Weekend Cable News Links and Open Thread
Rove vs MSNBC. Twitter Q&A: Major Garrett.
Greta's invite to Howell. Twitter silence: day 46.
Profile: Huck [pdf].
Sunday talkers: HuffPo recap.
Behar, Maddow honored. R.I.P. Theodore Olbermann.
Updated through the day. Use our valuable bandwidth to post your cable news comments in today's open thread. Standard rules apply. fox news cable news
david smawley
Now that Texas school board has adopted conservative text book recommendations, I expect more bleating from "News Goats" in regards to Fox reporting on this matter. Guess kids will have to buy & read An inconvenient Truth on their own time.
March 13, 2010, 10:36:41 AM EST – Like – Reply
Danny
As I said before, looks like Julie is long gone.
March 13, 2010, 4:28:43 PM EST – Like – Reply
Cecelia
I'm so sorry to hear about the death of the elder Mr. Olbermann.
My condolence to Keith!
March 13, 2010, 7:09:27 PM EST – Like – Reply
Chris
My Condolences to Keith and the Olbermann family.
March 13, 2010, 7:22:32 PM EST – Like – Reply
Mike C.
I also extended my condolences.
March 13, 2010, 8:19:52 PM EST – Like – Reply
ZoneDaiatlas
I extend my condolences to the Olbermann Family but not to Keith.
March 13, 2010, 9:41:05 PM EST – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Hi Danny -- Not long gone, just sick this week. If you noticed, I haven't posted over at News Hounds . . . but so glad you missed me. Did you have something you wanted to ask me?
March 13, 2010, 11:15:43 PM EST – Like – Reply
2 Guests
Danny
I've been sick myself. Bad stomach virus. Worse stomach sickness I had since I made a trip to South America and returned with Montezuma's Revenge. You said something to the effect that you do not believe that Ellen is supports coming to this site and being rude. To which I said the following:
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 to argue that News Hound leaders do not applaud commenters who name call and launch personal attacks.
As they say in Congress: You are entitled to your opinions but not your own facts.
5 days ago, 12:48:57 PM – Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
March 14, 2010, 7:17:22 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Danny,
As I have noted before on this site, I do not comment on News Hounds and not until recently here; and I'm absolutely opposed to anyone -- our site or others -- encouraging people to be rude to the opposition. Johnny Dollar and I have had our differences, but I've made them public and up-front on my Examiner site. At no time have I engaged in back-stabbing or behind the scenes name-calling. What you see is what you get -- and I believe Dollar knows that. Maybe I should begin to pay closer attention to our commenters at News Hounds to gauge for myself whether they're out of line.
March 14, 2010, 8:15:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Julie,
I still don't think you get my point. Let's examine your comment to which I was responding:
>>>>>>>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.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have at least two problems with your comment, but let's take the bigger issue first. There are no IFs about News Hounds leadership (namely Ellen) applauding commenters who name call and launch personal attacks. It is a fact that she has done so. It's there in her own words in black and white. She made a statement to that effect that she, even today, refuses to retract.
Therefore, according to your comment you should revisit the policy of the site and you should reassess your evaluation. I have an objection (my second problem) to the way you characterized Blackfon's comment in this instance, but since you are essentially, at best, trying to make a two wrongs make a right argument, your statement about Blackfon is irrelevant. He is not even a leader, blogger, or host of this site anyway.
So when can we expect you reassess your evaluation and to revisit the policy of the News Hound site? When can we expect the results of your reassessment and your revisiting?
March 14, 2010, 9:51:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Love me some Greta!
March 14, 2010, 9:22:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
The li'l feller rides again! In the story that J$ links to Karl Rove vs. MSNBC, Patrick posted a comment at Mediaite once again using his facebook profile photo which appears to be his son. Under normal circumstances that would be no issue, but he posts a vulgar sexual slur in his comment that accompanies the photo of the child. How very sad.
March 14, 2010, 5:51:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
I commented on that thread too only moments ago and I didn't notice Patrick until afterwards.
He's such a putz!
March 14, 2010, 6:55:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Blackflon
Former NY Times Editor Asks: Why Don't Honest Journalists Take On Roger Ailes And Fox News?Reported by Ellen - March 14, 2010 - Comments I do believe that Mr. Raines , along with Miss Ellen, is confused about the words "commentator"
and "journalist".As with all lefties, they have this delusion that most of the major press operations are not biased to the liberal side.Along comes Fox and they simply cannot handle the fact that there is competition from the right.All the while ignoring the facts about how other networks have been operating over the years.Howell Raines isn't exactly someone to look up to in the field of journalism. He hid a plagairist and he allowed the Times to let opinion creep into their news stories.But, HEY!!! The Hounds love him!!!!
March 14, 2010, 5:58:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I.M. Right
Howell Raines is just working double time in what will be his failed attempt to be relevant again.
March 14, 2010, 6:05:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Blackflon, I think if you look at my post this weekend, you'll see that I didn't defend Raine, but rather pointed out the bias of what O'Reilly was saying, i.e., that a bunch of hosts/contributors/etc. on Fox support Obamacare. Even you have to admit that's not true. And frankly, in reading Ellen's post (which was the subject of your above comment), I didn't see any evidence that "the Hounds love him."
March 14, 2010, 8:12:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Why would it not be true that "a bunch" of FNC hosts support Obamacare?
Off the top of my head I can name several who seem supportive:
Greta, Bill Hemmer, Martha McCallum, Shep Smith, Geraldo, Jamie Colby
Judy Miller, Kristen Powers, Douglas Kennedy, Johnathan Hunt
March 14, 2010, 8:28:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Greta no, Hemmer no, "fake footage" MacCallum, nope, Shep Smith probably, Geraldo I'll give ya, Jamie Colby "tea party express" lover, nope, Judy Miller who cares, Kirsten Powers I'll give ya, and who the hell are douglas kennedy and jonathan hunt? Let's just say the numbers are stacked AGAINST the promoters of Obamacare.
March 14, 2010, 8:47:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Well I suspect none of us knows what Hemmer, or Colby, or MacCallum think about Obamacare. But then Raines's column wasn't about that. He wrote that Fox was railing against "health care reform". And that statement is pretty indefensible, as I doubt there are five people on Fox whose position is that they don't want health care reformed.
March 14, 2010, 9:08:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Very clever, Johnny -- but I think that we can follow the dots here and note that, one, the healthcare reform at issue, and the one being discussed, is President Obama's proposal for healthcare reform, and whether or not those at Fox want overall healthcare reform, they clearly don't want Obamacare or any variation of it.
March 14, 2010, 9:17:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
I don't know who "they" is. (You disappointed me; I was hoping you'd use "those people" or something like that!) You say "they" don't want Obamacare or any variation of it. I repeat that neither you nor I know what most of "those people" favor or oppose. Oh sure, Hannity, Beck etc are out front with their opinions. But then that's not all of Fox, or even most of Fox.
Now I was under the impression that you were talking about Howell Raines's article. He's the one who said "Fox" was insisting that people don't want "health care reform". Now if you want to change that to Obamacare, you can do so, but just be aware that you are no longer defending what Raines said. You are rewriting it.
March 14, 2010, 9:46:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Did you read the article, Johnny? Actually, what Raine said was that Fox was attempting to sabotage President Obama's "idea of sweeping reform" (translation, Obamacare) and "waging a Jihad" against the Obama Administration, and he accused Fox of spreading the "uber-lie: 'The American people do not want health-care reform.'" You should read my post - there's a link to the article in it. (I'm disappointed that you haven't already . . . .) I think you're splitting hairs here, Johnny, which you're masterful at -- but I won't stand corrected; I believe my premise is viable.
March 14, 2010, 10:08:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
I read the WaPo article days ago. At this site it's already old news. If Howell wants to allege that Fox is claiming that the people "don't want health care reform" then he should prove it. He doesn't. If you want to say he really meant Obamacare, then he should've said that, and cited examples to back up his case.
Certainly O'Reilly does not support Obamacare, but he has his own health care reform plan and has detailed it over and over again. I suspect Raines is blissfully unaware of that because he has no idea what O'Reilly's position is. Or that of at least a dozen other Fox anchors and/or hosts. You could've written a better article than he did, because you appear to be more knowledgeable on that point than he is (although that's not a tall hurdle to overcome). I take your piece as an attempt to do that, but it's still based on the flimsy indefensible premise that Raines put forth.
March 14, 2010, 10:16:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Well, Johnny, your points are well taken, but my post didn't attempt to examine what O'Reilly thinks of Obamacare, but rather his position that Fox hasn't engaged in the kind of sabotage efforts Raine accuses it of. I (and Raine) can only judge what Fox hosts/contributors/etc. think of an issue by the tone of their segments and the things they say; I can't examine their inner consciences. And as far as the article being old news . . . it is, but O'Reilly didn't address it until Friday, so for me at News Hounds, it's front and center.
March 14, 2010, 10:42:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
I don't agree with you in you opinions on the druthers of these people and I'd wager I watch them more often than you.
