[Guest post by DRJ]
For your evening entertainment, the Jawa Report is playing Name That Party:
“Scandal-ridden Ohio A.G.’s Party Affiliation Irrelevant; Party Affiliation of Mother of Mother of Child of Son of Arrestee Highly Relevant?”
Two scandals. Two Parties. In the reports, the media names one of the Parties 97% of the time and the other 20% of the time. Let’s guess which is which.
– DRJ
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Profile
Frequently Unasked Questions (FUQs)
Contributor:
Oh,
That
Liberal Media
CaliforniaRepublic.org
Linked by:
Best of the Web
The Corner
How Appealing
Hugh Hewitt
InstaPundit
Kausfiles
Power Line
The Volokh Conspiracy
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Nov | Jan » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
Powered by WordPress.
This is proof that the media is conservative, and Barack Obama was able to overcome the overwhelming bias in favor of Sarah Palin.
Comment by JD — 12/22/2008 @ 8:30 pm
This story is highly irrelevent.
“Marc Dann” + “democrat” = 32,400 hits (128,000) for just “Marc Dann”)
“Sherry Johnston” + “republican” = 861 hits (51,700 hits for just “Sherry Johnston”)
These were plain google searches, but I think these numbers are interesting. If this story had discussed some of these other nuances of searching then maybe I would have given it more credence.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 8:54 pm
TMJ – It is about this story. Though it is far easier to argue about something not the topic of the post.
Comment by JD — 12/22/2008 @ 9:00 pm
Please explain how my argument is not about the posted topic.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 9:03 pm
tnj, you do realize the difference between a Google search and a Google News search, right?
Since Johnston is a much more common surname than Dann, you’ll see a ton more hits for Johnston in a plain Google search, none of which have anything to do with the news story.
For someone who claims to be an educator, you are about the most ignorant poster here.
Comment by Steverino — 12/22/2008 @ 9:05 pm
Steverino- why do you think I mentioned it was a google search?
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 9:06 pm
TMJ – You presented a standard not used in the original post, and suggested that would give it more credence. You are a liar.
Comment by JD — 12/22/2008 @ 9:07 pm
I performed a google news search that the article claims to have made and the numbers do not at all check out. This story is a complete fabrication.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 9:07 pm
Specifically, if you add ‘democrat’ to the search you get 388/411 searches remaining. This story is false.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 9:09 pm
Show your work, TMJ.
Comment by JD — 12/22/2008 @ 9:10 pm
Probably because you’re an idiot. It’s just a guess on my part.
No, you didn’t. You performed — by your own admission — a plain Google search, not a Google News search.
Do you really not understand the difference between the two?
Comment by Steverino — 12/22/2008 @ 9:12 pm
http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS275US275&um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&nolr=1&q=%22Marc+Dann%22%2C+ohio%2C+democrat
http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS275US275&um=1&tab=wn&nolr=1&hl=en&q=%22Marc+Dann%22%2C+ohio
The numbers don’t check out with the story.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 9:13 pm
It appears TMJ is lying again …
RACISTS
Comment by JD — 12/22/2008 @ 9:15 pm
Don’t rely on me… click the links
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 9:16 pm
Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston had their national coming-out at the Republican National Convention, so it’s self-evident a story about his mom’s arrest would reference the appearance for background.
Comment by steve — 12/22/2008 @ 9:18 pm
That the numbers are different now says nothing about what the numbers were when they performed their search. Though TMJ’s numbers are different, a search now is done well after all of the articles written about how the media is so fucking dishonest.
Comment by JD — 12/22/2008 @ 9:19 pm
No steve, they did not. The Leftists were already pounding that story shortly after she was nominated. And Levi’s mother was not part of the story then, nor should she be now.
Comment by JD — 12/22/2008 @ 9:22 pm
OH PLEASE. That is the lamest excuse I have ever heard. This story has been debunked. Next topic!
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 9:22 pm
No, it has not been debunked. I acknowledged that your query is different. That does not make the numbers in the article wrong.
Comment by JD — 12/22/2008 @ 9:26 pm
Geez, I just did a google news search on marc dann ohio and got 411 hits, slightly less than Jawa’s numbers.
tnj’s full of shit as usual.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/22/2008 @ 9:27 pm
Nope. Read the whole blog before you come in and insinuate that I have been lying. Holy cow you guys are on fire tonight.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 9:29 pm
I wish I had the time to go through all of those links and see how many were articles after the Jawa post, and how many were articles about how the fucking lying media (shocka that you, another liar, defend them) neglected to note that he was a Republican, while pointing out that the mother of a Governor’s daughter’s fiance is tied to the Republican party.
And, you are still a liar. Being partially right in one instance does not make you less of a liar.
Comment by JD — 12/22/2008 @ 9:31 pm
I understand where you’re coming from, JD, but I think the most current numbers create some issues for the articles insinuation. In over 90% of the stories that come up from the previous month Marc Dann’s party is mentioned.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 9:31 pm
Well, it would actually, though I have not lied on here at any point in time.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 9:32 pm
Marc Dann Democrat yields 141 hits.
Marc Dann Ohio Democrat yields 156 hits.
The above were not done as subsets of the original 411, however.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/22/2008 @ 9:33 pm
Don’t rely on me… click the links
What, you thought we can’t read HTML code?
The second search matches up. However…
The first search of yours says Marc+Dann+Ohio+Democrat. That search differs from what the Jawa Report, which is Marc+Dann+Democrat.
You lied on the first link, buddy boy. You lose the argument.
Comment by Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") — 12/22/2008 @ 9:33 pm
“Well, it would actually, though I have not lied on here at any point in time.”
tnj – You just don’t know how to use screening tools, like putting quotation marks around the words you want to use so it picks up the exact words and not of a of extraeous extra hits.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/22/2008 @ 9:35 pm
The Leftists were already pounding that story shortly after she was nominated.
Bristol and Levi’s visibility crescendoed at St. Paul. Airport tarmac sightings would not background a story on the mom’s arrest.
Comment by steve — 12/22/2008 @ 9:35 pm
Is there another Marc Dann in the news that I am not aware of?
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 9:35 pm
As of right now the links at the Jawa Report result in:
“marc dann” ohio – 510 ; “marc dann” ohio democrat – 161; 161 / 510 = 32%
“sherry johnston” = 542; “sherry johnston” republican = 524; 524 / 542 = 97%
While 32% is not 20% it is still significantly less than 97%. MOST of us probably realize that the stats will not be static over time since related stories matching the search terms will be added to the Google News search space. Others of us are morons.
Comment by kaf — 12/22/2008 @ 9:36 pm
This should read
That search differs from what the Jawa Report ran, which is Marc+Dann+Democrat.
Comment by Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") — 12/22/2008 @ 9:36 pm
No, the current numbers were not available at the time the article was written. Do you expect him to predict the future?
As I said, these kinds of searches are really meaningless. The only articles that should count are the articles about how another Dem is found to be a crook, and if the party is noted. We all know how this works in the media.
Comment by JD — 12/22/2008 @ 9:37 pm
truthnjustice,
As shown above, the numbers have changed because more stories have been posted on this subject. In fact, the first result at your link is The Jawa Report post I linked, but obviously that wasn’t included in the results when the author initially ran his search. However, if you still have concerns, I suggest you discuss them with the author at the link.
Comment by DRJ — 12/22/2008 @ 9:39 pm
I am getting 571 not 542.
Plus, 488/511 is a much higher percentage than 525/571, which are the numbers I am getting.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 9:40 pm
That is fine DRJ, but I think that (especially in such easy cases as this) that we should check our resources before we post them and then leap to a conclusion.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 9:42 pm
The Jawa Report showed its search and results, too. The fact that the percentage of posts using the words “Marc Dann democrat” have increased is due in part to stories like the linked article and this post, but that doesn’t change the fact that the initial stories and search showed a skewed result.
Comment by DRJ — 12/22/2008 @ 9:43 pm
truthnjustice:
What’s with the “we”? Am I a royal now?
Look, I did check. I read the article, I checked his links, and at that time they basically showed what he said they showed.
Comment by DRJ — 12/22/2008 @ 9:45 pm
You most certainly did. You asserted that Republicans, sometime after Lincoln, came to believe that African Americans should not be afforded basic human rights. THat is an aggressive obnoxious lie, and I want to make sure that everyone knows and remembers exactly what you think of them …
Comment by JD — 12/22/2008 @ 9:45 pm
If the Catholic Church, or any church, had daily newspapers, it would hurt the feelings of their reporters to report the religion of affiliated criminals. They would spin it, and where they couldn’t spin it, they would hide the affiliation from the reader.
It’s no different for the religion of liberalism/Democratism. They just have succeeded in controlling the print media so that is why we see the hurt feelings in action in this context all time. I don’t even think they have any illusion of fooling people for politcal gain.
Comment by jcurtis — 12/22/2008 @ 9:46 pm
I have checked the links. I can’t imagine that during the time between now and when he posted the story that the consistency of the searches could swing that much. Something smells fishy.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 9:48 pm
Well, that sort of settles it…
The Boss has spoken!
You’re Welcome, DRJ.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/22/2008 @ 9:51 pm
TMJ – They pointed out, repeatedly, above how you are using different search parameters than the article. That you failed to pay attention is not the least bit surprising.
Liar.
Comment by JD — 12/22/2008 @ 9:54 pm
I have checked the links.
Which links? Yours, or the Jawa Report’s?
Comment by Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") — 12/22/2008 @ 9:55 pm
truthnjustice,
I’ve spent the last 5 minutes comparing the results from your link ["Marc Dann Ohio Democrat"] with The Jawa Report link. They are yielding the same results.
Comment by DRJ — 12/22/2008 @ 9:56 pm
Google’s “Marc Dann” hits include third and fourth follow-ups from Ohio papers where his party affiliation is old news. Any first-impression national story should list it.
The Bristol-Levi appearance at the Republican National Convention is nearly unavoidable background in national copy about his mom’s arrest. Obviously, you could write the story without typing the word “Republican.”
Comment by steve — 12/22/2008 @ 10:02 pm
Comment by JD — 12/22/2008 @ 9:54 pm
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/22/2008 @ 10:12 pm
This game of “Name the Party” just reinforces the notion that as regards the national media,
“They need a good horse whippin’, ’cause hangin’s too good for ‘em”.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/22/2008 @ 10:13 pm
Comment by liesntyranny — 12/22/2008 @ 10:12 pm
Mature….Really Mature!
Comment by Another Drew — 12/22/2008 @ 10:14 pm
Yes, the arrest of the Governor’s daughter’s fiance’s mother is inextricably linked to the Republican party.
Comment by JD — 12/22/2008 @ 10:15 pm
TMJ not once have I brought your parents or your family into our disagreements. You just continue to prove how low and small of a person you are.
Comment by JD — 12/22/2008 @ 10:18 pm
Has tnj admitted that the original story appeared to be correct yet? With his original bogus search and subsequent spinning I’ve kind of lost track of his current position.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/22/2008 @ 10:42 pm
No. It is a liar.
Comment by JD — 12/22/2008 @ 10:45 pm
It’s really sad. You have Troll #1 on one thread, and Troll #2 on the other. They make statements. They get proven wrong. They argue, and then they run off and reappear with another argument.
The arguments are the goal here. Nothing more, and nothing less.
DRJ, it’s wonderful that you try to seriously answer this kind of thing, but you don’t believe for one second that these kinds of people will respond in kind, do you?
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/22/2008 @ 10:57 pm
And Monty Python references just prove my point. We are all just lucky that it didn’t use the line just prior to that one.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/22/2008 @ 10:58 pm
Yes, the arrest of the Governor’s daughter’s fiance’s mother is inextricably linked to the Republican party.
No, but the Bristol-Levi fame is inextricably linked to a national political campaign. Readers pass up a story about his mom’s arrest without that hook.
Google hits on Marc Dann include three-paragraph updates in Ohio media. Party affiliation and background become excess baggage in rolling coverage.
Comment by steve — 12/22/2008 @ 11:08 pm
I’m suspicious since “republican” is both a noun and an adjective, while in most circles “democrat” is used just as a noun. Replacing “democrat” with “democratic” for the Marc Dann search currently yields 391 stories out of 417, a pretty high percentage.
Comment by Nels — 12/22/2008 @ 11:13 pm
The media has an overwhelming left wing bias and is unable to report news objectively or honestly because of that bias.
What else is new?
Comment by Dave Surls — 12/22/2008 @ 11:16 pm
No, but the Bristol-Levi fame is inextricably linked to a national political campaign.
And why is that, steve?
Which came first? The Republican National Convention, or the accusation from the Left that Trig Palin is really Bristol’s son, forcing Palin to announce that Bristol was pregnant at the time with Levi Johnston’s child to dispel said accusation?
Readers pass up a story about his mom’s arrest without that hook.
You are grasping at straws here. Go visit Ace of Spades, the pioneer of “Name That Party!” and see how long such arguments stand up in the face of years-spanning overwhelming coverage.
Comment by Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") — 12/23/2008 @ 2:29 am
This reminds me of the wall to wall coverage ad naseum of this poor guys arrest during the 2000 campaign
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/05/local/me-gore5
yes I’m being sarcastic
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 12/23/2008 @ 4:18 am
Yeah, they don’t get it Nels. Be careful, if you say something factual (even provable, like a google search) that they don’t like you become labeled a ‘liar’.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/23/2008 @ 7:19 am
No, sweetie. Being labeled a liar is what happens when you sling bullshit. Lemme guess – you’re a Democrat, right?
Comment by Pablo — 12/23/2008 @ 7:44 am
How, exactly, is the convention relevant to the story, let alone unavoidable? Surely, you could write a story that somehow involves the Obama children without needing to reference their appearance at the Democrat convention.
Comment by Pablo — 12/23/2008 @ 7:48 am
TMJ once again demonstrates his lack of credibility – doing a “debunking” that isn’t.
Comment by SPQR — 12/23/2008 @ 8:02 am
In fact, when Einstein proposed his General Theory of Relativity in the early 20th century, he proved the theory with a quick Google search. It was more elegant than dealing with those messy equations and experiments.
But the word “Democrat” is indeed both an adjective and a noun, just like Republican or Libertarian. Using it as an adjective drives the Democrat creeps crazy, so I encourage its use in that fashion.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 12/23/2008 @ 8:12 am
Something smells fishy.
That’s emanating from your trousers.
Comment by Dmac — 12/23/2008 @ 9:06 am
Hmm, those last five comments didn’t really offer up anything new. The fact is, the insinuation that the ‘google news’ media is playing politics with Trig Palin’s mother in laws crack arrest is simply untrue. Now you’re just insulting me in order to cover your tracks. Please please please do this for the next four years… you’ll win over a lot of hearts and minds with this strategy.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/23/2008 @ 9:25 am
“The fact is, the insinuation that the ‘google news’ media is playing politics with Trig Palin’s mother in laws crack arrest is simply untrue.”
tnj – Your proof of this assertion is where? I think I missed it.
What about the “Name that party” aspect of the Marc Dann story or the fact that the AP deliberately deletes democratic party affiliations from stories it picks up from local sources? What say you, splendid splinter?
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 9:33 am
All these back and forth here does not take away from the fact that Bristol’s mother-in-law-to-be, did commit an offence. Why is it receiving much coverage? Because of Sarah Palin. That is the price you pay for coming to the limelight. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Just deal with it. Why are you whining? If this woman was connected to Obama, would you treat this matter any differently?
Comment by love2008 — 12/23/2008 @ 9:40 am
Someone needs to recheck his dictionary … the word “fact” does not mean what he thinks it does.
Comment by SPQR — 12/23/2008 @ 9:41 am
I find another comparison most interesting
There are 179 (currently) stories on the google news search engine with key {ohio “marc dann” democrat OR democratic}. This may include stories that do not describe marc dann as a democrat but have the word somewhere else in the article.
There are 358 hits for the search {ohio “marc dann” -democrat -democratic}. That’s stories that are listed that do not include the words democrat or democractic at all.
Only 1/3rd of the stories currently bother telling describing any party affiliation of well…anybody.
Comment by Newtons Bit — 12/23/2008 @ 9:51 am
I hate to agree even tangentially with homophobe, half-ass Christian, pinhead2008, but the white trash factor in the Palin family …? The brother-in-law who tasers kids. The mother-in-law who sells drugs. Spare us, Sarah. Stay in your own milieu. I can find a thousand families like yours on Chicago’s South Side although they may register a little bit differently on the light meter. I’ll look to your grandchildren for people like my family.
Comment by nk — 12/23/2008 @ 9:54 am
nk, good point – we should use the trashiness of politicians’ extended families to determine their fitness for office.
Caroline Kennedy’s drunk uncle and women-molesting cousins … and bootlegger grandfather … Bill Clinton’s drug-addled brother … Obama’s family-abandoning father … Barney Frank’s procurer boyfriend …
Frankly, Palin’s looks pretty good in comparison.
Comment by SPQR — 12/23/2008 @ 9:58 am
That is the trouble, SPQR. People have strong ideas about propriety, but those ideas are flexible when they involve people who are liked or disliked.
