RkFast Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Duh. Neither. You question it if it's Fox, but take it as gospel if its the Daily Mirror. And conveniently neglect the fact that both are owned by that trash-monger Rupert Murdoch. 514236[/snapback] Was thinking the same thing....how the left loves to blast Fox as "biased" and how they accuse Fox of playing fast and loose with the facts, but here we have so many on the left givng credence to a story printed in the Tabloid-iest of Tabloids....a paper that makes the NY Post look good. Another example of "if it fits my agenda, then it must be good." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Another example of "if it fits my agenda, then it must be good." 514313[/snapback] Everything that fits my agenda is by definition "good." Now if it is true, that is another question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 Whats more dangerous, RI...questioning a source's credibility, or taking what a source prints as Gospel? 514232[/snapback] Obviously taking what a source prints as gospel is the more dangerous of the two. And if you've read more than the title of this thread you also realize that I never presented anything printed in these stories a gospel, with the exception of the independantly corroborated fact that the leaker has been charged with a crime under the Official Secrets Act. In fact the only poster who seems to be throwing things out as facts without knowing what the heck he's talking about is that damm monkey. But of course you feel free to compare my commenting about the fact that these stories exist with your staunch defense of the fair and impartial nature of FOX News if it makes you feel good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Obviously taking what a source prints as gospel is the more dangerous of the two. And if you've read more than the title of this thread you also realize that I never presented anything printed in these stories a gospel, with the exception of the independantly corroborated fact that the leaker has been charged with a crime under the Official Secrets Act. In fact the only poster who seems to be throwing things out as facts without knowing what the heck he's talking about is that damm monkey. But of course you feel free to compare my commenting about the fact that these stories exist with your staunch defense of the fair and impartial nature of FOX News if it makes you feel good. 514360[/snapback] Oh please...youve just puked up thousands of words to press that point that "if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..." Now, youre going to give the old "who me?" defense? And I wasnt "defending" Fox, dummy. If YOU read more than the title of the post, youd pick that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 Oh please...youve just puked up thousands of words to press that point that "if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..." Now, youre going to give the old "who me?" defense? And I wasnt "defending" Fox, dummy. If YOU read more than the title of the post, youd pick that up. 514389[/snapback] Okay, so now you've got thousands of words to choose from, so please point out the ones that say anything other than these stories exist and the fact that someone was charged with a crime under the Official Secrets Act is the only thing that gives them any credibility. ....how the left loves to blast Fox as "biased" and how they accuse Fox of playing fast and loose with the facts, but here we have so many on the left givng credence to a story printed in the Tabloid-iest of Tabloids....a paper that makes the NY Post look good. Another example of "if it fits my agenda, then it must be good." 514389[/snapback] So, that quote wasn't a backhanded defense of FOX News? Okay, what was it then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 I changed the title to generate more views... and maybe a response or two from the right... Brit Tabloid Article Who Knew? Wow! I guess it's really serious since the British Attorney General is threatening to prosecute the leakers. Hmmm... Sound Familiar? 510896[/snapback] Seems Middle-Easteners squak no matter what. I'd electronically jam it then profess "French Innocence". Using gems like "I have no specific recollection...", and "It depends upon what the meaning of 'is, is'". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts