# Bill O'Reilly vomits shit and lies all over Stone Phillips **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 22, 2003, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-vomits-shit-and-lies-all-over-stone-phillips/203122 "2003-09-22T16:33:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2003, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-vomits-shit-and-lies-all-over-stone-phillips/203122/81 "2003-09-26T21:14:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Coldfire \* > **So, The Ryan, are you _denying_ the US provided weapons, funding and/or training to Bin Laden when he fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 70’s?** Look, he didn’t _say_ that the U.S. didn’t provide funding to Bin Laden in the 70’s, he just said that he wouldn’t say that anyone saying we did had a point. Saying you wouldn’t say something is not the same thing as saying it’s not true. There could be other reasons for not saying something. In **The Ryan** ’s case, my guess is that it’s because he doesn’t know how to pronounce Afghanistan. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-vomits-shit-and-lies-all-over-stone-phillips/203122/82 "2003-09-27T00:32:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Giraffe \* > I see. I foolishly assumed that your use of quotation marks around both phrases indicated that you considered both of them to be quotes, not just one quote and some stuff you made up that sounded like something I was implying. The meaning of quotes marks depends on context. Furthermore, even if you though they denoted a direct quote, why were you convinced that it was you that I was quoting? > [@](#): > > I’m still a little confused how I “went from” one to the other, when my three posts preceding your remark consisted of: You presented the latter in response to the former, and implied that the lattter was a restatement of the former, rather than a distortion. carrot > [@](#): > > Uh…would you mind clarifying a little? A bit of reasoning behind that? Some basis for that remark? Anything? It would seem to me that if Coldfire believes that there is point to be made, it would up to him to explain what the point is, rather than up to me to provide reasoning why there isn’t. Coldfire > [@](#): > > So, The Ryan, are you denying the US provided weapons, funding and/or training to Bin Laden when he fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 70’s? > > Or are you just gearing up for another of your stupid semantics games? I think you’ve already made up your mind on that regard, and anything I were to say would simply labeled a “semantic game”. Because of course you _know_ anything I say is a semantic game, because I am a troll. And you _know_ I am a troll because everything I say is a semantic game. It’s really a quite solid, logical conclusion, which conveniently enough allows you to completely ignore anything I say. But on the off chance that you wish to actually understand my position, rather than be as dismissive of other points of view as the GOH of this thread, you might consider what your reaction were to be if I were to state that you are from a country that surrendered to the Nazis in a matter of months, and you were to state that you don’t think I have a point, and I were to then ask whether you were denying that you are from a country that surrendered to the Nazis in a matter of months. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-vomits-shit-and-lies-all-over-stone-phillips/203122/83 "2003-09-27T01:39:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > **The meaning of quotes marks depends on context. Furthermore, even if you though they denoted a direct quote, why were you convinced that it was you that I was quoting?** I think it was the fact that you quoted my statement and then used the word you, as in "isn’t it interesting how **you** [Giraffe] went from [quote A] to [quote B] ?" Are you saying now that you were in fact referring to someone who wasn’t me? I’m assuming you do actually know who you were referring to when you typed that – why on earth are you looking to _me_ to provide evidence to you for what you were thinking when you wrote something? How about, to save time, you just tell me who you were quoting if it wasn’t me? Is there something wrong with you? How can you think this constitutes normal conversational interaction?\*\* > [@](#): > > You presented the latter in response to the former, and implied that the lattter was a restatement of the former, rather than a distortion.\*\* How exactly could I do that, when I never said anything remotely resembling the former [“It is theoretically possible that Bill O’Reilly was being deceptive”]? Again, is there a language barrier here I’m unaware of? ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-vomits-shit-and-lies-all-over-stone-phillips/203122/84 "2003-09-27T11:05:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > **It would seem to me that if Coldfire believes that there is point to be made, it would up to him to explain what the point is, rather than up to me to provide reasoning why there isn’t.** Oh, Lord. The game is afoot, already. **The Ryan** , pay close attention now. We’re going to do a quick recap:[ul][li]You ask me why I didn’t condemn the interviewee for suggesting the US trained the 9/11 hijackers, whereas I DID condemn O’Reilly for being a rude asshole.