Those who make the claim need to back it up.
I wasn’t being I jerk. I asked a serious question. If you do have a drinking problem I hope, for your sake, that you get some help for it. If you do not have a drinking problem, then you’re just an asshole and I don’t have to excuse you for other reasons. No skin off my nose either way.
And they have, by any reasonable standard. Of course, given the amount of distance between your thought processes and “reasonable,” it’s no surprise that you would not perceive this.
Post #129 (Now on page 4, by some mystery of the Netherworlds)
Point of contention:
Please hover yon mouse cursor over the link in ElvisL1ves post. Please, I beg you. What URL leaps out? OK, since you didn’t do as I asked, nay!, begged, here you go:
httpz;//boards.charlierose.com/ board/topic.asp?ti=6858&pg=11
Let’s focus on that for a moment. Ponder the nature of that URL. Is there a typo? An error? Explainations are in order if a mistake was made. But ‘boards.charlierose.com’? What sort of fucking cocknugget will post a link to the Charlie-fucking-Rose forums for a cite?
It is damned well obvious that two standards of ‘acceptable cite’ exist here. There is the (formerly) commonly-held standard that a cite should be from a broadly acceptable news source, and now we have this new standard, that as long as one is bashing a Bush, the Charlie Rose forums will suffice.
Remind me to use this one on my professors next time I don’t feel like typing up footnotes or a bibliography.
“Since this is hardcopy, Prof. Milroy, and you wouldn’t be able to click directly on any of my citations, I figured, why bother?”
Here’s the cite, from “a broadly acceptable source”.
Yikes! Damn, I’m sorry people, I simply grabbed the first cite that came up on Google, and didn’t see the whole interview.
Mea culpa. :smack:
milroyj-so next time someone uses say, a book as a cite, are you going to claim it’s invalid because you can’t access it online?
BTW, I am so linking to this thread the next time the Brutus-milroyj types* use Free Republic as a cite.
*I didn’t want to say conservatives or Republicans, because I realize that the majority of conservatives on the SDMB are intelligent, reasonable folks, rather than Dubya’s fluffers.
LexisNexis allows users to email documents directly from the database. I’ve emailed a copy of the transcript directly from Nexis to milroyj. Glad to be of service.
If you actually clicked the link, you would see that it links to underreported.com, which links to…tada!..transcripts.tv, which appears to be the official place from which one can purchase transcripts from ABC news.
Your mouse isn’t broken, is it? It still clicks?
Click the link, you say? Hrmmm, a novel concept. Let me try…I get taken to a page that is titled: (seems to be a discussion regarding ‘httpz’)
Re: [Uri-review] httpz:// scheme, aliases, protocol names
But that is all besides the point.
I can create a Geocities webpage and link to transcripts.tv. No proof is evident just in the existence of a link.
It looks like Jimmy Chitwood has taken positive measures to resolve this issues. Kudos to him for doing it.
Even an interent imbecile like me knows enough to clean up a crappy link
Too true! Or you could go here and read what it says under “Transcripts”.
Jesus fucking Christ, Brutus, just admit you were fucking wrong and quit acting like an asshole.
Now c’mon Diogenes, be fair-I don’t think Brutus is even capable of not being an asshole.
(At least when it comes to politics)
And that I can now click my way directly to the ‘Charlie Rose’ forums is somehow better?
I don’t doubt that transcripts can indeed be purchased from the well-named ‘transcripts.tv’. What I do doubt, and will continue to doubt, is the content of said transcripts. We’ll see; Jimmy Chitwood’s effort could well resolve this whole matter as far as I am concerned.
But there is a valuable lesson for you folks in this whole affair: Veracity of provided cites is important, if you want people to accept your claims. While I would (and do) happily read the Opinion Journal or National Review, and accept most of what I read there, my definition of ‘cite’ has matured enough that I will not use those sites (or others) when trying to prove a point. Quite a few times I’ve had to just bite my tongue and not post something, because I couldn’t find a broadly acceptable cite (CNN/BBC/ABC/etc) for what I learned at another, perhaps less-trustworthy, source.
This thread has demonstrated to me why certain people are willing to believe any and every thing that comes out of George W. Bush’s mouth, but immediately dismiss anything that might cast the Bush family in a negative light. They are being guided purely by faith. Reason has long since left the building.
What a load of horseshit. mhendo posted concurrence of Mrs. Bush’s words more than seven freakin’ hours ago. You and milly got your panties in a wad because you couldn’t see it. That’s all. I assume that if I post something from last year’s anthropology text book or this year’s biology text I’ll get the same bullshit from you two.
Idiots.
I don’t blame you for disliking the words that came out of Mrs. Bush’s mouth, but attacking the people who report what she said makes the both of you look like imbeciles.
Here is a cite for the Daily Telegraph article - which anyone in the UK can tell you is not the ‘liberal’ media.
you have to register to read it - but it’s free and only takes a minute.
Let me see if I’ve got this straight. What you’re saying is that if someone in the Bush family is misquoted and their words are taken out of context and made to appear t be something that is not only different from what they really said, but horrifically and disgustingly so, we still shouldn’t dismiss it because to do so would prove we are mindless Bush-lemmings? You are saying that it’s wrong for us to disprove untruthful things about our candidate?
I’m sure you might want to rethink what you’ve said in this regard.
I definitely think that if you attempt to redirect a thread by accusing various people of having misquoted someone or having quoted them out of context (particularly when the entire context has already been posted before you post), then you should take the time to find the facts. When posting such a hijack in support of milroyj, it is in your interest to first be sure of the facts.
YMMV, obviously. 
Starving Artist, when you examine what Mrs. Bush said in context it still connotes an indifference and insensitivity that is chilling, especially when you consider that at the time she thought that 90% of what was on television was speculation or supposition.
Liberals were not the only ones who reacted that way to what was actually said. The elder George Bush commented that she was going to get them in trouble. And her comments were edited, if I understand correctly, from one of the versions that was published (or broadcast?).
I don’t know if Diane Sawyer had anything to do with removing that material, but I do know that she was at one time a “West Winger” for President Nixon, serving as a press aide. (I think she may have held more than one position.) When Nixon returned to San Clemente after his resignation, she lived with the Nixons for a while helping to organize his memoirs. She was very loyal to him. I gather that she may be a loyal Republican and may have wanted to protect the elder Mrs. Bush from her own comments. This is just totally speculation on my part.
I have always admired both Mrs. Bush and Diane Sawyer. Neither one has ever come across before as meanspirited in my opinion and both are strong women. Mrs. Bush was speaking from a mother’s point of view. No mother wants to hear her son criticized so harshly. (I still think that no journalist should have cut it.)
But there were and are other mothers whose children have put themselves in harm’s way on the fields of combat. They would be more sensitive to speculation about the dangers to their children.
And whether Mrs. Bush agrees or not, the number of body bags, now officially called transport tubes, is presently terribly relevant to all of us. I believe that all of our beautiful minds should have to face the truth of those flag draped coffins…
…And the thousands wounded in combat…
…And the 6,000+ wounded in non-combat related injuries – some critically. I wonder if the Pentagon ever decided to list their names too.
Anyway, Mr. Artist, you know that for some crazy reason you are one of my pet Republicans. Nothing I am saying is intended as a criticism of you personally.
Elvis1, thanks for continuing to provide interesting information and documentation. The is one pitting that did not work at all.
A nitpick for anyone interested: There really is no such thing as “a cite.” Cite is a verb. I am open to correction on this if I am mistaken. I continue to misuse the word cite myself.