posted January 27, 2008 08:23 PM            

I think people confuse anti-bush too easily with anti-american, they're not the same thing.

posted January 28, 2008 02:45 PM            

BlueRoamer "Critical thinking" indeed.

posted January 28, 2008 05:50 PM              

i'm not loosing my hair though, and i've got quite a few.

i'd like to change my username for something else, may be cheese or soup, the one i prefer is potato but i can't! damn!

posted January 29, 2008 12:36 PM            

Instead, you decided to challenge my memory:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't attempt to say you weren't here and didn't see it. Well, I guess it could just be written off to a poor memory on your part..which would explain a whole lot of your problems...jwhop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Well, find it and show it to me. Let's find out for certain if it's my poor memory or yours"...acoustic.
quote:

acoustic, you're one step away from being a total amnesiac....or, you are so totally disingenuous as to have everything you say dismissed.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/cgi-bin/ubb/postings.cgi?action=reply&forum=Global+Unity+&number=16&topic=003771.cgi&TopicSubject=will+jwhop+ever+shut+up|QUS|

posted January 29, 2008 03:55 PM            

"Hmmm...something like only reading conservative news, or listening to conservative talk radio, or posting conservative's articles when they align with your thinking? Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?" - AG

There's absolutely no question as to WorldNetDaily's political leanings Jwhop. Trying to skirt the issue by proving that WND does import articles from other sources doesn't address WorldNetDaily's own writings. Nor are these imported articles out of alignment with WND's political bias.

You're STILL trying to legitimize a horrendously biased news source by use of MSM. What part of that do you not understand?

posted January 30, 2008 01:11 PM            

Let it be forever settled that your infantile statements about my source of credible news are proven bogus....since on any given day about 70% of news articles appearing on WND are from sources outside World Net Daily...including the NY Times, Associated Press, Washington Post, LA Times, San Franciso Chronicle...and other institutions of the leftist press over which you swoon.

I'd like to say I admire your attempts to change the subject...when the issue gets away from you...but I can't.

The issue for these last few posts is..."your memory vs my memory and that's a dead bang loser for you.

The link I had in mind was a link to the list(s) of articles I posted on page 5 acoustic. You might want to review the list(s)...both pgs. 1 and 2...before you dig your pit any deeper.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/003771-5.html

posted January 30, 2008 01:45 PM            

Further, I can post links all sorts of WorldNetDaily articles that you've posted here that would clearly indicate the same political bias you'd find visiting WorldNetDaily on any day of the week. 42 items come up if you do a Google search of "Jwhop Worldnetdaily site:www.linda-goodman.com."

Clinton Civil Suit Set for Trial - Lindaland
91% of talk radio is conservative - Lindaland
Faces of Hate - Lindaland

etc. etc. etc.

posted January 31, 2008 10:04 AM              

you should keep your energy for people who'll be grateful for your insight, not someone who react like a child.

posted January 31, 2008 12:59 PM            

That's not happening. Though I can sympathize with the agitation and embarrassment you're experiencing over not being able to formulate a coherent argument for any of your firmly held (though absurd) beliefs.

You're in excellent company with acoustic who has the same exact problem.

Feeling doesn't make anything so.

I never attempted to "prove" WND doesn't have a political bias acoustic. I merely proved you are so engrossed in your leftist agenda that you don't realize the vast majority of articles on a site you detest are from sources which you wholeheartedly approve.

Just for the record acoustic, there is a continuing scandal from the "scandal a day" Commander Corruption administration.

Not only is there a lawsuit naming Bill Clinton about to come to trial over illegal campaign contributions but that suit also names Hillary.

Not only that acoustic but there's another scandal, in the present, involving illegal campaign contributions by a guy named Norman Hsu, a California bail jumper on the loose since the early 90's who's been funneling lots of cash to Hillary...in illegal amounts.

And, of course, no one could forget the campaign contribution scandal involving the communist Chinese government who gave Commander Corruption campaign contributions...illegally...in exchange for nuclear weapons technology and missile technology in the mid 1990's.

It's just one scandal after another with this corrupt dud duo...Bill and Hill.

So acoustic, the story is true no matter the source. Your main problem is that WND reported it straight...unlike the leftist press over which you salivate....which at first attempted to ignore the story...then attempted to minimize/tone down the seriousness of the crime.

The reason most of talk radio is conservative acoustic is that there aren't any leftists who are articulate enough, informed enough, intelligent enough and interesting enough to hold an audience...think Al Franken..Air America...one long continuous shriek.

I suppose you see nothing wrong with wishing the Vice President dead acoustic. That only shows how morally corrupt, hateful and lacking in spiritual development you and your radical leftist friends really are.

Now acoustic, as to your dunderheaded opinion that WND IS the problem when bias is mentioned...let me remind you that it's the opinion of Americans that the entire print and broadcast news IS biased and not highly credible as a source of information.

Only 21% of Americans believe the NY Times is a highly credible source for news. Only 19% believe the Associated Press is a highly credible source for news.

That means..acoustic...that 79% of Americans DO NOT believe the NY Times is a highly credible source and 81% DON'T BELIEVE the Associated Press is highly credible in what they report.

posted January 31, 2008 01:09 PM              

sad ain't it? so much good sense that i'll never read!!!!!!!

posted February 01, 2008 02:34 PM            

How can one person be so wrong about every topic of discussion? You have to be working overtime to make yourself look so foolish.

The issue on which you challenged my memory vs your memory was on the source of articles appearing on the WND site.

Even after being shown...both by posting the entire list of articles for a normal day on WND...and doing the math for you..to the point I even calculated the percentages of those from WND and other sources...you deny.

This is simple, so simple even a simpleton would get it.

I was right about the source of articles on WND and you were wrong. No attempts to change the subject is going to obscure the fact that you are unable to do even simple math, unable to analyze data, unable to define common english words...like most or come to reasonable conclusions about what you see or read.

It doesn't matter whether you're intellectually challenged or whether your disability stems from your cultural leftist dogma. Whatever it's cause, it's debilitating.

I'm still waiting for you to post that return letter from The Pew Research Center for The People & The Press. You remember that letter don't you acoustic?

Let me refresh your flabby memory.

You were going to write the Pew Reseach Center to get their take on the breakdown of one of their polls...categories 4-1. Then you were going to embarrass me with their return letter...which you believed would prove your interpretation of their poll results was correct...and mine was all wet.

I'm still waiting acoustic...even though there's no need since I also read Pews own conclusions from that poll....which was that none of the MSM were considered "highly credible" sources for news by Americans...and in the highest category of belief only 21% believed "all or even most of what the NY Times prints as news.

Here acoustic, let me help you out...you poor little thing who can't figure out how to find the address of the Pew organization.

Try this...and get back to me.

info@people-press.org

posted February 01, 2008 06:30 PM              

Actually, I have to say there is no reason why Jwhop should shut up. He is just as necessary for the balance of nature as your average __________ (fill in the blank.)

Jwhop teaches all of us a very valuable lesson. That lesson is that we cannot change Jwhop, so we have to change. Which is the most valuable lesson any of us will ever learn. The problem is not with the other guy. The problem is with us and how we react to the other guy. In this case, the other guy being Jwhop.

Jwhop does grow on you after you have been around him long enough. But then again so does the smell of cow manure if you live on or near a farm. LOL Just kidding.

posted February 01, 2008 06:40 PM            

The premise of the WND argument is that IT IS BIASED. Did you prove that it wasn't? No, you didn't. End of story. There is no way in hell to win this argument. Showing that 70% of the articles at WND does not address the bias of the site one iota. How could you possibly have and believe such a notion?

Regarding Pew, if I ever received a return email or letter you bet your ass it would be here for everyone to see, because there simply isn't ANY way possible that I misinterpretted the data represented in that chart, and further there is EVERY indication that you did. In fact, you still are:

"believed "all or even most of what the NY Times prints as news." - Jwhop

It doesn't say "even." It was a scale. We've been over this time and time again. There are four categories on a scale, meaning there's a range with one pole at column one and one pole at column four. I can resurrect NY Times Better Dead than Read for you if you need a refresher on all the salient points. Most people selected column 3 indicating that on the spectrum of how credible they found a source, they were generally positive.

We both know that amongst WSJ readers at the time it wasn't only 24% of their readers that believed "All or Even Most," as you say. No, it was 24% were highly positive about WSJ's credibility, followed by an additional 42% who generally believed the WSJ was a credible source. Both of those columns would be perceived by the general public to be the columns you choose if you trust the source. If you don't believe me, perhaps you should try conducting their poll yourself. Here's the wording:

Q.23 Now, I'm going to read a list. Please rate how much you think you can BELIEVE each organization I name on a scale of 4 to 1. On this four point scale, "4" means you can believe all or most of what the organization says. "1" means you believe almost nothing of what they say. How would you rate the believability of (READ ITEM. RANDOMIZE LIST) on this scale of 4 to 1? (INTERVIEWERS: PROBE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN "NEVER HEARD OF" AND "CAN'T RATE")

Don't add any words or try to change their meaning. Just read it verbatim. See how many 3s you get, and then ask them why they picked 3.

