Extra!, May/June 2002
The "Oh Really?" Factor
Bill O'Reilly spins facts and statistics
By Peter Hart
If it’s spin to back up your arguments with bogus facts and statistics, and to dismiss numbers that don’t fit in with your preconceptions, then Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News Channel show isn’t, as he repeatedly claims, a "no-spin zone"-- it’s Spin City.
During an interview with National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy (O’Reilly Factor, 2/5/02), O’Reilly claimed that "58 percent of single-mom homes are on welfare." When Gandy questioned that figure, O’Reilly held firm: "You can’t say no, Miss Gandy. That’s the stat. You can’t just dismiss it. . . . It’s 58 percent. That’s what it is from the federal government."
But by the next broadcast (2/6/02), O’Reilly was revising his accounting: "At this point, we have this from Washington, and it’s bad. 52 percent of families receiving public assistance are headed by a single mother, 52 percent." Not only is that a different number, it’s the reverse of the statistic he offered the previous night-- not the percentage of households headed by single mothers that receive welfare, but the percentage of families receiving public assistance headed by single mothers. That’s a distinction that O’Reilly did not attempt to clarify; he seemed unapologetic about emphatically putting forward an inaccurate statistic the night before.
The following night (2/7/02), O’Reilly came up with more solid figures, but they bore no resemblance to his original numbers: About 14 percent of single mothers receive federal welfare benefits, he now said-- less than one-fourth of his earlier claim. (He suggested that food stamps ought to be considered a kind of welfare, but that only gets him to 33 percent-- still 25 percentage points short.) O’Reilly explained that "it’s really hard to get a stat to say how many single moms percentage-wise get government assistance," though he’d found it easy enough to pull one out of the air just three nights earlier.
Suspect certainty
There’s a valuable lesson here for Factor watchers: When O’Reilly is most certain, you should be most skeptical. On another show (2/26/01), O’Reilly explained to Florida state senator Kendrick Meek that, thanks to Gov. Jeb Bush’s "One Florida" program, 37 percent of students at Florida universities were black: "Thirty-seven percent. That’s much higher than the population, the black population, of Florida.
Bush is doing a good job for you guys and you’re vilifying him." When Meek challenged those numbers, O’Reilly insisted they were "dead on." Dead wrong is more like it: Total minority enrollment for the freshman class entering in 2000 was 37 percent (Florida Times-Union, 8/30/00)-- black enrollment was about 18 percent.
Sometimes a guest who sticks to his or her guns can keep O’Reilly’s audience from being misinformed. When the host claimed (5/8/01) that the United States "give[s] far and away more tax money to foreign countries than anyone else. . . . Nobody else even comes close to us," Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies was thankfully on hand to explain that U.S. contributions per capita were lower than those of any member of the European Union. "That’s not true," O’Reilly inaccurately responded. Actually, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2000 the U.S. gave only 0.1 percent of its Gross National Income as official development aid-- less than Italy, the least generous EU nation. Denmark gave 10 times as much on a per capita basis. Even in real terms, Japan in 2000 gave away a third more aid, even though its economy was less than half as large.
O’Reilly rewrote diplomatic history during an interview with James Zogby of the Arab American Institute (4/2/02). After Zogby argued that Israeli settlements were an obstacle to peace between Israel and Palestine, O’Reilly countered that during the Camp David negotiations in July 2000, the offer made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak "would have given 90 percent of those settlements back"-- an idea he credited to "what every single American expert who has seen that says." In fact, O’Reilly got the proportion of settlements Barak was prepared to give up almost backwards: He promised Israelis that any deal with the Palestinians would involve "80 percent of the settlers in settlement blocks under our sovereignty" (Jerusalem Post, 9/13/00). When Zogby pointed out O’Reilly’s error, the host said he would welcome any former diplomats who could prove him wrong: "I’ll put them on tomorrow," he said-- but didn’t.
