posted April 06, 2008 09:25 AM              

Ann Coulter's Poisonous Rage

---------------------------------------

My sister has a wonderful expression: resentment is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die. If Ann Coulter, conservative right wing so-called pundit, absorbs even a fraction of the poison she spews out, I fear for her health.

Coulter has long been considered the ***** goddess of the right. Six feet tall, with long bleached blonde hair and even longer legs, she refers to herself as a polemicist and has frankly admitted her love of "stirring the pot." She was fired from USA Today in 2004 for an article on the Democratic convention, "Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston", and referred to some (unspecified) female attendees as "corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons." And that was before she became really nasty.

Now she is on talk shows promoting her new book Godless: the Church of Liberalism, and at first even her supporters are calling her hysterical and unhinged. On the Today show, she described the 9/11 widows,
These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much. These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process.
After the initial shock of her words, her supporters are slowly coming out to defend her, saying basically that she has the nerve to say what others fear to.

With Ann back in the news, I took a look at her chart to see what motivates her to be so nasty. A birthchart does not create a mean person, and someone else born the same date and time as Ann would handle things differently. But there are some clues in her birthchart that are interesting. Because we don't have her birthtime we can't set up the ascendant and house structure (the chart linked is a noon chart). But the chart shows a "bundle" formation, which has all of the planets in one half of the chart, showing a person who lacks perspective. Because of Coulter's hunger for notoriety, my guess is that the planets are at the top half (or hemisphere) of the chart, indicating an individual who is primarily concerned with matters external to oneself rather than introspection.

Ann is a Sagittarius Sun, with Mars, Mercury and Venus all in Sagittarius and very likely her Moon as well. That is a strong stellium in one sign and dominates her chart. Sagittarius (ruled by Jupiter) at its best is visionary, adventurous, bold and optimistic. At its worst, it is judgemental, self-righteous, with a tendency toward self-aggrandisement. Jupiter after all was the King of the Gods, and has never really forgotten it. Sagittarius has an eye for opportunity and has the fiery nature to pursue it. There is a strong need for self-importance, and Sagittarius can be a bit of a groupie, always seeking the "best" people to associate with. The shadow side of Sagittarius results from fear. According to writer Liz Greene, "The Sagittarius is often frightened of making any commitment to the tangible world, because then he'd have to face not only the limitations of form but also the fact that his potential genius might not be quite so boundless and cosmic as he thinks it is." With five planets in Sag, Coulter's nature is dominated by this force.

I suspect too that she is caught up in the wave of fame to the point of addiction, and is terrified of falling from Mt. Olympus and becoming mortal again. Because her fame is based upon her ability to shock, as we become more and more desensitized to her words she must drop even bigger bombshells.

Coulter has Mars conjunct the Sun, which is an extremely independent placement but also gives her an Arien quality since Mars, god of war, is the ruler of Aries. A woman with a strong Mars becomes the warrior princess, an Amazon who often relishes her powers of intimidation. In addition, her chart lacks the water element other than Neptune in Scorpio, which is a generational planet and doesn't provide a conduit for her emotions to flow through. Individuals whose charts are short on water are not always unemotional, but with this much fire and Jupiter in Aquarius, it is safe to say that Coulter lacks the ability to empathize with others. If Coulter's Moon (emotional nature) is not in fiery Sag, it will be in Capricorn which would drive her to achieve something significant in the world. Either way, this is not an individual who puts much value on emotions.

Pluto, god of death and rebirth, makes a square (challenging) aspect to all four Sagittarius planets (Mars, Sun, Mercury and Venus). This adds a tremendous amount of potential for fear to the chart, as Pluto demands continuous transformation of the individual. If ignored, this type of fear is sometimes channeled into a demand for power and a cruel nature. Pluto in square to Mercury is famous for cruel speech, and Pluto in square to Mars is a signature for a deep and boiling rage which needs to be expressed constructively or it converts to the kind of vitriol we see with Ann Coulter's writings.

