Monday Cable News Links and Open Thread
Friday's numbers: Bill-Beck-Hannity 1-2-3.
CNBC ad scam? Shep w/Leigh Anne Touhy.
Beck snags Massa. Q&A: Megyn, Kurtz.
Maddow for Senate? Nguyen exits.
Matthews road trip. Pinkerton's crystal ball.
Updated through the day. Use our valuable bandwidth to post your cable news comments in today's open thread. fox news cable
Mike C.
Re: "Pinkerton's crystal ball": Bill O'Reilly fared well on most of his predictions, too. Friday night in P&P, he predicted the winners for Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director, and Best Picture. He only missed on Picture, predicting "Avatar" would win.
I have to admit that I foolishly thought "The Hurt Locker" was another anti-war movie. I was absolutely wrong. As Jim wrote last month, it's pro-war in the sense that the EOD troops are the good guys. Otherwise, there wasn't any position in the film. So, I'm sorry I reflexively assumed it was anti-war without doing my homework.
March 8, 2010, 11:59:42 AM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Looking forward to Beck. With Rep Massa for the whole hour, it's a must-watch for me today!
March 8, 2010, 1:55:59 PM EST – Like – Reply
Blackflon
I'm listening to the Driscoll smearfest on WPHK. She and the host are spending their time attacking O'Reilly at the moment. It really is pathetic. They have one point of view and are not open at all to the possibility that O'Reilly has a different opinion that themselves. It's always about race with these people.
March 8, 2010, 4:25:00 PM EST – Like – Reply
Chris
I tried to listen to it, got bored and shut if off-and that was in the first 10-15 minutes of the program.
March 9, 2010, 11:03:22 AM EST – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
At Mediaite, there is some celebration because Maddow's ratings for this past Thursday exceeded one million in total viewers.
I took a look at her ratings for the same day last year, the first Thursday in March 09. Interesting.
2010 Total/Demo
1001/293
2009 Total/Demo
1197/317
Good for her that she beat Countdown, though it may be a moot point if Olby is still out. That is still almost a 20% drop in viewers. Cause to celebrate of course if this is a new trend up for her. We'll see what happens.
March 8, 2010, 6:17:04 PM EST – Like – Reply
Guest
Test
March 23, 2010, 2:38:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mike C.
This may be off topic, but OlbyWatch has been under siege in the last week and a half by a Kossack named MKDAWUSS. He has turned the site into Daily Kos II by smokescreening, mocking, using memes, and inserting "funny" pictures. It's times like this that I wish that the comments at OW could be regulated like they are here.
March 8, 2010, 7:01:10 PM EST – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Blackflon: First of all, thanks for listening to the show, whether you agree with my views or not. But, to set the record straight, I, personally, did not accuse O'Reilly of launching the attack on these three men due solely to race -- what I said was that O'Reilly gins up hate against activists, "particular black activists and those who help the African American community" -- and I stand by that. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be glad to hear it. But thanks for listening, anyway.
March 8, 2010, 8:53:48 PM EST – Like – Reply
ImNotBlue
Not to jump in the middle... but what is the basis of that accusation? Is it simply because O'Reilly has been talking about Wright/Farrakhan/Pfleger? Or are there other examples to back up the theory?
I'm interested in your argument... can you give more info?
March 8, 2010, 9:16:40 PM EST – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
Pfleger is black???
March 8, 2010, 9:20:00 PM EST – Like – Reply
Blackflon
what I said was that O'Reilly gins up hate against activists, "particular black activists and those who help the African American community"
Sorry, Julie, I'm not buying it. This is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Yes, O'Reilly brings attention to these guys on the negative side. That may be because, besides being activists, they are also people who stir the pot against whites and use the race card to do it.
I wouldn't call what they do "ginning" up hate. But. I guess you and I would have to disagree on that.
March 9, 2010, 7:42:05 AM EST – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Fair enough. I think if you examined O'Reilly's history and watch him critically, like I do, you might determine on your own that black activists get a harsher assessment from O'Reilly than others. We can agree to disagree, though -- but be prepared for me to cite you some examples in the future, when it comes up!
