Keep swinging Gannyboy, maybe someday you might even land one of them jabs.
Poll: Who reads MSFE/Wild's C&P posts
- Thread starter Error 404
- Start date
Keep swinging Gannyboy, maybe someday you might even land one of them jabs.
Dearest Brother rs7 aka Error 404,
I am indeed honored, and am proud to refer to you as Brother...
Love,
Candle
This is what bugs me:
For nearly 30 years, the airwaves and tv were dominated by liberal agenda's and downright propaganda.....Then RUSH breaks onto the scene in radio and is laughed at.......until about 1990 when he started to have some real influence.....and then FOX comes along and offers a conservative perspective AND BOOM!!!!
....We have a 'vast right wing conspiracy' as Hillary spouted....Libs tend to be so afraid of competition...I mean, out of all the major networks ( cbs, nbc,abc, fox, cnn, msnbc,) that ave news/political format.....ONE is Conservative......Yet they act like it's the end of the world:eek: .....On the radio front, it is true that Conservatives dominate the airwaves...but in reality, who would have thought that with the advent of TV and internet in the 1990's that radio would become such an important outlet? Radio is tougher then tv....you need to have quite the personality to pull it off and there are some great ones out there....but I think the fact the radio has gotten so huge for certain personalities speaks volumes about the ongoing transformation of the american society....In the 70's, and 80's people tuned in to Dan rather and the rest to be TOLD what was going on and accepted it as FACT,,,,,now people are more inclined to tune into radio as well and here the other side....Overall...I think it is good to have that balance.
For nearly 30 years, the airwaves and tv were dominated by liberal agenda's and downright propaganda.....Then RUSH breaks onto the scene in radio and is laughed at.......until about 1990 when he started to have some real influence.....and then FOX comes along and offers a conservative perspective AND BOOM!!!!
....We have a 'vast right wing conspiracy' as Hillary spouted....Libs tend to be so afraid of competition...I mean, out of all the major networks ( cbs, nbc,abc, fox, cnn, msnbc,) that ave news/political format.....ONE is Conservative......Yet they act like it's the end of the world:eek: .....On the radio front, it is true that Conservatives dominate the airwaves...but in reality, who would have thought that with the advent of TV and internet in the 1990's that radio would become such an important outlet? Radio is tougher then tv....you need to have quite the personality to pull it off and there are some great ones out there....but I think the fact the radio has gotten so huge for certain personalities speaks volumes about the ongoing transformation of the american society....In the 70's, and 80's people tuned in to Dan rather and the rest to be TOLD what was going on and accepted it as FACT,,,,,now people are more inclined to tune into radio as well and here the other side....Overall...I think it is good to have that balance.
Quote from Error 404:
Good point. I guess I have become too prejudiced to get so far as to even look at the source anymore.
Of course I agree that the NY Times is a respectable source. However, I am absolutely sure that when MSFE/Wild quotes from the Times, those who's opinions he is trying to sway most believe the Times is as legitimate as you and I think the Globe or the Enquirer are.
Ain't that so AAA? Kymer? (and the many other "true believers in the cause for Truth Justice and the American Way")
Peace,
RS
I don't think msfe is interested in swaying our opinions. I think he's interested in pestering us.
When he makes some ridiculous charge about human rights in the US (that people are "disappeared" for "speaking out"), then tries to back up the charge with a link to a Waco nutjob site, the only "point" seems to be to remind us that there are lunatics in the world, including right here at home, who don't care for us much. Big news.
Sometimes he links articles I would probably have ignored, then discover have become the subject of broader attention. I like the one that are on point but so idiotic (by authors like Arundhati Roy, Naomi Klein, Nicolas Kristoff, Harold Pinter, and Jeremy Rifkin, to name just a few) that they indirectly support the opposite view.
His c&ps are usually preferable to his impertinent, impolite, and often childish personal statements.
....I posted this once before but if you look at the majority of his links they are from a few different rags that are not well known or visited.....I have often wondered if he is using this forum as a way to get publicity for one of these rags/websites????
What if I went on YAHOO and every post was a link to ET??