Saturn in Ann's chart makes no other aspects to any other planet in her chart (we call this "unaspected"). Saturn is a solitary planet - it is serious and concerned with earthly and practical matters. When unaspected in the chart, it tends to show a person who stands alone, who may be unable to connect with others.

It appears that Ann Coulter, with this intensity in her chart and no inner perspective, has chosen to manage these issues by basically vomiting them into the public arena, and the divisive political climate over the past ten years has been only too glad to swallow it. (Please excuse this disgusting reference!) This will only work for her as long as she gets the fame she craves; when her publicity star has stopped shining the real work for her will have to begin or the fear and rage within her will eat her up alive

posted April 06, 2008 11:28 AM            

"Because we don't have her birthtime we can't set up the ascendant and house structure (the chart linked is a noon chart). But the chart shows a "bundle" formation, which has all of the planets in one half of the chart, showing a person who lacks perspective."

Because we don't have Coulters birth time, we don't know what the hell Coulters House structure looks like..spike, teacup, horseshoe, palm tree or any other real or imagined pattern.

More speculation by another leftist with an ax to grind and notice, it doesn't have to be true...it only needs to be "possibly" true for this leftist twit to speculate a bundle pattern.

Leftists real problem with Coulter is that she skewers them using their own form of inflammatory speech. The difference is that leftists lie about everything and Coulter tells the truth about leftists.

Most people get angry when someone tells lies about them. Leftists, on the other hand get angry when someone tells the truth about them.

"We shold invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"

Now, isn't that exactly what radical Islamic terrorists and their leaders say they want to do to Western nations?

posted April 06, 2008 12:22 PM            

quote:

---

Because we don't have Coulters birth time, we don't know what the hell Coulters House structure looks like..spike, teacup, horseshoe, palm tree or any other real or imagined pattern.

---

The pattern is of the planets, not the houses. The pattern doesn't rely on the house structure in order to exist. If you do a chart for the correct day, but without the correct time the planet placements are all about where they should be with regard to sign and degree. The only odd ball is the Moon, which is the fastest moving planet. It can potentially change signs over the course of a day as it may be in this case. So if Ann's got a bundle chart, she has it regardless of what time she was born.

quote:

---

BUNDLE

The first pattern is called the Bundle; produced when all the planets are grouped together in the confines of a trine or less. This is the rarest pattern and suggests a specialized or limited range of interests as well as the ability to focus within that range. Stimuli from outside this range may not produce a response or there may be inhibitions. The Bundle precludes an opportunity to become self-reliant and to capitalize upon limited resources. President George W. Bush and Gary Busy are two among the Bundle group. http://www.moonvalleyastrologer.com/tutorial2.htm

---

posted April 06, 2008 02:34 PM            

quote:

---

Coulter doesn't have a "Bundle" in the first place. Her planets are spread out over 180*....whether unknown is entered as the time of birth or 6am.

---

I didn't look it up. Now that I have, I'd concur that she's not a Bundle, but a Bowl.

The Bowl chart occurs when the planets occupy half of the horoscope wheel. People with a Bowl shaped chart can be just as stubborn as those with a Bundle. The difference is that while Bundle people seem self-contained in their own little world, Bowl folks are very aware of others and frequently try to compel recognition. In other words, when two thirds of the wheel is empty, you don’t care. When one half is empty, it seems to give painful recognition that something is missing, that there is an area of existence from which they are excluded, and the entire life may be spent trying to fill that void. This is why those with Bowl horoscopes frequently seem to be on a mission. And they do have a tendency to get involved in causes. http://www.bobmarksastrologer.com/Bowl.htm

You also have a bowl.

quote:

---

Speculation on a stellium in the 10th is un-reasonable.

---

How so?