O’Reilly frequently refuses to believe his guests-- even when they cite a source. When one Factor interviewee remarked (3/1/02) that "60 percent of all people will live in poverty for one year of their life," O’Reilly shot back: "Not in the United States. . . . No, that’s bogus. I mean, that’s a socialist stat. You can believe it if you want to, but it’s not true." When the guest explained that the number comes from research at Cornell University, O’Reilly shot back: "Well, what more do I have to say?"-- as if any information coming from an Ivy League institution had to be wrong.
O’Reilly can be quite fond of a statistic, however, when he thinks it makes a point for him. "Here’s the statistic that tells me American society and the system we have in place works for both blacks and whites," he told the NAACP’s Walter Fields (5/15/01). "Eighty percent, all right, 80 percent of what whites earn, blacks earn if they stay together in a committed relationship, whether it’s marriage or living together. So if a black man and woman are married and stay together, they earn 80 percent of what white couples earn. And the reason it isn’t 100 percent is because more blacks live in the south where the salaries are lower. That tells me that the American system, the capitalistic system works and is fair. Where it’s broken down—all right, you may disagree with that, but that stat is rock solid."
That stat-- which O’Reilly has brought up on at least three further occasions (3/25/02, 3/27/02, 4/3/02)-- is actually out of date; the latest census figures (Current Population Reports, 1999) show that black married couples make 87 percent of what white married couples do. But O’Reilly’s idea that blacks overall are poorer because they have chosen not to marry doesn’t hold water; black single mothers make only 65 percent of what white single mothers do, even though they have the same family structure. And the notion that living in the South explains blacks’ lower incomes is a fantasy; blacks in the South, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, actually make more money than blacks in the Northeast.
Even when O’Reilly has a source, he’s prone to distorting numbers. ABC’s John Stossel came on The O’Reilly Factor (1/26/01) to claim that $40,000 in government money is spent annually on anti-poverty programs for each poor family. The stat appears to derive from the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector, who deceptively includes expensive programs that go to non-poor families-- like Pell grants, reduced-price school lunches and Medicare-- in his tally. A few days later (1/29/01), O’Reilly was garbling the already misleading figure: "We’re paying $40,000 per person who [is] on government assistance now"--quadruple the amount of spending Stossel was claiming.
"This is personal"
O’Reilly’s got something against National Public Radio-- namely, they’re not interested in him. "This is personal, this is absolutely personal," he said on his January 7 show. "I’ve had two number-one best sellers. . . . Not one NPR invitation." He’s not one to take an offense lying down, so he lets them have it, attacking the network’s "left-wing point of view" (3/6/02): "I’ve never heard a right-wing person on NPR anywhere," he charges (1/7/02). "You never hear a pro-life person on NPR. You never hear an anti-global warming person on NPR. They don’t get on there."
Conservatives, of course, appear regularly on NPR, both in commentary (e.g., Weekly Standard’s David Brooks, Heritage Foundation’s Joe Loconte) and as sources in news stories. Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who as a global warming skeptic represents a tiny fraction of the scientific debate, was on NPR three times last year; the network quoted Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee 11 times in 2001.
You’d think O’Reilly would at least get right what people say about him. "Every time you write about me, you put a little pejorative adjective in front of my name," he remarked to a gathering of TV writers (St. Paul Pioneer Press, 1/28/02). "In the Boston Globe the other day, it was ‘the conservative hatchet man.’" He also complained on his show (1/14/02) about "the Boston Globe calling me a conservative hatchet man." In fact, what the Globe actually called O’Reilly (12/7/01) was "an attack dog on Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor." Perhaps what they should have called him is "unreliable."
Sidebar:
Terror and Ecstasy
On February 4, Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance questioned whether casual drug users were really funding terrorism, as O’Reilly seems to argue. When Nadelmann pointed out that marijuana and Ecstasy were not involved in Afghanistan, O’Reilly responded, "Well, Ecstasy is," adding that "most comes from Holland."
To Nadelmann’s retort-- "and are the Dutch involved in terrorism?"-- O’Reilly said, "No, but it’s not run by the Dutch, it’s run by Middle Eastern guys." When Nadelmann expressed incredulity, O’Reilly challenged him to a $100 wager, which the drug reform advocate accepted.