That aside, as for your statement that the numbers are stacked against Obamacare at FNC, you seem to have moved the goal post from your original post about the "bias" of what O'Reilly said.
Did O'Reilly say that more hosts and contributors at FNC support Obamacare than do not, or did he say that plenty (a bunch) of hosts and contributors do?
March 14, 2010, 9:37:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
"We [the Factor] have covered the Obamacare debate carefully and with fairness, as have most of my colleagues." That's the basis of his premise, that's the basis of my post -- that the statement is patently untrue.
March 14, 2010, 9:44:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Oh, it's not untrue. They've aired as many commenters who are pro-Obamacare as not.
March 14, 2010, 9:51:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Be glad for you to tell me who they were, when they were on and what they said.
March 14, 2010, 10:17:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Hey, I already rendered you up a list of people whose statements and bent of their question had given me the impression that they were pro-obamacare.
You shot most of them down, gave me two, and wondered who the rest were.
Perhaps you could go on to tell us how O'Reilly's statement is "patently false".
March 14, 2010, 10:27:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply
GATXER
Sorry, but Juile if you really think that....then I would say you watch about as much Fox as the rest of the hounds......damm little if at all. I am 100% FOR"Obamacare" for many reasons and Ive never seen anything but fair and balanced coverage on Fox.
I would say maybe if you watched Fox you would make less clearly wrong and untrue posts.
March 14, 2010, 10:17:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Sorry, guys, I watch plenty of Fox -- granted, not night and day, but enough to feel confident about my premise. None of you mentioned Laura Ingraham, Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Megyn Kelly, the Fox & Friends trio, plus all the Republicans Fox has on as guests who are dead set on shooting Obamacare down. It's my opinion you watch with a jaundiced eye, and see what you want to see.
March 14, 2010, 10:32:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Well, that's a tough indictment coming from someone who watches FNC "so you don't have to"...
March 14, 2010, 10:38:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Yes, I'm sure you think the same of me, as to the "jaundiced eye."
March 14, 2010, 10:44:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Yes, I do, but you've no reason to say that of me other than the fact that I'm conservative and I follow this blog.
If that automatically makes one unable to honestly observe reality then what in the world would it say about you, Ellen, Priscillia-- people who don't merely comment on blogs, but who, in a sense, work for an anti-FNC site?
March 14, 2010, 10:55:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I think it is fair to say that as a conservative who follows this blog you are not going to see things the same way that I do, a liberal who admittedly writes for a site that is not pro-Fox. I also think it would be fair, on both sides, to admit that you're not 100% wrong and neither am I. There are probably times I miss something you see that would bolster your position, and vice versa, that would bolster mine.
March 14, 2010, 11:21:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Well, you've toned down the you "see what you want to see", but frankly I'm still not willing to allow you to label me as someone who is unable to make a reasonable assessment of bias, whether or not it is for my side or against it.
Again, based upon the little you know of me, you can't make a judgment like that without impugning yourself in a far more serious manner.
March 14, 2010, 11:38:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Ingraham? She's on, what, once, twice a week? Rove is on a lot, you have no clue what Megyn Kelly's view on Obamacare is, and you don't mention all the Democratic guests Fox has on who are dead set on seeing Obamacare passed. I think Anthony Wiener and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will have to join the union if they appear any more often. It's just not intellectually honest to assert that Fox has "all the Republicans" on and ignore "all the Democrats" who appear (quite a few, especially considering how many refuse to appear at all).
March 14, 2010, 10:46:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Splitting hairs on Ingraham, but I'll pass on it. Megyn Kelly has made her views known, and so have many others. We'll have to agree to disagree on this or we'll be arguing all night; and by the way, I wasn't addressing the Dems that are on, and never denied their existence on Fox, for that matter. I was specifically discussing the people on Fox who want to shoot down Obamacare, not touting the ones who don't.
March 14, 2010, 10:58:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
So far, you've only mentioned O'Reilly, and shot down everyone else that we've mentioned as being fair.
And you've got to admit that in a discussion on O'Reilly's "bias", your only wanting to discuss "the people on Fox who want to shoot down Obamacare, not touting the ones who don't", sounds hilariously ironic...
March 14, 2010, 11:11:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply
GATXER
Well Juile if you do watch "plenty of Fox" and still post untrue things like that....
There is just NO way you could watch Fox and really think that. I know you watch with a bais looking for mistakes......but do you do it with the sound off?
I will say that having you post here is like a little of the Hounds "honest" reporting.
March 14, 2010, 11:40:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply
GATXER
" It's my opinion you watch with a jaundiced eye, and see what you want to see."
Oh and im my opinion is that Juile watches Fox with a closed eye and makes up what she wants to see.
I thought Julie might be differnet from the rest of the Hounds.......silly me.
March 14, 2010, 11:48:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Scott, had to mod out your msg. Please tone down the language and remember our rules about subject matter (no political argumentation) and tone (no insults to other commenters) and all will be fine.
March 14, 2010, 10:01:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Folks, Ashley (or someone pretending to be Ashley) has been arguing with Patrick at Mediaite (Karl Rove thread), in an exchange that's truly worthy of The Onion!
March 14, 2010, 10:33:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I'm signing off now, but don't let it be said that no one from News Hounds can come on this site and debate civilly and respectfully, which I believe I did . . . night, all.
March 14, 2010, 11:40:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
I will say that you ducked an argument.
March 14, 2010, 11:54:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Obviously it is as I have always maintained, the actions of News Hounds are indefensible. It is smart of you not even to try.
March 15, 2010, 12:05:07 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Nice that you waited until I was "long gone" to make such accusations . . . .
March 15, 2010, 10:41:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply
GATXER
Lets see You posted at 1043 and Danny at 1054......only in a hound mind could that be long gone.....however it does show thats Danny may just be right about you and "facts".
Is it no wonder that nobody here takes a Hound's word for anything?
March 15, 2010, 11:34:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Gatxer, you're not staying with the program . . . the "long gone" comment was one of Danny's from the night before. It's been a very civil group here so far, guy -- though we all of course don't agree on everything. Mud-slinging is so yesterday . . . .
March 15, 2010, 11:52:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply
GATXER
A hound who doesnt like mud-slinging? Careful you might get banned from the Hounds site.
I admit I find it hard to be civil to someone who works for a web site that cearly lies everyday.....I try but its not easy.
I doubt that we agree on anything....atleast I hope we dont based on the suff Ive seen you post here and other sites.
March 15, 2010, 11:58:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Gatxer, I work for a site that attempts to ferret out the truth . . . no one asked you to agree, and I don't recall directing any comments to you. And actually, no, I don't like mud-slinging: Every interaction I've had with Mr. Dollar has been out in the open and in public, on my Examiner site, and I've engaged in no name-calling, either here or on the News Hounds site, ever. And let me say this: If I get banned from the News Hounds site, or any other site, for civility . . . well, better to be alone than be in bad company.
March 16, 2010, 12:02:41 AM EDT – Like – Reply
GATXER
I work for a site that attempts to ferret out the truth
What scares me is that you might think thats true about NewHounds. How many times does J$ have to point out the LIES Newshounds post all the time before you might see it?
Ive been reading your post at the Examiner site since J$ posted the link months ago and frankly its in the same vain as Newshounds.
Do you read the comments at Newshounds? or the Examiner? The comments on those sites are hatfull and IMHO they are gross......do you ever see that here? You are in very bad company...at Newshounds but...for some unknown reason you cant see or admit that.
You work for a site that Lies about Fox News and is home to a group of hatfull people. It really that simple. You can be civil all you want....it wont change those facts Juile.
I like that you come here to post and Defend Newshounds......but a site that attempts to ferret out the truth? Really? I hope that you dont really think thats any where near the truth. If you really didnt like mudslinging you would put a stop to it in the comments at Newshounds and if you couldnt you would Resign.....anything else would be unbearable.
March 16, 2010, 12:35:41 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Gatxer: I respect your strong opinions, though clearly I don't agree. I want to point out one thing, though -- there's no moderation on the Examiner. I can delete comments after they're posted, but don't; after all, most of them are slamming me, and I don't see any reason to take down comments of those who disagree with me. The Examiner comments, many of them, are vile -- against me. One would think that if anyone complained, it would be me . . . I come here to get another view of the world, not necessarily to defend News Hounds (though that seems to be my role much of the time). Each of us at News Hounds, like anywhere, has to own our own behavior, and what we stand for. I would hope that me, personally, standing for civility isn't something you view negatively?
March 16, 2010, 12:48:41 AM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
We [the Factor] have covered the Obamacare debate carefully and with fairness, as have most of my colleagues."-- BO'R
"That's the basis of his premise, that's the basis of my post -- that the statement is patently untrue."--JD
Mass Comm 101-Everyone has selective attention, selective perception, and selective retention.
There is no doubt that guests, commentators, program hosts AND the audience of the "Obamacare debate" on FNC will pay attention to a variety of aspects, will have a variety of perceptions of the issues, and will remember a variety of portions of the FNC coverage, but to claim it "is patently untrue" that the coverage of the Obamacare debate by The Factor and by most of the other programs on Fox News has been done "carefully and with fairness," is a perfect example of all three of the universal charastics listed above.
Example: Would reporting the actual content of either the House or the Senate passed bills of Obamacare be unfair? Some would say, "Yes," some would say FNC didn't cover actual portions of either version, and some will either not remember or remember it wasn't done "carefully or with fairness." What could be more fair or more carefull than presenting actual portions of the bills?
And Ms. Driscoll, yes, you have debated in a civil manner. I believe the foundation of respect is honesty, and though it is not left for me to judge another, over time, honesty, or its absence, becomes easily detected.
March 15, 2010, 5:06:49 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
ramjet: I see your point, and feel you make some valid arguments, but must take issue with the "honesty" comment. I stand behind my statement that the Obamacare debate has not been covered in a "fair and balanced" fashion on Fox, but you are, of course, welcome to both debate that statement and attempt to prove me wrong. I made my case in my post at News Hounds, if you care to read it. Your example is an excellent one: No, the reporting of the actual content of the bill(s) would not be unfair . . . provided Fox did just that and didn't, as they have been caught doing of late, cherry-pick what they wanted to present.
March 15, 2010, 10:44:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
JD,
I apologize for my lack of clarity in my, "And Ms. Driscoll, yes, you have debated in a civil manner. I believe the foundation of respect is honesty, and though it is not left for me to judge another, over time, honesty, or its absence, becomes easily detected."
It was in response to your, "I'm signing off now, but don't let it be said that no one from News Hounds can come on this site and debate civilly and respectfully, which I believe I did . . . night, all." from 2 days ago, 11:40:33 PM.
I was happy to agree with your characterization of coming to this site and debating with civility. My comment about honesty was NOT in reference to your opinion
that O'Reilly's statement that his and others coverage of the Obamacare debate has been done "carefully and with fairness" is "is patently untrue."
My comment about honesty was in response to your, "debate civilly and respectfully, which I believe I did . ."
Respect (the noun) has its foundation in HONESTY and is revealed over time. "Respectfully" (the adverb) describing the manner of one's debating is situational in tense, i.e., past, present, future.
So, in other, less convoluted, words, I was trying to say, "We'll see-the jury's still out on that one," without it sounding accusatory.
My bad.
March 16, 2010, 12:52:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Uhhh you made a face at Julie. That will probably be enough to have her accuse you of not only making a personal attack upon her, but of committing a morally equivalent action of hurling at her the most vile insult ever been heard at News Hounds. You see, ramjet, you are no better than them. You had the audacity to make a face.
March 16, 2010, 1:51:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
Dearest Danny,
The emoticon I inserted is a "Foot in mouth," used as a self-efacing admission of misspeaking.
Perhaps you may want to look into the appropriateness of using it yourself.
March 16, 2010, 3:30:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Dear ramjet (not dearest because there are many others I hold more dear)
Nope. I didn't misspeak. I intended to say exactly what I said, and would be willing to say it again. So, inserting a face for that reason would be entirely unappropriate.
I was satrizing how Julie and others at News Hounds will take the slightest thing and try to make it into a personal attack, when it is not. This is a tactic that News Hound folks use a lot in a vain and foolish attempt to justify their very bad behavior, and I am getting sick of it.
Sorry you didn't get my point.
Maybe you should investigate the appropriateness of using the misspeak face again.
March 16, 2010, 6:37:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Danny: I didn't take offense at ramjet's emoticon - I took it in the spirit it was intended. But more significantly . . . you were "satirizing?" Since when is making baseless attacks satire? I challenge you right here, right now, to point to one single instance when I took the "slightest thing" on this site and turned it into a personal attack on me. I have proven, and will continue to prove, that my skin is far thicker than yours. With a couple of obvious exceptions, I have been received well at this site, and believe the majority proves the rule -- the rule being that most people are perfectly willing to debate without resorting to the tactics of 5-year-olds in a sandbox.
March 16, 2010, 9:48:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Julie,
That's an easy one. You made the following outrageous statement: "you're the only one of the two of us who has resorted to character assassinations and smears."
To which Cecelia asked a very appropriate question: where did he resort to a character assasination or smear?
In truth, there is one of us all right who resorted to a character assasination and smear AND THAT IS YOU!!
I resorted to nothing but logic and fact. You resorted to a lie in order to obfuscate the fact that you have no answer.
I challenge you to demonstrate where I character assassinated you and or smeared you once. It seems to me that people have been sent to exile Island for making an accusation that they could not support. So Julie, in that spirit I very strongly suggest that you either meet the challenge or that you apologize to me. Because you know and I know what you said is sheer baloney.
The moral equivalency argument that you have used is so much rubbish on so many levels. You know nothing like what goes on at News Hounds goes on here and you know that Johnny Dollar has never made a statement remotely resembling the statement that Ellen made.
It seems to me that News Hounds behaves like a classic bully. They dish out the vulgarities and insults, but when someone even so much as makes a face at them they start bawling that they have been picked on. So, yeah I am offended by their and your conduct. I think it is ripe for satire. I am not sorry I satirized it, and I would do it again.
March 17, 2010, 3:09:49 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Well, don't give yourself all the credit for being "received well at this site". You've been civil, but you are also in the presence of adults who appreciate it.
Despite a penchant for mild sarcasm, I behaved in a civil manner at News Hounds and lasted there less than 24 hours. To the site's credit, that was a surprise to people here. They had wagered that with my contrarian views, I'd be bounced in less than 12.
Unlike you, I didn't just have one Danny asking me to account for a specific incident. I had that AND demands that I explain nebulous things such as why I frequent a site and watch a news channel that they find repugnant.
In the midst of answering six or more of such demands, a commenter essentially called my answers convoluted, Ellen came swinging by within in minutes and I was bounced from the bar.
I don't remember if Grammie had been bounced shortly before or after my ouster, but she had the distinction of Ellen calling her an "it".
Again, you have behaved in a civil manner. You haven't issued some bogus claim against FNC on an objective (rather than subjective) manner. You haven't gone ape and started using bad language and making sexual connotations about people here.
Yes, you've behave like an adult. That goes a long way here.
Unfortunately, that's certainly NOT the case at News Hounds.
March 17, 2010, 6:10:50 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
BTW-- since for some reason, you consider yourself to have been insulted and smeared by Danny, perhaps you'd like to contrast his treatment of you with this:
"Turns out after a little research that Mark (Johnny Dollar) is a well known internet crazy and has been banned by numerous sites for his attacks, truely a sad case if ever there was one."
Oh well, Ashley and Cecelia can give him comfort - ewwwww!!!!!
Posted by: claudo on Thu 2.5 11:37am
Maybe this is played in the background when Johnny gets his freak on with Ashley and Cecelia. Relaxing music to set just the right tone. "Bolero" might be a little intense for Johnny's aging body - although maybe he could score some Viagra from Rush. Add to that some Corvoisier and you have quite the ladies man!
Posted by: claudo on Thu 2.5 6:42pm
Oh, BUTT PIRATE is okay, but "Douchey" isn't? You ARE a hypocrite! <(referring to Dollar)
And tell Olbysucker from me that there is no need for me to polish your "coconuts" when there are so many regulars here happy to do the job. That's provided they can get Cecelia away from your "quorum".
Bye, Markie! You KNOW you'll miss me and be over to NH to see what I have to say!
Pegleg Peggy | 02.17.09 - 5:56 am | #
This has to be the best yet from Johnny Koldys Dollar's Dream Girl:
You are the anti-Ellen and there's no greater indication of the blinkered extreme nature of that site's followers in that they seem incapable of at least recognizing your brilliance and your character, because you differ with them about a cable news channel.
Cecelia | 02.16.09 - 4:11 pm
Does Johnny let her use the diamond studded Fox kneepads!
But here's the thing. Koldys is a twisted sister and how do we know that "Cecelia" isn't Koldys in blog drag? And if it isn't, then Cecelia is one twisted sister - but she is such a good comfort girl and must make Koldys all excited - ewwwwwwww!!!!
Posted by: claudo on Mon 2.16 6:59pm
March 17, 2010, 6:42:13 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Green Peaches
Nobody knows the sorrows I've seen,
Nobody knows the trouble...
WILL YOU KIDS SHUR UP!
I AM TRYING TO READ THE CABLE NEWS!
March 17, 2010, 7:27:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Might help if you sounded out the words.
March 17, 2010, 7:36:33 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Cecilia, In no uncertain terms, I find every one of the above comments disrespectful and unnecessary. There is no place for those types of childish attacks in the type of debate I want to have with people at News Hounds, here or any other site. Here, there, or everywhere, sexually derogatory comments are beyond the pale. By the way, in terms of your defense of Danny -- Danny is someone obviously of strong convictions, but he doesn't seem to temper his viewpoints with reason, as you and others seem better able to do, and has a tendency to lash out. I believe his comments that imply I'm a liar and dishonest because I'm with News Hounds are not reasoned -- he knows absolutely nothing about me. That's the basis for my comment about his smears - generalities based on nothing. Doesn't concern me, but I note it.
