CBSNews.com article contains language nearly identical to WorldNetDaily article, including falsehood
SUMMARY: An October 10 article on the conservative news website WorldNetDaily about reactions to Ann Coulter's comment that Christians "just want Jews to be perfected, as they say" asserted that the controversy over her comment began when Media Matters for America, "a pro-Democrat media lobby headed by David Brock, noted Coulter's appearance on CNBC's 'The Big Idea' with host Donny Deutsch." An October 12 CBSNews.com article contained large sections that were nearly identical to the WorldNetDaily report, including the inaccurate description of Media Matters. In fact, Media Matters is not affiliated with any party or candidate.
An October 10 article on the conservative news website WorldNetDaily about reactions to right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's comment that Christians "just want Jews to be perfected, as they say" asserted that the controversy over her comment began when Media Matters for America, "a pro-Democrat media lobby headed by David Brock, noted Coulter's appearance on CNBC's 'The Big Idea' with host Donny Deutsch." An October 12 CBSNews.com article contained large sections that were nearly identical to the WorldNetDaily report, including the description of Media Matters: "Not unlike other recent media controversies, this one began when Media Matters, a pro-Democrat media lobby headed by David Brock, noted Coulter's appearance on CNBC's 'The Big Idea.' " In fact, as noted on its website, Media Matters "is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"; it is not affiliated with any party or candidate.
Large portions of the CBSNews.com article included almost identical language to WorldNetDaily's article. For instance, WorldNetDaily reported, "The National Jewish Democratic Council called on 'mainstream media outlets' to stop inviting Coulter as a guest commentator and pundit and strongly condemned her comments that in a perfect world all would be Christians." The CBSNews.com article: "The council called on 'mainstream media outlets' to stop inviting Coulter as a guest commentator and pundit and strongly condemned her comments that in a perfect world all would be Christians."
From there, both articles continued, using virtually identical language for the next 400-plus words. From CBSNews.com:
Not unlike other recent media controversies, this one began when Media Matters, a pro-Democrat media lobby headed by David Brock, noted Coulter's appearance on CNBC's "The Big Idea." Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton recently claimed credit for helping to launch Media Matters.
In the Monday interview, Deutsch asked Coulter: "If you had your way ... and your dreams, which are genuine, came true ... what would this country look like?"
"It would look like New York City during the [2004] Republican National Convention," Coulter said. "In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like."
In her recollection of the convention, she said: "People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America."
"It would be better if we were all Christian?" Deutsch asked.
"Yes," she said.
Later, Deutsch returned to the subject, saying: "(Y)ou said we should throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians."
"Yes," she replied.
When pressed by Deutsch regarding whether she wanted to be like "the head of Iran" and "wipe Israel off the Earth," Coulter stated: "No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws."
After a commercial break, Deutsch said that "Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment," and asked her, "So you don't think that was offensive?"
Coulter responded: "No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament."
Coulter later said: "We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all."
During the interview, Coulter also said: "I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely un-self-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would."
From WorldNetDaily:
Not unlike other recent media controversies, this one began when Media Matters, a pro-Democrat media lobby headed by David Brock, noted Coulter's appearance on CNBC's "The Big Idea" with host Donny Deutsch. Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton recently claimed credit for helping to launch Media Matters.
In the Monday interview, Deutsch asked Coulter: "If you had your way ... and your dreams, which are genuine, came true ... what would this country look like?"
"It would look like New York City during the [2004] Republican National Convention.," Coulter said. "In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like."
In her recollection of the convention, she said: "People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America."
"It would be better if we were all Christian?" Deutsch asked.
"Yes," she said.
Later, Deutsch returned to the subject, saying: "[Y]ou said we should throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians."
"Yes," she replied again.
When pressed by Deutsch regarding whether she wanted to be like "the head of Iran" and "wipe Israel off the Earth," Coulter stated: "No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws."
After a commercial break, Deutsch said that "Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment," and asked her, "So you don't think that was offensive?"
Coulter responded: "No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament."
Coulter later said: "We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all."
During the interview, Coulter also said: "I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely un-self-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would."
According to the article, the WorldNetDaily article was posted at 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on October 10. The CBSNews.com article indicates that it was posted on October 12, though the article does not indicate what time it was posted. Neither article carried a byline. The CBSNews.com article began with the notation "(CBS)."
Looks like CBSNews.com did not do their own research.
Or even their own writing.
It seems that CBS has essentially admitted that they plagiarized from WorldNetDaily. They have removed the stolen text (though they attribute this to providing "clarity") and added a note at the bottom:
CBS stilll has two almost identical paragraphs as WorldNet Daily on the National Jewish Democratic Council, much of which is not quoted material.
In turn, the WorldNetDaily "narrative transcript" appears to be lifted from a Media Matters article that came out several hours earlier. They are identical other than paragraph breaks starting with the words "When pressed by Deutsch regarding" and ending with the sentence that is introduced with "Coulter later said." While of course the quoted text is the same, it is clear that it cannot be coincidence that all of the unquoted text is identical. Interestingly, it appear that WorldNetDaily took proper pains to rewrite the earlier narrative, but it looks like they got tired and left the latter part just as Media Matters wrote it.
isnt that an oreilly-ism?
Maybe they're making up for reporting Media Matters' bogus story on Limbaugh's "phony soldiers."
I don't get it. Did mmfa lie about that event? What's the "bogus" part?
Quick: pass this on to 10 friends, and you will have good luck:
Rush Limbaugh is a phony,
and was never a soldier.
It wasnt a bogus story. Just because the hivemind was TOLD that is what they believe doesnt mean those of us with an actual brainpan believe it
Awwwww. The Regurgicons are longing for the "good old days" when they could disseminate their bullsh*t with impunity. In those days, only their pinheaded sycophants payed any attention, and, with Pavlovian reliability, flocked to the polls to do the GOP's bidding. Now this little game is getting more widespread exposure, and it seems that they can no longer say whatever the hell they feel like and still go unscathed. It must be really bothering them, too, because they're doing a lot of kvetching about it.
So is the beef because the two articles were essentially the same, or because both said MMFA was a pro-Democrat media lobby headed by David Brock?
I am not so sure about the "lobby" part, but to deny this website is pro-Democrat is a little silly, of course it is. If not, is it anti-Democrat? No. Is is pro-Republican? No. Is it non-partisan? No. There you have it.
Someone at CBS plagiarized an article from a right-wing website, passing on inaccurate information and biased comments about MMFA in the process. What part of that don't you understand?
Besides the word "lobby", which I have already conceded may not be accurrate as a description, what is biased about what either article said about MMFA?
"Not unlike other recent media controversies, this one began when Media Matters..."
That's a plainly biased statement. It didn't begin with MMFA, it began with Coulter.
"...a pro-Democrat media lobby..."
MMFA identifies itself as a progressive organization, not a pro-Democrat lobby. For someone who's such a stickler about identifying himself as a conservative and not as a Republican, I would expect you to know the difference.
Weak, as usual. Are you denying this website is pro-Democrat?
Tommy, its not 100% pro Democratic. When Liebermann was still a democratic senator , MMFA went after him. If you go against the grain, you will be attacked. Its the same as how posters are treated, if we disgree on something, the posse attacks.
Let me explain to you the POINT of this article. It's simple.
CBS has been shown here to be re-routing another article from a right-wing outfit. That PROVES Media Matter's theme that the mainstream media are nothing more than lackeys for the RIGHT.
In this case, CBS has been NAILED on the fact that they completely COPIED an article-- one that was misleading as well.
Get it?
They identify themselves as progressive, which doesn't always mean pro-Democrat. Are you pro-Republican?
If I only shouted out pro-Rebulican stories like this website shouts out pro-Democrat stories, then you'd have a case.
And Sueeld, Lieberman was fine as long as he was a Democrat, he is now an Independent.
You need to read Sue's post again. She was pointing out the opposite: MMFA had many Lieberman articles while he was still a Democrat.
I agree Tommy, but during the primary MFFA went after him in his race with Lamont. They decided to take Lamonts side over Lieberman. Lieberman dared to go against the Daily KOS.
You agree with what? Tommy just claimed the opposite of what you posted.
I agree that MFMA normally supports Democrats with the exception of Liebermann. The hate toward him started in July before the CT primary he was the exception
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607240004
Wow, that's your example of MMFA's "hate" for Lieberman. Uh, okay.
Well it was not love
Are you familiar with the phrase "middle ground"?
Yes I am denying it is pro democrat. Cough up anywhere on this site where it advocates for Democrats.
And it clearly says "began when", not began WITH", gee, I would expect you to see the difference in those two.
Tommy, this site isn't a "Pro-Democrat" site. However, it would be accurate to say it's an "Anti Conservative misinformation" site.
I would agree with you on that one, it has a defined mission to stop and counter the right wing misinformation machine that prevailed during the clinton years and the first term of Bush.
Are you as consistent in your condemnation of MSNBC, aka Olbermann, when he repeats nearly word for word the outrages originally noted on this website, as you are now for CBS News?
Of course you're not.
Do you have examples of Olbermann repeating word-for-word (at least to the degree that the CBSnews.com article mimicked WND) stories from this website, including repeating inaccuracies? I'm interested to see them.
Thanks.
Watch Keith, read the topics here, watch Keith, come back here - you have your examples.
Nobody complains about that, but when another mainstream media outlet, CBS, gets it's talking points from a partisan website, WND.........all hell breaks loose.
Tommy, you bring up a good point. Olbermann uses MMFA all the time for his "WPITW" segment. Then the next day MMFA highlights this. I see no difference with what CBSNews.com did, after all CBS News is as mainstream as Olbermann and MSNBC.
If you can't see a difference, then you don't know what plagiarism is. Keith doesn't steal the work of MMFA's writers, any more than MMFA steals Keith's writing back from him.
Olbermanns hand washes MMFA hand and it is a vicious cycle.
Olbermann credits MMFA when he uses their material just like MMFA credits him so its transparent and the reader/viewer can decide the value of the source.
Using someone's writing and making it seem like its your own is plagiarism.
All cbs.com had to do was credit WorldNetDaily and its readers would know it's using a far right web site as its source and make their own decision about the quality.
I'm really surprised you can't tell the difference.
Also, MMFA doesn't endorse candidates or a particular position on public policy. Therefore its neither pro-Democratic or pro-Republican.
One more time here's what MMFA is, nothing more, nothing less:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Does that include any Democrat misinformation? Or does it only apply to anti-Democrat "misinformation"? Even if that information is true? This is OBVIOUSLY a pro-Democrat site and perpetuates it's own myths, like Democrats being progressives or liberals. We'll see how it stands when Cindy Sheehan begins her campaign against Nancy Pelosi next year.
"Olbermann"
Olbermann....
This thread or a thread?
sueeld: "Keith, will you play "Misty" for me?"
Olbermann is a Media Matters myrmidon. He doesn't need to steal material from Media Matters. They fed it to him.
Exactly. These posters slamming CBS are just being disingenuous because they don't like what both outlets said - whereas in the case of Olbermann, he is given credit for parroting whatever this website digs up because they agree with both.
More selective hypocritical outrage.
Tommy, is it possible that you really don't see the difference between CBS cribbing wording and phraseology from a WND article without attributing it, and Olberman reporting on a story that MMFA highlighted?
Is it your assertion that Olberman repeats the reporting "nearly word for word" that appears in MMFA articles and passes it off as his own?
If so, can you PLEASE cite a single example of this?
Thanks.
I have already said that Olbermann rarely attributes his awards to MMFA, if ever, are you saying he does?
The intent is exactly the same even if Olbermann uses his flowery prose at the end of each award to amphasize it some more.
If Olbermann uses a straight O'Reilly quote his staffers gave him then he doesn't have to give anybody credit for anything other than O'Reilly.
Are you really not getting this?
I really this Tommy's not getting what we're trying to point out.
Apparently, Tommy thinks that if Olberman reports on something that O'Reilly said -- an incident that MMFA has also reported on, then that is the same thing as CBSnews.com repeating word-for-word large chunks of "original reporting" that was first published by a right-wing "news" site, without attributing the words to that right wing "news" site.
Somewhere in Tommy's thought processes, the concepts of "similar reporting" and "plagiarism" are getting confused.
So, if the mainstream media is parroting or in this case lifting almost word for word articles from far right web sites their reading public doesn't have a right to know?