Later in the show, Nadelmann again asserted that the casual use of drugs like marijuana and Ecstasy has "no link to the terrorists." "You’re wrong about the Ecstasy," O’Reilly insisted. "You’ll send me the check, and I’ll be very happy. . . . It’s controlled by Middle Eastern people out of Holland, that’s where it comes in here from."
The following night (2/5/02), O’Reilly gloated that he had won the bet: "OK, here’s what the Office of the National Drug Control Policy says, and we quote, ‘Drug Enforcement Agency reporting demonstrates the involvement of Israeli criminal organizations in Ecstasy smuggling. Some of these individuals are of Russian and Georgian descent and have Middle Eastern ties.’"
O’Reilly seized on this mention of "Middle Eastern ties" to claim that federal drug officials backed up his claims. But the statement made no mention of Afghanistan or terrorism, the aspects of O’Reilly’s claim that Nadelmann had most taken issue with. Is O’Reilly really claiming that Ecstasy users are supporting terrorism by giving money to Israeli mobsters? More likely he’s just demonstrating once again that he’ll clutch at any straw to avoid admitting that he’s wrong. --P.H.
posted on November 29, 2002 08:57:23 PM new
On O'Riely: this is the same nonsense that we get from the White House, the GOP , and the media everyday. Since few people will bother to actually go find out what the fatcs are, due to the difficult nature of procuring such facts, this trend of nonsensical numbers to support one's poistion will go on indefinetely.
Sometimes, I have really wished that there was a pool on the internet where official statistics could be gathered, indexed, and then made available to the public. What were those figures for rice consuption again? Exactly what percentage DID vote that way in the fianl analysis?
If anyone ever did a really complete job of that on a web site, I'd say that the media and government would have to revise their facts or their positions.
posted on November 29, 2002 09:03:00 PM new
Why the Left is So Afraid of Bill O’Reilly
by Rachel Alexander, Esq. - IntellectualConservative.com
Liberals are wary of Bill O’Reilly’s success with the O’Reilly Factor, and they should be. O’Reilly is influencing an important and massive demographic - TV watchers. Unlike most conservative pundits and politicians, O’Reilly appeals to all types of people with his honest, straight-talk approach and slight independent streak. Consequently, he is tremendously popular. He is perhaps the first conservative TV pundit to attract as many viewers as some of the dominant liberal pundits and news hosts. His show currently averages 1.9 million viewers a night - more than Larry King Live - and is still the No. 1-rated cable news show. Although CBS Evening News with Dan Rather has close to eight million viewers per evening, considering that around forty percent of households do not have cable or satellite and that some cable markets do not carry Fox News, O’Reilly’s numbers are pretty impressive.
O’Reilly’s level of popularity on mainstream television frightens the Left, because until now, television viewers had generally been considered their territory. The Right had been relegated to talk radio, small newspapers, and magazines. Then the Internet emerged as a popular forum for news and opinion and along came Fox news. Fox not only rejected the dominant liberal approach of the other networks but told viewers that it was "fair and balanced" news - essentially allowing it to capture vast middle America in addition to the Right wing. The rise of Fox News paved the way for O’Reilly: as people discovered that the major networks - whom they had trusted over the years to be fair arbiters of the news - were all inherently biased, they realized they may as well listen to someone who did not try to mince words or present only one side of the story.
O’Reilly’s willingness to invite guests on his show whose opinions are diametrically opposed to his, while maintaining a reporter’s news presence, is part of the key to his success. Unlike primetime evening news, he fairly includes radical opinions from both the Left and the Right, as well as minority views along the political spectrum. Unlike other political debate shows, he keeps the forum tightly wrapped so the show does not disintegrate into chaos making it difficult to follow or clearly hear any one person speaking. And like the primetime news shows, he covers most of the current and important political issues on each show.
Another reason O’Reilly is successful is because of his frank honesty. O’Reilly does not read lines that the network instructs him to read on a teleprompter, nor does he form his opinions based on large sums of cash donated to him by special interest groups or by loyalty to any particular political party. Although the Left accuses him of being a typical conservative, O’Reilly has plenty of views that are not conservative. He supports gun control, is in favor of campaign finance reform and a patient’s bill of rights, and is against the death penalty.
