I believe classic crystallized it best, first when he said the refusal of the House to pass a similar bill is because the leadership does not want to acknowledge a political point for their political opponent.

They have LOUDLY made their political point of their own, though. I find their refusal petty.

You totally missed the point, then.

Somebody, somewhere, actually chooses what is shown on the news. This part, you have no control over.

Your reaction, this discussion, and everything else is completely based on the fact that this was ON THE NEWS TO BEGIN WITH. I ask again. Have you been manipulated? I'm not questioning your ability to interpret a news story. I'm questioning whether this was news to begin with.

Flint makes an important observation that, having been in the lie-making industry for 30 something years, I can personally corroborate.

What you see as "news" is often not even based on actual events.

I'm not saying it didn't happen (a lot of things happen). I'm saying: who cares?

If it had no other purpose than to intentionally outrage people, why was it shown? Why were news consumers outraged, and why did this discussion happen? To further the cause of political divisiveness? Mission Accomplished.

Meanwhile, many things that were actually important passed by without comment. The news is largely nonsense.

I'm not saying you said it didn't happen. I'm saying that what you see on 'the news' is not only chosen by someone with some sort of agenda, it often isn't even fact. And, even in the best of cases it is only one side of a complex story.

As a friend of mine says, "There's what He said, and there's what She said, and there's what really happened."

And I agree about the one purpose being political divisiveness. Another thought I usually have is "Who stands to profit from this story and in what way?" You can usually follow the money trail back to the source.

Pooka always says "There are THREE sides to every story." Meaning, what your friend said.



Dude, are you banging my wife?

doesn't matter.

Jill is gone.

Well, there's what she said, and what I say, and what... wait? What? No way man. She's married.

Yeah, she's a real hep cat, daddy-o.

People are free to make their own decisions.

I read the opening post Flint. I read the article and saw the site at which the article is posted. I also read your post addressed directly to Jill.

She may have missed your point. I certainly missed your point. I contend that the reason the point was missed is that you don't really make that point in your post. It is LOUDLY proclaiming about how she came to HEAR about it, and lots OF OTHER STUFF about her state of mind, ESPECIALLY about being MANIPULATED, etc., etc. The point "is this news?" is never made in your first post. That's why it was missed.

You even go so far as contradict yourself in your following post.

--OR--
Which one is it? Are you asking if she's been manipulated or are you confident in her ability to interpret news stories? Contradiction.


But as for your complaint about your point, this question:
does not show up in your first post. No one can get a point you don't make man.

I disagree, and I stand by everything I've posted. It isn't contradictory, and I don't need to defend it because it is self-explanatory. The end.

I disagree, and I stand by everything I've posted. It isn't contradictory, and I don't need to defend it because it is self explanatory. The end.

See? Works for *EVERYBODY*, but that is how learning stops. If you end your side of the discussion, then I can't learn anything more about you or your thought process. What you've written is *not* self explanatory, a person's words need the actual person to explain them.

If you say A, and I say, hm.. I don't see it. And you just leave it there, tha's fine, cool. My (apparently incorrect) understanding will remain similarly unchanged. But I'll wonder what was the purpose of your remarks. Were you trying to inform me, amuse me, persuade me? Were you just thinking out loud with none of these intentions? I don't know. I'm just left with what I've got.

and I've got an image of what I've already said, plus one of you with a closed mind.

communication is the sending and receiving of information. Lots of sending here, but a lamentable lack of receiving.

Read the post again and imagine that it is about what I said it is about. I meant exactly what I said.

right.

I did read all of that, more than once. In every reading, the subject (largely omitted in your quoting) is "you", Jill, since you were addressing her. The object was her understanding, her knowledge and the provenance of that knowledge.

Your point is made obliquely at best and the most direct reference to the insignificance of this item and its news-un-worthiness is in the negative "...nobody does plan..do they?". the quote you show might have been what you wrote when you were thinking "Man, this is such a non-issue, why all the fuss in the first place?", but what came out was very different.