March 9, 2010, 8:45:40 AM EST – Like – Reply
GATXER
"Fair enough. I think if you examined O'Reilly's history and watch him critically, like I do, you might determine on your own that black activists get a harsher assessment from O'Reilly than others"
You mean like Al Sharton? Sorry but from what Ive read from you its not critically you watch BO with as much as Bias......however I look forward to you showing me wrong by your ACTIONS.
March 9, 2010, 10:14:29 AM EST – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
ImNotBlue: Well, without researching my own posts, I'd point to the crusade against ACORN, Van Jones, comparing the south side of Chicago (clearly an urban area largely comprised of African Americans) to Haiti, his denial that there were any racial elements inherent in the town hall meetings, some clearly racist comments he made about Michael Jackson, supporting racial profiling. And then, of course, there were his recent, heavy-handed smears on the Living Legends trio. Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, he refused to say that the Tea Party Convention in Nashville -- a largely white event -- was racist in nature, despite the blatantly racist kick-off speech by Tom Tancredo. There's been a pattern of this from O'Reilly.
March 8, 2010, 9:31:33 PM EST – Like – Reply
ImNotBlue
Well, you have quite a list there, thank you for responding. I'd like to refute them one by one... but I'd also like another 8 hours in the day, and sadly my request hasn't made it to the proper authorities yet. Thefore, I think I'll just settle with, "I disagree," and just say more generally that I think you're willfully taking somethings out of context, or taking somethings too seriously, for the over arching purpose of criticizing O'Reilly. In my impression, it's more of a "we have a narrative, now we fit the situation to the narrative."
To continue along this particular path, I'd like to ask a follow up question... which is do you find that other, let's say more left-friendly hosts, have similar "problems" with race? Was Chris Matthew's comments about "forgetting Obama was black," an indication of underlying racial distain? Was Keith Olbermann's, "chicken and waffles" statement a sign that he's not as tollerant as one might suggest? And are both of their constant attacks on Chairman Steele a sign that they are "uncomfortable" with Blacks in leadership roles?
The purpose of this is to show consistency. If O'Reilly is "guilty," but the others aren't, doesn't that suggest it's more about the politics, than it is about the actual situation at hand?
March 9, 2010, 12:11:45 AM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
I think the scenario is this: there's a veritable racially charged minefield out there and there are people of all political persuasions, waiting on the sidelines, ready in an instant to point and say "ah ha! That's racist" (or that's "racially insensitivity", or "racially charged", or whatever the popular buzzterm is nowadays)
You say that it is your considered opinion (gleaned from watching O'Reilly critically....(there's a Freudian)...) that O'Reilly is harder on black activists than he is on white ones, and you give the example that O'Reilly characterized Wright and Farrakhan more harshly than Pfleger. You point out too that he was not hard at all on Tom Tancredeo and ignores the racist element of the teaparty folks. You compare that with his treatment of ACORN and Van Jones.
Surely, it is not beyond you to see that there is a whole world, as seen from anti-FNC tinted glasses, in these arguments of yours. Perhaps O'Reilly should have been more harsh on Tancredo's statement, but are you really comparing his to Wright's remarks about Jews, or the Rev. Farrakhans' statements about how the pineal gland in whites compares disfavorably to the same gland in whites?
You seem to be arguing that because of Tancredo's remarks we must leap to the judgment that the teaparty movement is racially motivated and from there view a disparate movement of small govt types, people hit hard by the economy, and anti-immigrant amnesty policy folks, in the same way we would judge them if they became a tax payer funded organization with an ethnic identity and a tangible perference to a political party and candidates of color. Not to mention ties to the guy in the highest office in the land.
I think we can safely say that these sorts of conclusions (as based upon critical thinking skills as they are avowed to be...) are not the stuff of chistled stone tablets.
We can safely say too, that we all need to leave the bleachers surrounding the racially charged minefield, no matter how much fun it is to sit there and hope that someone from the other side blows themselves up with some rhetorical bomb.
Anyone with a talkshow and a microphone turned on daily will most certainly do that at one point or another. Let's be adult enough to keep it in perspective and to realize that we all most certainly are seeing things through our own tinted lenses (and screened via our own motivations).
That goes for you, me, and everyone else here, as well.
March 10, 2010, 11:30:56 AM EST – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Oh, yeah, you didn't know Pfleger is black lol? Please note: I said "black activists" or activists who contribute to the African American community. Come on, guys, don't take my words out of context when we're having a civilized debate . . . .
