No, admittedly, I don't Rrhain. The off the cuff statement was based on my observance that Fox is outside the more politically correct establishment media and tends to cover the conservative as well as the liberal views a lot more than the other networks. I do know that most conservatives, prefer Fox for that reason.
quote:The off the cuff statement was based on my observance that Fox is outside the more politically correct establishment media
Do you have any evidence to justify this claim? This makes twice you've claimed "political correctness" without supporting data.
quote:and tends to cover the conservative as well as the liberal views a lot more than the other networks.
Oh, please. Name a single "liberal" commentator on Fox. No, Colmes doesn't count...he isn't liberal. He's centrist.
Explain how people like Cokie Roberts, Sam Donaldson, Tim Russert, John McLaughlin, George Will, Fareed Zakaria, John Harwood, Bob Novak, Pat Buchanan, William Bennett, William F. Buckley, Jr., Oliver North, and the like manage to have all the exposure that they do with so much "establishment" running against them.
Are you seriously saying that George Stephanopolous is so large of a player that it takes all of those conservative commentators to equal him?
Wait...George isn't really all that liberal anymore.
OK, explain how Bob Novak had, for a while, three shows on CNN while his "liberal" counterparts only had Crossfire which they had to share with him?
quote:I do know that most conservatives, prefer Fox for that reason.
No, they prefer Fox because it is unabashed in its conservatism. The rest of the news at least pretends to be objective. They're not (take a look at the press coverage of Clinton and Gore compared to both Bush's), but they pretend they are.
Fox, on the other hand, proudly proclaims what conservatives want to hear: The media is biased toward liberalism. They don't provide any evidence of this (and, in fact, it isn't true), but conservative people have swallowed this claim and to find a network that tells you exactly what you want to hear is very compelling.
Did you know that the Clinton administration, upon leaving, trashed the White House for hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage? That all of the computers had had the W ripped off of the keyboards, f'rinstance?
There's a problem with this claim, however: It isn't true. But let's see what Fox had to say about it?
Brit Hume (1/25/01): "By the way, the reported vandalism in those White House offices now includes power and phone cords cut... trash dumped on floors, desk drawers emptied onto floors, pornographic pictures left in computer printers, scatological messages left on voice mail, and cabinets and drawers glued shut. And the Washington Times reports that the presidential 747 that flew Bill and Hillary Clinton to New York on inauguration day was stripped bare. The plane's porcelain, china... and silverware, and salt and pepper shakers, blankets and pillow cases, nearly all items bearing the presidential seal, were taken by Clinton staffers who went along for the ride. The Washington Times quoted a military steward as saying that even a supply of toothpaste was stolen from a compartment under a sink."
Sean Hannity (1/26/01): "Look, we've had these reports, very disturbing reports -- and I have actually spoken to people that have confirmed a lot of the reports -- about the trashing of the White House. Pornographic materials left in the printers. They cut the phone lines. Lewd and crude messages on phone machines. Stripping of anything that was not bolted down on Air Force One. $200,000 in furniture taken out."
Fred Barnes (1/27/01): "Now, you know what else helped Bush have such a good week? It was the contrast with the Clintons' sleazy departure from the White House, which is a hot story in itself.... You had the trashing of the White House itself. We don't know how much, but the typewriters, the voicemail, the graffiti on the walls and so on, reflecting, I think, a real bitterness that they should not have reflected, at least in that."
Bill O'Reilly (1/26/01): "I mean, the price tag right now is about $200,000, so that's a felony right there."
Oliver North, radio host (1/26/01, "Hannity & Colmes"): "There's an awful lot about this whole administration that never looked right to many of us. And of course, their closing act in this whole thing, which was basically trashing the White House, you know, pillaging what was available on Air Force One.... We should expect from white trash what they did at the White House."
Tom Schatz, Citizens Against Government Waste ("O'Reilly Factor," 1/26/01): "They turned it into Animal House."
Paula Zahn (1/26/01): "All right, but this is the White House, for God's sakes. We're not talking about people living in a fraternity."
Sean Hannity on the Clintons (2/6/01): "I'd be more willing to cut them some slack and say it was an honest mistake and they weren't involved in the moving if Air Force One wasn't stripped, if they didn't trash the White House, if they didn't set up this -- the equivalent of a bridal registry, if he wasn't taking advantage of the taxpayers."
Tony Snow (1/28/01): "When I first heard about reported vandalism by disgruntled Clinton-Gore staffers, I got a little bit steamed. I've got a certain affection for the White House, due in no small part to my own service there during the first Bush administration. So, inspired by my experience and fond memories, I dashed off an angry newspaper column about the incident. But then the Bush team did something very wise. It did nothing, and that was the right choice. Sometimes you have to look past little idiocies and outbursts, understanding that life's just too short to fret over such things."
So you tell me, buz: Why would Fox spread such insidious lies about Clinton?