There is no legitimate writer or journalist who believes its OK to use somebody else's writing without accreditation.
I don't think it has to do with accreditation. The problem is that a supposedly objective news source (CBS) is lifting news from a well known subjective news source (WND).
You're right. And a credit to WorldNewsDaily wouldn't solve the problem anyway. They didn't just use them as a source, but they lifted whole chunks of text. You can't steal another author's work and then make it O.K. by crediting that writer. That's like saying it's all right to steal money from someone's wallet if, when you go to buy dinner with that money, you tell the waitress who you got it from.
"Olbermann ... doesn't need to steal material from Media Matters. They fed it to him."
Right, Albert Einstein. Really brilliant.
I mean, it's not as if Media Matters posts all their items on the Web or something, right there where anybody could read them.
It's not like Olbermann is the only major television news person who conveys these topics to his audience because he himself has decided they're important.
No, no, no. A Media Matters staff member, in disguise, meets Olbermann in a dark Wash., DC parking garage and they quickly exchange the goods. Money is exchanged. Secret handshakes are given. Mwahahaha!
Read on, everybody, for evidence of how effectively tommy da shill can blow up a thread. He jumps in with an irrelevant point intended solely to derail and others (such as Clams, who's cool, but constantly lets tommy push his buttons) jump in and--voila!--the thread becomes about tommy! It happens all the time and it really takes away the pleasure of reading the articles and comments here IMO. What CBSnews.com did was particularly egregious, cribbing directly from a sordid right-wing rag, and we should have been discussing that and what we can do about it, not tommy's freakin' shill azz.
"(such as Clams, who's cool, but constantly lets tommy push his buttons)"
Guilty. And I apologize for contributing to the noise. I just find it more frustrating to sit back and allow Tommy (or whoever it happens to be) to spin nonsense and lies.
Could we all agree to discuss Olbermann on his own thread? He usuaally has one a few times a week.
YOU are a moron troll who hasnt as yet made a single post with a cogent argument or anything other than regurgitated propaganda stupidity. I hear your bridge calling.
Thanks for avoiding the question.
You claimed that Olberman repeats "nearly word for word", the "outrages" posted here.
I doubt that Olbermann is that lazy that he would simply lift a report and present it as his own. If you know of examples of this, please present them.
Of course, you recognize that noting the Media Matters reporting and attirbuting that information to Media Matters doesn't count, right?
Olbermann rarely attributes his worst person awards to MMFA - once is awhile, but hardly ever.
He simply repeats the outrage here word for word - if you don't think he gets them from here, think again........most are obscure examples that nobody else covers, except MSNBC and MMFA.
We ain't stupid.......
He repeats the quotes word for word, not the writing of MMFA staffers. I can't believe you can't see the difference.
You can pretend to be naive, or maybe you are? Whichever, your insincerity and double standards are more than evident.
And you can pretend to be an arse. Or maybe you are?
For someone who's been caught plagiarizing whole paragraphs from published writers here twice, I would expect you to have figured out what constitutes plagiarism by now.
Why don't you link to them for everyone to see? I have no problem with it as I apologized and took full responsibility for it - but if you must use it to make your point, be my guest.
But if you need it to deflect away from your double standards and weak arguments, by all means go for it.
I'm using it as two clear examples of plagiarism. You should be able to see the difference between what you and CBS.com did and what Olbermann does. To use one of your favorite phrases, if you can't see it, then I can't help you.
Oh, now that's funny. When Wesley jumps into an argument between us to poke at me about a reading error that has nothing to do with the topic, you think that's the perfect addition to the conversation. But when Clams points out your past behavior, which is directly relevant to your argument, then that's just wrong.
And you talk about other people having double standards? Hilarious.
What's funny is how you always seem to swoop right in when Clams needs a little boost......why is that? Where do you lurk? Hmm?
Oh, and here we go now with the ridiculous, unsupportable and obviously false charge that Brab and I are the same person? And you're going to scold me for getting personal?
By the way, how much longer are we going to have to wait for those examples of Olbermann copying MMFA "word for word"?
Talk about hitting a nerve? Did I say that?
The intent is the same, I am sorry you can't get it. And frankly, I could care less. You offer nothing but trolling personal attacks,
I am sorry nobody else will engage you here, perhaps if you offered something more than a topic rubberstamp or anything remotely intellectual, you wouldn't have to find me to argue with. You bore me anymore.
Yep, still waiting on you to back up your claim that Olbermann has copied MMFA "word for word."
Is this "irony"? Wesley's the one who swooped in with irrelevant harassment, and you welcomed it with open arms. This is actually relevant to your hypocrisy.
And can I add, "swoop right in" doesn't really apply when it's about two hours after all of this started. Oh, how suspicious that I happened to be reading this thread at some point during the day.
I thought you were accountable for everything you said? Why don't you address the point, instead of making baseless insinuations?
Classy as always Clam [sarcasm off]
Thanks Jeter, but I have come to expect CC to stoop to whatever level he has to in order to bolster his weaknesses. Since he doesn't race bait me much anymore, or call me a vicious racist because that just gets his posts yanked, he will retaliate in anyway he can.
I am indifferent to him and his antics.
Tommy,
Think of Clams comments as just crumbs in your pocket. Another words, worthless.
Right. You're the one who was twice caught plagiarizing, but I'm the one stooping to low levels by bringing it up? Black is white, up is down. And I won't even dignify your "race bait" smear with a response.
I see personal attacks are back again today, nice clams, you disagree with someone so therefore you attack.
So valid examples of plagiarism are personal attacks? It's not my fault that Tommy contributed textbook examples for us to refer back to. Sorry, but if he's going to refuse to acknowledge the difference between what CBS.com did and what Olbermann does, then his own examples are fair game.
And I hope you'll notice that he still hasn't even attempted to back up his claim that Olbermann has copied MMFA "word for word."
Oh, yes, how dare I bring that up! After all, Tommy apologized and promised to never do it again (and then he did it again and disappeared for a while), so it must never be mentioned again.(/sarcasm off)
Whatever gets you through the night Pearl.
This confuses me. Are you saying that Olberman repeats the quotes that MMFA highlights, or he repeats the reporting word-for-word?
Because, obviously, if MMFA reports on something that O'Reilly said, and Olberman reports on the same statement, if they both quote O'Reilly accurately, they will be repeating word-for-word the same bit of information, right? Is THAT what you're talking about?