March 8, 2010, 9:39:50 PM EST – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
I was replying to INB. Sarcasm.
March 8, 2010, 9:54:20 PM EST – Like – Reply
ImNotBlue
Doesn't the fact that Pfleger was included in his most recent criticism of this event suggest that it's wasn't a race-based argument, rather a content driven problem?
March 9, 2010, 12:04:37 AM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
Julie,
Can you tell me what was the purpose of Ellen's saying that I am welcome to her site and then in the next breath telling me that I am banned? Does the leadership of Newshounds always talk out of both sides of their mouth in that way?
March 8, 2010, 9:49:07 PM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
Juilie.
YOu do realize that there are limits to what we can debate on this site? It is not quite as wide open as Newshounds. For example, we can argue whether Oreilly's presentation of Acorn is factually based but we can't argue whether Acorn is good or bad. In other words we can only discuss presentations of cable news outlets but we cannot argue political opinions. We can argue whether Newshounds is factual and we can argue whether Newshounds is fair to its commenters to our hearts content.
March 8, 2010, 10:08:41 PM EST – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Danny: I'm afraid I don't have any involvement in the moderation, and I don't know what prompted Ellen to ban you. I can only speak for myself, and say that at my Examiner site, I allow all comments to remain -- even "you need a brick to your face" comments. Maybe it would help me if you explained more about what you were posting.
March 8, 2010, 10:10:00 PM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
I was surprised that Ellen invited us all to her site; including Dollar. Then she said in a post on her forum that I am banned. I found that to be a bit shall we say bizarre. I had a feeling that she was being deceptive when she made the first invite and her subsequent post seemed to verify my suspicions. The fact that she, in effect, called me a liar by isinuating that I use sock puppets, after denied that I use them, did not exactly increase my estimation of her veracity.
it might be interesting to go into our past and how I came to newhounds and why I went from there to dollars site, and I might like to do that with you sometime.
However let's look at a recent exchange, because I think that typifies our relationship. I brought out the fact that Ellen had, in the forum, congratulated John T on being banned from being banned from Dollar's site (he actually wasn't banned) then Ellen said You cannot be too rude to the little Prick (referring to Dollar). Again this was in a public forum and I don't know how you could interpet that in any other way than Ellen's encouraging her following to come to this site and be as rude as possible. The sky is the limit!
The defense that I garnered betweeen insuts was as follows: the remark happened a year and a half ago; It was a private conversation with someone who had already been banned so it had nothing to do with future behavior of Newshounders on this site; the p word is really mild term.
I argued that Ellen has never apologized or rescinded what she said so her remark is still operative. She still holds Hannity accountable for an association with Hal Turner which allegedly happened 8 to ten years ago (she's never documented exactly what was said or what took place) and Hannity banned Turner from his show. The comment was made in a public forum that could be read by everyone and was not a private conversation. The p term as it was used cannot be used in polite society; it is a reference to genetalia; Ellen would not appreciate being called a certain c word that is also a reference to genetalia.
No attempt to rebut me was made. Instead all the trolls at Newshounds could do was accuse both myself and Cecelia of having bizarre sexual habits; I was accused of having sock puppets; and a number of other personal insults were directed toward me.
Do you want to try an intellectual rebuttal to the points I made? Or would you like to talk about your impressions of my sexual life?-- which seemed to be the favorite rebuttal of the Newshound community.
March 8, 2010, 11:05:58 PM EST – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Danny, I'm not sure I'm getting your drift regarding the debating. I've read a lot of comments on this site, and it doesn't appear to me that they're following that rule you cited. However, what we do on News Hounds is seek out bias, and although I, personally, clearly favor a "side" much of the time, my opinion on the focus of the bias isn't the point -- the point is the bias itself. Maybe I'm dense, but was that a gratuitous slam at News Hounds, or a genuine debate topic?
March 8, 2010, 10:21:59 PM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
I would like to see you and Johnny debate the following proposition: Newshounds is truthful and honest in its articles and encourages a fair and honest intellectual debate between its commenters. My comments relate to that overall proposed debate proposition.