AFter a year or so you have to think that a couple people would subscribe?....OR at the very least, the web counter would be much higher then it should be and they could show thousands of pass through's per month....which = advertising dollars....have you ever noticed how some of these sites have very little advertising?....im telling you i think we are all being shilled but the number one shiller
What if I went on YAHOO and every post was a link to ET??
AFter a year or so you have to think that a couple people would subscribe?....OR at the very least, the web counter would be much higher then it should be and they could show thousands of pass through's per month....which = advertising dollars....have you ever noticed how some of these sites have very little advertising?....im telling you i think we are all being shilled but the number one shiller
Kymer, of course you are absolutely right. I was being facetious in saying he was interested in swaying our opinions. Obviously there is nothing he can say or quote that will make any of us change our minds. He does not discuss issues. He only spouts his anti-USA rhetoric. He is targeting an impossible audience if he is taking himself seriously. Which seems highly doubtful.
As I said, his sole purpose seems to be just to agitate. To be provocative, and a pain in the ass.
Not unlike Fasterpussycat, or any of the other's who have no interest in trading or reason. Just finding a home to stir up some froth whenever possible.
When you and I go at it, we may disagree completely, but (at least from my perspective), it seems we agree that there are two sides to every issue. Sometimes you get carried away, and sometimes I do. But neither of us truly sees in black and white (though we accuse each other of it on occasion, but it's in fun). There is NO fun in MSFE/Wild's bigotry and divisive tactics. No purpose other than to annoy.
Maybe TM has it right. Maybe he is just a shill for some super capitalistic enterprise and has us all fooled. Anything is possible it seems except an intelligent or original thought coming from MSFE.
Peace,
RSI suppose when one is lacking the ability to show that an author has written an "idiotic" point, or lacks the ability to demonstrate that a website is a "nutjob" site, or is impotent an unable to reasonably counter the "lunatics" with logic that is so brilliant and irrefutable and beyond question, that individual has no choice but to act "childish" and flame those he doesn't agree with, as he is powerless to elevate himself into the areana where the art of criticism is framed in an adult manner.
Flame on Fyester, flame on. It is the most consistent aspect of your writing style. Thus is the flock of the modern newly converted right wing extremists, of which you are clearly feathered from.
Your point is valid, but hardly new.
Suggested reading: "Medium Cool"...Marshall McCluen.
TV, & newspapers are not "fast enough" for our torrid pace of events. TV has come a long way as we saw on 9/11. And as it has since the advent of satellite broadcasting in the early 60's. But still it takes some setting up. If the tragedy of 0/11 it had not occurred in NYC, then we never would have witnessed what we did in real time. However we would have heard about it on the radio even 50 years ago. The TV medium is getting a lot warmer, but radio is as always the "hotter" medium. Newspapers, the coldest.
Now the internet is thrown into the mix. Due to it's immediacy, it is capable of being the "hottest" of all the media. But it is so rampant with fraud and misinformation that it is not reliable enough to be completely dependable. It is like an untamed undomesticated animal set forth in a world not quite ready or perhaps prepared is a better word.
When Jerry Garcia died, by coincidence I was on a Usenet site for guitar players at the time. The WWW was not yet in common use (hard to believe how fast THAT has changed!!!!). Anyway, someone close to Garcia, or in the know somehow posted the news and it was virtually instant information. On or about the very same time (maybe it was a week or whatever....time blurs details), I read on that very same "alt-dot" newsgroup that Peter Townsend from the Who had died. As it turned out, it was some World War I British war hero named Peter Townsend. The devil is in the details.
Certainly McCluen had no foresight for a medium with the potential "heat" of the internet. It will mature, and the world will be a smaller place still than even now. Hopefully for the better. Probably for the better.
Free speech seems unstoppable with the internet. A sharing of ideas and exposure of other cultures is something that seems to be an inevitable good thing. But it is still in it's infancy (as sophisticated as it is already). It is hard to believe that when Clinton was elected President, the World Wide Web consisted of a handful of sites. Now there are billions. I found an old issue of PC Magazine a few years ago from 1993. Dell had their ever present fold-out back cover. But no Web address. Seems almost impossible to believe now. Seemed almost impossible to believe when I found the issue. I think it was in 1997 or so, when it was only four years between worlds.
Peace,
RS