O’Reilly tends to say what people are intuitively thinking, not what esoterically sounds good, makes the network look good, or is the politically correct position. For example, although it might sound good in theory, and appear enlightened and polite to say that people should have the right to do whatever they want to do, O’Reilly will point out that what some people do is actually quite reprehensible and should be discouraged. After all, most people deep down believe there are certain moral responsibilities, and would rather agree, if secretly, with O’Reilly’s statements to that effect, rather than with the platitudes and moral relativism that the mainstream media glosses its coverage with. To be fair, O’Reilly will invite the defenders of the reprehensible to appear on his show to refute him.
Although his new radio show, the Radio Factor, has not done as well as expected, this may in part be due to the format of talk radio. Most talk radio listeners are very conservative and only listen to talk radio in their car to and from work, or while driving during work. In that semi-stressful environment where the driver must put most of his or her concentration on the road, drivers would rather listen to drawling, encouraging, empathetic talk than ponder the weighty and frequently contrarian views that O’Reilly presents.
What is sure, though, is that O’Reilly has cornered a significant segment of the American population, and is influencing them. What nobody has bothered to say but what scares the Left is the obvious - Bush probably would not have won the election if there were no O’Reilly, and the Republicans did well in this fall’s elections because of O’Reilly. O’Reilly’s fatherly, knowing, comfortable tone is winning over middle America viewers just like Walter Cronkite did years ago. The difference is that O’Reilly is winning them over to a strongly partisan position - the moral and intuitive position, not the left-leaning position shared by the major media.
posted on November 29, 2002 11:46:33 PM new
The friend whose house I stayed at after an accident this summer is addicted to Fox News and has the TV on literally all day, tuned to that channel. I, perforce, had to watch & listen to it as well. She takes everything O'Reilly says as gospel.
I must admit that before this stay I wasn't aware of O'Reilly. His show is simply amazing. He claims to have "no spin" while blatantly spinning like a top. During the two months of constant exposure to him, I watched in amazement as he told guests who dared to disagree with him to shut up. When he wasn't doing that he was being rude and sarcastic to those who do not share his viewpoint.
Strangely enough, I agree with *some* of his views. But as the person who was quoted above says, every day I would hear him say things that I knew were way off track. But he spouts his stuff forcefully & often--a recipe for success in swaying folks to your POV. If it's on radio or TV it must be true--more so if it is said loudly & often enough. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on November 30, 2002 06:01:50 AM new
How come the right gets to have all the fun?? I think it's high time the left had a mean,arrogant blowhard like O'Reilly or Limbaugh on the tee-vee.
posted on November 30, 2002 07:28:14 AM new
LOL Profe51.
Unfortunately, The "tee vee" is just a small part of the problem.
I understand media bias created by corporate owner's interests, advertising interests and ability of reporters to gain access to sources such as the White House and the Pentagon. This kind of bias is usually enforced by censorship of stories or withdrawal of advertising or by making sources unavailable. That's three methods of misrepresenting news and it's why I read alternative news sources.
posted on November 30, 2002 08:38:55 PM new
Why the Left is So Afraid of
Bill O’Reilly
November 11, 2002
by Rachel Alexander, Esq. - IntellectualConservative.com
Liberals are wary of Bill O’Reilly’s success with the O’Reilly Factor, and they should
be. O’Reilly is influencing an important and massive demographic - TV watchers.
Unlike most conservative pundits and politicians, O’Reilly appeals to all types of
people with his honest, straight-talk approach and slight independent streak.
Consequently, he is tremendously popular. He is perhaps the first conservative TV
pundit to attract as many viewers as some of the dominant liberal pundits and
news hosts. His show currently averages 1.9 million viewers a night - more than
Larry King Live - and is still the No. 1-rated cable news show. Although CBS
Evening News with Dan Rather has close to eight million viewers per evening,
considering that around forty percent of households do not have cable or satellite
and that some cable markets do not carry Fox News, O’Reilly’s numbers are pretty
impressive.