Because Clams pointed out this very distinction, and you called him "naive" (not to mention "insincere"). I'm trying to figure out what you meant by that.
Tommy and Jeter2 are just muddying the waters.
This is just another variation of the "Clinton did it too" argument the far right is so fond of.
Straight from the far right playbook:
1) Attack the messenger 2) If that fails say everybody does it.
What the hell are you talking about?
Show me where I've said one word here about Olbermann or said everybody does it.
I haven't even written one word here about Olbermann or CBS for that matter.
Off your meds again John-Boy?
Pardon me.
You just jumped into the thread to sarcastically criticize another poster as classy.
If you don't agree with what Tommy is saying would you please point out where you disagree or is that adding too much to the thread?
Well Johnny, Clams & Tommy have a long acrimonious history here.
If they are arguing political substance, fine.
But Clams, as per usual, decided to make it personal.
A low blow, one could call it. Totally unnecessary.
So I called him on it.
And now you'll be apologizing to me for what you falsely accused me of?
That would be the right thing to do....
I don't really think Clams' comment was a "low blow". He was pointing out Tommy's personal history on this site.
Given Tommy's apparent inability here to distinguish between plagiarism and what Olberman does, I think Clams' comment is quite relevant.
You are entitled to your opinion. But don't kid yourself on Clams' motives. He did not bring up my admitted plagiarizing, to which I completely took full responsibility for, to make some relevant point - but rather in an attempt to discredit me.......hence Jeter was absolutely correct - he made it personal. As he often does.
Normally nobody else engages him so he often trolls around and provokes me. I could care less and if he sticks to the topic points, fine.......but he has no class, so he goes personal. His choice.
You may be right. I'm not as regular a poster as you, and I haven't paid enough attention to Clams to form the same opinion of him as you do.
Maybe he did bring up your plagiarism to discredit you, I don't know. But it certainly seems relevant to me, given the topic and your diifculty in separating the concepts of plagiarism and reporting.
Arch,
My point was that both lifted and used information from a website in order to make their points. CBS apparently did it from WND, and we all know that Olbermann does it regularly from MMFA. The intent is the same, that was my point.
Again, Iask, can you provide any concrete examples of when Olberman "lifted and used information from a website in order to make (his) points"?
Let me make it clear: the issue in this article is NOT that CBSnews.com took a WND article, looked into it and reported its findings. The issue is that CBSnews.com repeated LARGE CHUNKS of the WND report in its article without attribution.
That is commonly known as plagiarism, and it's the issue here. For you to equate what Olberman does, you would have to take the position that Olberman plagiarizes MMFA reports. That charge demands some sort of evidence.
Unless you have proof like MMFA does about cbs.com then you really don't have a point do you?
Only if by "discredit" you, you mean that I was pointing out your apparent inability to understand the definition of plagiarism, then yeah, I guess that pretty much discredits you. I don't know why bringing up your history of plagiarism in this context should be considered a personal attack or a "low blow." How terrible of me to bring up something that you've written here in the past. Sorry, but the words you write here don't vanish down the memory hole. And, sorry, but your personal history on this subject is relevant to this discussion, particularly seeing as how you decided to divert attention onto Olbermann by falsely claiming that he does the same thing that CBS.com did. He does not. In fact, your dishonest smear of Olbermann is far more of a "low blow" and a personal attack than my citing your genuine offenses.
And incidentally, the fact that you were forced to own up to your transgressions is completely immaterial.
Are you serious Arch?
Sorry, but Clams bringing up something that happen a long time ago & was a great embarrassment for Tommy, for which he apologized & was forgiven by MOST here was a low blow. And real unclassy!
Yes, Jeter, I'm serious. The fact that the incidents in question took place long ago and were apologized for say something about Tommy, sure.
But Tommy is arguing that what Olberman does on his show is the same thing that CBSnews.com did with the WND article, which looks suspiciously like a textbook definition of plagiarism. He seems incapable of recognizing a difference between the two.
If there's a long and acrimonious history between Tommy and Clams, that's relevant too, but on the face of it, to me, what Clams brought up was relevant to the topic and provided some insight into Tommy's argument.
Jeter,
More than once conservatives (including you, I believe) have challenged me to show that I criticize liberals as well as conservatives. When that happens, I explain that I don't accept dishonest or unfair behavior from anyone, and show examples of that consistency.
Now it's your turn.
If you really think that what Clams has done here is so offensive, then take a look at Wesley. What Wesley has been doing for about eight months now is to bring up a reading error on my part, a mistake I admitted, in an attempt to discredit me.
That is harassment, plain and simple, and far worse than what Clams is doing even if I were to agree it was inappropriate. Now, I don't expect Tommy to be fair-minded about this, since he's actually praised this atrocious behavior. I don't see any conservatives policing their own ranks and chastising Wesley for this behavior, the way they expect me to help police the liberal side (and which I do).
So if you really think that Clams deserves scorn for pointing out why Tommy should understand what plagiarism is, then I think I can expect you and other conservatives to chastise Wesley every time you see him harassing me ("17 feet" is the key phrase), especially when I simply attempt to have a civil conversation with him.
I think that's fair. If you don't, I'd like you to explain why.
Thank you.
Perhaps if you posted the entire exchange, and the historical exchanges between you two that led up to the "17 feet" comment, instead of cherry picking the points that make you ought to be some innocent, put-upon victim; Jeter would be able to give you an answer with full context.
Even if it is another totally unrelated topic.
"out to be", not ought to be......
Oh please. Are really going to pretend that I have some fault in this?
There is no lead-up to it, as far as I recall. And even if there was, I've never seen him cite any egregious behavior on my part that he feels justifies his harassment.
I think I've earned enough capital around here that someone as fair as Jeter can take my word for it. If not, I'm glad to find the original exchange and post it.
As for you, I've defended you from unfair attacks, and you seem incapable of doing the same for me. That's all that really needs to be said about your character.
Brabantio,
I do recall an exchange between you & Wesley that included "17 feet" a while back [maybe 6mos ago or more.] You guys were going back & forth, you were peeved & I believe he finally said sorry & you said it was cool, & that was the end of it. If he's done it repeatedly, I missed it. At the time I almost jumped in to ask what it was all about [just out of idle curiosity], but decided it might just prolong & inflame the situation so I strolled on by. And until you just brought it up, it had completely slipped my mind.