You could be right, though. Her sour disposition does seem a bit like Capricorn rising. That would put her concentration of planets in the 12th, Jupiter in the 3rd, and Neptune in the 11th. Of course her Saturn is unaspected (using a 7 degree orb), which also has a number of implications. http://www.innerself.com/Astrology/unaspected.htm

She can't be Leo rising, as that would put her stellium in the 5th, and that doesn't seem likely at all.

posted April 07, 2008 12:56 AM              

also as AG said the time doesnt matter in this analysis. aspects from Pluto create problems irrespective of house placement. also as Linda said there is negative side to every sun sign , and THAT also does not depend on house positions.
OK i have never said it before , but I AM a CONSERVATIVE myself, only we dont have that terminology in India so i wasnt aware

i M surprised JW u didnt see that right away, GOTCHA

also i m guilty of making like statements in my newsreports in class, never have my teachers been shocked like this , but passion is what is .....
i have read some of the articles at her site, the lady is good at what she does... BUT she does seem to have projection issues , as the astro analysis makes clear, and THAT is not dependent on house positions.i loved her older articles more, recently she seems to be getting hysterical... as if to get attention from a desensitised audience. i loved her pieces on feminism, abortions, Hillary, Obama.also she should write a book on the Sham of Feminism in America. she has a book about it in her reading recommendaations list, but if she wrote it herself, with her usual style, a little softness here and there it could be a bestseller.AND it could make real Changes in your society.

posted April 07, 2008 12:56 AM              

and i not judging her , its just that these traits are restraining her from what she could accomplish if she had an inner focus. and i say that as an in- training newscaster.
plus as much i hate to admit, a lot more people would consider her credible.

also JW what the article says about pluto aspects to mars and mercury adding rage that can be channeled to speech, so true in My experience... and it does NOT depend on house positions or Liberal Agendas....

how do i know... i have mars conjunct Pluto and Mercury trine pluto... that was the case with me in my newscasting work BUT now that transiting pluto has hit my sun n moon .

..... i m starting to release the rage where it needs to be released instead of the things i feel passionate about and want to defend.

posted April 07, 2008 02:01 PM            

Leftists love to dish it out but they sure can't take their own medicine.

So, you found out you're actually a conservative and not a leftist?

How did that happen? You take an EEG and they found out you have neural activity?

Or perhaps a DNA test and they found the conservative gene?

***edit

posted April 07, 2008 04:06 PM            

quote:

---

the whole point of Coulter's attacks on leftists is that she is answering them in the only language they understand..which is sharp tongued, pointed, inflammatory and personal...which is exactly their own style. - Jwhop

---

"Something about small brain primates, inability to focus, think rationally, logically......." - also Jwhop

Whose style is it?

posted April 07, 2008 05:49 PM            

Like I said and still say acoustic, your analytical skills are minimal or nonexistent.

Just for your information acoustic, NPR is government sponsored radio who purport to be reporting the news.

Talk radio is commentary, opinion and not in any way disguised as news.

Now acoustic, if you had a shred of analytical ability, you would have compared talk radio..on the right to talk radio on the left. There, you would have found Air America and Pacifica. You would also have found some of the most inflammatory comments which could be found. But you didn't.

For your further information acoustic, Randi Rhodes was suspended from Air America..for going way too far even for those insulting leftist hacks.

April 3, 2008, 2:20 pm
Air America Host Suspended for Clinton Remarks
By Brian Stelter

Randi Rhodes, an afternoon host for the progressive Air America radio network, was suspended Thursday after repeatedly insulting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at an event last month.

Ms. Rhodes used vulgar language that likened Mrs. Clinton to a prostitute at an event sponsored by KKGN, the Air America affiliate in the San Francisco area, on March 22. A video of Ms. Rhodes’ remarks was published to the video-sharing Web site YouTube on Tuesday, prompting condemnations by some bloggers.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=blkKbMN9hzc

posted April 07, 2008 06:08 PM            

quote:

---

Now acoustic, if you had a shred of analytical ability, you would have compared talk radio..on the right to talk radio on the left. There, you would have found Air America and Pacifica. You would also have found some of the most inflammatory comments which could be found. But you didn't.

---

Wasn't it you who said no one listens to Air America? I've never even heard of Pacifica. I do, however, know people who tune in to NPR.

quote:

---

Like I said and still say acoustic, your analytical skills are minimal or nonexistent.

---

Yeah, that's why you feel compelled to answer to me. Frankly, I've never met anyone who can't figure out what polling on a scale means who also believes themselves to be of a superior intellect. It's kind of a non-sequitter I'd say.

quote:

---

And acoustic, you could have mentioned the inflammatory leftist moron at CNBC...Keith Olbermann..but you didn't.

---

posted April 07, 2008 06:38 PM            

As for you never hearing of Pacifica, your ignorance of fact is no concern of mine. You might want to tune in acoustic. Their programming is right up your ally on the "left" coast...otherwise known as leftistland.

"This article reads like a PR release by a supporter. It should discuss the historic role of Pacifica as a communist front organization, and it's widely criticised and controversial funding by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Pacifica is simply not a politically active liberal public radio outlet. KPFK/Pacifica admits all day long every day that it is a radical, revolutionary, Marxist activist organizational hub. It partners with International ANSWER and Code Pink at rallies; praises Seattle anarchists, the "LA Rebellion", and car burning eco-terrorists; campaigns for Green, Socialist, and Peace & Freedom candidates; lauds Castro and Chavez; is pro-Palestinian to the point of anti-Semitism; officially promotes 9-11 conspiracy theorists; for four years referred to Bush as "President-Select Bush" in it's "news" stories; and broadcasts revolutionary rhetoric from cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal. It represents the radical extreme of leftist activism. And it receives million annually from the CPB....."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pacifica_Radio

As to whom may listen to Air America or not, that's a different issue. That issue speaks to the fact leftist radio is one of the biggest flops in broadcast history. As to what I've said about Air America in the past, it's irrelevant to the comparison between leftist talk radio and those you consider right wing. What is relevant is that you avoided the direct comparison and again find yourself on the fringe attempting to compare apples and oranges.

Another failure of analysis.

The fact is Air America exists. Their show hosts are far left radicals who use the most inflammatory speech heard on radio and you don't hear that kind of BS coming out of Limbaugh or any others I've heard.

Keith Olbermann is just a moron whose brain isn't connected to anything and when he showed up is irrelevant to the issue...if you can remember what the issue actually is.

Noticed you don't have anything to say about Randi Rhodes getting suspended from Air America. That's an almost impossible feat.

posted April 07, 2008 06:52 PM            

quote:

---

I've never met anyone with even average intelligence who couldn't understand the word "most" and the various ways it can be used and what it means in different contexts.

---

I do know what it means in various contexts. In the context of the Pew poll it wasn't intended to mean "essentially half" the way you thought it did. It was meant to mean "almost everything" as it would be construed by anyone taking part in the poll that asks people to rate something on a scale.

quote:

---

As for you never hearing of Pacifica, your ignorance of fact is no concern of mine. You might want to tune in acoustic. Their programming is right up your ally on the "left" coast...otherwise known as leftistland.

---

I don't need a shepherd. I'm willing to do my own homework. Removes the bias.

quote:

---

Another failure of analysis.

---

Hardly. NPR is considered the radio the Left listens to. Air America is not. In addition, Air America followed Conservative radio years and years afterward, did they not? That means, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that if they have this tone you ascribe to the Left, then it is a reaction to the Right. Your premise that Ann or you or anyone else started speaking this way as a reaction to the Left is absurd. That IS what this debate is about is it not?

posted April 07, 2008 07:13 PM            

One more time acoustic. Try to concentrate.

"Most" when used as a "quantifier"..as it was in the Pew poll means...any quantity over half of whatever is being discussed. Therefore acoustic it's quantity is indefinite and could be any amount over 50% right up to the last particle before "all" is reached. Any astute 10 year old would get that.

Apparently you haven't been doing your homework acoustic. There's a far left radio broadcast station you missed. Pacifica surely broadcasts into your area of leftistland.

Hahaha, great analysis acoustic. Limbaugh, Hannity et al made Air America do it. Except, you never, ever hear the kind of inflammatory bullshiiit coming out of any of the broadcasters you consider right and it's the constant staple of Air America.

Coulter is speaking in the only language leftists understand.

posted April 07, 2008 08:00 PM            

quote:

---

I never suggested "most" means essentially "half" acoustic. No wonder you're in such a fog. If you know what "most" means you've avoided showing me..that you know.

---

Jwhop, your favorite line from the Pew debacle implies that 79% of people didn't believe all or even most of what the NYT writes. "Even most" suggests just an iota above half. Why are you denying what you say these days? Is that something you're consciously doing?

In a scale, as I've mentioned time and time again, there are two poles, and whatever is in between are lesser shades of the poles. The "most" employed in column 4 doesn't mean up to 50%. It's used alongside "All" to mean "Almost everything" (otherwise it can't be used in conjuction with "all" as the two terms do not specify equal quantities). Column 3 would be a step down from that, but would still believe "most" of what the paper prints as it is the closest step in the scale to believing everything (second farthest from believing almost nothing). Therefore your favorite line is and always was completely bogus. Further, it illustrates that it's you who has the difficulty with analysis and comprehension.

quote:

---

Any astute 10 year old would get that.

---

Except for you apparently. "Even most:"

quote:

---

Hahaha, great analysis acoustic. Limbaugh, Hannity et al made Air America do it. Except, you never, ever hear the kind of inflammatory bullshiiit coming out of any of the broadcasters you consider right and it's the constant staple of Air America.

---

posted April 07, 2008 08:01 PM            

quote:

---

As for me, I simply adopted the rhetorical style of leftists here on this forum. No one made me do it. I decided to give leftists a healthy dose of their own medicine. Whining, screeching, howling and shrieking followed...

---

posted April 07, 2008 08:21 PM            

=============

And Ann coulter does speak as a drunk who can't sleep till 3am in the morning

She was actually fired from ABC I think for that and not because she is some genious.

posted April 07, 2008 08:23 PM            

Which is exactly the definition of "most".

The word "even" adds or subracts nothing from "most".

I didn't say Coulter is not inflammatory, quite the opposite acoustic. How about this, you don't attempt to put words in my mouth I didn't say.

Yeah acoustic, people actually call in to the Limbaugh broadcast and if they're liberals, he puts them at the top of the list to get on the air and treats them with respect. Quite a departure from the bomb throwing lunatics at Air America.

Thanks for posting that Pew Poll again...which clearly shows...if you could do the math...that fully 79% of respondents did not believe all or even "most" of what the NY Times prints...and that only 21% of respondents do believe all or "most". Since we don't know what the breakout is of those who believe "all" we cannot determine what percent of respondents in that column (4) might only believe just over half..or "most".

Clearly, all those in columns 3,2 and 1 which are 79% of respondents believe at best half of what the NY Times prints...ranging down to "Believe almost nothing".

Your assumption this is an evenly divided scale between the different columns is just that, it's your assumption. However acoustic the word "most" in column 4 knocks the props out from under that argument...by definition.

Further acoustic, my viewpoint is being borne out in reality as the Times along with other leftist press outlets have been downsizing staff..reporters, printers, office staff..the works. People no longer believe them and their advertising revenues are plummeting. That's an indictment of their credibility...which is borne out by the Pew Poll...and my viewpoint of what it means. Unless acoustic, you believe the people at Pew are illiterate and they don't know what "most" means either.

posted April 07, 2008 09:11 PM            

quote:

---

"Even most" implies an amount ranging down from just short of all to just over 50% acoustic.

---

"Most" implies an amount ranging down from just short of all to just over 50%. When you say 79% do not believe all or even most, it's clear that you're attempting to spin the data to suggest that 79% don't believe "most" (over 50%) of what the NYT prints. "79% don't believe most of what the NYT prints," is a completely erroneous and misleading [dare I say a lying] statement to make based on the data. 21% believed just about everything, and 41% believed most of what was printed but left the paper room for error.

quote:

---

Clearly, all those in columns 3,2 and 1 which are 79% of respondents believe at best half of what the NY Times prints...ranging down to "Believe almost nothing".

---

Clearly, people choosing 3 on a scale with 4 options are opting to state that they do in fact believe more than half of what NYT prints.

quote:

---

Your assumption this is an evenly divided scale between the different columns is just that, it's your assumption. However acoustic the word "most" in column 4 knocks the props out from under that argument...by definition.

