OT: Roger Ebert on bullies.

Page 1 of 4  
Very informative. I see a few symptoms of those bullying techniques in here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are you the Oracle, or Ebert?
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

I am trying to picture Roger Ebert atop a bull. I am going to lie down now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/the_oreilly_procedure.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

The man hasn't lost any brain cells...     mahalo,     jo4hn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/the_oreilly_procedure.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:53:30 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

o'reilly is the illegitimate spawn of joe pyne.
Regards,
Tom Watson http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Tom Watson" wrote:

It took lung cancer to do it, but Pyne finally mellowed out the last few months of his life.
Now about Rush?
The syphilitic miscarriage of a mongoloid gang bang maybe?
Lew
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Rush and Jon Stewart (Daily Show) are similar in that they both are entertainers that present made up news. Stewart admits often that his is a faux news show while Rush expects everyone to believe his pronouncements. The truly sad situation is that more factual information is available from the Daily Show.     sigh,     jo4hn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"jo4hn" wrote:

Reminds me of an observation of an associate of mine back when CB radio was the big fad.
He commented that CB radio gave somebody with nothing to say, a place to say it.
Would seem to apply to Rush, O'Reilly, et al.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, the irony ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The real irony here is that out of all the people who have visited this newsgroup with absolutely nothing to contribute, you are the worst of them.
Of course, this type of topic is your speciality. It deals with people who offer nothing, give nothing and whine all the while doing it. For you, it's identical to looking in a mirror.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

As Tim said. You attack the person and not the message. Rave on!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Tim conveniently skirted the actual point of Ebert's article. It is about bullies. So if you reintroduce the original point of my ORIGINAL post, what you get is an acetate overlay of the exact points that Ebert makes, but this time in Tim's voice. Tim does exactly the same thing that O'Reilly and other bullies do. Exactly the same. Same modus operandi. Textbook bully tactics. So Upscale is correct. Tim is talking into a mirror.
So, Chuck, now explain where the person of Tim and the messages of Tim differ. Tim relies heavily on the fact that bullshit baffles brains.
Now go to my OP which says: "Very informative. I see a few symptoms of those bullying techniques in here."
Point made, game, set, match.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

OK, cite a single instance of "bullying" (as defined by Ebert) in my post above. You can't. I criticize what I perceive to be the much greater dishonesty of the left when blending news and commentary. I cite factual demographic information. I comment upon my experience in actually listening to O'Reilly for the first time. I comment on the boring and vulgar nature of his ideological opponents.
Your inability or unwillingness (I don't know which) to respond to such a post thoughtfully does not constitute bullying or anything else on my part - it reflects a rhetorical inadequacy on yours.

I rely heavily on the fact that a good many on the left don't have the factual content, courtesy, and intellectual skills to debate ideas fairly. This is demonstrated on the Wreck quite regularly. The quickest way to undermine defenders of left ideology is to let them speak freely. They inevitably devolve into profanity, personal attacks, and denial of factual statements.
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You TELLING me I can't?

Divisive rhetoric. Misdirection. Straw, by the ton.

WTF? Man, you're really reaching.

There you go. You have given O'Reilly your blessing. I'm not surprised as you two have so much in common. Loofa anyone?

So you support a bully. And you are one and act like one. You can't handle somebody in your face and telling you are a bully. So, we are blessed with more of your rhetoric, straw men, red herrings, almost truths and misdirection. Then, as soon as somebody tells you to go fuck yourself, it HAS to come from a Leftist, right? That was MY comment on the boring and vulgar nature of you as an ideological opponent.

Why waste more beautiful words when a simple 'fuck you' will suffice? Your man Cheney has said that bad word before. So has your hero Bush. Somehow I don't think Obama uses it much. Hmmmmmm.

'Fairly' in your lingo means: as long as they agree with your assessments.

More Left/Right divisive rhetoric. This is getting soooo boring.
Good thing I'm not allergic to straw or I'd be sneezing my ass off.
Would you LOOK at the time?? My adhesive has set up, so gotto run...till next time when I have some extra time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote: <SNIP>

I am defying you to do so because I know you can't.

Bull, more bull, and yet more very nonresponsive bull. You cannot comment on my *perception* - you can disgree with it, but calling it all the things you have is not a response, it is (as it your constant custom) a giant rhetorical dodge.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s mographic
When I say "...the population is self-identified as 40% conservative, 20% liberal ...." this is factual information, demographic in nature. It could be wrong or out of date information (in which case I'd welcome an authoritative correction), but it is not "reaching" in any sense of the word, at least not among competent English speakers.

Ah, I see you have emptied your bag of ideas and are back on the personal attack. I have not given him my blessing. I merely note that I have actually listened to him at some length - something his loudest critics seem to almost never do - especially here.

Wrong on both counts. O'Reilly sometimes says and does things with which I agree. Often he holds positions with which I disagree. But I've also made it clear that I object to his shoutdowns (for much the same reason I object to your use of foul language, your not-to subtle anti-Semitism, your gratuitous and intentional ad hominem arguments and so on - because it's bad manners and doesn't move the discussion forward).

I just *knew* you could control yourself. We're what - 3 posts or so into this exchange and you're off to the vulgarity races.

As I said, nothing speaks louder than letting your side have their free speech without exception. You routinely start threads, can't defend your position, and resort to school yard name calling and mud throwing. N.B. That I disagree with righties just as strongly and, with only one exception I can recall, have never seen this kind of behavior on their part. It's interesting that you on the radical left (and yes, that's what you are no matter how much you've claimed otherwise in the past, your defense of the far left speaks volumes) - the great self anointed defenders of free speech - protest the loudest when you actually encounter someone engaging in such free speech. You can't defend you ideas? Don't start threads stating them and expect to go unchallenged.

Because I am a mannered adult. Because I debate ideas not people.

No, "fairly" in the context of being honest in the debate, sticking to the topics, not diluting it with your personal assaults. Let's see if we can give you an object lesson from which you may learn. In the previous political thread here, I had an extended discussion with Mr. Huntress. We disagree pretty fundamentally on the issues in question. We managed to disagree politely, with respect for each other, and along the way, I at least, learned some new things. There was no profanity, personal assault, or cheap shots that characterizes so much of what you post. We left the discussion still disagreeing but without the rancor or hard feelings that, again, seem to be what you strive to achieve. THAT is what "fairly" means.

However boring, it is fundamentally true.

If you're going to continue this, at least you could learn to swear with some slight hint of class:
http://www.trevorstone.org/curse /
... At least it may increase your vocabulary.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The what?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You don't use education to threaten. You use it as a means to lord over those less educated. Just because someone may not have the education you have doesn't for one second mean that what they have to say and how they say it is any less meaningful than your drivel.
And it *is* drivel that you espouse. Day in and and day out you use your English language capabilities to vomit a form of verbal diahrrea. In fact, it's all you do because you just don't have anything better to offer.

That's because your mental state won't allow for the simple idea that you mislead as a matter of course. You're so practiced in verbal gymnasitics that every word you utter is a misleading presentation of the English language. The really sad part is that you're smart enough to make a contribution, but you waste whatever capability you have on drivel and contribute exactly nothing. Coupled with your incessant complaining, whining and how life is sticking it to you leaves one with the final realization that you're not capable of anything else. It's just not in you to change that. This fact is most evident by the years you've been here and have yet to make *any* comments dealing with the topic of woodworking.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The only thing you rely on is the fact that you like to cause argument. This is supposed to be a woodworking newsgroup and not your personal platform for raising discussion on any subject that will cause dissention. This is demonstrated by you on the rec without cessation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.