Quite a few of us have little [or huge] feuds going on here that other posters might not have a clue about or how they got started. It's like a private joke. And some of us share those with other posters here too ;-)
Clams could have used any number of examples of plagiarism to make his argument. But knowing his acrimonious history with Tommy, I think it's pretty obvious what his motives were here. To publically embarrass Tommy.
I'd happily chastise Wesley if he gets on you again. Of course it's a bit hard without knowing what the heck "17 feet" means.
But tell ya what. Should he bug you, I'll just tell him to knock it off & stick to the topic.
BTW, I've come to the defense of other posters besides Tommy. Doesn't matter if they are Liberal or Conservative. If I think they are being unfairly attacked or someone is delivering a personal low blow I've stepped in.
This is funny , these are the same people that attacked me last week, some of these same people that do nothing when one member of the "team" goes around smearing other good posters. People better look in their own house first.
You were the one who accused those on your "team" of being terrorist sympathizers. But that wasn't an "attack", of course.
Just the other day CaptFoster lumped Bruce in with BilliyBobJones. I criticized him for it, and that's my standard behavior. My house is clean, thank you.
I certainly don't recall him ever apologizing. If he did, then it's even worse that he's continued to bring it up (as he did just a couple of days ago).
I appreciate someone on the conservative side telling him that he's out of line. It never should have been brought up once, much less over and over. Thank you for that. If it matters, it was a reading error. He wrote "17" ", and I misread it for 17 feet. An honest mistake, obviously, as there's no rational explanation for what else it could be.
I'm sure you have defended others, and I respect that.
In contrast to Wesley, Clams' comment didn't come out of nowhere. Tommy was trying to stretch the definition of "plagiarism" to include the use of the same story as someone else. That's absurd. And while Clams could have come up with other examples of what plagiarism is, it's a much stronger point to demonstrate that Tommy knows what it is better than anyone. That is a valid argument, and the best one to show that Tommy already knew his argument was absurd, and so was being disingenuous.
This is typical behavior for Tommy, and that's the source of the acrimony between him and any number of posters here.
Let me expand on this. There are acrimonious relationships here, but they are not all the same. The example with Wesley is all on him, as far as I know. I don't recall doing anything that could have possibly motivated that behavior, much less justified it. Clams and I (and many others!) pick on Tommy's weak arguments, dishonesty and hypocrisy because he's been displaying those traits for years and expects people to find him to be credible. Sometimes he is, of course, but he is not someone who can be described as fair or respectable in general.
Also, you have the case of mefirst and Jlyons. Now, I have my own issues with her, and I think she deserves a lot of blame for that acrimony. On the other hand, mefirst tends to jump on her out of nowhere, regardless of the topic or the nature of what she happened to have said.
So I think it's important to separate motivation from validity and relevance. I personally am motivated to criticize Jlyons when she tries to hold herself up as some sort of victim, when her past behavior is inexcusable (as just displayed above). That's a valid and relevant point to make, because as Clams said, things do not vanish down the memory hole (or some such phrasing). To say otherwise allows people to be hypocrites. If it's purely because of personal dislike, irrelevant to the topic or the nature of the comment in question, then there's no validity there.
The motivation may be to discredit Tommy, but Tommy's argument deserved to be discredited. Since that's the case, the motivation in itself doesn't very much matter.
The bottom line is that Tommy's history of dishonesty was directly relevant to his dishonesty in this thread. Coming up with other outside examples of plagiarism wouldn't have accomplished anything. And I know this because of Tommy's own personal history of plagiarism. He should already know that what Olbermann does isn't plagiarism, and I offered up evidence of that. Tommy discredited himself--he didn't need my help.
And I'll point out again that Tommy still hasn't even attempted to back up his statement about Olbermann. Which, not so incidentally, was designed to paint me as a hypocrite. Why is that not a "low blow" or a "personal attack"? Everything I wrote in this thread is verifiably true, while Tommy has repeated lies. But it's the conservatives who are playing the victim for having their dishonesty revealed.
This is just so typical of conservatives. Anything that could discredit them in ANY way is "a personal attack" and a "low blow" because you don't like it as it totally nullifies the argument you're trying to make.
It's a relevant point, and perfectly germane to the argument, esp. with Tommy's apparent (deliberate) lack of understanding of the point here, as always. It's just that you, Tommy, and SueEld don't LIKE it, therefore you whine about "personal attacks" and "low blows" when all that has happened is a recounting of FACT.
The FACT is that Tommy has been busted doing the VERY THING that this article is about, so of course, like good conservatives, you attack the person that brings this up. Quick, kill that messenger!
Facts are just so darn inconvienient for you guys, and it's a "low blow" to cite them. Part and parcel to the Up is Down, White is Black, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery insanity that infects conservatives and the parallel universe they inhabit. Don't confuse me with the facts, I KNOW what I believe!
Tommy will continue to make goofy assertions that Olbermann "lifts entire segments from MMfA" and when pressed for actual FACTS to back them up, will continue to disappear. Rarely does Tommy have any factual evidence to bolster his arguments- he only deals in assertion like most conservatives.
In this way, he blows up threads as noted by another poster.
Comparing Olbermann/MMFA to what cbs.com did with that WorldNetDaily article is just an attempt to paint MMFA as hypocrites even though anybody who took Journalism 101 knows there's a big difference.
From the far right playbook:
3) if 1 and 2, above, don't work smear them as hypocrites.
Exactly. These posters slamming CBS are just being disingenuous because they don't like what both outlets said - whereas in the case of Olbermann, he is given credit for parroting whatever this website digs up because they agree with both.
More selective hypocritical outrage.
- TOMMY / Monday October 15, 2007 04:36:45 PM EST
Apologize?
Sure if you apologize personally to every poster here for jumping into yet another thread without something substantive to add.
Besides most normal people would figure "pardon me" covers it.
Besides what you did is #1 in the far right playbook:
1) attack the messenger.
John-Boy I posted further on in this thread on this topic with something substantive. What are you the forum police now??