[_]I state that while it’s not entirely clear what the interviewee meant (because he was interrupted and his mic was cut), that if he meant to say that the US government provided Bin Laden with weapons, funding and training in the 70’s, he would be absolutely right. I also provided a reputable link (BBC News) demonstrating this fact (which is common knowledge to begin with, anyway).[_]You state that if such were to be the point of the interviewee, it would not be correct.[_]I ask you if you are denying that the US provided Bin Laden with weapons and training in the 70’s.[_]You respond by saying it is up to me to prove the point, if there is any.[/ul] **The Ryan** , stop it right there. You’ve done this a million times before on these boards, and you’re not getting away with it now. [/li] **I already explained what I think the point was. I also stated that it wasn’t entirely certain that this WAS the point of the interviewee, but IF it were the case, he would be correct.** It is therefore NOT up to me to explain anything at this stage. I gave my interpretation, backed up by _fact_. You seemed to take issue with the factual part of my post. I asked you whether you were denying the US provided Bin Laden with weapons and training in the 70’s. **YOU WEASELED, AND STARTED WHINING ABOUT ME HAVING TO STILL PROVE A POINT, OR STATE WHAT THE POINT IS.** Answer the question, **The Ryan**. A simple yes or no will suffice: **Are you denying the US provided Bin Laden with weapons and training in the 70’s?** **YES. OR. NO.** > [@](#): > > **Coldfire > I think you’ve already made up your mind on that regard, and anything I were to say would simply labeled a “semantic game”. Because of course you _know_ anything I say is a semantic game, because I am a troll.** I never said you were a troll. I implied you were prone to playing semantic games rather than addressing the issues at hand. So far, you seem to prove me right with your weaseling responses. > [@](#): > > **And you _know_ I am a troll because everything I say is a semantic game. It’s really a quite solid, logical conclusion, which conveniently enough allows you to completely ignore anything I say.** You make no sense whatsoever. Answer the questions, and stop weasling. Moreover, get off the fucking cross already. > [@](#): > > \*\*But on the off chance that you wish to actually understand my position, rather than be as dismissive of other points of view as the GOH of this thread, you might consider what your reaction were to be if I were to state that you are from a country that surrendered to the Nazis in a matter of months, and you were to state that you don’t think I have a point, and I were to then ask whether you were denying that you are from a country that surrendered to the Nazis in a matter of months. \*\* You wouldn’t have a point, actually. The Netherlands surrendered to the Nazis after four _days_ of fierce battles, in which we were completely outnumbered from the get-go (seeing as we were a neutral country going into WWII, our defense forces were rather minimal). Were you trying to _make_ a point with this example, or are you just simply playing games again? In answer to your hypothetical question: yes, I am denying that the Netherlands surrendered to the Nazis in a matter of months, because that statement is incorrect: we surrendered after 4 days. It’s all about getting the facts straight. I stated that _if_ statement X was implied by O’Reilly’s interviewee, he would have the facts on his side. You said he wouldn’t. I asked you if you were denying those facts. **YOU WEASELED.** The Ryan, it’s time for you to grow a pair, and answer in a direct manner rather than dance around the issues with stupid word games. Idiot. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-vomits-shit-and-lies-all-over-stone-phillips/203122/85 "2003-09-27T11:36:20Z")
_Awestruck round of applause_ ---
**Author:** ![carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carrot)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2003, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-vomits-shit-and-lies-all-over-stone-phillips/203122/86 "2003-09-27T16:22:41Z")
Well done, **Coldfire**. Jesus , **The Ryan**. You’re reaching a bit, aren’t you? What the fuck was all that about the Nazis? Y’know, Godwin’s Law is not really an effective strategy for ending an argument. ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2003, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-vomits-shit-and-lies-all-over-stone-phillips/203122/87 "2003-09-28T11:15:01Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\* > O’Reilly, as a rule, refuses to submit a list of questions before an interview and is perfectly willing to scream at people if he disagrees with them. Part of his popularity is due simply to the novelty and the spectacle of an interviewer yelling at his subjects. Also, an awful lot of it is that he’s a conservative who yells at liberals and there are an awful lot of people who enjoy that. It makes them feel “right.” Their side never loses because their guy controls the microphones and the questions. They never have to think very hard or challenge themselves because O’Reilly speaks in terms of platitudes, over the top jingoism, simplistic moralism and if an opponent is winning an argument he can always result to hurling ad hominems and cutting the other guy’s microphone (see the Glick transcript)._\* :eek: Jake Featherston lives. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-vomits-shit-and-lies-all-over-stone-phillips/203122/88 "2003-09-29T06:46:32Z")