---

The word "Most" in column 4 sits along with the word "All." "Most" and "All" aren't synonyms strictly speaking, so in order for them to occupy one column we must assume that "Most" is closer to "All," than the traditional meaning of "Most." Also, column 4 is CLEARLY an end of a spectrum as indicated by the fact that they asked people to rate on a SCALE. As such column 4 equals people finding it extremely credible. Column 1 is the opposite pole, and indicates those who find the paper not at all credible. Column 3 is a lesser version of Column 4. Column 2 is a lesser version of Column 1.

quote:

---

People no longer believe them and their advertising revenues are plummeting. That's an indictment of their credibility...which is borne out by the Pew Poll...and my viewpoint of what it means. Unless acoustic, you believe the people at Pew are illiterate and they don't know what "most" means either.

---

That's an issue separate from your comprehension of the Pew diagram, but I'm willing to go there in an objective manner if you are.

"Just six-in-ten Americans who offer a view of major national newspapers give a favorable assessment." - Pew
(You say almost 80% find NYT not credible. How is it that 60% have a favorable impression then?)

"The differences are greatest for major national newspapers, such as the New York Times and Washington Post. Fully 79% of Democrats rate these newspapers favorably compared with just 41% of Republicans, based on those able to rate them." - Pew
(Let us not forget that Democrat outnumber Republicans, and therefore the disparity in these percentages are even bigger in actual numbers.)

"Currently, 60% of independents able to rate these newspapers have a positive impression of them;" - Pew
(Once again, 60% have a positive impression. What's 21% plus 41%? 62% right? That would be the total of Columns 4 and 3.)

"Further analysis of the data shows that being a Republican and a Fox viewer are related to negative opinions of the mainstream media." - Pew http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=348

Now, it is true that NYT in it's old form is diminishing as people look online for news more and more, but you ought not attribute that to waning credibility. That's a perception held primarily amongst Republicans.

quote:

---

I didn't say Coulter is not inflammatory, quite the opposite acoustic. How about this, you don't attempt to put words in my mouth I didn't say.

---

posted April 07, 2008 09:31 PM            

Clearly, the different columns are clearly marked and respondents were asked to decide where they fell on the scale Pew provided. Only you have a problem with the logic of this Acoustic. But "most" people can read with comprehension and they apparently didn't have a problem...since they were predictive of what's happened in press rooms all over America. They said they didn't trust the press..end of story.

I do not have to assume "most" is close to all and neither does anyone else. "Most" means what it means. It's a quantifier of indefinite quantities but always more than 50% and less than 100%.

The fact there were 4 columns is not a reason to suggest there was an equal distribution between columns...not when "most" appears in column 4.

I told you from the very beginning this poll was an indicator people didn't believe the press...and I outlined the problems which that created for the press...which have now come to pass.

Attempting to bring in a different poll from that under discussion isn't going to save your argument acoustic.

The Times is in so much financial trouble their stockholders are attempting to oust the little leftist clown publisher and put in some competent management.

posted April 07, 2008 10:51 PM            

quote:

---

It's clear I'm not spinning anything at all acoustic.

---

Everyone can see that you were clearly spinning, and indeed misleading.

quote:

---

The fact there were 4 columns is not a reason to suggest there was an equal distribution between columns...not when "most" appears in column 4.

---

There IS every reason to believe that people treated the SCALE as a SCALE. Four choices from believe to don't-believe. Obviously there are two columns on the BELIEVE side, and two columns on the DISBELIEVE side. No one who answers these questions on a scale would think Column 3 meant that they disbelieved more than they believed (i.e. "Most"). That's an idiotic assumption.

quote:

---

Attempting to bring in a different poll from that under discussion isn't going to save your argument acoustic.

---

Bringing what Pew Research says about Pew Research is entirely relevant (especially when they are putting their previous surveys in context), and the numbers match up exactly as I portrayed them. Check out the link to their Topline Questionaire for more historical data.

quote:

---

The Times is in so much financial trouble their stockholders are attempting to oust the little leftist clown publisher and put in some competent management.