Jumping in here to slap Clams for his low blow has nothing to do with you. But you just had to say something...so you made a false accusation about what you alleged I'd written. When I told you that you were mistaken, instead of just saying, oh sorry & letting it go, you now accuse me of "jumping in" to yet another thread with nothing substantive to add. Of course nobody else around here ever does that [roll eyes] & BTW my history here is just the opposite.
So stick that in your pipe & smoke it.
BTW I knew you'd never apologize. That takes class. You must be a close buddy of Clams.
What you did is #1 in the far right playbook:
1) attack the messenger.
No apology necessary
What Jeter did was interject his opinion in the way he viewed Clams response to me - something we all do when we offer our opinion. And Jeter is no far right player, so that is ridiculous. He is independent and there is no classy poster on this site.....if you could see past your hatred for anyone who doesn't share your ideology you would see that.
So just who is attacking the messenger? You.
I meant classier, not classy.
Hatred?
Don't make me laugh.
ps
If you substitute clams for jeter2 in your defense you might be onto something.
Or is the martyrdom gig more to your liking?
Thanks Tommy, but your words are wasted on John-Boy, I think he's logically-challenged
It's also pointless trying to discuss anything with anyone that blindly partisan. You might as well converse with a rock.
You and Tommy go on and on about personal attacks, but you two make them all the time, like in this post above.
Nice job by Tommy to completely avoid the real substance of the issue, as usual.
Could either you or Tommy point out how the controversy over Ann Coulter's comments were "begun" by Media Matters at all? The claims in that story are completely bogus misinformation, regardless of where CBS got them from.
1) attack the messenger. No apology necessary...by Johnny
Attack the messenger?
The messenger of what? A low blow? A personal attack?
Then yeah damn straight I told Clams he had no class.
You call that an attack, I'd call it the truth.
Wow, I guess I really hit a nerve with you on this one. Here's some advice: If you or anyone else doesn't want to be held accountable for what they write here, then don't write here. It's pretty simple.
Or we could follow your lead and write so offensively that your baseless insults get your posts deleted, which happens to you regularly when you're losing an argument, doesn't it my friend? You know it does.
So, poof - there is no record of your indiscretions.....tidy how that is.
Since you keep telling that lie, I guess you're relying on the fact that only I know for sure how many posts of mine have been deleted. But since I can count them on one hand, your repeated claim that it happens "regularly" is a bald-faced lie. But do keep telling it. I only serves to remind me how utterly dishonest you truly are.
Here's some advice: If you or anyone else doesn't want to be held accountable for what they write here, then don't write here. It's pretty simple...by Steamed Clams
Now go look in the mirror & repeat your own words.
In other words, "I'm rubber and you're glue"? What a ridiculous response. I stand by everything I've ever written here, and I don't play the victim when my words are quoted back to me. That's accountability.
Show me where I've said one word here about Olbermann or said everybody does it.-jeter2
I have spent the better amount of my time here being quite reasonable & polite. IÂ disliked the name-calling here & said so many times. However, having been on the receiving end of so many attacks has finally convinced me that my civil manner was wasted on most. - jeter2 / Friday October 12, 2007 02:28:58 PM EST - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
[link to mediamatters.org]
It's not an everybody does it statement, not word for word, but it's in the same ballpark.
The everybody does it was referring to plagiarism not name-calling.
Wow Roundhouse, maybe you should get the drift of what was being discussed before jumping in to comment.
I'd like an apology.
OK. I'm sorry you jumped straight to insulting me before you extended that politeness you used to exhibit. I mean I was just posting the facts as I understood them. I took 'everybody does it' in a much broader sense than anyone else, I suppose. My bad, I guess I'm just too stupid to get the drift of well, anything.
Yeah, I did misread the overarching theme of your back and forth, for that I am sorry.
I sincerely apologize.
But here's a tip. Demanding apologies for trivial sleights shows a lack of mental fortitude.
Roundhouse,
You went to the trouble of hunting down a post of mine from another thread in order to hopefully debunk what you thought I'd said, & you're insulted that I suggested you get a drift of what's being discussed before commenting? BTW how is my asking you to get your facts straight an insult?
Oh ok, I could have written : Roundhouse you misunderstood, please go back & re-read the thread.
Well I agree that's probably the way the old jeter would have handled it. But man, I get piled on here, misquoted, misinterpreted, & quite frankly my patience has run a tad thin.
I do thank you for apologizing. My asking for one may have been unnecessary because I think you might have offered one anyway. Of course your apology came with another backhand slap...
Hey I'd like to be good ole reasonable civil me again, but it's gotta be a two way street.
It's alright. I don't stay flustered over this stuff, I just get involved in the moment. But when I can't shake an annoyance or I'm flying off the handle over junk, I give it a rest.
The more we hold onto our anger, the more we are enslaved by it.
May I suggest that you refocus your energies on something less aggrivating?
May I suggest that you refocus your energies on something less aggrivating?
I mean temporarily, I don't mean get out and stay out.
May I suggest that you refocus your energies on something less aggrivating?
Is that your not too subtle way of telling me I ought to take a hike ;-)
Actually I took about a month off from this forum last year. I was getting testy & aggravated, & the time away actually did me good.
When something ceases to bring enjoyment, it probably means a time out is called for.
I'll have to give this some thought...
Posting here is like an addiction.
You can pretend to be a moron or maybe you are but Clams is absolutly correct here.
Please, Tommy, one example -- ONE! -- of Olberman repeating word for word the reporting here. Is that too much to ask?
If Olberman does this as often as you imply, then surely you must recall ONE instance that stood out as a glaring example of plagiarism?
Thanks.
Pretty please?
Just one?
I'd love to see you come up with an example of Olbermann plagiarizing Media Matters.
Again, Olbermann in a Media Matters myrmidn. He does not have to plagiarize material that is fed to him by MMFA.
This makes sense....how?
Getting a story idea from someone is not the same as copying it.
Hmmmm, somebody must've watched "Troy" recently.
It's "MYRMIDON", btw. You oughta learn to use the google.
You mean when they CITE Olbermann saying this or that? Did they CITE Newsmax? Or was it plagerized? They dont take Olbermanns stories and cite them as their own, they talk about OLBERMANN IN Olbermann stories and what he is saying. That is a huge difference. CBS is just copying Newsmax as IF it were an independent news story including false material.