carrot > [@](#): > > Jesus , The Ryan. You’re reaching a bit, aren’t you? What the fuck was all that about the Nazis? My point was to show that it is possible to not have a point, but still be correct. I see that Coldfire is completely sidestepping that issue, and is trying to divert attention to the issue of whether that was an example of a true statement. And he calls me a weasel. And Coldfire: WWII is generally accepted as beginning with the invasion of Poland, an event which preceded, by eight months, the surrender of the Netherlands. Reaaalllly important to our discussion. :rolleyes: Coldfire > [@](#): > > I state that while it’s not entirely clear what the interviewee meant (because he was interrupted and his mic was cut), that if he meant to say that the US government provided Bin Laden with weapons, funding and training in the 70’s, he would be absolutely right. Interesting how you changed the issue to one which can more easily supported. Me, I would have thought that when he said that the government trained the terrorists, he meant that they trained the terrorists. Perhaps these “deceptive, but technically true” statements are not limited to O’Reilly. And had you paid attention to what you were saying, you would have realized that you did not merely claim that he is correct, but that he has a point. > [@](#): > > You state that if such were to be the point of the interviewee, it would not be correct. No, I didn’t. What I said was that if that’s what he meant, I would not say he has a point. Before you go flying off the handle and get so mad with anger that you think that extra-big type will made your position any stronger, you might want to actually look at what the other person is saying. > [@](#): > > The Ryan, stop it right there. You’ve done this a million times before on these boards, and you’re not getting away with it now. I have been _accused_ of malfeasance many times, but I believe that this situation is a quite representative in showing the absurdity of these accusations. You ignore what I plainly said and make up something completely different, and when I do not accept your altered version of my words, you accuse me of “weaseling”. Simply because I expressed disagreement with one part of your post, that does make it valid for you to pick out a completely different part of your post, and act like I had denied _that_. > [@](#): > > You seemed to take issue with the factual part of my post. Whether one has a point is an opinion, not a fact. > [@](#): > > Answer the question, The Ryan. A simple yes or no will suffice: Are you denying the US provided Bin Laden with weapons and training in the 70’s? How would you feel if someone came up to you, started shouting at and insulting you, and then started demanding that you answer a question, doing so in a manner that implied that no matter what you answer, he will consider you to be playing a semantic game? If you’re going to be an asshole, you should be prepared for the possibility that people won’t be eager to answer your questions. > [@](#): > > The Ryan, it’s time for you to grow a pair, and answer in a direct manner rather than dance around the issues with stupid word games. You’re the one dancing around the issue. The issue is whether he has a point, not whether he’s correct. Your accusation of me “weaseling” is quite bizarre. I have stated that I do not think that, in the situation you presented, he has a point. I do not see any reason why I am obligated to present an argument for why he does not have a point, and in fact such a task would be futile, for there an infinite number of points for me to show him to be lacking. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2003, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-vomits-shit-and-lies-all-over-stone-phillips/203122/89 "2003-09-29T06:52:32Z")
Sheesh, Giraffe, if _I_ were dissecting someone’s post as much as you are, I’d be dismissed as playing “semantic games”. Do you need everything spelled out for you? Perhaps if you spent your time actually trying to understand what other people were thinking, rather than coming up with petty strawmen, you might get somewhere without me holding your hand. “Are you saying now that you were in fact referring to someone who wasn’t me?” No, I’m saying that “you” is the subject for the verb “went”. The “quotes” (since they weren’t verbatim, they weren’t exactly quotes) were the object of the verb. The subject of a sentence need not be the creator of the object. For instance if I were to ask “How did you go from the library to the store?” I would not be implying that either the library or the store were in any way yours. Similarly, saying that you went from one statement to another does not necessarily mean that the statements were yours. Example: > [@](#): > > “I’m still a little confused how I ‘went from’ one to the other.” What’s so hard to understand about 2+2=4? See? I just went from “I’m still a little confused how I ‘went from’ one to the other” to “I’m still a little confused how 2+2=4” _even though neither of those quotes were mine_. The verb “to go” is being used metaphorically to denote the process in which someone takes a statement and uses it as a basis to formulate a new statement. The original statement need not have been said by the person in question “How exactly could I do that, when I never said anything remotely resembling the former?” Do what? Respond to the former? Imply that the latter is a restatement of the former? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-oreilly-vomits-shit-and-lies-all-over-stone-phillips/203122.md?page=4)