O’Reilly’s level of popularity on mainstream television frightens the Left, because
until now, television viewers had generally been considered their territory. The
Right had been relegated to talk radio, small newspapers, and magazines. Then
the Internet emerged as a popular forum for news and opinion and along came Fox
news. Fox not only rejected the dominant liberal approach of the other networks
but told viewers that it was "fair and balanced" news - essentially allowing it to
capture vast middle America in addition to the Right wing. The rise of Fox News
paved the way for O’Reilly: as people discovered that the major networks - whom
they had trusted over the years to be fair arbiters of the news - were all inherently
biased, they realized they may as well listen to someone who did not try to mince
words or present only one side of the story.
O’Reilly’s willingness to invite guests on his show whose opinions are diametrically
opposed to his, while maintaining a reporter’s news presence, is part of the key to
his success. Unlike primetime evening news, he fairly includes radical opinions from
both the Left and the Right, as well as minority views along the political spectrum.
Unlike other political debate shows, he keeps the forum tightly wrapped so the
show does not disintegrate into chaos making it difficult to follow or clearly hear
any one person speaking. And like the primetime news shows, he covers most of
the current and important political issues on each show.
Another reason O’Reilly is successful is because of his frank honesty. O’Reilly does
not read lines that the network instructs him to read on a teleprompter, nor does
he form his opinions based on large sums of cash donated to him by special
interest groups or by loyalty to any particular political party. Although the Left
accuses him of being a typical conservative, O’Reilly has plenty of views that are
not conservative. He supports gun control, is in favor of campaign finance reform
and a patient’s bill of rights, and is against the death penalty.
O’Reilly tends to say what people are intuitively thinking, not what esoterically
sounds good, makes the network look good, or is the politically correct position.
For example, although it might sound good in theory, and appear enlightened and
polite to say that people should have the right to do whatever they want to do,
O’Reilly will point out that what some people do is actually quite reprehensible and
should be discouraged. After all, most people deep down believe there are certain
moral responsibilities, and would rather agree, if secretly, with O’Reilly’s
statements to that effect, rather than with the platitudes and moral relativism that
the mainstream media glosses its coverage with. To be fair, O’Reilly will invite the
defenders of the reprehensible to appear on his show to refute him.
Although his new radio show, the Radio Factor, has not done as well as expected,
this may in part be due to the format of talk radio. Most talk radio listeners are
very conservative and only listen to talk radio in their car to and from work, or
while driving during work. In that semi-stressful environment where the driver must
put most of his or her concentration on the road, drivers would rather listen to
drawling, encouraging, empathetic talk than ponder the weighty and frequently
contrarian views that O’Reilly presents.
What is sure, though, is that O’Reilly has cornered a significant segment of the
American population, and is influencing them. What nobody has bothered to say
but what scares the Left is the obvious - Bush probably would not have won the
election if there were no O’Reilly, and the Republicans did well in this fall’s
elections because of O’Reilly. O’Reilly’s fatherly, knowing, comfortable tone is
winning over middle America viewers just like Walter Cronkite did years ago. The
difference is that O’Reilly is winning them over to a strongly partisan position - the
moral and intuitive position, not the left-leaning position shared by the major
media.
___________________________________
Rachel Alexander is an attorney practicing law for the government in Phoenix,
Arizona. She is a former columnist and editorial board member for the Arizona Daily
Wildcat, and has won three awards for her columns. She currently writes for The
International Oracle Syndicate. Rachel Alexander enjoys writing on the topics of
politics, philosophy, science, religion, and computers. She is the editor of
IntellectualConservative.com. You can reach her by e mail at [email protected].
posted on November 30, 2002 09:05:42 PM new
MS. Alexander is entitled to her own opinion. However, she cannot change the facts.
FACT: O'Reilly is not a jounarlist or reporter in the common sense that we take for professionalism. O'Reilly comes from the National Enquirer ilk and is strictly an entertainer, just like his counter-part Rush Limbaugh.
FACT: O'Reilly tries to pass himself off as an intellectual that can talk to the common, uneducated person. In reality, O'Reilly knows how to talk big and he just sounds like what he knows is the Truth with a capital 'T'. It is entertainment.