posted February 01, 2008 09:28 PM              

i agree with you, even though i'm the one who started this thread. you are right, and i was thinking the same today about pidaua and what she was teaching me in some odd ways. i'm actually grateful that she disagreed cause i've got enough critical thinking to get the best out of it.
(it doesn't mean that i like to be belittled though, but that as well i can work it out)

we all should take care of our own path. regardless of where other people are heading... but i also think this attitude is selfish and that life is meant to share experiences and point of views. and i think that yielding to our ego sensitivity is not the way forward. but as you very wisely meant, the aim is to change oneself, and not the world.

i'm growing up, and thus i learn to share my knowledge (even small) only with the people i love instead of spreading it around to people who disrepect it. but i'm such an idealist. and an activist one.

life is just so paradoxically beautiful. and i'm glad to understand that.

thanks mirandee for this paradoxical advice.

to everyone

ps: in one of my post i say that i don't respect older person for the sake of their age. well i was wrong. cause if it hadn't been you saying that, i might not have listened with the same attention. (in my chart i've got a perfect sextile between saturn and uranus)

thinking about it, i was probably trying to say that i don't bow before status or reputation. i confused age and status.

last thing, you shouldn't take the title of this thread at face value but look at my argument if you want to get my message. i don't wish anyone to shut up, per se. and i guess this inflamatory title was due to my impulsivity, and to a need to get my message across in the clearest way, so as jwhop couldn't have played with details to distort my idea.
i want people to share, remember. but when i read jwhop posts i'm infuriated by his disdain for others. and i wanted to treat him as he treats others so he could understand how it feels to be ridiculed or degraded for your ideas... but has you made clear, i was not doing myself a favor. but ultimately, i don't regret cause it makes sense from where i stand, and your view does as well...

posted February 02, 2008 01:41 PM            

However, it's puzzling that you do not do as you said you were going to do....and simply communicate with the Pew organization to get their take on the wording and interpretation of their own poll.

The fact you insisted you would...and then didn't leads reasonable people to believe that either you did...and got your nonsense blown out of the water...OR you are using what you know to be a disingenuous argument which you know damned well would be blown out of the water if you ever approached the Pew organization with your nonsense interpretation of their polling results.

So, the question remains. Why haven't you? Seems a wonderful opportunity to embarrass me...unless your argument is as faulty as the rest of your analysis usually is. Would you like for me to re-post the email address of the Pew organization for you?

Thanks for posting the chart...which clearly shows that for the NY Times, only 21% believed all or even most of what they print....exactly as I said.

The salient fact was always that the MSM is in trouble with the American public...which does not believe them. That's inescapable acoustic no matter how you duck, bob, weave and attempt to deflect the truth.

Even when it's before your eyes in black and white...you still deny it acoustic. When the most credible source cited...US News only has a "Believe all or most" rating by the public of 24%, that's trouble with a capital T.

BTW acoustic, almost all the news sources on the chart you posted ARE featured on World Net Daily of which about 70% of the articles are from those and other outside sources.

No matter which way you slice it acoustic, your memory challenge was a loser...for you...as usual.

posted February 02, 2008 04:46 PM            

quote:

---

So, the question remains. Why haven't you? Seems a wonderful opportunity to embarrass me...unless your argument is as faulty as the rest of your analysis usually is. Would you like for me to re-post the email address of the Pew organization for you?

---

Jwhop, I did email Pew way back when. They didn't respond. Apparently, they are not interested in settling this dispute. There remains NO doubt whatsoever that they would have taken my side as yours is ridiculous. You are welcome to email them yourself if you don't believe me.

You can't comment on it being a scale, can you? Why? Because it blows your argument out of the water.

quote:

---

Please rate how much you think you can BELIEVE each organization I name on a scale of 4 to 1. On this four point scale, "4" means you can believe all or most of what the organization says. "1" means you believe almost nothing of what they say. How would you rate the believability of (READ ITEM. RANDOMIZE LIST) on this scale of 4 to 1?

---

Most people can recognize fairly early in life what a scale is, and how a scale works. What is your major malfunction?

quote:

---

Putting the word "even" into my comments does not in any way change the underlying meaning of the sentence...as it was structured...or the results of the poll.

---

posted February 03, 2008 09:08 AM              

as i have realised , it IS even a bigger mistake to assume u wont run into someone like JW in life

i had joined the board with a very positive attitude.the writing on the wall on the other hand ...............

a discussion about the myth of nationalism ends up being a Big Penis Diatribe about how being dirt poor makes u a lesser human being .
or talking about a problem which is either similar to or connected with the problems faced by your country constitutes " Pointing Fingers "
the above crime is serious enough to disqualify u as a fellow human being and qualify for the most eloquent trash an aggrieved member can manage with a limited IQ and filthy verbosity.

