Even though this is GD, you know I can’t prove what I’m saying – any more than you can. All I can say is that when I was in college broadcast booths and sound engineer panels had mute buttons.
Also, I was responding to those who were saying Jackson was trying to sneak something in about Obama and get attention. It just doesn’t make sense given (i) that he’s already proven himself capable of making direct utterances to get in the spotlight and (ii) that he bothered to backpedal as hard as he could away from this.
If you read my post to spifflog, I’m not defending him or his words. It’s just that it doesn’t make sense that being sly was what he was trying to do.
I don’t care if you were, or if you agree with Jackson or think Jackson is an idiot, or think Jackson did it on purpose or if you think Jackson is an undercover Martian. I respond only to the ignorance expressed about the use of microphones and the suggestion that leaving a hot mike is a deliberate act of looking for something embarrassing, rather than a straightforward SOP.
But I have stated the standard of evidence that would convince me otherwise - a Fox employee admitting the intent.
I don’t care if you’re convinced or not. I know what my experience has been. And this is Fox we’re talking about. Since you’re defending them, I’ll have onsider the source and leave it alone at that wall.
And for someone who claims he knows something abuot sound, well . . . .
Yes, that’s right, I’m defending Fox. This clearly proves that I’m in on the conspiracy to keep the black man down. I personally invented crack and AIDS back in the late seventies. Here’s a heads-up: my newest project is codenamed “Moon” - it turns welfare queens into werewolves. The plan is to release it wide-scale at Hallowe’en so Bush can cancel the election and stay in office.
Yes, that ellipsis is the perfect refutation of my experience. :rolleyes:
Yeah, and putting words in my mouth proves me wrong? Point to and quote where I, or anyone else in this thread, ever said this was done to keep the black man down or anything like that. Those shibboleths you brought up keep only you awake at night and, note, you’re the only one in this thread who brought them up.
I never said I believed it was to keep the black man down. I said they did it create headlines! Please, read for comprehension.
You post are beginnign to resemble the act of a persecuted white man. It’s not becoming.
Hey, if you’re going make up crap about me, I may as well make up crap about me, too. I personally shot Martin Luther King, though it wasn’t about race - it was because he’d dinged my car. And that whole slavery thing? Stemmed from a report I wrote in my AP economics class. It only got a B, though.
Well of course they reported it to create headlines. I mean, that’s a big fat “duh”. Your assertion, though, was that Fox “deliberately left the mike on to see if they could catch something”. The more likely reason is they deliberately left the mike on because it’s a normal practice to do so.
Well, I was hanged in Indianapolis for killing an Indian…
Yeah. I can’t stand that self-aggrandizing, grandstanding idiot either. I think guys like him do more harm than good by perpetuating the victim mentality amongst minorities, in this case, African Americans.
And you think that that was sufficiently important, (even IF accurate), that we need to derail this thread with half a page of personal sniping on the topic?
Both you and 5-4-Fighting would be much better off simply dropping the subject (or taking it to e-mail or the Pit).
Bryan Ekers however, is correct. Anyone who has ever done sound knows that leaving it on is SOP. Jesse Jackson is a seasoned political operative, he should’ve known better. He’s an idiot, the sound techs did their jobs the way they normally would. Just chiming my agreement here hoping it might help put it to rest.
Given that the disagreement has already gottern personal, is not really relevant to the topic, and has already caught the official attention of a Mod, was there a desperate need to chime in at this point?
I understand the argument. I also recognize that it will not carry forward the actual point of the OP to worry it to death.
You seem to be playing word games, here. Regardless of the construction, some posters will find the word nigger unacceptable by all speakers on all occasions, some posters will find the use of that word unacceptable when employed by various sub-divisions of the population and given a pass when employed by others. Changing the word order is really not going to change the opinions of those posters, so there does not appear to be anything to be “learned” simply by haggling over whether using the insulting term in the first or second clause is more or less acceptable–particularly since there will be no authority to whom to appeal to settle the disagreement.