Well, you’re neither amongst retards nor ontologists (fuck me if I know what you mean by this, after all that means, in logic, is the set of entities presupposed by a theory) – so it looks like we are both presupposing like a motherfucker. In black and white.
So go ahead, don’t be be shy and keep vomiting vile. Its all you’ve done so far.
It may have to do with the bumps on a jurors head. You know, ontology recapitulates phrenology.
A cut and paste from the title of the article on Salon’s page:
The differences seem to be “says” instead of “said” and “George Zimmerman” instead of “Zimmerman.”
It’s not clear to me how those changes create a problem. Can someone explain?
“is guilty of murder” vs. “got away with murder”.
Fuck. Just when I was about to get, like, real Frothy like our mutual friend, you come ruin it all.
Well, of course, the addition of the name of Mr. Saletan offers us more along the lines of being one man’s opinion. Hence, as a citation is falls a bit short of the mark, as would an opinion piece.
All of Mr. Saletans “insights” could be as easily explained by awkwardness and discomfort on the part of the interviewed juror. However, in the absence of Dr Phil or a body language expert, we are not likely to be certain.
In my experience its used by people who think that racism is mostly conjured into existence folks like Al Sharpton.
Not that I’ve observed.
While your statement about facts is true, it is not the definition of a fact.
A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false.
Let’s see.. can this be verified? Is it provable? No, for multiple reasons, starting with “honest” :rolleyes:jury. Looks like you got yourself an opinion there, sir.
Here again, you project your thoughts and feelings as facts. I’m not hurting, nor am I wrong. But the impassioned nature of your statement leads me to think that someone is both.
By the way, you did make one statement I think is probably factual: nothing I or anyone else can do will ever change your very strange conviction that your opinions are facts.
Here’s the problem. You said:
A crafted gotcha cannot also be an honest mistake. When something is crafted, it is deliberate. Posting something as a gotcha is a deliberate act. How do you now come back with saying:
The other problem is the fact that you didn’t feel the need to correct Bricker’s inaccuracy. It was posted yesterday, yet you let it “hang there”. Even if you didn’t notice his error until my post brought it to your attention (because my posts “trigger a reaction” for you), how is it that you chose to reply to me with a no info three word rebuttal, and not immediately seek to address the original inaccuracy? I mean, what if I didn’t reply? The original inaccuracy was “crystallizing into fact”! It could have been “quoted as gospel”! Preventing that was your stated reason for posting:
Meanwhile, while you were busy wasting time with this disingenuous nonsense, **Bricker **posted that it wasn’t clear to him how his changes create a problem. He asked for an explanation. And who better than you?
So here’s your chance to show us that you’re all about fighting inaccuracies wherever you see them; nothing personal, no-siree-bob. If you truly think there is an important difference, you should explain it to Bricker.
Your failure to do so shows up your reply to me as being the true “fail at crafting a hyperliteral gotcha”.
Because it was a deliberate act. Do you disagree you attempted to craft a gotcha, based on (what you thought was) a hyper-literal comparison? The honest mistake is that you crafted it on a false premise. BTW, crafting a gotcha isn’t some evil crime, in my book. Some people are asking for it. I’ve crafted plenty.
I didn’t notice it until you posted your response. And I didn’t notice Bricker’s “miss” till you pointed it out and it was already clear (I rebutted your assertion by clicking on the link and reading it). At that point, there was nothing to “take up with Bricker” or to point out.
Someone answered it, by the time I saw his question. God almighty, I am not on this board 24/7, like some people. You are strenuously searching for offense and bad intent where a simpler explanation–e.g., I didn’t see his question till after someone answered it–is obvious. See, this is where you keep going off the rails. Instead of simply accepting something as a misunderstanding, you start frothing at the mouth and tossing out phrases like “disingenuous nonsense.” You find offense where none was intended or could be reasonably inferred. You need a thicker skin if you’re going to post around here.
An important difference with what? What are you going on about? Bricker asked a question and it was answered. Should I answer again? Here’s the option I think I will take. I will assume the horrible shame of not being a poster who meets your exacting standards. I’ll say it again, you have too much emotion invested in this stuff. So, you don’t like me, some guy you don’t know on a message board. I can live with it. I’m certainly done providing an explanation to someone who simply won’t accept one.
ETA: BTW, I notice that Terr answered Bricker 2 minutes after he asked his question. Sorry I didn’t swoop in in the interim and let this hang for so long.
Kind genius, can you condescend to enlighten us what your point is, if any?
Oh, we’re in the Pit? WTF you talking about, you blithering dolt?
AFAICT, you’re making a big deal of the factoid that B29 is Puerto Rican, not “white.” I’m sure distinguishing beyond a binary black/white distinction strains many minds, but only an imbecile would call an Hispanic non-white in a white-Hispanic vs black context. Am I to believe you’ve babbled stupidly about GZ for months and never noticed he self-describes as Hispanic?
Oh.
That.
That’s…really bizarre.
By that I mean I cut and pasted both sentences, looked at both of them, and literally did not comprehend that difference was there.
How very weird.
In any event, yes, point well taken. That’s also a difference, and indeed one with a substantial meaning. My apologies to all concerned.
But I’m not insisting that it was all ordinary carelessness. I think it’s plausible (although not proven) that NBC was acting with unprofessional and unethical carelessness and was more likely to accept and report facts that supported a narrative, in which case they’d be far more likely to make mistakes in one direction than the other. But that’s a world away from the kind of explicit conspiracy you’re talking about. In this era in which (a) every moment of every broadcast ends up on youtube to be replayed and reviewed repeatedly, and (b) everyone has a cell phone in their pocket and could be recording anything anyone says; I find it incredibly unlikely that there was a meeting at NBC in which someone literally and consciously decided that they should lie and claim that the jury was all-white when it was not.
He should be, since he’s part black.
To the extent that my comments imply an explicit, spoken, direct conspiracy, with the orders being issued by memo or by explicitly verbal direction, I agree that’s probably not the case.
But Tony Soprano doesn’t say, " Paulie, you and I must enter into an agreement - a conspiracy, in fact and law – to murder Valery, a Russian crime figure. I am directing you to tell Christopher Molisanti to join you in killing this individual and burying his body so that it won’t be found."
Instead, he says, “Paulie, Valery’s trouble. Take care of it.”
And because Paulie, and everyone around Tony, are well-attuned to the nuances of his meaning, Valery ends up dead, which is precisely what Tony intended.
In the case of NBC, an explicit agreement is not necessary. People in an environment develop an understanding of what’s expected and what’s not. NBC deliberately fosters that environment by issuing only half-hearted “retractions” only when the circumstances leave them little choice. Undoubtedly an investigation, or interviews with NBC staffers, would reveal dozens of little signals that mistakes of this type were tolerated but mistakes that lean in the other direction would be subject to intense scrutiny and analysis.
By golly, convinced again! How can we meaningfully discuss the issues around Z’s possible guilt until we resolve the all important question of liberal media bias?
Goddamn you’re a fucktard. Please do the world a favor and never leave your moms’ basement. It’s bad enough you are allowed on the internet.
…
If a jury decided to leave the box and pelt you with rotten fruit as you sat on the witness stand, it wouldn’t be because you were an atheist, Der Trihs, but because rather they had gotten to know you just as we have.
And if someone in the jury had the foresight to bring rotten fruit.
Well, soon as we’re done discussing Der’s abrasive personality, can we get back to the crucial issue of liberal media bias? Focus, people!