March 17, 2010, 8:51:53 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Ok Julie,
I have been patiently waiting for you to respond to mh challenge and all I have heard are crickets. Seems like you were Chatty Cathy when I was away and was not able to defend myself but now that I am around you are very quiet.
Let's review.
I brought up the fact (and you have agreed that it is a fact) that Ellen has said that people should come to this site and be as rude as possible. I challenged you to come up with a rational defense of that. Every "defense" was totally irrational and nothing but hot air. Each time I systematically dismantled you woefully bad and irrational defenses . . . not by calling you name or attacking your character . . . but by the use of reason and logic.
For example, your last defense--that two wrongs make a right and that what has been said at Dollars is morally equivalent to what was said at News Hounds so Ellen is not morally bound to apologize until all who comment here apologize--is so bad and so convoluted as to be laughable. Only in a Bizarro world does a defense like the one you made pass for reasonable.
I have never said that you are a liar and dishonest and I challenge you to demonstrate where I said that--if that is where you really want to plant your flag. More irrationality on your part. Though it's irrelevant to your accusation: Even after you committed a patent falsehoood and made an outrageously false accusation against me, I never said that you are in general terms a liar or dishonest. I only said that what you said was a lie.
Then you make this statement: That's the basis for my comment about his smears - generalities based on nothing.
You seem to be extremely good at projecting your own faults on others. You accuse others of being irrational when you have been totally irrational. You accuse others of smearing and characteri assasination when you smear and assasinate other's character. Once again, your assertion that I have made generalities based on nothing is in itself a generality that is based on nothing.
Since that is the basis for your accusation/smear, I ask that you substantiate that generality or (if you cannot substantiate and you have no basis for what you said) apologize and retract.
March 17, 2010, 3:27:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Cecilia: I appreciate your comments, and yes, I appreciate that most people on this site are willing to interact in an adult manner. I am admittedly not plugged into the moderating side of News Hounds -- I'm just a writer. However, I'm puzzled (not disbelieving, just puzzled) why I'm getting so many comments about people here being banned and bounced at N/H. In my opinion, the whole idea of visiting each others' sites is not to convince the other side of our rightness, but to get opposing views. I believe it's the smart thing to do, for both sides. Newcomers at News Hounds should not be swarmed and essentially driven out (although, I have to say, a couple of people on this site have attempted to do that, but I wouldn't say they've been rude or disrespectful). Tell me this: Were you banned permanently, and are you banned to this day? I'm just trying to get a feel for what's going on with our comment system.
March 17, 2010, 8:46:40 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Actually, Julie, I'm responding to you statements.
When you credit yourself with being well-received because you are civil, it's important to me that you understand that an appreciation of civility by your host and fellow posters deserves credit too.
It's important to me too, that you understand that others have not been treated as reasonably, at the blog where you write.
That's not inudating you with demands that you explain yourself. I didn't ask for an explanation.
I'm giving you some context as to how you might feel if, despite your very appreciated efforts here, Johnny arbitrarily declared you a member of some enemy camp and booted you off.
I don't know if I was banned for all time, I haven't tried to post again at News Hounds. That's beside the point.
Give some credit to your host and your fellow posters here that you have been well-received. As you can see, it's not JUST that it doesn't always happen that way on blogs; it's that it doesn't happen that way at the very place where you write.
March 17, 2010, 9:02:06 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I actually did give dual credit to people at this site in my comment for being willing to interact in an adult way; and I give credit to Dollar for not making it difficult for me to visit this site and interact with the regulars. I doubt I'd have an interest in debating anyone here for very long if it happened like you describe, i.e., I were swarmed and attacked. You're right. I told Danny, and I will tell you now, that I intend to pay closer attention to the threads at our site; I stand behind News Hounds as a writer, but will be as vocal there as I am here if I feel that commentors are being disrespectful and rude. It is unacceptable and, if it catches my attention, I won't remain silent on it.
March 17, 2010, 9:21:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Julie, that all anyone could expect from anyone. You have my thanks and admiration for saying it.
March 17, 2010, 9:33:49 AM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
Big D-Little anny,
You are absolutely right!
"inserting a face for that reason would be entirely unappropriate."
Now, go look up the word, "unappropriate," but before you go, I believe an apology to Julie is in order for making an unsubstantiated accusation in the form of an assumption and for assigning guilt by association.
I'm certain you get my point.
Now, can we please get back to cable news?
March 16, 2010, 11:55:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Big r little amjet,
I have absolutely no intention of looking up inappropriate. I made no unsubstantiated accusation via assumption or otherwise and I assigned no guilt by association. Perhaps yuou should look up unsubstantiated assump;tion and assigning guilt by association since you seem to have no clue concerning what those words mean. I make no apology for your fantasies.
I am certain that you don't have a point.
You really should apologize.
March 17, 2010, 3:21:03 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I'd be interested to see what the jury verdict is, at the end of the day. Regards.
March 16, 2010, 9:43:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
As I said, respect is revealed over time, not in a day. So far, so good.
March 16, 2010, 11:40:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Nicely said, and thank you.
March 17, 2010, 12:15:29 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
ramjet: I appreciate your clarification. I'm following my own rules here -- I'll debate civilly and respectfully (although I gotta say, I'm not gonna get punked), but if people at this site make it clear they don't want that type of discourse, I'll take my toys and go home! So far, with a couple of exceptions, I've found the reception to be cool but not hostile.
March 16, 2010, 9:55:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Julie,
I, on the other hand, am very unhappy with you conduct. Though your being from News Hounds, it should have been no more than I should have expected.
You and I know that I did not assassinate your character nor did I smear you. In fact that is exactly what you have done to me. You smeared me and you assassinated my character. You need to somenow pull an really good explanation of your conduct out of your hat or you need to apologize.
March 17, 2010, 3:39:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
"You smeared me and assassinated my character." I will await examples of that. You will await my apology . . . which will come when pigs fly. I owe you no apology -- I have said nothing to apologize for. I have been far more reasonable with your nonsensical arguments than my short temper would normally allow. Let's move on.
March 17, 2010, 8:37:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Julie,
Ok, I am waiting for the examples or the apology. In my view, what you said not only came out of the blue, but it was a damnable lie. And, I think you know it.
No you haven't been reasonable. You made an unfounded accusation againt me that you cannot possibly back up, and I am calling you on it.
If you want to move on, I suggest that you retract the accusation.
March 17, 2010, 10:56:47 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
There are over 100 comments in this thread and I have been too busy to follow it closely. So I'm unclear on exactly what the bone of contention is here. Perhaps we could just take a breath and have a simple direct statement on exactly what each person is talking about. Danny, you could give us what Julie said that you consider a 'damnable lie' by quoting her exact words that you are referring to. Julie, do likewise for Danny. Then we can deal with it once and for all.
March 17, 2010, 11:08:03 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Dollar,
From her comment yesterday at 12:55: you're the only one of the two of us who has resorted to character assassinations and smears.
I ask that she substantiate that or apologize and retract.
March 17, 2010, 11:14:46 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
This is a favorite trick of news hounds. When they get caught, instead of answering your argument they try to obfuscate by trying to make it sound as if they are the ones who are being picked on.
I can give many examples of this. Ellen says that she banned me because I acted trollish on her site, when actually it was her legion that was trollish.
All Bob of planet Bob wanted to do was to come to News HOunds and have an honest debate. Instead, he was pilloried and insulted in every way imaginable on the News Hound site and then accused of himself being the one who was tollish and doing the insulting. Even Notveryhow concedes that bob was not treated very well on the News Hounds site, wheras other newshounders attack him on a seperate thread in the forum.
It seems to me that Newhounder behavior resembles that of a classic bully. They love to dish it out, but when you stand up to them or even make a face to them (as I was satirizing earlier) they bawl like a baby and cry that they are being picked on.
I am sick of this behavior, and I believe that Julie has exhibited it in her relating to me. She claims she is the abused one, when it is she who is doing the abusing by grossly unfairly accusing me of character assassination and smearing: a pretty strong accusation. Except in some dreamworld, there is no possible way that she can substantiate that accusation which is beyond outrageous.
It is just a lie (I believe deliberate), and I am fairly sure she knows it
March 17, 2010, 11:28:04 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
OK your're on the record. Julie has a right to respond so let's give her that opportunity.
March 17, 2010, 11:33:59 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
It isn't exactly like she hasn't had an opportunity. She has had many opportunities.
But yeah . . . let's hear her response if she will actually address the issue.
March 17, 2010, 11:40:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Danny: #1 - "Julie and others at News Hounds will take the slightest thing and try to make it into a personal attack, when it is not. This is a tactic that News Hound folks use a lot in a vain and foolish attempt to justify their very bad behavior, and I am getting sick of it. " Danny, you know very little about me, and I have never engaged in any of the "tactics" that you ascribe to me and have not engaged in any "bad behavior."
#2 - "It seems to me that Newhounder behavior resembles that of a classic bully. They love to dish it out, but when you stand up to them or even make a face to them (as I was satirizing earlier) they bawl like a baby and cry that they are being picked on." I have been civil and respectful at this site, and have at no time engaged in behavior that resembles a "classic bully." Nor have I bawled like a baby and cried that I am being picked on.
There you have it, two examples -- can we move on?
March 17, 2010, 11:34:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Julie,
What you just said is totally ridiculous and unreasonable on its face.
Example # 1 and Example # 2 cannot be germane to the accusation because I said those things in response to the false accusation that you made against me. Are you saying that you are so gifted prophetically that you can make an accusation in anticipation of something that I will say in the future? Can you offer your credentials for this wonderful prophetic gift?
Futher it is cetainly the case with the second quote and if memory serves it also is true of the first quote I ways talking about Newshounders in general and not about you specifically. If you want to get that crazy I can easily accuse you of smearing me because you said I use vulgar languate and call call people words associated with gentalia. How did you do that? Well you said that people on this site do things that are the moral equivalent of what Ellen did. I contribute to this site. Therefore you are smearing me by saying that I use as bad of language as Ellen and John T. Do you see how silly and how totally irrational you are being?
So no your examples on so many levels (I really haven't mined them all) totally fail. And, I think you really know that.
You will need to do much better than that to substantiate that I have smeared you personally and that I have have personally attacked your character. Also where are the smears that are based on generalizations that are based on nothing? If you were talking about yourself, I could understand that. What I have said about your personally and about Newshounds has been very specific and based on fact. Unlike yourself I have substantiated everything I have said. I dare you to prove that is not so.
The best way for us to move on is for you to apologize and retract. Of course, there is always the remote and extremely improbable prospect that you might be able to substantiate your assertions with a rationale that is somewhat intelligible. So far you have not even come close to doing that.
March 18, 2010, 1:33:32 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
"The best way for us to move on is for you to apologize and retract." I will do that when pigs fly and hell freezes over simultaneously. Danny, there are plenty of reasonable people at this site, I've learned, that I'll be most happy to debate on any issue, including Johnny Dollar. However, flogging a dead horse isn't my idea of a productive use of time. You can do what you want at this point, include post comments that I'm running from debate and ducking you and you beat me. It's all the same to me . . . but I'm moving on.
March 18, 2010, 1:50:44 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
You have made accusations for which you cannot give even a half way (never mind reasonable) intelligible rationale. Yet you refuse to apologize and or retract. Making false accusations and then refusing to be accountable is the height of immaturity, unreasonableness, and bad conduct. And no, that is not a generalization based on nothing, nor is it a smear. That is a very specific, pointed and accurate statement.
Tell me, what other unsubstantiated accusations of others do you plan to make at News Hounds and here? How many more times to you plan to impress us with your wondrous gifts of prophecy?--you know, those supernatural abilities of yours that allow you to accuse others of things that they haven't done yet.
You are not really debating, you are only making pronouncements with nothing to back up your claims. When you behave as you are now behaving, you have nothing in common with reasonable people.
March 18, 2010, 3:20:35 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Julie,
I gave you an example. To make it very clear becaue you seem not to have gotten it the first time: You smeared me and assasinated my character by accusing me of assassinating you character and smearing you when I did not even come close to doing such a thing. You said that I made a false accusation against you and you challenged me to substantiate it. I did.
Now it is time for you to substantiate your charge. Put up or shut up.
March 17, 2010, 11:08:54 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Or rather I should say: Put up or retract.
March 17, 2010, 11:10:07 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
This is for Gatxer - my introduction to Johnny Dollar: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7109-Chicago-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m8d5-Hello-Johnny-Dollar--its-time-we-met
March 16, 2010, 12:06:27 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Julie,
Two times now I have posed you this question and two times you have ducked me. Even though I waited patiently until you signed off for a reply last time.
It is no hypothetical. Ellen (arguabley the most powerful one at Newshounds) has encouraged her following to come to this site and to make rude remarks without any reservation. This is not an opinion or an inference. She wrrote it down in black and white. It is a fact.
You said that if such a fact were known to you that you would reassess your evaluation of Newshounds and the people at Newshounds.
When can we expect the reassessment? When will you make the results of your reassessment known?
Or, were you being deceitful when you said that you would reassess?
I had hoped that you might be of a bit higher character than the rest of the bloggers at News Hounds?
Are you going to disappoint me by not fullfilling your promise and demonstrating deceit?
March 16, 2010, 12:30:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Danny, I did in fact look into it and learn that some time ago Ellen made a comment to John T, I believe, about it being okay to be rude to Johnny Dollar -- I'm not sure of all of the facts, but that seems to be the gist of it. If that's the only fact you're relying on to prove your case, then no, I wouldn't reassess. I believe there are comments let through on N/H (as well as on this site) that are debatable from my point of view, and what I can say is I've been paying closer attention to the tone of the comments. I can't come over here and preach civility when I don't practice it on my end. I think Ellen would attest that on occasion I've asked her to remove a comment I didn't think appropriate on my posts, and she has.
March 16, 2010, 12:40:17 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
As I see it, you are using two defenses and neither will fly.
First you say, it happened only one time; therefore it doesn't really count. Then you say it happened a year and a half ago, so it doesn't count.
There are several things wrong with these defenses.
This may be the ony time that she let her guard down and said to be as rude as possible publicly. Parenthetically, she also gave an example of how to be rude by calling Dollar an extremely vulgar name. Later John T. (following the leader) called me exactly that same name on the News Hounds site and that comment has never been removed. If she did it once publically, we can make a strong inference that she did it numerous times privately. An anaology would be a king who has confessed to two illigitimate children probably has many more.
Secondly, she has had that comment pointed out to her many times. On each occasion, she had the opportunity to retract the comment and say that she made a mistake. Yet, she steadfastly refuses to this day to retract comment. Thus, it is really more than one occasion that she has made the comment (each time she refused to retract counts as an intance) and she seems to have her flag firmly planted in that comment now.
Thirdly, it is hypocritical for her to say that the comment is non-operative because it happened a year and a half ago. This is because she frequently tries to hold people accountable for actions that happened longer ago than that.
A case in point is the attempt to smear Hannity as a racist because of his association with Hal Turner. That happened over eight years ago. Further, what Hannity said to Hal and Hal said to Hannity is not in black and white and Ellen refuses to document any exchanges between them. Then, Hannity did ban Hal Turner from his radio show, in effect retracting any mistake that he might have made by allowing him to call in his radio show. Ellen has made no retraction.
Incidentally, would you like to be held accountable for any crazy that might call into a radio show that you are hosting; especially if it happened a long time ago and no one could document your exchange with said crazy?
For all of the above reasons your defenses fail and fail miserably.
As O'Reilly might say, show me where I am wrong. Or, if you can't, we are back to the question of when you will complete your reassessment..
March 16, 2010, 1:00:37 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Okay, first, Danny, I don't believe I said at any time that because it happened a long time ago it didn't count. I was simply point out a frame of reference (though it, I'm quite sure, did pre-date me). Secondly, if a comment is accidentally let through, as does happen, and is later targeted as inappropriate, it should be taken down. That's my firm opinion. If I, personally, said something in frustration, anger, or in haste, and realized it shouldn't have been said, I would retract it. I can't judge the reason why Ellen hasn't, except that perhaps she believes -- and, I must admit, I've seen this too -- that those who make negative comments at this site don't apologize either. I frankly haven't seen many apologies coming from over here to N/H, and wouldn't necessarily expect to - people hold strong beliefs. I think the same holds true the other direction. You can continue to hang on to your belief that my "defenses fail and fail miserably," but I think we can all agree that we're in unchartered territory here, trying to shelve animosity among those of us who want some semblence of civility.
March 16, 2010, 1:07:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Now you are trying to use the two wrong make a right argument and that does not fly either.
Even if it would fly (and your argument is DOA unless you really are foolish enough to argue that two wrongs do make a right), there is no equivalance between what is said at News Hounds and what is said here. The comments at News Hounds are vile beyond description.
You'll notice that when a commenter tried to say something about who you might be sleeping with, Johnny Dollar, as is his pollicy, deleted the comment. Yet, John T's odious comments and even Ellen's vile comment stand and News Hounds to this day. So if you think there is some moral equivalency between what is said at the two sites, you are seriously deluding yourself. Not that the argument you were making was any good anyway.
One other thing. I have notice you seem to be a bad judge about what is ad hominem and what is not. I notice that in a specific criticism you made earlier of Blackfon. You attacked him for making an ad hominem attack on you. You'll notice that Johnny did not delete that comment, and it was for a good reason.
I reread the comment and that you criticized and he never insulted you or called you a name. He was careful to attack your comments. Ad hominem means to the person or attacking the person rather than what the person said. By that standard his comments were not ad hominem even though you accused them of being so.
I reserve the right to say (if I think it's the case) that your comments are stupid moronic and hypocritical. As long as I say that your comments can be described in that way and I don't describe you as being stupid, or a moron or a hypocrite then it is not an ad hominem attack. That's particularly so if I go on to explain why I think your commments are stupid or mornoic or hypocritical.
Of course you can do the same with me, and I would not regard it as an ad hominem attack.
A smart person can say stupid and a non-hypocrite (generally) and slip and say something hypocritical. What you say and who you are not the same.
I say the above to suggest that you should also reassess what is an ad hominem attack and what is not. Until you get that straight, you opinions about moral equivalency are likely to be rather jaded.
March 16, 2010, 1:27:18 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I'm not thin-skinned, or I wouldn't be over here, would I? And have you ever seen my Examiner comments that I don't take down? I can survive the "attacks," ad hominem or otherwise. What I take issue with is the premise that what you say and who you are have no connection -- don't take this as anything but an ad hominem attack on your words, but that is probably one of the most stupid, moronic, and hypocritical comment I've ever heard.
March 16, 2010, 1:32:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Well you are arguing against the obvious. That means that if you have ever said a stupid thing that you are a really stupid person. Good luck with that!
I would suggest a rudimentary course in logic.
March 16, 2010, 1:49:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
In any case your moral equivalency argument fails as well as your assertion that two wrongs makes a right also fails.
You have yet to come up with a viable defense.
March 16, 2010, 1:50:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
*Correction: "comments"
March 16, 2010, 1:33:53 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Of course, if coming up with a viable defense of News Hounds actions and policies is too difficult for you, you can always resort to commenting on your impressions of my sex life. That's what your compatriots at News Hound would do.
March 16, 2010, 1:37:31 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Yes, Danny, but I have no interest in your sex life, genitals or anything else except spirited debate. Sorry to disappoint.
March 16, 2010, 1:39:54 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
But that would be one way to deflect from not coming up with a viable defense, wouldn't it?
And it's a tactic that your friends and News Hounds love. Why should you be any different from these others whom you have described as having high character?
March 16, 2010, 1:47:13 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
What, you expect me to take some sort of loyalty oath over here, denouncing my N/H colleagues in order to be accepted at this site? I don't have to deflect; in fact, I don't have to defend. I've given you answers as a courtesy, but you don't want to accept them. That's okay -- wear narrow-mindedness as a badge of honor, if you choose, but realize that you're the only one of the two of us who has resorted to character assassinations and smears. Like I said once before to Dollar, when you have to resort to that, you've lost the round.
March 16, 2010, 1:55:44 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Now you are talking complete nonsense. It may be that the opnly person you are making sense to is you. I haven't resorted to any character assassination or smear. I never asked for a loyalty oath or smear. However, if you wish to be some kind of intermediary, I think that you should know exactly what my criticisms are of the News Hounds site and why I regard it as a truly despicable site. If you (and they) wish to change mine and other's opinions of the site, you and they know exactly what you should do.
Also, you need to search your soul to see if your can continue working for a site that violates what you say are your principles. There are people of high integrity who are not vile in their language with whom you can work. No need to sell your soul to work at News Hounds, if they are unwilling to change.
I haven't resorted to anything except sound, logical argumentation. The fact that you are now attempting to smear me demonstrates that you, by even your own principles, have totally lost the argument and the debate. Not that you hadn't already lost it and are not trying desperately to cover up that fact.
March 16, 2010, 2:07:17 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
What character assassinations and smears did Danny issue?
March 16, 2010, 11:14:30 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
And that's it for me tonight . . . you are now free to discuss how I fled the scene due to my inability to debate the pros. But I'll be back. Night, all.
March 16, 2010, 1:57:22 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
If you think that you have not totally lost the round, if not the debate, you are seriously deceiving yourself.
When you come back . . . come back with somethig resembling a viable defense or even better some commitment from News Hounds to seriously change their ways.
A two wrongs make a right argument; a moral equivalency argument; an irrational attempt to smear me because you have no answer--all of the preceding will only lead to frustration on your part, and those approaches will not do much to (as you say) heal the discord between the two sites.
March 16, 2010, 2:16:59 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Danny: I'm not a one-woman miracle machine. I can't heal discord on my own; I need cooperation, which I believe I am predominantly receiving here. You really need to let me teach you how to thicken your skin, though -- nothing I said to you could come close to a "smear."
March 16, 2010, 9:50:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I've had enough!
Ms. Driscoll, please do me the favor of explaining why you are here!
What is your reason for blogging here?
You don't seem to advance the debate at all, do you just like to stir things up? If you still work at NH, then why are you here?
Can it be the infamous lefty tactic of infiltrating the enimy camp?
Please let me know if you are not to busy!
March 18, 2010, 6:26:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
You didn't ask me but I'll answer anyhow. She's here because this is a forum open to anyone who follows the rules. I don't know why Julie D should be interrogated about her reasons any more than anyone else should be. Course you can ask, and she can answer if she wants. Just keep things civil.
March 18, 2010, 6:31:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Johnny,
It is fine for her to be here, but I think that she should be held accountable for any accusations that she makes against other commenters. You'll note that while I complied with your request, she never did respond with the degree of specificity that you asked of both of us (i.e. providing direct quotes)
It seems to me that people have been banished to exile island for a while for less than what she has done.
As O'Reilly (a man Julie attacks whenever she can) would say, Where am I wrong?
March 18, 2010, 9:00:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Danny, for someone who claims to be open to debate, you are certainly hostile to the notion that someone from the "other side" might want to get an opposing viewpoint -- which is why I'm here. I'm also here, to answer your question, because I think it's important for both sides to recognize that it doesn't have to be a war. I'm not comfortable with the whole "you're either for us or against us" position. I think that you and I should call a detente for now -- agree to disagree -- and move on to subjects that have real value, rather than a "who is less civil" argument. Can we agree on that?
March 18, 2010, 10:25:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Julie,
The problem is that you are not debating. You just cavalierly throw out accusatons in the form of pronouncements with nothing to back it up.
Coming from News Hounds, this may come as new concept to you: You cannot just accuse people of smearing and character assassination without becing able to justify your claims. It is bad enough when you do this with a public figure; but it is the height of misconduct when you do this with another commenter on a thread.
I have told from the beginning what is necessary to resolve this issue: either provide a rationale for your accusation or retract. You have done neither. You did not even satisfy the request that Johnny made of both of us when he wanted to resolve this matter. You stubbornly refuse to take responsibility for your actions.
If you continue down this road, I do not support your being banned from this site. I do support your being given a trip to exile island to reflect on your actions.
Of course you could resolve the whole thing by simply retracting your accusation.
March 18, 2010, 10:39:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Okay, Danny, well let me be clear, then. Any "accusation" I made I stand behind. I am made welcome at this site by Mr. Dollar, and have followed his rules to the letter. You need to get used to me; I'm not going anywhere -- particularly a "time out" in Exile Island.
March 18, 2010, 11:49:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Julie,
YOu haven't followed his rules about making personal attacks. You are not supposed to do that and you have.
Incidetally, if I did what you claimed I did I would expect to either be asked to retract my quote or sent to Exile Island. At the very least I would have expected dollar to delete my comment almost after I made it.
The accusation that you stand behing lacks any substance. You have been given plenty of opportunity to substantiate your accusation and you have not done so. Johnny asked you do to something to resolve the issue and there can be no doubt that you have not complied "to the letter"--as you say.
I stand behind my assertion that what you said is a damnable lie; and you have said nothing to refute my characterization of your comment. The fact that you refuse to take the honorable course and retract your accusation reveals much about you, and you have done far more to smear or demean yourself and attack your own character than anything you imagine that I might have said and done.
This issue remains unresolved between us; and it is something that very well could come up again and again.
March 19, 2010, 12:24:08 AM EDT – Like – Reply
GATXER
Danny you are asking way too much from a hound......and a hound leader at that.
March 19, 2010, 12:48:10 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Gatxer, might want to follow the thread all the way back before you weigh in . . . I have no idea what Danny is asking for an apology for, and suspect that he simply wants to battle. But I find it interesting that I can appear on this site, for no reason other than to make an effort to hear the viewpoints from this side, and with nothing but civility for the commentors here (recognizing that I'm not going to be made instantly welcome), and yet some of you refuse to acknowledge the sincerity of my intentions. Regardless, I still get the same tired comments about the "typical hound." Does it not seem a little hypocritical that you accuse the Hounds of being closed-minded and unwilling to yield, when you seem to be using the same tactics you attack? "Hound leader?" Where did you get that idea?
March 19, 2010, 1:18:10 AM EDT – Like – Reply
GATXER
Are you saying you are not a Hound Leader? Don’t you write for them? Didn’t you claim you want to broker a truce....if you are not a hound leader....how can you broker anything? Of course by truce I think you mean….J$ stops calling out the Hounds lies….but I could be wrong.
As for Danny......if you don’t know what Danny is talking about.....isn’t YOU who might want to go back and read this thread?
