do you have the backbone?
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
The snopes piece reminded me that this topic was discussed around her a couple of years ago, and the statement was made by someone else.
lone wolf
Hi lone wolf , this is China in China .I just want to inform you that I agree with You .
Hi lone wolf , this is China in China .I just want to inform you that I agree with You .
Just speak out to every one you can and that also includes sending this thread to your MP's .There is no maybes or if's ,Just Do It ,Do It Now . .And when you'll do that and see the resullts which will occur than you will be able to say:......" Hey man , I,m a Canadian ;and I've got a backbone ".
I obviously don't have an MP here in China ,but I've got the PM in Canada.It is the second letter that I will be sending to him from China ;I keep in touch with my country .
"There was no need to watch Fox news, Yukon. CNN covered it as well. Indeed, Howard was the Prime minister of Australia at that time. So it is natural that many news media would cover what he said."
And of course, you believed CNN, but not FOXNews.
And of course, you believed CNN, but not FOXNews.
I didn’t watch the FOX news, never do. So there was no question of my believing or not believing FOX news.
SirJosephPorter, did you attain your self-declared and self-promoted superior expertise your expertise on FOXNews by never watching it??
Now we know how you attained your experience on all the other fields you comment on,on these forums.
Figures. But not surprising.
Now we know how you attained your experience on all the other fields you comment on,on these forums.
Figures. But not surprising.
"I didn’t watch the FOX news, never do." Yukon makes a good point Sir Rupe. You can't judge what you don't watch.
JLM, SirJosephPorter believes what he sees on CNN, reads in the Globe and Mail. He also believes what his favourite scientists tell him about life and he refuses to beleive what he could see with his own eyes.
Just as it is a fact that, by his own admission, that he attained his expertise pertaining FOWNews by never watching it, it is reasonable to presume that his knowledge about any and all topics he pretends to be an expert was attained by similar ways.
Solid in his beliefs, like concrete. You know, all mixed up and permanently set.
Just as it is a fact that, by his own admission, that he attained his expertise pertaining FOWNews by never watching it, it is reasonable to presume that his knowledge about any and all topics he pretends to be an expert was attained by similar ways.
Solid in his beliefs, like concrete. You know, all mixed up and permanently set.
"CNN is very good."
"CNN is very good compared to Fox."
The numbers don't lie.
Here are the number of viewers (in thousands) for March 24th:
MSNBC CNN FOXNews
During day 514 740 1332
Prime time 1518 1694 3113
You can confirm these numbers if you look at the right website.
So it takes a breathtakingly uninformed person to claim that CNN has more credibilty than FOXNews.
"CNN is very good compared to Fox."
The numbers don't lie.
Here are the number of viewers (in thousands) for March 24th:
MSNBC CNN FOXNews
During day 514 740 1332
Prime time 1518 1694 3113
You can confirm these numbers if you look at the right website.
So it takes a breathtakingly uninformed person to claim that CNN has more credibilty than FOXNews.
Sure you can, JLM and Yukon Jack. One doesn’t have to read or see something to form one’s opinion about it; sometimes reputation alone is enough to form an opinion.
Let me give you an example. Both of you probably will agree that Hustler is a pornographic magazine. But have you read Hustler? You probably haven’t. But that doesn’t stop you from concluding that it is a pornographic, trashy magazine.
Or what do you think of Tamil Tigers? You probably think that they are a terrorist organization, but have you read any of their literature? I haven’t’. But they have a reputation for being a terrorist organization, and that is good enough for me.
Well, consider FOX news as Hustler (or Tamil Tigers) of the news media and you get the picture. FOX has a reputation for being a right wing news channel. I don’t have to watch FOX news to form an opinion.
Sorry ... but by definition, that puts you close to being narrow minded. Would you refuse dessert because someone told you it isn't sweet, or shy away from meeting someone because you heard a rumour that person was bad? Lessons are things we learn ourselves. Prejudice is that of which we convince ourselves.
The numbers don't lie.
Here are the number of viewers (in thousands) for March 24th:
MSNBC CNN FOXNews
During day 514 740 1332
Prime time 1518 1694 3113
You can confirm these numbers if you look at the right website.
So it takes a breathtakingly uninformed person to claim that CNN has more credibility than FOXNews.
Sorry, Yukon Jack, numbers don’t mean a thing. Numbers are meaningless. Thus National Enquirer has a much bigger circulation than say Globe and Mail. But I will believe what Globe and Mail says in a heartbeat, I wouldn’t believe anything I read in the Enquirer.
So don’t confuse popularity with reputation. There are plenty of right wing extremists in USA, they watch FOX news. That means squat. CNN has a much better reputation, is much more highly regarded that FOX news. FOX news is really a mouthpiece of the Republican Party, nothing more.
Numbers you quote only say that more people (right wing extremists) watch FOX than CNN, it say nothing about how reputable the sources are. CNN is much more highly reputed than FOX.
Here are the number of viewers (in thousands) for March 24th:
MSNBC CNN FOXNews
During day 514 740 1332
Prime time 1518 1694 3113
You can confirm these numbers if you look at the right website.
So it takes a breathtakingly uninformed person to claim that CNN has more credibility than FOXNews.
Sorry, Yukon Jack, numbers don’t mean a thing. Numbers are meaningless. Thus National Enquirer has a much bigger circulation than say Globe and Mail. But I will believe what Globe and Mail says in a heartbeat, I wouldn’t believe anything I read in the Enquirer.
So don’t confuse popularity with reputation. There are plenty of right wing extremists in USA, they watch FOX news. That means squat. CNN has a much better reputation, is much more highly regarded that FOX news. FOX news is really a mouthpiece of the Republican Party, nothing more.
Numbers you quote only say that more people (right wing extremists) watch FOX than CNN, it say nothing about how reputable the sources are. CNN is much more highly reputed than FOX.
You do know that the number of people who watch a national news channel devoted to international news does not mean a damn thing right?
Truth is not a popularity contest.
Would you refuse dessert because someone told you it isn't sweet, or shy away from meeting someone because you heard a rumour that person was bad?
I might, Lone Wolf, there is such a thing as reputation. Let me give an example. If you knew that somebody belongs to Nazi party or that somebody is a serial rapist, would you meet him? Well, perhaps you would, I don’t know, but I wouldn’t.
Similarly if somebody has tried a dessert and tells me that it is a terrible dessert, I probably would be reluctant to try it.
I might, Lone Wolf, there is such a thing as reputation. Let me give an example. If you knew that somebody belongs to Nazi party or that somebody is a serial rapist, would you meet him? Well, perhaps you would, I don’t know, but I wouldn’t.
Similarly if somebody has tried a dessert and tells me that it is a terrible dessert, I probably would be reluctant to try it.
Go ahead. Feel free to resort to worst case scenario. Your view simply MUST be supported - even if that does entail ignoring the point. I can't understand how you can speak with such authority if you really only choose to hear the most favourable slant on a story.