Ms. Alexander's conclusion as to why "liberals" are concerned about O'Reilly is outright silly. She infers that it's just jealousy, that O'Reilly has a large audience normally reserved for themselves, and that he tells the Truth and the "liberals" do not like it -- further implying that Liberals do not tell the truth. That's not only laughable, but it's obviously illogical and irrational. If "liberals" really are concerned, I would guess that they are concerned because what comes out of O'Reilly's mouth is being taken for gospel by unsuspecting viewers who do not understand that the show is only for entertainment purposes; much like children who cannot distinguish between Hollywood and Reality in a movie that they are watching.
As I said before: Ms. Alexander is indeed entitled to her opinion, however ridiculous.
posted on November 30, 2002 09:08:12 PM new
Helen: notice how Bear just HAD to go cut and paste the ENTIRE article by Yellowstone just a half page above it? Isn't that something? I wonder how he'd react if we start doing that to all of his threads, you know, bomb it the way he does to ours?
posted on November 30, 2002 09:25:57 PM new
Oh, c'mon. He's just doing what O'Reilly does--repeating loudly & often. Doing enough of this actually will have an effect. It's akin to planting false memories by repeating something over & over & over & over... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 2, 2002 11:47:03 AM new
>WELL EXCUSE ME
OK, you're excused!
But honestly, Bear, you need to learn some posting etticute. And I'm trying to say that in the nicest way to you.
I think that we all could benefit from going over these bits of posting curtesy.
1) If what you post, you acidently hit the SUBMIT button twice or some such that create TWO Duplicate posts, go back and EDIT the duplicate and remove its content.
2) When you quote, try to never cut and past more than a single paragraph. Only paste a single paragraph because the entire thing is RELEVANT.
[b]rel-e-vant[/i]
ADJECTIVE:Having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand.
3) Post only content that is relevant to the thread discussion.
We are all guilty of that last one, including me. Basically, thread content tends to go one way and the other, trying to tear itself apart. If you have a point to make and it really is outside the scope of the conversation, simply start a new thread and make a small reference to the discussion in the other thread.
For instance -- and I'm not picking on you, Bear, but when the thread topic is about current events, do not arbitrarily throw in unrelated content about past events. That's a fine line. IF the past content that you want to add is somehow relevant to the thread topic of current events, then please take the time to explain to everyone just how it fits in. If you can't explain how it is relevant to the current discussion or thread topic, then likely it is not relevant and you should go take it and create a new thread.
4) When someone posts what appears as "facts" and you disagree with them, you have three proper choices:
a) Ignore it, or chalk it up to the poster just causing trouble.
b) Get an education. Go to Google and type in a few appropriate words. Read up to see if you are correct or the other person is correct, or both.
c) Ask NICELY. Ridiculing the poster for what you perceive as pure BS can get thrown back into your face if you turn out to be wrong -- and because you were nasty in the way that you asked, you'll get a lot of nasty answers back! Instead, ask politely; such as, So-and-so: I tried looking up this information on Google, but I can't seem to find any relevant links on those "facts" that you mentioned. Is it possible for you to please (note the use of the word PLEASE) tell me what link(s) I could have to read up on this for myself?
Personally, before other people go demanding that I back up every fact that they are ignorant of, I want them to AT LEAST make an honest effort to go learn about it for themselves on their own first!
And here's the FUN PART: if you go look it up and discover that the poster is LYING or Distorting the truth, link it to the relevant source material that you discovered! That's the proper way to do things; that is, if you want to do it smartly instead of stupidly.
posted on December 2, 2002 02:47:07 PM newThe posting board etiquette police have spoken. All posters caught in flagrant violation will have their postings critiqued by Professor Borillar.
Having been severly chastised by the self appointed poster police, I demurely and humbly apologise....
posted on December 2, 2002 03:47:28 PM new
>IN YOUR DREAMS....
THEN DON'T COMPLAIN WHEN WE START TO GIVE BACK TO YOU WHAT YOU DISH OUT TO US!
Your answer there proves that the crap that you've been dumping on us isn't because you simply have bad manners. You do it to derail threads and to CENSOR threads that you don't approve of.