March 8, 2010, 11:36:01 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
As I've said many times, we do not debate politics here. We do discuss the coverage of politics, and the coverage of the coverage if you will. And sometimes it can drift a bit. But only a bit, as I don't want the site to devolve into a political screaming match. By keeping political issues limited to how they are covered and whether they are covered fairly, I hope to keep things on as even a keel as possible. Just as important is the rule against personal attacks and name calling directed at other commenters. You all have been doing well on that score so...carry on.
March 8, 2010, 10:30:43 PM EST – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Fair enough, Johnny. I have no quarrel with those ground rules.
March 8, 2010, 11:08:05 PM EST – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Danny: As shocking as it might seem, I have little to no interest in your sexual habits -- or anyone else's on this site, for that matter -- and will not be commenting on your, or anyone else's, genitalia. In the spirit of legitimate debate, I know that much of the ill will between Dollar and News Hounds occurred before my time, so I can't comment on the past. I believe, because I know the News Hounds people and believe them to be individuals of good character, that the ire between the two sites most likely has a legitimate basis in origin. That being said, although I'm no peacemaker, I'm 100% for spirited debate and up-front confrontations, and wish that the two sites could exist more harmoniously. My straight-up opinion is that unless people are being vile and uncivilized for the sake of being vile and uncivilized, and contributing nothing, they shouldn't be banned from either site. As much as it pains me to say this, Dollar's scrutiny has caused me to be more careful in my posts, never a bad thing. I'd like to see both sites give credit where credit is due, and attack the merits of the message without necessarily attacking the messenger. I'm not certain why you were banned, but it's my opinion that both sites need to clean the slate and end the war -- and when and if that happens, I believe that anyone who fires a random bullet and starts it up again, on either site, should be banned.
March 8, 2010, 11:34:54 PM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
For me to have good feelings about Newhounds they must do at least two things. First they must get rid of the trolls who infest the site. John T and Pegleg Peggy and even MJ are at the top of the list. Secondly, they must post a list of rules for commenting and and apply them to everyone equally. If they want to have a wild and wooly discussion where anything goes, so be it. No one's comments should be deleted and no one should be banned for saying anything. Better still, they could prohibit personal attacks. But if they do that, the same rules should apply to everyone. If the bloggers at Newhounds had to defend their articles (without banning or browbeating anyone who disagrees with them) that in itself would make it a much more palatable site.
March 9, 2010, 12:04:43 AM EST – Like – Reply
Foxy Lady
Danny, I don't think you understand what a troll is. A troll is someone who goes to a site repeatedly in order to deliberately hijack threads, divert attention to itself at the cost of the topic, disrupt discussion, and/or flame. The idea is to destroy the functioning of the thread in question. A troll is not simply someone with whom you disagree. So regulars at Newshounds who post, most of the time, civilly and on-topic are not trolls.
Interesting that you cite Pegleg Peggy as a "troll" at Newshounds. I have never seen her do anything of the sort over there - nor John T, either. Is it because they make negative comments about this site? Using that criterion, you are a troll, and Blackflon is a troll extraordinaire, here on this site.
I agree that rules should be posted. There were rules but they disappeared in the switch to Js-kit, since they were appended to the haloscan page. I would be all for seeing them return, in expanded form. But then again, rules banning personal attacks on this site would not go amiss either.
~~Foxy~~
March 9, 2010, 5:21:17 AM EST – Like – Reply
Foxy Lady
That should read, "enforcing rules banning personal attacks on this site would not go amiss either." My direct personal experience is that they are not.
March 9, 2010, 5:34:22 AM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
No, foxy, it is because both John T and Pegleg Peggy deal almost exclusively in ad hominems. There is rarely any intellectual content in what they have to say. They don't make any arguments. They just call names and ridicule. John T. repeatdly calls Blackfon and senile fool and he calls be an idiot and a prick. Pegleg peggy loves to call Grammie a drunk and she suggests that both cecelia and myself need kneepads in our relationship to Johnny, but there is nothing sexual in her suggesting that Nooooooooo.
The only way to respond to Pegleg and John T. is to make fun of them and call them idiots back. If you try an intellectual argument they will just say that you are long winded and call names.
If you don't understand that John T. and Pegleg Peggy are the eptome of being trollish; then it is you who has no understanding of what a troll is.