---

Now THIS is the real diversion from the argument. Face it, you read the data wrong, and 60% of Independents, 79% of Democrats, and 41% of Republicans still view NYT favorably.

quote:

---

I specifically said Coulter speaks to leftists in a language they understand. I did not say Coulter isn't inflammatory nor did I say Coulter's speech patterns are similar to Limbaugh, Hannity or any talk show host.

---

posted April 08, 2008 12:31 AM            

quote:

---

Everyone can see that you were clearly spinning, and indeed misleading...acoustic

---

quote:

---

There IS every reason to believe that people treated the SCALE as a SCALE...acoustic

---

quote:

---

Bringing what Pew Research says about Pew Research is entirely relevant...axoustic

---

quote:

---

Now THIS is the real diversion from the argument. Face it, you read the data wrong, and 60% of Independents, 79% of Democrats, and 41% of Republicans still view NYT favorably...acoustic

---

quote:

---

What you said is that she spoke like a Leftist. She doesn't. She speaks like you...acoustic

---

posted April 08, 2008 12:42 AM            

I know you'll like this one acoustic. It comes straight out of the horses as$es at the NY Times.

April 8, 2008
CBS Said to Consider Use of CNN in Reporting
By TIM ARANGO

CBS, the home of the most celebrated news division in broadcasting, has been in discussions with Time Warner about a deal to outsource some of its news-gathering operations to CNN, two executives briefed on the matter said Monday.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/business/media/08cbs.html?ei=5065&en=a8fa4cf758327512&ex=1208232000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

posted April 08, 2008 02:36 AM            

quote:

---

Your problem is you can't see the illogic of what you say.

---

Because there is no illogic to it. I've always been logical on this matter. It doesn't rely on other people agreeing with me, but there is no way your presentation of the facts would stand up against my presentation of the facts. If people were asked to judge, you'd be laughed at for your way of thinking. A scale doesn't get a new meaning simply because you refuse to understand it. The subsequent Pew articles back up what I've said. We have our answer, and it's that 60% or so look upon the NYT favorably. Your assertion that 79% don't believe most of what they print is an illogical inference.

quote:

---

There is no reason to believe any of the respondents saw anything as a scale...because acoustic, respondents never saw any scale. They were simply asked questions. Pew then put their responses into a scale they devised for visual effects. Again acoustic you use an illogical argument which can't stand the most cursory examination.

---

Of course they didn't SEE a scale. I frankly can't believe you just said that. When did I ever suggest there was a visual?

Secondly, yes, they were asked simple questions like, "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."

Now, let's look for a moment what Pew says in describing Column 4:

Time Magazine is viewed as highly believable by 22% of people familiar enough to rate it, and the New York Times gets a 21% rating. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=838

So what would a step down from highly believable be if you were answering on a scale? Moderately believable? More believable than not? It certainly wouldn't be that the people believe less than most of what the NYT prints.

posted April 08, 2008 02:38 AM            

quote:

---

Bringing a different Pew poll into this conversation is an attempt to set aside the results of the Pew poll under discussion. Weak and intellectually dishonest but in perfect keeping with your usual behavior of trying to change the subject when the truth and facts go against you.

---

You're making excuses. You don't have a rational argument, so you're grasping at straws. Pew has been around long enough to collect historical data on this, and when I point it out you want to honestly sit there and try to say I'm intellectually dishonest? I think we know who's intellectually dishonest: the guy who tried to put forth that 79% of people don't believe all or even most of what the Times prints. I told you where to look for the historical data. Why don't you have some integrity and check it out, and get back to me.

quote:

---

Whatever the results of this poll, the earlier poll said something quite different.

---

Which part of this poll being part of a larger historical context do you not understand?

I don't understand your issue with educating yourself on what you're talking about before opening your mouth.

quote:

---

Do I need to remind you of Pews own commentary on that poll?

---

Be my guest. It doesn't contradict what I've said.

quote:

---

You have been consistently wrong acoustic

---