Do you really think Fox is "fair and balanced" when it conducts a poll asking, "Who would be the most likely to cheat at cards-- Bill Clinton or Al Gore?"
Go ahead and watch Fox if you want, but please don't lie to yourself that it is "fair," "balanced," or anything other than a conservative media outlet.
I just noted that my name on post 7, the best scientific method, has been changed to Stephen ben Yeshua, from Stephen Fretwell (see post by Minnemooseus). You'll have to search under the Fretwell name, on the topics that have taken off.
This is a bug. Searches for messages by Stephen ben Yeshua should return all messages by him under any of his aliases, including Stephen Fretwell. More generally, searches for messages by anyone should return all their messages under all of their aliases. The bug is an oversight and is easily fixed.
I'll look next week to see if my library has or can get a copy of the book and the "Perspectives" and Oikos papers. They sound interesting. The early '70's were really a boom time for ecology, so it's unfortunate you didn't get the grant you'd applied for - sounds like an interesting experiment.
"Cascade" IS a pretty sexy term - very evocative. Diamond seems to have long had a facility for the neat turn of phrase (he's a really good writer, even in his popular books).
When I get a chance to read the material, would you be willing to discuss them in a new thread? I'm one of those who believes that to effectively conserve an ecosystem, you have to understand the community dynamics; and to understand the dynamics, you have to understand extinction, which of course is where the cascade effect comes in.
I'm aware of what you are saying because I used to believe in the devil & his demons myself. However, It could be that the guy was unconsiously asking for help to cure his possible mental disorder. People who seek attention from other gullible types who jump at mystical experiences without critically examining them are in my opinion emotionally needy. Heck, I'll bet you the man is a hoax & a swindler anyway; Time will tell, when the next FOX news report about this ol'e dufus will probably read something like, "...the 66 year old man who claimed to live for years without ingesting food was discovered by unbiased observers in his house munching away on twinkies, filet-mignon, & lobster just after he was visited by a large throng of admirers who gave them all their money." Then Fox news will have to retract their original story, demons or not!
SIDELINED==as to how I eliminated the possibilities of the three alternative explanations, I might add that I and two other people clearly heard the voices come out of the guy. Besides the fact that the air was static and that all of us were truly scared, it was no hoax. We knew the guy well, and there were no hidden wires or speakers, which leaves the option that the voices did in fact come from him. No one could have made these sounds! I suppose that a true skeptic could assert that we were fooled, but even if that could have been so, no one has fessed up to it, and what is the point of fooling someone and never admitting it? I honestly did not find any sort of physical or character evidence that we had been hoodwinked. Alas....to me it was very real, but as a scientific proof, I have none. One footnote: Supernatural phenomena have been documented before, as have UFO encounters. Personally, I think that most UFO documentation has actually been demonic manifestation. Is the Supernatural real? I will agree with one point...it has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Either it is all fake and people have been deluded, or it is real and the entities do not wish documentation. A devil or evil entity, if real, would not want all of you guys to be believers if that would, in fact, change theology and expose this entity for what he/she/it is.
I think Rhian is just pointing out by giving examples, that Fox-News is conservatively biased and a bit sensationalist in it's coverage, and therefore can't always be trusted to give a balanced presentation of events, and so your view that for example the 66 yr. old goddess worshipping goof has a demon(s) may not be taken seriously either. Logic 101 class: Lesson 1: If the source is unreliable, then the messenger(s) may be unreliable also.
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 01-02-2004]
Let me see if I get this correctly. You say you were already predisposed to belief in the supernatural and yet you were sceptic. You say you were very afraid and yet you claim you can be certain of events as they unfolded? Fear is a hugely distorting emotion especially when combined with a state of mind where you are predisposed to accepting such things without question.
Now,in this state of mind, you wish us to believe that you maintained an objective viewpoint. It is a shame that independant observations were not made by anyone else and this is the problem with stories such as this. If I say they in all likelyhood did not happen you could defend yourself without fear of being found out.It is precisely for this that science was instituted as a means of investigation.Would you care to point out to me where you find your source for this statement.
Supernatural phenomena have been documented before, as have UFO encounters.
I would like to hear if the documentation has evidence that has been properly examined....people today are so accustomed to pretentious nonsense that they see nothing amiss in reading without understanding, and many of them at length discover that they can without difficulty write in like manner themselves and win applause for it. And so it perpetuates itself. G. A. Wells, 1991
quote:"A devil or evil entity, if real, would not want all of you guys to be believers if that would, in fact, change theology and expose this entity for what he/she/it is." Why not? Is he/she/it embarassed for some reason? And if God is really in control of things why doesn't HE allow the entity(s) to come out of their "hiding-place" once & for all so we can all see what their up to? Or, shall we announce very loudly, "Hey, demons & other strange entities, God is using you to try to make us humans miserable. What do you say to that?"
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 01-02-2004]