It is this inability on the part of you and other newhounders to tell the difference between argumentation and ad hominem attacks (trollish behavior) that makes it difficult to communicate with them.
March 9, 2010, 12:30:11 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Oh, come on!
I was banned from News Hounds in less than 24 hours of registering for no discernible reason other than disagreeing with News Hounders-- specially about this site.
There was no challenge issued for me to explain, revise, or to retract ANYTHING I had said that had evidently incurred the disapproval of Ellen. There's was no clear indication of what I had done wrong. It was poof-- I was gone and everything I had said was vaporized.
There's no comparison in the treatment of dissent between the sites, Foxy.
March 10, 2010, 11:43:07 AM EST – Like – Reply
I
T
March 23, 2010, 2:38:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Hmmm, Danny -- I never shy from a debate or confrontation (as Johnny can no doubt tell you, from previous exchanges), but you'd have to ask him if he'd be willing to have that sort of interaction.
March 8, 2010, 11:40:01 PM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
I'm guessing that he would if the format was fair. But that's just a guess. He'll have to speak for himself.
March 9, 2010, 12:08:00 AM EST – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
ImNotBlue: In response to your Pfleger question, no -- in fact, the fact that O'Reilly criticized Pfleger largely for taking the stage with the other two -- Wright is bad and Farrakhan is "nuclear" -- indicates that he holds Pfleger out as being somewhat "better" than the other two . . . though he's as much, or more, of a community activist, within a minority community, than either Wright or Farrakhan. I can't explain O'Reilly giving him a "pass" except to say that black activists hold a far lower place in his estimation.
March 9, 2010, 12:07:19 AM EST – Like – Reply
ImNotBlue
I think the answer to that question is pretty easy... Farrahkan is a known anti-Semite and racist... and Wright is anti-American and also a racist. Pfleger, on the other hand, is just a far-left liberal activist... but less hateful than the others. That's why he gets a "pass," if you will... he's a bomb thrower, but not to the level of hate and vitriol as the other two. Race is coincidental, but not relative to.
March 9, 2010, 5:12:05 PM EST – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Danny: I'm not in total disagreement with your proposition, except that banning the "trolls" that inhabit the site seems to run counter to the idea that everyone should be welcome WHO CAN FOLLOW THE RULES. I am fairly certain that Ellen attempts to minimize personal attacks, but I'm not sure how that's controlled. I agree that should be a no-brainer: No personal attacks. And no one should EVER get banned for disagreeing (I don't believe they do now), or pointing out errors, or generally debating the validity of any post. And yes, the rules would have to apply across the board, whether to Dollar readers or readers from other more right-wing sites who come over, and for News Hounds fans.
March 9, 2010, 12:13:20 AM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
"I am fairly certain that Ellen attempts to minimize personal attacks..."
I assume you're talking about Ellen Degeneres.
March 9, 2010, 12:18:46 AM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
I think I detect a note of sarcasm, Johnny
Julie,
Since she tries to minimize personal attacks, why would she have a problem apologizing for her remark to John T. which can be found today in the NH forum? Maybe she could say that it was a mistake or that she regrets saying it or something like that. Perhaps she could follow that apology with a strongly worded declaration that she does not approve of Newshounders being rude on anyone else's site, including Dollar's.
March 9, 2010, 12:26:00 AM EST – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Johnny: Of course, who else?
March 9, 2010, 12:25:22 AM EST – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Danny: I cannot say it strongly enough -- where there's moderation, there should be enforced civility. End of story. Every site, everywhere. If not, what's the point of moderation?
March 9, 2010, 12:35:22 AM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
So does that mean we can expect an apology or declaration within the near future? Or. let me put it this way: If there is none, would you be willing to revisit your evaluation that Ellen tries to minimize personal attacks? If not, why not?
March 9, 2010, 12:40:30 AM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
should be apology AND declaration
March 9, 2010, 12:41:56 AM EST – Like – Reply
Foxy Lady
That works both ways, doncha think? Take that photo down...
March 9, 2010, 5:22:46 AM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
Foxy, looks like you are drawing another of your weird analogies. Posting a picture of someone equals calling someone a really nasty vulgar term and encouraging people to be as rude as possible on another's site. Just because Ellen is not naked in the picture and not doing XXX stuff doesn't make it a bad picture. It is just against Dollar's rules to post that kind of stuff on his site.