As for your "intentions".....Yes I have great doubts about them....maybe because you are part of a group that has proved time and time again they are NOT to be trusted in any way......lay down with hounds....get up with lies....or something like that......I judge people on the net by the company they spend time with.......and your company is filled with proven liars and people with clear mental issues. I’ve read you web posts and I’m sure you fit right in with the hounds....I don’t think people who work for liars should be welcome but its not my blog.
And NO its not hypocritical of me.......the hounds have proved over and over what they are about,.......and it isn’t good.
March 19, 2010, 1:33:33 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
"I have no idea what Danny is asking for an apology for, and suspect that he simply wants to battle."
If you do not know what comment Danny has been referring to, I'll reiterate it here. This is what you posted to Danny:
you're the only one of the two of us who has resorted to character assassinations and smears. Like I said once before to Dollar, when you have to resort to that, you've lost the round.
3 days ago, 1:55:44 AM EDT
He takes issue with that charge, so you can reply to it if you like. But then I'd like to retire this disagreement if at all possible because it's using up a lot of cyber-oxygen, and there are so many other things we can yell at each other about!
March 19, 2010, 2:06:08 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
That's it? Hmmm. I will respond to Mr. Dollar, because he is attempting to clarify the issue. I believe it is a character assassination to liken me to negative commenters on the News Hounds site simply because I write for them. I think it is a character assassination to accuse me of resorting to sexually derogatory slurs when there is no basis for that charge and I have never done it, nor would I ever -- I'm not 12. I find it offensive that because I write for News Hounds -- though I have never posted a single comment on a single thread, and have never engaged in any mud-slinging on that site or this -- I am being tarred with the same brush as the N/H commenters.
From Danny: "Of course, if coming up with a viable defense of News Hounds actions and policies is too difficult for you, you can always resort to commenting on your impressions of my sex life. That's what your compatriots at News Hound would do." You have asked. I have answered. I am done. This is over.
"
March 19, 2010, 2:24:23 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Julie,
First, it is just an undeniable and documented fact that News Hounders do resort to sexually derogatory slurs: Even Ellen does this. You choose to work with these people. Not only that but you have pronounced Ellen and others to be of high character.
I wonder at the cognitive dissonance that you have displayed where you on the one hand repeatedlyh condem the practices of News Hounders; yet, at the same time, embrace the character of the people who are in authority in that site. I wonder if that is what is really eating you. I know that it would gnaw at me if I were in your position.
I wonder if you are being honest when you use the above quote as a rationale. Earlier when Cecelia quizzed you about why you claimed I had smeared you you said (and I quote) that it was because I made generalities based on nothing. So what was the generality that was based on nothing? I can document where leaders and commentators have made derogatory sexual slurs and engaged in every kind of vile mud slinging, if you want.
That I was smearing and attacking your character because of the comment you quoted is really a stretch. As I pointed out in a previous comment that if you really want to play that game I can argue that you accused me and all of the commenters on this site for doing no better than making sexual slurs because you indicated that Ellen is not morally bound to apologize for what she said because commenters on this site (including me) have said things that are as bad (morally equivalent) as what Ellen said.
So by your own logic you have smeared and attacked the character of just about every commnenter on this site. Are you really sure you want to go down that road?
I never once accused you of having engaged in sexually derogatory slurs. I was challenging you to rise above the level of your compatriots at News Hounds and actually respond to my arguments. I never made any accusations concerning you personally. I only accused the people that you work for and work with those "good" folks--so you say--of high character.
Like I say I have my doubts that you are telling the truth. This is so, because your rationale seems so far fetched and strained. Also this is the third story that you have come up with.
First it was generalities based on nothing; then it was several instances that occurred after you made your accusation so you could not have possibly based your accusation on them; and now it is because I challenged you to answer my arguments and not do what your compatriots do.
Is this final story the truth?--or is it a matter of your trying to find any port in the storm?
March 19, 2010, 3:11:56 AM EDT – Like – Reply
I've had enough!
@jonny dollar, Yea, I didn't ask you, If I wanted an answer from you, I would have asked you!
But thanks for the anyway, yup I did just fall off the turnip truck!
As far as requesting why ms. driscoll blogs here, that is a fair question to ask!
Does she simply have lots of free time, perhaps a true desire to change hearts and minds, though I doubt it.
Is she uncapable of, or busy, to offering her insight?
Nothing from my post can be construed that I would be uncivil! I'll leave that to NH where she works.
By the way, do you always carry her water? or do you need to add drama, to up ratings and web traffic? you don't need to aswer that, it was rhetorical!
We've tangled before, I know this is your web blog, and I doubt you will allow yourself to be challenged, lets see about your free exchange of ideas!
Maybe after you slay me, and save queen driscoll, you can give yourself another "gold star"
March 22, 2010, 5:30:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Is I've had enough speaking english?
March 22, 2010, 6:02:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I've had enough!
Why do you ask?
Is English your second language?
Sorry that I don't have a cute picture like yours, but alcohol destroyes to many lives.
March 22, 2010, 6:17:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Oh, so that's your problem.
March 22, 2010, 6:40:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I've had enough!
Who said I had a problem?
Sorry to be uncivil, but I don't remember asking you for your opinion!
You're the one trying to be cute with "Is I've had enough speaking english?"
PS: If you are wondering if I have a problem with alcohol, ie recovering, no I don't.
I just tugged on your string and you bit, thanks for playing! If it is to hard for you to understand, just order another appletini, it will all be OK!
March 22, 2010, 8:04:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
You are asking for opinions by putting your stuff on a public blog board, Einstein.
sheesh! You've more of a problem than I first ascertained.
Waiter!...
March 22, 2010, 8:09:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I've had enough!
My comment was clearly addressed to jdollar, because he decided to respond to me, even though I was asking ms. driscoll for a response.
I never addressed you, and asking someone for a response does not give everyone permission to reply, plus I find your comments rude!
*Funny how I've had two people respond to me without asking, but the one that I asked didn't!
March 22, 2010, 8:39:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
Yes Ma'am. What can I get for you tonight?
March 22, 2010, 8:52:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I've Had Enough: I didn't see your comment until now, and, as Cecilia noted, this is a public forum and people tend to jump in -- that's how it works. Since I didn't immediately respond, I thank Johnny Dollar for his accurate response on my behalf. You ask why I come to this site . . . fair question. I visit this site because I hold strong views and believe that debate with those who may not agree with me is important. "Preaching to the choir" is fine, but it doesn't hold my feet to the fire to strongly defend my positions. For that, I need people who will challenge me -- and I don't shirk the debate. The second reason I come here is because I don't believe a war between News Hounds and this site is necessary -- and I came over here initially to see what all the fuss was about. As it turns out, I've had fair to middling experiences here, and would like to see less rancor between the sites. And the last reason I come here is because Mr. Dollar has made me welcome as a civilized debater. I can't speak for him, but I find your comments about Dollar carrying my water and saving "Queen Driscoll" amusing. We achieve respectful opposition, he and I -- I hardly think I qualify as "teacher's pet."
March 22, 2010, 9:22:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I've had enough!
Wow, finally a response, just think how much easier it would have been if
A. You had the time to respond first.
B. J$ hadn't butted in, asserted that I'm oblivious to how we play here, johnny I did pick up on your subtle "play by the rules or I'll ban you" that you throw around, (like with haggis)!
C. Had cecelia not butted in with her 2 cents, rude!
Thank you for your post, a review. In Sentence:
#2. "as Cecilia noted, this is a public forum and people tend to jump in -- that's how it works." No, not even close! Had I offered up a topic or thought for discussing, I'd expect and welcome all comments, I did not! I addressed a specific person with a question, those that chimed in were interrupting. Hey johnny, civility?
PS: Thanks for telling me how things work, yup I'm jus a nuther dum americun(careful now, your liberal elitistism is showing)
#4. "You ask why I come to this site . . . fair question." Yea I know, that's why I asked it, funny that it was such a journey to get a response to my question.
#7.& #8. "I don't believe a war between News Hounds and this site is necessary", "and would like to see less rancor between the sites." Really, care that much? Wow, Darfur, Haiti, poverty, War on Terrorism (oops you might not call it that). You're just doing your small part to make the world nicer, right?
#9. "J$ has made me welcome as a civilized debater" OK
#10. Glad I amuse you, that johnny, he's a really swell.
#11. "I hardly think I qualify as "teacher's pet." Perhaps not, but a lot of posts per topic, in a short time is curious. Perhaps you're just prolific.
Sorry, I had to break it into several parts
End of part 1
March 23, 2010, 2:42:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I've had enough!
Part 2
Now the reason for this exercise, and a thought, for the other bloggers here!
I believe that you are a "trojan horse" of sorts. You are here to control and steer the conversation where you want it to go. I stated earlier that I believe that you are invading the enemy camp.
Perhaps you do want to end the war, reduce the rancor. Who cares about that? Really? Really, you want to reduce the rancor? How are your attempts at civilizing the bloggers at NH going? Any luck with that? Oh that's right, you're over here! Yea the best way to control your enemy is from within right? (Shouldn't she be hammering the bloggers over there?)