I don't think anyone's talking about MMfA taking anything from Olbermann, but the other way around. Of course, other people could alert Olbermann when O'Reilly (for example) says something ridiculous, so it's sort of hard to prove that he lifted any such thing from MMfA.
It seems to me like if MMfA thought they had some sort of intellectual property rights and Olbermann was violating them, they wouldn't be so inclined to put him in their threads.
Hillary Clinton started the website. How can it claim it is not affiliated with any candidate?
She did not "start" the site. You are a liar.
Why do we have items about Obama, Edwards and even Kucinich? Why would Hillary allow that?
Prove it.
Of course you can't, because it isn't true.
You're a liar.
False dichotomy. It needent be either pro Democratic or Pro Republican. How about anti conservative misinformation. This site is non partisan. It is not campaigning for Democratic candidates. It is the same as an anti Abortion group claiming to be non partisan. It is, the fact it helps GOP candidates more than Dem candidates doesnt change that.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I am not so sure about the "lobby" part, but to deny this website is pro-Democrat is a little silly, of course it is. If not, is it anti-Democrat? No. Is is pro-Republican? No. Is it non-partisan? No. There you have it. - tommy / Monday October 15, 2007 03:03:58 PM EST
It's PRO-TRUTH! The exposure of the conservative mis-information, and distortion in the corrupted corporate media.
I wonder often when I read you word Tommy, I wonder why somebody whom has your insights would say such stupid things. I know the answer outwardly, you chose a side, and can't bring your self the re-examine a philosophy that has crashed and burned right before your eyes!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"Not unlike other recent media controversies, this one began when Media Matters...noted Coulter's appearance on CNBC's 'The Big Idea.'"
So MMFA started the controversy by reporting Ann Coulter's offensive comments? Well, that's enlightening. I was under the impression that Ann Coulter started the controversy by opening her mouth again.
Well...see...you just don't understand how it works. When Annie utters one of her Christofascist banalities, she's just exercising her free speech, or making a joke; when MMFA reports these comments, they're being STALINISTS! See? Isn't that easy?
So, you mean MMFA is a Communist front organization? It figures...I'll bet it's run by Jews. <sarcasm>
That would explain their war on O'Reilly, who is trying to expose the War on Christmas...it's all starting to come together now...
Anne Coulter couldn't have started it - she's a Christian for gosh sakes!
Nobody watches Donny Deutsch. He even has fewer viewers than Media Matters myrmidon Kieth Olbermann. If MMFA hadn't taken Coulter's words out of context and e-mailed them to the media, there would have been no controversy.
"out of context"???
MMFA printed just about the entire exchange between Coulter and Deutsch. What more "context" do you need? Also put Coulter's comments in the context of every other controversial statement she's made ...whenevr she has a new book for sale.
Context?? Get real...
This is just the newest right wing meme, Irony. When one of their own gets busted making an ignorant, racist, antisemitic, or lying smear, they simply claim that they were misquoted or that their words were taken out of context.
You'll notice that Kozakid made no attempt to back up his claim.
'Taken out of context' is simply repeated over & over... much like the sheep in Orwell's Animal House mahing "Four legs good, two legs bad"... REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH AUDIO, VIDEO, AND ACTUAL CONTEXT IS PROVIDED. When objective reality works against them, they merely deny reality.
WorldNetDaily: "Media Matters for America, 'a pro-Democrat media lobby'
C'mon, they're just being fair.
After all, because WorldNetDaily has nothing but pro- right-wing, pro-conservative , liberal-&-Democratic Party-bashing news, they do call themselves "pro-Republican".
Oh. Wait a minute, turns out that's not correct:
"WorldNetDaily.com Inc. is an independent news company"
Oh yeah- and if you act now, you can sign up with other WorldNetDaily readers for a January cruise with John Kerry-trashing Jerome Corsi of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "fame".
But WND is very very independent.
World Net Daily is an independent as MMFA is.
Oh and don't forget to read about how the liberal Sean Penn will be a spin doctor for The Terrorists. And the special report on the you-know-who's War on Christmas. On the "independent" WND.
Well, even if Media Matters isn't pro-Democrat, 90% (guesstimate) of commenters here are.
It's the same reason people claim Fox News is "pro-Republican".
Do you recognize Fox as "pro-Republican"?
If not, it seems a strange justification for your point. But then, you also supported your argument with a "guesstimated" statistic, so I'm not seeing a lot of intellectual rigor in your debate.
Oh, you're cute.
I disagree with WND, and believe they should offer a correction of the "pro-Democrat MMFA" line. We should strive for accuracy.
I was just commenting on how it would be easy to interchange the two (as often happens with the also incorrect assumption that Fox is "pro-Republican").
So do you dispute my estimation?
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question:
Do you consider Fox "pro-Republican"?
Uh, I stated for the record, "incorrect assumption that Fox is 'pro-Republican'". Pretty obvious.
Now wanna answer my questions?
I'm trying to get alkl this straight -- "incorrect assumption that Fox is pro-Republican" means that you don't think Fox is pro-Republican, right?
So that means that you were trying to demonstrate how easily WND could have made this mistake, because MMFA is NOT "pro-Demoocrat" even though "90% (guesstimate) of the posters are".
Wow. So when you said "Well, even if Media Matters isn't pro-Democrat" you actually MEANT that it is NOT pro-Democrat.
I think I've got that sorted out now. How'd I do?
Correct.
Nice work.
Thanks.
It wasn't easy.
Using some Tommy logic:
Fox News is not anti-Republican
Fox News is not pro-Democrat
Fox News is not non-partisan
Therefore Fox News is pro-Republican
Please show me where I have ever said that Fox News is not pro-Republican. Of course it is and I have said so many times. So I am not sure you have a point, in fact you don't.
Tommy, the point is you dare to go against most on here on this issue, so you are attacked and your words are taken out of context, things are made up. It is the typical away most on here treat anyone with a different view.
Can you explain how Tommy's words were "taken out of context"?
Did he ever say FOX was not pro Republican? I do not recall reading him say that .
How is that taking words out of context?
That sounds to me like misattributing a statement to him. Different thing entirely.
You're right Sue, I have said Fox is biased towards Bush and Republicans on many occasions.
