Taro T Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 I am told I qualify as a "lefty nut" and yet, never have I posted a thing about Fox. Thus, my anecdote obliterates your argument and you owe me five quatloos, six if you can't tell me where the reference "quatloo" comes from without googling it. The guantlet having been suitably flung, I now return to my drawing room to enjoy a snifter of Brandy while I wait to hear from your seconds. 510480[/snapback] How many quatloos for Shahna? Can the bidding start at 10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 my anecdote obliterates your argument and you owe me five quatloos, six if you can't tell me where the reference "quatloo" comes from without googling it. 510480[/snapback] I don't know about quatloos but based on the context, I'll bet you can make a million of 'em if that anecdote you have is for the bird flu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 22, 2005 Author Share Posted November 22, 2005 I am told I qualify as a "lefty nut" and yet, never have I posted a thing about Fox. Thus, my anecdote obliterates your argument and you owe me five quatloos, six if you can't tell me where the reference "quatloo" comes from without googling it. The guantlet having been suitably flung, I now return to my drawing room to enjoy a snifter of Brandy while I wait to hear from your seconds. 510480[/snapback] i had to google it.....and i still am not 100% certain i know what one is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Actually, that's not against the First Amendment. That only guarantees the government won't stop you from talking, it doesn't guarantee the government will talk to you. 510322[/snapback] News gathering activities are protected by the 1st Amendment. Unless there is a compelling state interest in blocking access, which I'd argue isn't the case here, this would go against case law on the issue. Also, in similar instances, retaliation against a news organization has also been held to be unlawful.' By the way, I miss the monkey avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Ok, just totally ignore the CNN reporters, Helen Thomas was being a Clymer, so they stopped calling on her for questions at the White House press conferences. 510289[/snapback] Got news for you. If anyone at a White House press conference asks anything remotely to a real question, they will be ignored regardless of which network they work for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Got news for you. If anyone at a White House press conference asks anything remotely to a real question, they will be ignored regardless of which network they work for. 510631[/snapback] Key words are "at a White House press conference". I'd bet a large sum of money most reporters get more and better info on background in direct communication with the WH Press office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Link and Source This is so simple it's almost tough to explain, but if the "Most Trusted Name in News" is openly calling the POTUS an "a-hole" and "moron" on their website, then maybe they aren't the most trusted name in news. Maybe they aren't even news anymore. Proves that CNN is the other side of the FOX News coin? See above. 510325[/snapback] Did you actually read the BLOG, you referenced in that link? It seems that the offending filenames were inserted by a low-level nobody at NETSCAPE and were changed as soon as they were dicovered. Netscape then appologized. Of course the BLOG you referenced does try (and Fail) to spin it in a way that makes it appear that CNN is totally at fault and that it was done intentionally and maliciously by Ted Turner himself. But, the fact they present don't support the conclusions they draw, unless you're wearing your Elephant-Hide Blinders. So none of the partisan Horse Manure you're ranting about is even close to being factually based. As Usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Did you actually read the BLOG, you referenced in that link? 510732[/snapback] Did you? Seriously, did you actually read the blog I linked? Here is the complete text from my link: It used to be if you went to this Netscape/CNN page and right clicked on the image of George and Laura Bush you would see this filename: http://cdn-channels.netscape.com/cppops/fe...5/i/!@#$.jpg The graphic now leads to a page not found, and they have changed the graphic file name to: georgelaura135.jpg. Too bad for them Wizbang sponsor TabloidColumn has a cached version of the page with the !@#$.jpg graphic name highlighted. Originally spotted by conelrad and left in the comments. Update (Kevin): Michelle Malkin catches another CNN hidden editoral comment in this picture: moron.jpg. It seems that the offending filenames were inserted by a low-level nobody at NETSCAPE and were changed as soon as they were dicovered. Netscape then appologized. Yes, that was CNN's explanation. "That was just some low level nobody. We're a good, honest news organization. Really." What'd you think they would say? Of course, anyone who has watched CNN knows it is made up of complete morons from their "low-level nobodies" all the way up to Ted Turner (Katrina coverage anyone?). Which is what this is an example of. Of course the BLOG you referenced does try (and Fail) to spin it in a way that makes it appear that CNN is totally at fault and that it was done intentionally and maliciously by Ted Turner himself.No, it doesn't. See above. But, the fact they present don't support the conclusions they draw, unless you're wearing your Elephant-Hide Blinders.See above. My link didn't draw any conclusions. It stated what happened. I could have found a more partisan link to the story, but didn't. So none of the partisan Horse Manure you're ranting about is even close to being factually based.I love being criticized for not being "factually based" by someone who read all sorts of things that weren't there from the one link I provided. As Usual.Wow, you're really hurting my feelings there. What is that, like the fifth time you've tried to slam me and end with "as usual"? I get it. You think "as usual" is a really bad-ass thing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Turns out the cheney X was just a technical glitch, not a liberal conspiracy and even Malkin agrees that is the case. Glitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Turns out the cheney X was just a technical glitch, not a liberal conspiracy and even Malkin agrees that is the case. Glitch 510738[/snapback] CNN sucks, but sending subliminal messages during the VP's speeches is a little beyond them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 CNN sucks, but sending subliminal messages during the VP's speeches is a little beyond them. 510739[/snapback] you're seriously nuts you know that? but as much as i can't stand you i find this very funny http://www.churchoftherobot.org/dangsquid/abd.mov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 you're seriously nuts you know that? but as much as i can't stand you i find this very funnyhttp://www.churchoftherobot.org/dangsquid/abd.mov 510778[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Key words are "at a White House press conference". I'd bet a large sum of money most reporters get more and better info on background in direct communication with the WH Press office. 510650[/snapback] Presidential White House Press conferences are more rare than albino supermodels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Presidential White House Press conferences are more rare than albino supermodels. 510897[/snapback] Who said "Presidential"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 i had to google it.....and i still am not 100% certain i know what one is. 510554[/snapback] "15 quatloos for the newcomers!" Star Trek: The Gamesters of Triskelion The crew gets marooned on some planet that is run by three disembodied brains floating in glass bowls. Their only amusement is to each keep their own stable of thralls, fighting slaves. The brains then have death matches between their thralls and bet on the outcome. When they snare new thralls like the Star Trek crew, they bid on them in a thrall auction. Their monetary unit is "quatloos". Everything you ever wanted to know about quatloos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Who said "Presidential"? 510913[/snapback] I guess I did. I wouldn't want McClelan's job either though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 This thread was all about 1/7 of a sec. Wow. "The wayward graphic, which CNN said lasted for about one-seventh of a second, appeared during the network's live coverage of Cheney's speech on Monday addressing critics of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq." The real question should be, who has been Tivo-ing CNN to find this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 23, 2005 Author Share Posted November 23, 2005 This thread was all about 1/7 of a sec. Wow. "The wayward graphic, which CNN said lasted for about one-seventh of a second, appeared during the network's live coverage of Cheney's speech on Monday addressing critics of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq." The real question should be, who has been Tivo-ing CNN to find this stuff. 511025[/snapback] from my initial post: This isn't terribly interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 from my initial post: 511125[/snapback] No, but it is getting good play on the Drudgereport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 510880[/snapback] you need people like me so you can't point the finger and say that's the bad guy well say good bye to the bad guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts