I feel like that's an honest statement, regardless of whether or not I was standing there as it happened.
I feel like it is not, because that's not how people use "I've seen"
people add "on TV" or "a video of"
without it you meant in person
It's more subtle than that, heavily relies on context, but I think the point remains that it's extremely rare that the distinction is unclear. For example:
"I've been there. That's really what separates me from most of these other bloviators. I bloviate, but I bloviate about stuff I've seen. They bloviate about stuff that they haven't."
It's clear the intent he wants to convey is that he was there for the things he saw. To say they were separate thoughts: "I was there. I saw stuff." That's just disingenuous.
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
+3
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I hate the election thread and regret every time I click in it. But I feel a sense of responsibility to contribute.
I want to participate but fffffffffffffff
[chat] and the more transitory topical threads are enough yeah? And maybe the SCOTUS one when something interesting like the redistricting thing happens?
Ted Olson belongs on the bench, btw.
+1
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I feel like that's an honest statement, regardless of whether or not I was standing there as it happened.
I feel like it is not, because that's not how people use "I've seen"
people add "on TV" or "a video of"
without it you meant in person
It's more subtle than that, heavily relies on context, but I think the point remains that it's extremely rare that the distinction is unclear. For example:
"I've been there. That's really what separates me from most of these other bloviators. I bloviate, but I bloviate about stuff I've seen. They bloviate about stuff that they haven't."
It's clear the intent he wants to convey is that he was there for the things he saw. To say they were separate thoughts: "I was there. I saw stuff." That's just disingenuous.
well O'Reilly's quote is: “I’ve seen soldiers gun down unarmed civilians in Latin America, Irish terrorists kill and maim their fellow citizens in Belfast with bombs.”
I don't know anything more than that, does somebody have the whole paragraph that's pulled from?
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think the context of being a journalist changes things in regards to the authority of statements.
If Cronkite or Cooper says on the record, "I saw ______ happen in a war zone," if they don't have the addendum of ". . . in photographs/on TV/in an online video," the implication there is that this was first hand.
But Bill O'Reilly is such a ridiculous buffoon that I don't really care if Fox legitimately addresses his many questionable statements coming to light. Nobody watches his show for the journalistic integrity on display.
+6
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
edited March 2015
a
Sir Landshark on
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
+2
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
edited March 2015
double
Sir Landshark on
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
I think a big part of the problem is they also hit a design issue. If you want to make cases similar to iPhones(one big metal piece) things like easily removable backs and batteries become nearly impossible.
You could make a side loading slot for your SD card but that also takes up space.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I doubt O'Reilly lying in a way similar to Brian Williams will make anybody on the planet think less of him.
+7
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
edited March 2015
lol sorry guys I was getting error messages like woah and it wasn't showing on refresh either
Sir Landshark on
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
+1
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
I hate the election thread and regret every time I click in it. But I feel a sense of responsibility to contribute.
I want to participate but fffffffffffffff
[chat] and the more transitory topical threads are enough yeah? And maybe the SCOTUS one when something interesting like the redistricting thing happens?
Ted Olson belongs on the bench, btw.
I would really like to see a bunch of very technical lawyers from disparate, specialized fields on the supreme court. It would be the best of both worlds, because when a technical issue comes up they would actually have someone who understands it to write the opinion (this is very rare historically) and when the issues are broader, the justices would be coming at them somewhat fresher than someone who sat on a circuit court of spent years in academia thinking about the big ticket issues from a theoretical basis.
The BW's thing is weird, because for some reason you are supposed to remember a helicopter ride 10 years ago where nothing happened but your network reported it like you were almost shot down and landed early. The rest of the retellings sound easily like other memories blurred together. NBC's response now after originally creating the original weird fiction is "How dare you exaggerate what happened to you! People need to trust you are bringing them the truth!"
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I doubt O'Reilly lying in a way similar to Brian Williams will make anybody on the planet think less of him.
That's kinda my point; the people who care about ethics in journalism don't pay any attention to O'Reilly, and the people who do pay attention to him wouldn't believe anything negative about him anyway.
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
Can we just have an algorithm redistrict with the intent of representative government based on census data? It seems 100% insane to allow people to manually participate in this process. I mean, come the fuck on, America!
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
+4
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think I'mma go see the new Cronenberg tomorrow.
Haven't said that in a while :biggrin:
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Can we just have an algorithm redistrict with the intent of representative government based on census data? It seems 100% insane to allow people to manually participate in this process. I mean, come the fuck on, America!
gerrymandering is so insidious because it reinforces power structures.
Can we just have an algorithm redistrict with the intent of representative government based on census data? It seems 100% insane to allow people to manually participate in this process. I mean, come the fuck on, America!
gerrymandering is so insidious because it reinforces power structures.
spool and skfm been talking some revolutionary shit recently and i'm over here cheesin
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Can we just have an algorithm redistrict with the intent of representative government based on census data? It seems 100% insane to allow people to manually participate in this process. I mean, come the fuck on, America!
We can, but we'd have to vote on it, and Congress is never going to vote themselves out of a job.
I hate the election thread and regret every time I click in it. But I feel a sense of responsibility to contribute.
I want to participate but fffffffffffffff
[chat] and the more transitory topical threads are enough yeah? And maybe the SCOTUS one when something interesting like the redistricting thing happens?
Ted Olson belongs on the bench, btw.
I would really like to see a bunch of very technical lawyers from disparate, specialized fields on the supreme court. It would be the best of both worlds, because when a technical issue comes up they would actually have someone who understands it to write the opinion (this is very rare historically) and when the issues are broader, the justices would be coming at them somewhat fresher than someone who sat on a circuit court of spent years in academia thinking about the big ticket issues from a theoretical basis.
I would like to see more judges in the vein of Earl Warren.
I think in light of the defense that many on the left vigorously put forward (and still cling to) for Dan Rather after he used forged documents to try and sway a Presidential race in the closing days of the contest, there is much to atone for and trying to rip O'Reilly a new one for one sentence in a book, devoid of context and reasonably argued as sensible or at least understandable, smacks very much of partisan targeting rather than a concern over journalistic integrity.
spool32 on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Personally, I don't believe federal politics should even be local, so I would be happy to see people assigned to districts with a random number generator. Or better yet, to just hold house elections at the state level, like the senate. I think the idea of your congressman going to our federal government to argue for a sweet heart deal for his home town seems off. Better to let the federal government deal with big pictures and make broad allocations which can be divied up at the state level while the federal government focuses on bigger issues.
I think in light of the defense that many on the left vigorously put forward (and still cling to) for Dan Rather after he used forged documents to try and sway a Presidential race in the closing days of the contest, there is much to atone for and trying to rip O'Reilly a new one for one sentence in a book, devoid of context and reasonably argued as sensible or at least understandable, smacks very much of partisan targeting rather than a concern over journalistic integrity.
And no point really given O'Reilly has no journalistic integrity to start with.
Can we just have an algorithm redistrict with the intent of representative government based on census data? It seems 100% insane to allow people to manually participate in this process. I mean, come the fuck on, America!
we can't because that's racist.
I'm serious, this is the reason why we can't.
+2
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Can we just have an algorithm redistrict with the intent of representative government based on census data? It seems 100% insane to allow people to manually participate in this process. I mean, come the fuck on, America!
I suggested something similar to this the last time it came up and fairly liberal posters shouted me down because it would get rid of majority minority districts and black/latino/jewish/etc representation.
Which led me to ask "what is more important: that the will of the people is more accurately reflected independent of race/gender/creed, or that we have a number of minority representatives at the expense of ceding control of the house to whomever drew the lines last?"
This debate has happened.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+3
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
I think in light of the defense that many on the left vigorously put forward (and still cling to) for Dan Rather after he used forged documents to try and sway a Presidential race in the closing days of the contest, there is much to atone for and trying to rip O'Reilly a new one for one sentence in a book, devoid of context and reasonably argued as sensible or at least understandable, smacks very much of partisan targeting rather than a concern over journalistic integrity.
And no point really given O'Reilly has no journalistic integrity to start with.
But Quid, his show has the no spin zone! That just bleeds integrity!
Posts
It's more subtle than that, heavily relies on context, but I think the point remains that it's extremely rare that the distinction is unclear. For example:
It's clear the intent he wants to convey is that he was there for the things he saw. To say they were separate thoughts: "I was there. I saw stuff." That's just disingenuous.
Wait, how does that make sense?
We're filthy casuals, but not fake gamers.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
It is a language issue, but it's not mine. Yeah, these examples work. It doesn't work the same way for "I saw a dude get killed".
I want to participate but fffffffffffffff
[chat] and the more transitory topical threads are enough yeah? And maybe the SCOTUS one when something interesting like the redistricting thing happens?
Ted Olson belongs on the bench, btw.
It's probably a palette cleanser after you spend a few hours pretending to be a little girl sexing dolls together.
now that's a depressing game
well O'Reilly's quote is: “I’ve seen soldiers gun down unarmed civilians in Latin America, Irish terrorists kill and maim their fellow citizens in Belfast with bombs.”
I don't know anything more than that, does somebody have the whole paragraph that's pulled from?
If Cronkite or Cooper says on the record, "I saw ______ happen in a war zone," if they don't have the addendum of ". . . in photographs/on TV/in an online video," the implication there is that this was first hand.
But Bill O'Reilly is such a ridiculous buffoon that I don't really care if Fox legitimately addresses his many questionable statements coming to light. Nobody watches his show for the journalistic integrity on display.
You could make a side loading slot for your SD card but that also takes up space.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I would really like to see a bunch of very technical lawyers from disparate, specialized fields on the supreme court. It would be the best of both worlds, because when a technical issue comes up they would actually have someone who understands it to write the opinion (this is very rare historically) and when the issues are broader, the justices would be coming at them somewhat fresher than someone who sat on a circuit court of spent years in academia thinking about the big ticket issues from a theoretical basis.
That's kinda my point; the people who care about ethics in journalism don't pay any attention to O'Reilly, and the people who do pay attention to him wouldn't believe anything negative about him anyway.
http://spacenews.com/20-year-old-military-weather-satellite-apparently-exploded-in-orbit/
Haven't said that in a while :biggrin:
gerrymandering is so insidious because it reinforces power structures.
spool and skfm been talking some revolutionary shit recently and i'm over here cheesin
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
We can, but we'd have to vote on it, and Congress is never going to vote themselves out of a job.
I would like to see more judges in the vein of Earl Warren.
I think in light of the defense that many on the left vigorously put forward (and still cling to) for Dan Rather after he used forged documents to try and sway a Presidential race in the closing days of the contest, there is much to atone for and trying to rip O'Reilly a new one for one sentence in a book, devoid of context and reasonably argued as sensible or at least understandable, smacks very much of partisan targeting rather than a concern over journalistic integrity.
And no point really given O'Reilly has no journalistic integrity to start with.
we can't because that's racist.
I'm serious, this is the reason why we can't.
I suggested something similar to this the last time it came up and fairly liberal posters shouted me down because it would get rid of majority minority districts and black/latino/jewish/etc representation.
Which led me to ask "what is more important: that the will of the people is more accurately reflected independent of race/gender/creed, or that we have a number of minority representatives at the expense of ceding control of the house to whomever drew the lines last?"
This debate has happened.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
it's one of the simpler joys in life
Im super excited about Firewatch
But Quid, his show has the no spin zone! That just bleeds integrity!