Thanks Sue, but I would not say "most", but rather "some" - many welcome different opinions and engage honestly. While others are fearful of whatever doesn't conform to their partisan view so they make it personal. But as Jeter said, "whatever gets them through the night".
I go through the afternoon and sometimes I can not believe how we treat eachother on this site. But Sue, Tommy is right most are very nice and welcome honest open debate and difference of opinion. There are a select few (I witnessed this over the weekend in how they treated another long time poster) that will say and do anything to hurt someones reputation on this site. I love reading different views and debating them respectfully, this is what America is about.
From the far right play book:
1) attack the messenger 2) If that fails say everybody does it 3) if 1 and 2, above, don't work smear them as hypocrites 4) if none of the above work try to paint yourself as a martyr who's being unfairly attacked.
MMFA is Pro-Democrat, Fox Is Pro-Republican
MMFA is Pro-Liberal/Progressive, Fox is Pro-Conservative.
There kids, can we all agree with that?
And MMFA may not "lobby" but they do act as "advocates" when they ask their posters to write to news organizations to issue complaints about Conservative mis-information or remarks highlighted here that may be offensive.
Well said J, 100% agree.
Jeter- Best Posting of the day!!!!
MMFA must be the only pro-anything organization that doesn't endorse candidates or take a stand on public policy issues.
OOOO Jeter2, yay, you rock, gosh golly...
All I want to know is, what did you do with Jeter #1?
OOOO Jeter2, yay, you rock, gosh golly...
Well ok Mary, I take it you're not too impressed...Ah well, I can't please everyone.
All I want to know is, what did you do with Jeter #1?
Is that a serious inquiry? Or are you funning with me? ;-)
Mary are you a baseball fan?
My moniker here, jeter2, is in honor of my favorite ball player, NY Yankee Derek Jeter. His jersey # is 2.
Thanks for explaining your name. I was just wonderin' My husband likes to play poker with two die-hard Yankees fans from N.Y. and has fun giving them a hard time.
Also was getting a bit weary of the feuding. How 'bout a wrestling match...tag team with you, Tommy & Sue vs. Clams, Brabantio, & JohnnyNY? & others as they feel inspired :-)
And what was his batting average in this year's playoffs? ;0)
Actually, in the complaint filed against Al Franken and his publisher which was laughed out of court over the use of "fair and balanced", Fox's lawyers state Fox News was started to balance out the liberal bias of the media.
If a kid turned in a paper at school, and the teacher found an article like this on the internet, the student would not only flunk the grade, but would be disciplined for PLAGIARISM.
Journalists are supposed to follow ETHICS in practicing their trade. Lifting a BIASED RIGHTWING article from the internet, changing a couple of words, and presenting this as an original piece (no sourcing or accreditation given) is dishonest, is malpractice, and violates every rule of writers.
CBS news, long accused by the rightwing as being biased to the left, instead is shot through and through with partisan rightwingers. The entire output of today's media reflects this kind of unconcealed rightwing bias. And in this instance, the presentation should get somebody fired ... and probably the editor/producer too. This is not journalism, it's propaganda, and LAZY propaganda at that.
"...the student would not only flunk"
Right. This was "Bush League" on the part of CBS, in every sense of the word.
Right On Dave - Isn't this the same network that eventually had to sack Dan Rather for reporting a story based on unverifiable documents? Will these people ever learn to do their own research??
Please don't mention this WorldNet plagiarism when talking about the ultra-liberal commie Dan Rather as it spoils all the right-wingers fun.
" In fact, as noted on its website, Media Matters "is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"; it is not affiliated with any party or candidate."
If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Which statements do you have a problem with?
Hey I'm in the market for a bridge. What are its particulars, when was it last inspected, and by who.
As a serious customer I'm sure your willing to fly me out and put me up for a couple days while we work out the details.
What a relief, I can never find one forsale on ebay.
"If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you."
You mean, they're not web-based?
The Koolaid Kid gets the 'Most Tired Cliché Award' for the day.
Was this CBS segment reported by Dan Rather? ;-)
No. Dan Rather was harassed out of his job by right-wingers like you, who interestingly and conveniently have nothing critical whatsoever to say about CBS' lifting word-for-word from a right-wing conservative site.
Uncritically lifting word-for-word from a far right website?
I thought CBS was the founding member of the "liberal media" club.
Another in a long line of substantive posts from jeter2.
How long have you had your degree from the Ann Coulter School of Public Discourse?
That's a ridiculous comparison. I think Jeter has a friendship with Tommy that's leading him to make poorly-thought out defenses for him, but there's nothing that puts him anywhere near Coulter's league here.
On the whole I think Jeter has shown fair restrant on this thread Johnny. While I might agree with you on many things, Jeter is not the enemy. He has a sense of humor, he makes good posts regularly. Try to enter into an argument with him assuming that he's not going to act unethically.
Cause as far as I've seen, he don't.
OT yes the conservative side, in large part, has ducked and dodged the issue of CBS's plagerism. Yelling at them about it, surprise, just like you or I, you can get defensive and unlikely to agree with anything the attacker says.
I can't think of anyway to do it myself. Though some recent reading I understand imperfectly the actions of neural ciruits in this. Through the same reading I have a good idea of how I might do a hypothetical political opponet some hurt with it. This ain't that type of situation. With the exception of some operatives who troll on here occasionally and other strangers (emphisis on strange here) I think most of us are civil here, and prefer to stay that way.
Thank you Brabantio & Eweston for coming to my defense.
Johnny One Note isn't looking for a civil debate/discussion with me. He's just been following me around from thread to thread looking for a fight by throwing out insults.
I'll be placing him on my *Ignore List* soon ;-)
For you all, it's like fish in a barrel. Keep kickin'.
Brabantio, it's bugging me that you're letting right wing enablers get under your skin. You've got alot to say and you do it well.
To Hell with them!
Thanks very much!
I'm not sure who you mean by "right-wing enabler", so all I can say is I try not to let anyone get under my skin. But at the same time, I take honesty, consistency and fairness seriously, and I think that should be the case for everyone else as well.
CBS plagerizing is not surprising. As far as Media Matters claiming not to be a Liberal, Democrat advocate site: a duck can call itself an eagle, but its still a duck.
A duck would never be as confused as you are. They know what they are honking about.
What's really frightening is that Antonin Scalia voices the same views as Coulter... and makes decisions for us all.