March 9, 2010, 11:12:37 AM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
What picture is this about? The one of Brodsky in the animated gif? There's a story behind that...
When I posted that gif I thought it would be amusing and a little 'tip of the hat' to Ellen to include one of her anti-J$ attacks as part of the rotation. I used a nice color photo that was already posted in multiple places on the web. Ellen contacted me and objected to using the photo, saying it had special meaning for her, and threatening a lawsuit (!) if I didn't remove it. So I did. The only replacement photo available was a black and white one, so in it went. B&W photos don't fare well when combined with color images in an animated gif (insufficient bit depth to properly display grayscale subtleties) so it doesn't look as good as the color one did. I didn't make the change to a B&W pic because I wanted to, but rather because Ellen asked that the color photo not be used.
March 9, 2010, 11:38:58 AM EST – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
There are many "if" caveats in your statement, but here you go: IF News Hounds is applauding commenters who name call and launch personal attacks and IF News Hounds is being unfair in terms of what comments it lets through, then I believe News Hounds (and I include myself) should revisit the policy of the site and make the rules clear and unequivocable for everyone. If I were to determine on my own that News Hounds does these things, then yes, I would reasses my evaluation. I am, however, not convinced . . . and by the way, before you demand an apology from News Hounds, perhaps you might want to note the comment Blackthon published about me earlier today. What's with the "pathetic" and "these people" references? My point, of course, is that this door swings both ways.
March 9, 2010, 12:50:41 AM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
I read Blackthon's statement and I really don't understand your logic. It certainly seemed tame and even respecful compared to the swill that is on Newshounds everyday. One of your regulars notverhow has said that though he agrees with the articles in Newshounds, the mains are pretty rough.
When Blackthon used the word pathetic he was obviously referring to the comments you made on the show. In other words, he called your comments pathetic, not you. Had he called you pathetic. I suspect Johnny would have deleted the comment.
You should consider this: it is very possible for intelligent people to say stupid things and non-pathetic people to say pathetic things. As long as Blackthon attacks what you say and not you, it is no ad hominem.
Also I found nothing especially pejoritive about "these people". You do consider yourself a person, right? It is nothing like calling you senile or an idiot or a vulgar word for gentalia. These people only distinguishes only seperates cetain people from other people. Nothing more.
March 9, 2010, 12:40:46 PM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
Julie,
I suspect you are long gone by now so I am probably just talking to myself, but I have to say this: There are no ifs about Ellen's stating that people should be as rude as possible on Dollar's site and there are no ifs about Ellen's seting an example by calling Dollar an extremely vulgar word. So long as that statement remains operative you will find it impossible toargue that News Hound leaders do not applaud commenters who name call and launch personal attacks.
As they like say in Congress: You are entitled to your opijnions but not your own facts.
March 9, 2010, 1:48:57 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
I can't speak for Julie but I'm sure, like me, that she has a life beyond blogs and doesn't spend all of her waking hours reading J$P (not to say that would be a bad thing...). So perhaps it is a bit premature to say she is 'long gone'.
March 9, 2010, 2:02:38 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
I've had some company the last couple of days and am getting caught up, but I take issue with the fact that the "door swings both ways" when it comes to News Hounds and this place.
Does anyone here remember seeing a notice from Ellen that personal attacks were not going to be tolerated against a News Hound critic posting there?
March 10, 2010, 1:55:08 PM EST – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Sorry, make that Blackflon.
March 9, 2010, 12:52:05 AM EST – Like – Reply
ramjet
"...no -- in fact, the fact that O'Reilly criticized Pfleger [1]largely for taking the stage with the other two -- Wright is bad and Farrakhan is "nuclear" -- indicates that [2]he holds Pfleger out as being somewhat "better" than the other two . . . though he's as much, or more, of a community activist, within a minority community, than either Wright or Farrakhan. [3]I can't explain O'Reilly giving him a "pass" except to say that black activists hold a far lower place in his estimation."-JD
[1] Disagree, though you could be correct.
[2] O'Reilly said, "Pfleger, he's small potatoes," and when reminded he's on the President's Council, said "But he's not a big shot."