Heck, if we were concerned about improper connections, just think about Chicago politics! There would be no one left to run the place.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/23/2008 @ 10:00 am
“If this woman was connected to Obama, would you treat this matter any differently?”
Lovey – Remember the rules. Nobody is really connected to Obama. The left has ruled guilt by association, no matter how close and provable and how many times they have used it themselves, an unforgivable sin when it comes to Obama. Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Rev. Wright, Rod Blagojevich, Tony Rezko, Father Pfleger, Louis Farrakhan, Richard Daley, etc., ets., are not at all connected to Baracky.
Please remember the rules in your future comments.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 10:03 am
Caroline Kennedy’s drunk uncle and women-molesting cousins … and bootlegger grandfather … Bill Clinton’s drug-addled brother … Obama’s family-abandoning father … Barney Frank’s procurer boyfriend …
Yes, absolutely. I hold that against all of them. And I make no exception for the lady with the R after her name. If you are going to rule me, you have to show me that you are better than me.
Comment by nk — 12/23/2008 @ 10:04 am
What say you, splendid splinter?
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 9:33 am
Just why are we dragging Ted Williams into this?
Comment by Another Drew — 12/23/2008 @ 10:05 am
“Heck, if we were concerned about improper connections, just think about Chicago politics! There would be no one left to run the place.”
Eric, but what’s the downside?
Comment by SPQR — 12/23/2008 @ 10:05 am
“nk, good point – we should use the trashiness of politicians’ extended families to determine their fitness for office.”
Well, you’ve got Baracky’s illegal immigrant auntie in Boston abusing the welfare system as a starter. He’s got his extended family of commie sympathizers and dupes who helped to raise him. nk, I think you’ve got some double standards or snobbishness going here.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 10:07 am
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 10:03 am
So you agree that this thread is pointless. NO?
Comment by love2008 — 12/23/2008 @ 10:07 am
nk, with all respect:
When you write that, who precisely do you have in mind? I’m not being snarky. I’m genuinely curious. Which politicians in the last thirty years fit that standard?
SPQR: you have a point.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/23/2008 @ 10:08 am
“If you are going to RULE me, you have to show me that you are better than me.”
nk – We don’t have royalty in this country. That’s a mistake the left usually makes.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 10:10 am
Comment by nk — 12/23/2008 @ 9:54 am
Blank you, NK! Blank you blankhole. You motherblanker. BLANK YOU!
Comment by love2008 — 12/23/2008 @ 10:12 am
nk, I would submit that the quality of one’s extended family does not inform us of the quality of the person themselves.
Comment by SPQR — 12/23/2008 @ 10:13 am
“So you agree that this thread is pointless. NO?”
Lovey – I point out that you are a worthless commenter. Yes.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 10:13 am
daleyrocks #81—very interesting point. We tend to forget that. We shouldn’t. I think we fall under the spell of “celebrity politicians.”
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/23/2008 @ 10:16 am
“Just why are we dragging Ted Williams into this?”
AD – I knew someone would pick up the Williams reference, but I was thinking more of Lenin or Stalin.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 10:16 am
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 9:33 am
Isn’t the proof the responsibility of the prosecution? The only ‘proof’ this post provides is a ghost story involing google news searches with non-reproducable results. If I told you I could send you to the moon by driving a nail into your big toe and tried it a few times on you without the promised result, you would ask a few questions, wouldn’t you? Well, that is what I am doing now: asking question, raising doubts.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/23/2008 @ 10:21 am
If you wait for the perfect candidate, without blemish nor illicit connections and past scandals to come and lead us, you will have to die and go to heaven. Everyone is perfect there. There is none righteous, no, not even one. But we must learn to focus on the good and believe for the best. We must not also fall into the danger of unreasonable expectations. They lead to disappointments. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
Comment by love2008 — 12/23/2008 @ 10:21 am
“If you are going to RULE me, you have to show me that you are better than me.”
nk – With all due respect, this seems like fucked up thinking. In what ways do politicians have to demonstrate they are better than you?
Personally there are not many politicians I respect. I feel I can think circles around them. The fact that they have chosen to take a different path in life than me does not make them better or worse. Some are more effective than others in that path and some hold the same views that I do. For me it’s not a question of “better,” it’s a question of shared values and effectiveness.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 10:21 am
“If you wait for the perfect candidate”
Lovey – I thought you got him in Baracky.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 10:23 am
Your assertion is not proved using the simple searches you claimed you made. You would have to read each article and note whether a party affiliation is offered. Let me know when you’re done.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/23/2008 @ 10:24 am
“Well, that is what I am doing now: asking question, raising doubts.”
tnj – No, you’re doing an Adrew Sullivan impression.
Last night the results were certainly within a reproducible range considering the addition of new stories. What was your conclusion?
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 10:26 am
Lovey – I point out that you are a worthless commenter. Yes.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 10:13 am
I want you to prove that you are not an idiot, Daley. This is so important. You can start by telling us why you believe you are not retarded. Give us seven reasons.
Comment by love2008 — 12/23/2008 @ 10:28 am
No, Daley, they were not. The results when I made the searches were that 388 stories out of 411 included the word democrat. That percentage is much higher than what was claimed in the article.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/23/2008 @ 10:29 am
What was your conclusion?
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 10:26 am
To attempt a new tack to jack this thread…
Comment by Another Drew — 12/23/2008 @ 10:31 am
Another Drew-
You are like the uneducated, unfunny peanut gallery around here. You never ever come up with anything of substance.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/23/2008 @ 10:33 am
Lovey – I thought you got him in Baracky.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 10:23 am
Nobody ever said Obama was perfect. He has even confessed that he is an imperfect vessel. That he would make mistakes. No one is perfect. Except of course in your whacky thinking. You still haven’t answered my question.
Comment by love2008 — 12/23/2008 @ 10:35 am
“You can start by telling us why you believe you are not retarded. Give us seven reasons.”