AGAIN: Don't complain when we do the same thing back to you from now on!
posted on December 2, 2002 05:29:35 PM newOh, c'mon. He's just doing what O'Reilly does--repeating loudly & often. Doing enough of this actually will have an effect. It's akin to planting false memories by repeating something over & over & over & over...
Reminds me of a line in "Brave New World"
I think it went "Any statement repeated 4069 times becomes the truth"
Brave New World was a book(and movie) about neo-conservative utopia.
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on December 3, 2002 06:13:55 AM new
Bozorillar
I figured that Bear1949 thought it such interesting reading that it should be read again and that is why he reposted my entire post.
posted on December 3, 2002 02:30:33 PM new
>When haven't you tried to CRAP on anything I post or reply to.
BALONEY!
You drew first blood, not me!
You went into my threads and bombed each of them because you wanted to CENSOR the content and end the discussions.
Then, you went into my threads and threw up irrelevant content in order to CENSOR the discussion by derailing the topic.
And you have the asinine whimpering to accuse ME of harassing YOU?
What gives you that right? This is how "republicans" act? This is how "conservatives" act? No. It's the actions of a CHILD who kicks over anyone's sand castle that he can't make for himself. And that's the truth of it. You haven't the capacity to hold a normal adult conversation so you make sure that those who can, can't.
posted on December 3, 2002 04:55:57 PM new
>When haven't you tried to CRAP on anything I post or reply to.
BALONEY!
You drew first blood, not me!
You went into my threads and bombed each of them because you wanted to CENSOR the content and end the discussions.
Then, you went into my threads and threw up irrelevant content in order to CENSOR the discussion by derailing the topic.
And you have the asinine whimpering to accuse ME of harassing YOU?
What gives you that right? This is how "republicans" act? This is how "conservatives" act? No. It's the actions of a CHILD who kicks over anyone's sand castle that he can't make for himself. And that's the truth of it. You haven't the capacity to hold a normal adult conversation so you make sure that those who can, can't.
---------------------------------------------
BOZOZILA
If I were to attempting to draw first blood it would be from a worthy adversary not from some one so full self-importance as you seem. A true legend in your own mind.
Censorship of YOUR threads? I see Helen’s name as starting this thread or are you leading a double life? Again you feel the need to defend your mindless chatter.
Harassing YOU, Please......give me a WORTHY opponent anytime. If you wish a battle of wits, come better prepared than your normal half load.
What gives me the right...... is a right called “Free Speech” or are you attempting to prevent anyone from opossing your rantings & ravings.
Adult conversation.........When you become an adult I will properly address the issue...
As far as your statement “so you make sure that those who can, can't” , while my backspace key is fully functional, I have yet to be able to delete any other posters comments.... yet.
Do you think you are the only one with an opinion? Can no one oppose your comments? That is CENSORSHIP.
posted on December 3, 2002 11:22:13 PM new
>Do you think you are the only one with an opinion?
Of course I don't! That's why I don't behave the way that you do. That's why I don't post four screenfulls of material and then repost it a second time to mess up the thread. That's why I don't bring inflamatory irrelevant material into a thread in order to derail a discussion. But you do. And you have done so on purpose because you don't like the conversation and the way that it is going. You have said that in so many words several times on here. You are like the child in the sandbox that can't build a castle and gets so angry that the child has to go kick over everyone else's accomplishments in order to feel bettr. If you can't voice your opinion, you'll make sure that no one else can. That is true censorship.
What you can do at any time, Bear, is to stop that childish nonsense and post your thoughts in the forum like you are supposed to. This is all that I have been trying to accomplish in these threads: to get you to stop acting like a small child and to get you join us in discussions. And still -- you resist. Fah! on you!
posted on December 4, 2002 09:22:24 AM new
Borillar
You just can't take any criticism, can you? Every posting that is counter to your opinion is "censorship". Or childish, or an attempt to derail the thread.
Everyone has an opinion, whether you like it or not and neither your inane wishes and ravings will cause me to stop.
IF YOU TRUELY DO NOT WISH TO READ MY COMMENTS, USE THE "IGNORE FUNCTION".
Otherwise to hell with you.
I will continue to respond to any and all posts in whatever manner I choose no matter you wishes.
