Bill O'Reilly calls internet posters "the criminals at the computer"

[kaylasdad99]

*Originally posted by Debaser *
It’s actually quite amusing watching a gaggle of liberals try and defend a december OP. It’s completely wrong, yet they clamor over eachother trying to prove it true. This goes a long way towards showing that decembers’ problems on the board are based in ideology rather than personality.

Dewey? gobear? Are you going to just sit there and let Debaser call you liberals?

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Debaser *
**It’s actually quite amusing watching a gaggle of liberals try and defend a december OP. **

wring beat me to it, but I’m left scratching my head over how exactly I got placed as part of the “gaggle of liberals.”

On preview: kaylasdad99: Of course not! Give me a second already!

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Debaser *
First you say: [“Nowhere in that example is there a single instance of slander or libel.”]

And in the paragraph you quoted, there isn’t. Period. Please read what I wrote: “nowhere in that example” is there such an instance. Unlike O’Reilly, I was quite clear in what I was saying. **

Then after I point out an example you say:
So, it seems that a case can be made that O’Reilly made an example of libel in the article. It’s debatable what merit it has, but it is in fact there. Your original statement that “nowhere” is there a “single instance” was a little to strong for my liking, and I called you on it. **

Again, I clearly stated that in the example you cited there was not a single instance of libel or slander. Which remains true. You didn’t call me on anything.

However, this is pretty amusing. You are willing to intentionally misread my words by ignoring the limiting phrase “in that example,” but you’re willing to bend over backwards with apologetics for O’Reilly’s memo. Spin, thy name is Debaser. **

This isn’t being charitable with the reading. It’s just being reasonable. If you gave the memo to someone who hadn’t read this thread and asked what O’Reilly meant at the end when he said “criminals at the computer” you would get NAMBLA, or “Child molesters” as the answer every time. **

Obviously not, since several people in this thread have reached opposite concolusions, including the OP (who could not possibly have read the TPM after the thread began) and early posters who read the TPM with only december’s interpretation to guide them. And if you’re going to argue that most folks around here accept a december appraisal at face value without honestly examining the original source document, then you haven’t been paying very close attention to these boards. **

Yes, he mentions “web sites” and “net people”. Not message boards. Nope, not even once. If he were talking about message boards and posters on them he would have said so. But he didn’t. Because he wasn’t. **

Oh, Good Lord. The SDMB isn’t a “web site”? The people who post here can’t accurately be described as “net people”? Give me a fucking break. :rolleyes: