetings and goes through multiple drafts and revisions. I posted my message in about three minutes. You simply cannot compare the two.

You ended your statement above with a dangling preposition. Normally I wouldn't point it out. I mean, who cares? But if your statement ended up in a government policy document, it would matter.

Context is everything.


Everyone's an expert on the internet. Even when real-life experts tell them they're wrong.

Are you a real-life expert? In what?
Frozen Sooner
6/6/2010, 12:08 PM
I stand by my assertion that criticizing someone's poor argumentation when you've just used the same technique is funny.

As for my qualifications:

I'm middling fair in commercial banking.

While no expert on the law, I'd hazard a guess that I have more formal training in the law than all but a few posters here. I generally defer to their knowledge of black-letter law unless there's a point which I've recently studied which I think they've misstated.
Leroy Lizard
6/6/2010, 07:27 PM
I stand by my assertion that criticizing someone's poor argumentation when you've just used the same technique is funny.

Who in here hasn't used sarcasm in their posts?

Who in here thinks sarcasm belongs in an official government policy document?
olevetonahill
6/6/2010, 08:14 PM
Who in here hasn't used sarcasm in their posts?

Who in here thinks sarcasm belongs in an official government policy document?

Who in here thinks I argue just to be arguing?


FIFY:D