Lovey – I voted against Obama seven times in the Illinois primary. Q.E.D.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 10:37 am
This agrument has reached the same point of obtuseness as mariO and his one-track mind about the relationship of Talk-Radio and the MSM.
To continue will only be a re-hash of what has gone before.
We have already reached the point where tnj’s point has been rebuffed, even by the moderator, and yet he continues to debate it without introducing anything new that relates to, or even advances, his viewpoint (whatever that is – for, as always, it seems that the argument is the point).
Comment by Another Drew — 12/23/2008 @ 10:37 am
I read through that post, AD. I think it is ridiculous to exclude talk radio from the MSM umbrella. The only reason you do that is because, combined with the rather centrist (on average) print and television media, talk radio would sway the media average into the right-wingnutty zone.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/23/2008 @ 10:40 am
Hey AD. Did you catch the “uneducated” line from TMJ? And the “never come up with anything of substance” business? Here we go again!
Tuesday Troll-o-rama, on two threads!
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/23/2008 @ 10:40 am
Notice also the slight shift in language closer to the HL norm. All it needs is ha ha ha ha to fit right in.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/23/2008 @ 10:41 am
What drugs was this woman, Sherry manufacturing in her house? Who knows? Could be meth. If she was manufacturing them, she probably must have been selling them too.
Comment by love2008 — 12/23/2008 @ 10:41 am
I think that Instapundit has a long running series of “Name That Party” examples. Worth a search, for people interested in this topic.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/23/2008 @ 10:46 am
You’ve missed the point, Love. We are not talking about someone close to the Palin family making and selling meth, we’re talking about how unfair it is that the media is including the word ‘republican’ in the story. We are supposed to be offended that the media is including in their stories why we care about their stories. It seems counter-intuitive, I know, but a lot of regressive GOP policies are so.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/23/2008 @ 10:46 am
Lovey – I voted against Obama seven times in the Illinois primary. Q.E.D.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 10:37 am
O—-kay. You voted seven times against one candidate? Right? How does that help your case Daley? Normal people get to vote once but you, seven. (Shakes head…) You have gone very far. Put away that bottle and stay away from those plants!
Comment by love2008 — 12/23/2008 @ 10:51 am
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/23/2008 @ 10:46 am
You got me there, Truthie. Thought I could attempt a thread-hijack with that, seeing how boring things were getting. And just so you all know, the entire Johnston family became Republicans when they thought Palin’s ticket was going to win. Now, all of a sudden, they are no longer Reps. Mmmmmgh..
Comment by love2008 — 12/23/2008 @ 10:59 am
“we’re talking about how unfair it is that the media is including the word ‘republican’ in the story.”
tnj – You’re leaving a little bit out as usual, boy genius, something about a double standard.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 11:00 am
No, dipshit, we are talking about how unfair it is for the media to include R ID, and at the same time, exclude D ID.
No wonder you can’t come up with a coherent argument, you can’t even decipher what the point of the discussion is about.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/23/2008 @ 11:02 am
It seems counter-intuitive, I know, but a lot of regressive GOP policies are so.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/23/2008 @ 10:46 am
Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark.
Comment by love2008 — 12/23/2008 @ 11:12 am
Comment by love2008 — 12/23/2008 @ 11:12 am
The only mark it leaves is the mark of incoherence.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/23/2008 @ 11:14 am
Eric #80,
Ronald Reagan.
(This sure is a fast-moving thread.)
Comment by nk — 12/23/2008 @ 11:18 am
Much as I admired Ronald Reagan’s leadership, I don’t think his family was any paragon. And I remember the 80s, when most everything Reagan did was deemed the act of simplistic, senile, and overly religious man.
Mind you, I didn’t agree then, and I don’t agree now. Have a look at Reagan’s collected letters, for example.
But my point remains: people who liked Reagan (like you and me) forgave him his personal life and irritating family. People who didn’t like him zeroed in on those things to find fault.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/23/2008 @ 11:26 am
we’re talking about how unfair it is that the media is including the word ‘republican’ in the story.
Unfair, how? The couple was in half the cutaways at the GOP convention. Maybe if the photo cutline read, “Bristol Palin and her fiance visiting family in St. Paul, MN.”
Find any Marc Dann coverage carried out of state that failed to disclose his party. It’s unreasonable to set forth anomalous baselines and demand readers conclude “the media names one of the Parties 97% of the time and the other 20% of the time.” The Sherry Johnston arrest story is a week old. Marc Dann’s been in local rolling coverage for months. There might be factual basis for this post if Google dual-tracked its hits.
Comment by steve — 12/23/2008 @ 2:27 pm
Steve: I was using sarcasm in that statement.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/23/2008 @ 3:35 pm
nk — I agree completely with your sentiment that you want someone to be better than you to rule. However, I don’t think there’s anyone better than me, and I’m certainly no better than anyone else. So the only person fit to rule me is myself.
I’ll support people taking on the job of governing, but there’s no one who’s ever existed fit to rule me.
Comment by Rob Crawford — 12/23/2008 @ 3:43 pm
For the lefties who can’t seem to understand the point of this story, I offer the following experiment for you: over the next six months, while reading a news report about a crime, look for things like a description of the suspect. If it’s a crime or just misbehavior by a politician, look for the prominence of the accused’s party affiliation. Honestly assess those items.
See if you spot a pattern.
Comment by Rob Crawford — 12/23/2008 @ 3:48 pm
Rob:
Will do. I will closely inspect articles in the future to see if the pattern that did not show itself in this case appears.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/23/2008 @ 4:01 pm
Weird — from that statement, I doubt you’ll be honest in the effort. If you make it at all.
Comment by Rob Crawford — 12/23/2008 @ 4:05 pm
Rob: Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has a long list of that experiment on his website, called “Name That Party!”
But I do think it is a good exercise for people to do in general: looking critically at MSM reports.