[3] Glad I could be of help explaining why O'Reilly would give Phleger "a pass." In his estimation, Wright and Farrakhan hold a far superior, or more noteworthy place, among activists, regardless of color, than Father Pfleger.
March 9, 2010, 3:04:48 AM EST – Like – Reply
Foxy Lady
Julie Driscoll, you are a classy lady. So nice to see someone here who can post with civility and without the ad hominems and name-calling that I have to endure every time I stick my head above the parapet here (see my exchange with Danny a few days ago). If the regulars at this site would only follow your example this would be a far nicer place to visit. Especially that Blackflon character.
In the meantime may I ask that the inhabitants of this glass house kindly put on some clothes? Especially your Emperor. Aside from being infinitely more aesthetically pleasing for those of us who pass by occasionally, it's really for your own protection, since flying glass shards tend to have a catastrophic effect on naked flesh. I'd really hate to see y'all get hurt.
Kissy,
~~Foxy~~
March 9, 2010, 4:30:29 AM EST – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
Foxy, I'm a regular here and I can say with certainty that I haven't called you any names or been anything but welcoming. Please use a smaller brush.
March 9, 2010, 7:12:05 AM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
Come on Foxy. In the first place, I didn't call you any names; except terms of endearment, which you lavished upon me. Secondly, the tone of my comments exactly matched your tone; if you had played it straight with me, I would have played it straight with you. Again you are not being very logical, and you are not remembering things very well.
If anyone needs to put on clothes it is you. I realize that if you look at the guidelines for submitting pictures at newhounds in the forum; that they much prefer their women to be naked and the pictures to be XXX. But you don't need to do that here.
March 9, 2010, 10:45:28 AM EST – Like – Reply
Guest
No. No. No. You didn't.
YOU DIDN'T KISS THAT THING!
March 9, 2010, 5:21:25 PM EST – Like – Reply
Guest
Foxy Lady: Thanks for the props. I'm hoping that maybe we can forge some sort of "truce" between this site and mine, News Hounds. It's a waste of energy for all of us to be slogging through the gutter. We have differing views -- fine. Let's share them and get on with it.
March 9, 2010, 8:42:10 AM EST – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Sorry, forgot to put my name -- that last comment was from me, Foxy Lady.
March 9, 2010, 8:43:20 AM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
Julie, if you review our exchange, as Foxy suggested, you will find that what she really hated was: I found her contradicting herself and making weak arguments (i.e. making pronouncements rather than supporting with logic and facts). She confuses that with name calling and ad hominems. It is just that confustion that failure to make a distinction, that makes dialogue with newhounds really difficult.
March 9, 2010, 10:59:33 AM EST – Like – Reply
Grammie
"I am fairly certain that Ellen attempts to minimize personal attacks..."
Perhaps she does when she herself is not engaging in them herself. A case in point: she referred to me as "it" as opposed to "she". BTW, I have seen her use "it" about other commenters that simply comment.
I don't know how else to construe that other than as a very personal attack. However, I have never personally seen her so much as make a disapproving moue when her Official J$ forum went on for days on whether it was inappropriate for some men? commenters to consistently refer to Cecelia as "C*ntcelia". Rather she stated affirmatively at first that that thread didn't bother her. Just a few of the other charming references, not always confined to the forums, were to me as "a drunken old woman/drunken hag/drunken Hagzilla"; Cecelia and I as "Dollar's comfort women"; Blackthong as "pedophile" and on and on.
She did finally shut down the forum and deleted it all only after Johnny publicized that a certain commenter had violent rape/ murder/death wishes on NH for BOR but also for J$, Cecelia and I. BTW, although he was banned he was back, under a new name, in a few days there to stay.
I understand that you are not active in administering the blog but I, and I'm sure many others, associate your name with NH. If I were you, which of course I'm not, I would make an effort to correct some of the glaring outrages that are there.
Thanks for your time and I wound up missing all but the into yesterday due to a change in the Little League game time.
March 9, 2010, 3:32:32 PM EST – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Cece, I uploaded an mp3 of the show for those who may have missed it. You can download it here:
http://tinyurl.com/ye3d8sw
March 9, 2010, 4:18:21 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
I'm not sure what show you're talking about ,Johnny, but thanks!
March 10, 2010, 1:53:41 PM EST – Like – Reply