"Global Unity is not just about everyone coming together and loving each other. It is about an exchange of ideas and knowledge."

best one ever PID

Global Unity indeed

before i started posting a quick view of the topics told me there wasnt much about Asian economic or social issues to talk about. so all i can post are issues similar or connected. i was looking at previous threads to find any discussion about issues or diplomatic developments in Asia when i ran into JW's threads on Child infanticide, Caste system and Dowry deaths.these are issues women empoverment ceels as well as Government organisations are fighting on a daily basis. Being a recent recruit of the National Commission for Women , needless to say i was excited at the prospect of posting my experiences.all through college years about 100 of us students had been part of a student wing that held regular meetings and even debates on social issues attended by social reformists , NGO representatives, teachers, students alike.not every appreciated outr representation of social evils, hell some even thought we were making much ado about nothing.like the lack of Penal clarity in dealing with marital rape, or sexual assaults. or even about the lack social maturity when it came to awareness and openeness on such issues.a lot of feedback we recieved was something on the lines of what this thread gives to JW.we were blunt, we were in ur face, we were jerks { because that is one sure shot way to get attention }.

posted February 03, 2008 09:09 AM              

i wasnt used to the other side of the coin so as to speak, so i was a little jarred at JW's bullying at anyone who disagrees with his opinions. i mean, wasnt this a free speech forum ?

isnt it possible to express ur disagreement at a post without raping the self esteem of the source ?

sure as DAF points out , the silver lining here is an enhanced Jerk-Response mechanism.

but that is not the point of a forum is it ?

posted February 03, 2008 09:10 AM              

a person is not to be judged for his self expression, this is what neutral members say to this thread.since we r all entiltled to free speech and self expression.sure, but dont rights come with responsibilites ?

when i saw the female infanticide thread i was elated yet puzzled. when u r discussing an issue that talks about human rights violations sensitivity to the topic and victims is not an option.its a gesture of respect to someone who is dead.
what got me was the topic line " India Has Killed 10 Million Girls in 20 Years "
WAIT, India kills.... ?
wouldnt a more sensitive or sincere ( to the topic ) title be " Female infanticide claims 10 Million Indian Girls in 20 Years "
even better the start post was a plain extract from some onlinesource that stated the bare facts about the Existence of the problem.the social, economic, demographic background of the problem was conspicous by its absence.also missing was an attempt at presenting the problem in a manner non- Indian members could relate to the issue or even identify with it.
a million teens get pregnant every year in America. a majority of them terminate the pregnancy . reasons?
lack of financial resources, unwillingness to be burdened iwth a child at that age, social stigma of being an unwed mother....
the social pressures of being an unwed mother are identical to that of not having a son in India.
should a thread on the issue read " America kills more than half a million kids every year " ?
the thread gave gory details of how parents of new born baby girls kill them at birth.what was missing was the insight that these culprits are victims themselves. of abject poverty.most of these parents who kill newborn girls live in straw huts, unsure of when or if they will eat their next meal.having a child means skipping a meal or extra change of clothing.thats when they think, hell if i have to starve for having a kid, might as well do it for a boy, who will be my support when i m old. unlike a girl , who will leave me when she starts her own family.not to mention the dowry i shall have to pay.
while JW's thread spoke of dowry as a leading cause , it didnt give any rdetails. Dowry is a hindu girls share of her fathers estate given to her at her marriage, so she and her husband can use it whenevr they need it, or to buy a home, or start a business etc.to the father it means having to shell of half of what u have before u r dead to a sinking fund investment that wont pay-off.
that is what Poverty does to a human being , it destroys sensitivity and bares u down to your survival instincts.
and makes it easy to drown a baby or strangle her when the other option is to starve.as for the middle class , the govt policy of single child families leads them to want a single male child, so they have more money to spend on themselves and their child, one who will be a financial cushion when they get old.
the Govt. measures have made the sex determination tests a crime punishable by law, and all doctors guilty of facilitating such abortions lose their licenses in addition to a prison term. in the impoverished areas the Govt is now paying for the upbringing of girls, irresepective of number to families who cant afford them.all these have led to a plunge in infanticide statistics by more than 75 %.

now thats funny i thought, why would a member omit all such vital points , making it seem that like killing babies and lack of empathy towards girls was a cultural practice followed by EVERY Indian, and receiving little govt intervention ?
then again i thought since the member is not Indian that could possibly be an oversight.not intentional at all right ?