Look at Caroline Kennedy. Her lack of experience is not a big deal at all for being appointed a Senator, according to the press. But Sarah Palin’s lack of experience was a VERY big deal. The difference? One is seen (strangely, by the Democrat rank and file) as royalty. The other is seen as a hick.
Then we get into the whole Biden thing. You can’t call Sarah Palin “stupid” without painting Slow Joe with the same brush, only more so. But that never happened, even when Biden has repeatedly misstated Constitutional issues. Among other things.
It is very clear: the MSM is heavily in the tank for left of center interests (and calling the MSM “centrist” is…well…misguided to the point of derangement).
But my opinion isn’t important, except to me. I think that it would be great if everyone read the news with a critical eye. The MSM? They know what is best for us. They are smarter than we are, apparently.
Hmmm.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/23/2008 @ 4:22 pm
Can one say intelelctual dishonesty? We have the media’s constant historical revisionism to cover libtard dupas. NPR is now pushing Rathergate revisionism. They talk about the right wing blogosphere not actually disproving Rather’s bogus TANG document and won’t mention the actual bloggers so that people can see the proof for themselves. Powerline talks about it today along with the throbbing documents, as does LGF.
And how about the way sex scandals, Breck Girl or the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fiasco are handled. How many people are even aware of how dirty Franks and Dodd are in that regard or O’s asshole buddies who benefited greatly, not to mention Obamafuehrer himself or Lurch getting big contributions?
Comment by madmax333 — 12/23/2008 @ 4:25 pm
madmax333, I think that the old statement that a lie repeated enough times becomes a kind of truth is accurate and relevant.
I think that was a statement by Goebbels. Cue up Jonah Goldberg’s book, huh?
The MSM will not give up. They will keep repeating the lies to support The Narrative. The good news is that bloggers can’t be easily silenced.
At least not yet.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/23/2008 @ 4:39 pm
“…Find any Marc Dann coverage carried out of state that failed to disclose his party…”
Comment by steve — 12/23/2008 @ 2:27 pm
Actually, as I recall, the initial post on this at Instapundit (under his Name That Party heading) was from an Orlando FL paper, and did not have any party ID.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/23/2008 @ 5:20 pm
Actually, as I recall, the initial post on this at Instapundit (under his Name That Party heading) was from an Orlando FL paper, and did not have any party ID.
Second graph from Instapundit link:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/51307/
Comment by steve — 12/23/2008 @ 7:29 pm
Comment by steve — 12/23/2008 @ 7:29 pm
Good point.
I’ve queried the Instapundit for clarification as to why his post was incorrect.
Will relay any edification received.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/23/2008 @ 7:47 pm
Comment by steve — 12/23/2008 @ 7:29 pm
One other thing….
If you take the link to the AP report, you will note that it is datelined 12/22/08 @ 5:28pm.
But, the Instapundit post which contains the link was put up at 12/21/08 @ 7:01am,
34 Hours & 27 Minutes before the dateline of the AP report.
Could it be that the AP was embarrassed into updating their report, without mentioning that they were doing so?
It wouldn’t be the first time we have seen such shenanigans, is it?
Does anyone have a screenshot of the original AP post?
Comment by Another Drew — 12/23/2008 @ 8:00 pm
Down the memory hole … I see that a full day later, TMJ is still going with its narrative, set in stone from its first comment.
Comment by JD — 12/23/2008 @ 8:29 pm
I’m pretty sure the time the paper’s website adds an entry, not when the AP crossed it, is what’s shown. The Canton Rep put up the identical piece at 11:13 am EST.
Instapundit isn’t an idiot, so it’s possible the link he used automatically refreshes to the newest edit. That assumes he grabbed a first draft which didn’t include Dann’s party.
What you call “shenanigans” is AP crossing a couple versions but not allowing affils to capture and run the initial draft. Had there been a serious factual error or wholesale change to the content, a client advisory would show in the internal record. And the reading public would see a mandatory correction if enough AP clients ran a fatally-flawed early draft through a news cycle.
Comment by steve — 12/23/2008 @ 8:54 pm
steve…I posted after reading the initial post by Instapundit (in real time) and going to the linked AP article, where I do not remember seeing any party ID (as per the Glenn’s comment in his post). That is what I relied on. If, after commenting here, AP had revised its’ article, I have no control over that and am not responsible for their misrepresentation of what they are doing.
I stand by my original comment.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/23/2008 @ 9:01 pm
Yep. You’re right about that EB.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/23/2008 @ 9:13 pm
Just like Bush, when he stood by his reasoning of WMD. How adorable. Like Fuhrer, like nitwit.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/23/2008 @ 9:15 pm
I stand by my original comment.
Whatever. The AP saw to it that versions online and in print include Dann’s party affiliation. That they were “embarrassed” into adding it shortly after Glenn Reynolds posted a complaint is possible. But their protocol for edits and pulling older writes is competent.
Comment by steve — 12/23/2008 @ 9:16 pm
You just don’t get it, do you? This isn’t an insult match. You would think you would have learned that when your “friend” got himself tossed out. And for what? Speaking Troof to Powder?
If you want to fight with people, go to a bar and pick a fight. If you want to get banned, go insult Patterico or DRJ.
I don’t really care how other people treat you. I have tried to be more polite, and you continue to be what you have always been here: a troll.
Go spend time with your loved ones or family. You are continuing to act in a very juvenile fashion.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/23/2008 @ 9:17 pm
Still slinging your bullshit, truthnjustice? You are a truly lousy troll.
Comment by Pablo — 12/23/2008 @ 9:31 pm
They have better trolls down at the Goodwill.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 12/23/2008 @ 9:37 pm
But Pablo, that is his deal. Just like his “friend,” it is all about name calling and rudeness. I don’t think that either (!) of them believe in much of anything.
It’s just killing time.
Some folks enjoy swatting trolls around.
And let’s be clear: there are folks here who are not right of center who disagree in a civil fashion, and unsurprisingly, no one is terrifically rude in turn.
But it is common to find trolls who claim that they were poorly treated initially, which is why they are rude—-wrong from the get-go (…he did it first!…) and beside the point. Because it is not, and has never been, about illumination or discussion to trolls.
It’s about fighting in a fashion where there is utterly no danger of getting their behinds kicked.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/23/2008 @ 9:38 pm
“But their protocol for edits and pulling older writes is competent.”
steve – I disagree. They update stories and change story titles without notice all the time. That may be protocol in your book, but unless you go back and compare paragraph by paragraph you don’t necessarily find the insertions or deletions. It didn’t used to be the way.
Comment by daleyrocks — 12/23/2008 @ 9:49 pm
daleyrocks – That is a feature, not a bug.
Comment by JD — 12/23/2008 @ 9:51 pm
That is total and complete bullshit and you know it.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/24/2008 @ 5:46 am
No it isn’t. Aphrael, Leviticus and others get on quite nicely with the commentariat and excellent discussions often ensue. People who frequent this place already know this. You just look silly arguing it.
You know how to tell if something is bullshit? Look for this immediately below it: Comment by truthnjustice
You really are an awful troll. You truly suck at this. When you can’t even crap on the rug properly, you really need to reevaluate what you’re doing.
Comment by Pablo — 12/24/2008 @ 6:13 am
I frequent this place and aphrael is probably slightly right of center.
There are certain ‘hot button’ issues that will automatically get you insulted around here. If you express any dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq or our path to it you get hit with rude and nasty insults. It is guaranteed.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/24/2008 @ 6:22 am
So are you saying that you can crap on the rug properly?
hahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahaha x10^19.4
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/24/2008 @ 6:23 am
That settles it. You’re a hopeless idiot. BTW, if you’re a liar, you’ll get insulted. If you’re an asshole you’ll get insulted. If you’re immune to compelling argument, you’ll get insulted. You hit the trifecta.
Comment by Pablo — 12/24/2008 @ 6:26 am
No. Comprehension isn’t your strong suit. That’s another thing you suck out loud at.
Comment by Pablo — 12/24/2008 @ 6:27 am
You hit the trifecta.
That goes 10^19.4 if you continue to make a pathetic lousy argument after an absolutely positive debunking, Threadjacker.
That goes 10^10589.4 if you question the debunking even when it is obvious to everyone but yourself your pathetic lousy arguments are debunked, Threadjacker.
And don’t even protest about “Threadjacker”; you’ve done it so many times you deserve the moniker permanently.
Comment by Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") — 12/24/2008 @ 6:37 am
You suck at not ending sentences in prepositions.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/24/2008 @ 6:37 am
TnJ,
You are a troll who needs a taste of the “Ban Stick”.
Comment by PCD — 12/24/2008 @ 6:39 am
Looks like tnj, aka “get a life” guy, is still searching for one. Funny that.
Comment by Mossberg500 — 12/24/2008 @ 6:41 am
I’m off to the homestead. Merry Christmas, guys and girls.
Comment by truthnjustice — 12/24/2008 @ 6:43 am
You suck at not ending sentences in prepositions
That’s the best you’ve got?
You really are pathetic.
Comment by Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") — 12/24/2008 @ 6:52 am
Merry Christmas, guys and girls.
Merry Christmas to you. Hopefully when you come back, you’ll make valuable comments backed up with facts.
Comment by Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") — 12/24/2008 @ 6:53 am
TnJ,
Maybe Santa will bring you a functional brain and a life. If not, Enjoy Christmas. It is a holiday a Socialist like you should enjoy.
Comment by PCD — 12/24/2008 @ 7:06 am
Hmmm. The “hahaha” motif sounded familiar from TMJ. I still suspect they are the same person.
But the part I liked best in this latest bit of Algonquin Table-style repartee was “I’m off to the homestead.”
That isn’t something a grown man usually writes. It is something that a student would write.
Maybe not. But the more you look at the posts, the more you suspect.
Regardless, the character is just here to pick fights.
Even on Christmas Eve Day. Now that is a happy person at peace with itself.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/24/2008 @ 8:39 am
Again with the lies, TMJ. Can’t you even be honest around Christmas?
Coal for you, young boy.
Comment by JD — 12/24/2008 @ 8:58 am
TMJ is taking this opportunity to show how incredibly mendoucheous it is, and how freakin’ far Left it is that it thinks aphrael is right of center.
Bzzzzzzzzttttt. Wrong again. SHOCKA. Only if you lie about it, which tends to be your strong suit.
Comment by JD — 12/24/2008 @ 9:00 am
My Christmas wish list …
That Patterico will convince Jamie Gold and the folks at the LA Times to be honest for one full week.
That DRJ will continue to find time to post.
That all of my e-friends, as Better Half calls y’all, will have a happy, healthy, and prosperous year, even if those dirty little socialists will try to take your money.
That the trolls get personalities, lives, and a modicum of decency in their stocking this year. Or coal.
World peace.
And, Kyoto.
Comment by JD — 12/24/2008 @ 9:05 am
Thanks, JD. I won’t even denounce your comment.
And your Kyoto comment reminded me that I read recently that almost all the signers of the Kyoto Protocols have NOT met their carbon reduction goals.
Who did? We did. That darned GW Bush!
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/24/2008 @ 9:07 am
JD, when you offer the following:
Keep in mind that it isn’t carbon neutral.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/24/2008 @ 9:11 am
Oh, Eric, I am sure that one of the identity politics people could find oh-so-subtle traces of xenophobia, jingoism, racism, misogyny, and homophobia in it. Denounce away …
If only President Clinton and the 96 Senators that voted against the Kyoto crap had acted differently …
Comment by JD — 12/24/2008 @ 9:12 am
Yeah, JD…we could have had more coal fired power plants!
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/24/2008 @ 9:13 am
YES WE CAN!!
Comment by Pablo — 12/24/2008 @ 9:18 am
You know, Pablo, the thing that bothers me most about Obama is how everyone says how darned smart he is….based on what data?
When you burn anything made of carbon using oxygen, you get carbon dioxide. The only exception I know is burning hydrogen with oxygen, yielding water (but hydrogen is…um…low in carbon).
So to “clean” coal would require some way to remove the carbon dioxide from the “smokestack.” Good luck with that.
Fortunately, Al Gore will sell you carbon offsets.
Oh well.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/24/2008 @ 9:28 am
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/24/2008 @ 9:28 am
Stack scrubbers…
With catalytic technology, virtually all impurities in the stack emissions can be removed, but at a terrific cost, and then you have the problem of dealing with the solid waste.
The catalytic converter on your car does this with CO and unburned HC by changing them into CO2 and H2O. To further reduce the CO2 to solid C, and O2 would require more facility than can be accommodated on the tailpipe of a vehicle.
Of course, with enough electrical power, we could take that carbon solid and compress it down into industrial diamonds? But, the question remains, how much will it cost, and would we have any power left to put into the grid? And, if we take all of the CO2 out of the atmosphere, what will the plants breathe?
The only sure-fire way to eliminate AGW is to remove the main cause: US!
I’m waiting for the Sierra Club and the other main-line EcoFreaks to show us the way.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/24/2008 @ 9:42 am
…addendum
Eric, you do realize I’m sure, that Hydrogen-Dioxide is a killer of mankind, and is a threat to all life everywhere?
Why is the EPA silent on this issue?
Comment by Another Drew — 12/24/2008 @ 9:44 am
algore knows it’s going to kill us, AD.
Comment by Pablo — 12/24/2008 @ 9:50 am
AD, the only carbon dioxide scrubber that I have seen referenced was the one developed at Columbia University and announced last August.
Please point me toward any current technology in this area, since it interests me.
Of course, even if it is developed, and is cost/energy effective, the GW fanatics will claim it is bad, since it would “encourage” people to continue to burn fossil fuel.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/24/2008 @ 9:53 am
OPPS …screwed myself bigtime…
DiHydrogen-Oxide
Comment by Another Drew — 12/24/2008 @ 9:53 am
Got to watch that eggnog consumption!
Comment by Another Drew — 12/24/2008 @ 9:54 am
Merry Christmas, you racists!
Comment by love2008 — 12/24/2008 @ 9:55 am
The dihydrogen oxide business is always funny, AD. I have seen people on college campuses getting the students to sign petitions protesting the stuff.
Water.
More seriously, my father is a retired firefighter. Years ago, they had a “toxic spill” on the Long Beach Freeway. They were warned to wear breathing gear and protective garb.
It was sand. From the beach.
Oh well.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/24/2008 @ 9:55 am
AD, its dihydrogen monoxide
and it kills a lot of people each year.
Comment by SPQR — 12/24/2008 @ 9:56 am
If we aren’t supposed to burn fossil fuels, why did “Mother Nature” leave us so much to use:
Oil, Coal, Natural Gas, Peat-moss, Dung!
Of course, the logical solution would be the further development of nuclear power including breeder-reactors and the mythical cold-fusion process (boy, if they could ever come up with a containment system for hot-fusion, we would be in the tall cotton), but the EcoFreaks (again) just go into apoplexy at the thought of a stray electron bouncing through the neighborhood (wonder what they think of Quarks?).
Comment by Another Drew — 12/24/2008 @ 10:01 am
Thanks for the forebearance guys.,..
Now you know why I switched from a science major in HS to PoliSci/History, just couldn’t keep that stuff straight (of course, Calculus might have had something to do with it, but I digress).
Comment by Another Drew — 12/24/2008 @ 10:05 am
AD, none of the stuff in the press is actually about science. With very few exceptions, I can promise that you know more about science than the journalists prattling on.
As for energy, the objections are religio-political. Development is bad. So even if we had “free” energy, it would still be bad (encouraging more development).
Sigh. And yet the protesters have iPods and boss stereo systems and vacation in Aruba. Heck, many drive SUVs.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/24/2008 @ 10:13 am
Well, we could engage in eco-justice as does the ELF, only instead of spiking trees, and burning down not completed new developments, we could grab Blackberry’s out of the hands of pols and stomp on them, sabotage their SUV’s, cut down cell-phone towers, etc.
Hey, it’s breaking the law, but we’re doing it in the name of a higher order.
But, we won’t have to.
The Mad-Mullahs will do all that for us when the detonate their EMP weapon 300-klicks over Kansas.
Enjoy it while you can, unless the Israelis save our ass again.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/24/2008 @ 10:24 am
“…I can promise that you know more about science than the journalists prattling on…”
Thanks for the compliment.
This is one of the reasons I stopped writing letters to the editors, it was always over the simple things that they should never get wrong, but invariably did.
It is as if in J-school, they insert a moron gene into their cranial cavity.
Comment by Another Drew — 12/24/2008 @ 10:28 am
Now that is a happy person at peace with itself.
The hilarious part is where the Troll gets all passive – aggressive in it’s posts, as evidenced by wishing everyone a happy holiday, then telling everyone they’re full of sh-t a few minutes later. Similar to bleating about being treated so badly, then after being pwned by DRJ on it’s own prior statements, continues the canard. It really is the Duel with the Black Knight come to life.
Comment by Dmac — 12/24/2008 @ 10:45 am
My guess is, again, that grades received didn’t match self-perception. I teach undergrads every year, and that character sure sounded like one to me.
I also think that HL and F were its alter egos.
I could be wrong, of course.
Comment by Eric Blair — 12/24/2008 @ 10:52 am