You sign on, make friends by showing how civilized you can be, lull them, then begin to steer the conversation with civilized debate. It's probably working. The back and forth banter with a few of the bloggers here usually ends with something like this. To Gaxter "I would hope that me, personally, standing for civility isn't something you view negatively?" And to Danny, " I think that you and I should call a detente for now -- agree to disagree -- and move on to subjects that have real value, rather than a "who is less civil" argument. Can we agree on that?" Wow! Great job! Engage the bloggers, steer them as far as you can, and then tell them that they should move on to something else! You actually tell them what they can discuss! Think you want to give that a try with me? (Are you people paying attention?)
The main reason for this exercise is twofold,
1st to show the other bloggers how easy it is to manipulate them and hijack a conversation (look how easy it was for me to pull cecelia's strings).
2nd to let J$ know that the reputation of his blog can be easily damaged if he does not police it (he's spent more time defending you than protecting J$P integrity, unless he doesn't mind you hijacking his blog)
Understand, that I really don't care; I can blog undiscovered at NH as long as I want, too!
This whole exercise has been rhetorical! (see folks, that's me telling her that she doesn't need to respond, and that's how you manipulate and control a conversation!)
March 23, 2010, 2:45:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Goodness! Go back and read your posts, including this one.
If anyone has tried to tell people when they should speak, who they should speak to, and what they should be saying, it's YOU (to the point of telling Johnny what he should be doing rather than addressing Julie).
Frankly, I think that you wish to be the fly in the ointment, the ant at the picnic, and the misquito in the bedroom, when it comes to the site having a cordial relationship with a News Hound blogger.
March 23, 2010, 3:01:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I've had enough!
Goodness Gracious, do you butt into conversations in person too?
It's not a very good idea, but do what ever makes you happy!
By the way, is your life so sad, that you have to look up 5-6 day old posts to blog about?
Then but in and give your two cents worth, not judging you, just asking!
Would it be asking to much for you to sit this one out?
See, I told alcohol destroyes lives!
March 23, 2010, 7:53:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Absolute---ly... it would be asking too much.
Part 1 and Part 2...
March 23, 2010, 7:59:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I've had enough!
So you have spoken, so it shall be!
Enjoy the ride!
March 23, 2010, 8:27:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Whatevah.
March 23, 2010, 8:34:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I've Had Enough: Well, the first comment that jumps out at me is your response to Cecilia, that she has to look up 5-6 day old blogs . . . coming from someone who went back, researched, and plucked quotes out of my 5-6 day old blogs, verbatim. Try to stay with me on this, guy -- I'll speak slowly so you can follow. First, there is very little reason for me to stay on the News Hounds site if my purpose is to try to build a better relationship -- for myself -- with those on the Dollar site. With me so far? Second, the people on this site aren't exactly people who are easily manipulated, or people who would allow the thread to get "hijacked" by a "hound," even if that were my intention, which it's not. Third, I'm sure if I were over here stirring the pot -- like, say, you are -- Dollar would police me. However, it appears to me that he's confident enough to allow spirited debate on his site -- and not so insecure that he feels I'm, what was it, "hijacking his blog." This has been the "enemy camp," but I don't want it to be for me. Take that any way you like. Oh, and fourth . . . might be time to get back on those meds.
March 23, 2010, 10:32:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Oh, one more thing . . . sign me, "Queen Driscoll"
March 23, 2010, 10:38:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I've had enough!
OK, I'll defend my point. While I challenge your intentions, I don't talk down to you or insinuate that you are stupid.
In sentence:
1 I posted my original question to you on 3-18. I checked on 3-22 to find only a response from J$. I replied to him, and Cecelia chimed in. I was checking for a response, was she?
Now on to your assertion that I went back to pull your posts, [look at your post below this post] it came from this page, directly below the box that I was typing into!
2 I'll ignore that!
3 Fair enough, that is a true statement! But did I miss the announcement, did you leave NH, are you going to leave NH? That is what your statement implies, am I misinformed? This is an important point. Do you have a future with NH? Just asking because you commented there today!
4-8 My assertions about your intentions are based upon what you post here. You appear to be a "left leaning liberal" and this place appears to be "right leaning conservative", so it doesn't appear to be a good fit, that's why I asked about your reason for being here. Rarely do I see you start a post about the topic of the day, rather you are usually engaged in banter with, or defending yourself from other bloggers (I know that they question you about your posts at NH etc, and while I don't have a problem with that per se, it isn't on topic.) J$ says that this forum is about current events as discussed on cable news, and has warned people to stay on topic.
When J$ allows such lengthy off topic discussions that include you, I asked why. I thought it would be rude to ask J$ "Why is she here?" That is why I asked you! When the discussion degenerates to banter between other bloggers and you, that doesn't advance the discussion of the topic of the day! Have I misunderstood the premise of this forum? It's cable news right! Not what's up with you and NH. NH isn't cable news, neither is J$P, (it's about cable news, right) So when so much of the discussion becomes about you and NH, in whatever form, it crowds out the cable news discussion, hence the "highjacking and questioning of J$" I'm not blaming you, you're correct it's up to J$ to police the site, that what I was saying. If J$ and the bloggers here are happy with the present situation, I'll not bother any longer, (bloggers feel free to celebrate as you deem appropriate), but it is not the premise of this forum.
And to your last statement, don't care, but you just lost the argument! Implying that someone is on meds because they dare to question your motives, shame on you, is that really appropriate? I thought you liked "spirited debate" without attacks! People with mental health issues need care and understanding, not trivialization! Yea, the "Right" is mean and nasty, the "Left" is compassionate, I forgot!
March 24, 2010, 4:01:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
"It's cable news right! Not what's up with you and NH. NH isn't cable news"
Thanks for your ruling, Judge Enough. However, we discuss NH here all the time (have you never seen the Fox Haters Week in Review?!?), as well as what's said on ICN, TVN, and many other sites that deal with cable news. As well as articles from papers, websites, about cable news. They all come under the umbrella of 'cable news topics'. At least they did until you decided to change the definition. It would've been nice had you given me some notice before deciding what topics I am permitted to cover.
"Have I misunderstood the premise of this forum? "
Apparently so.
March 24, 2010, 4:15:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply
I've had enough!
Wow, "Judge Enough" You a real funny guy, but then again it is your show. You call the shots here!
If you reread my post, you will find that at no time did I attempt to say what should be discussed here, only questioned if it did fall under what I believed to be the premise of this forum.
Your Google listing, and your main page that invites people to post their cable news comments, that made me misinterpret it to mean cable news comments in the strictist sense, and found a continuing dialog that was not about cable news.
I saw a new blogger (She comes from a forum that is quite often in your gun sights so to speak.) that tended to be involved in a lot of discussion that was not about cable news. It seamed curious to me and I questioned her about why she was here.
I see a lot of lively debate here and felt comfortable asking, but if it is all under the umbrella of cable news, great.
----"At least they did until you decided to change the definition. It would've been nice had you given me some notice before deciding what topics I am permitted to cover."----
If I may be permitted to ask a question, is that really necessary? I submit that it is not completely accurate, but it is your place after all.
I am still hopeful that my question, about whether Ms. Driscoll is staying at NH will be resolved, because I do wonder about that.
I had thought about becoming a regular blogger here, but I will leave that up to the community, and you of course.
I won't take up any more of your valuable time with this, it's just that I did hold you to a higher standard than NH, kos, puff etc.
March 24, 2010, 6:23:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
The short answer: No, I am not leaving News Hounds. (Though you said I "commented" there today, I think you meant I posted there. I don't comment on the News Hounds threads; I just write for N/H and monitor the comments on my own posts.) It isn't necessary for me to leave News Hounds to contribute on this site - why would it be? I've been challenged, but that's why I'm here. The commenters here have been, for the most part, very civil, and I'd like to think they realize my purpose in commenting here is to encourage better give-and-take between the sites. If other News Hounds bloggers and/or commenters don't choose to do that, that's their choice -- I don't follow a leader. I have my own agenda and intend to follow it. And regarding the "meds" comment . . . might have been a little insensitive, but you struck me as unstable. And the jury's still out on that.
March 24, 2010, 7:31:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
"If J$ and the bloggers here are happy with the present situation, I'll not bother any longer,..."
I'm happy with the present situation!
Everyone else happy?!...
March 24, 2010, 6:11:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Thank you, Cecelia.
March 24, 2010, 7:31:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
You're welcome.
I've enjoyed your being here!
March 24, 2010, 7:44:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
Totally miserable, but that's je suis.
March 24, 2010, 8:06:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
What's the matter, Major?
March 24, 2010, 9:05:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
Who's Major?
March 24, 2010, 11:09:39 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I truly appreciate that. I hope, over time, commenters here will realize that I'm not a "wolf in sheep's clothing." Johnny Dollar has treated me extremely fairly, the commenters have been willing to at least engage in discussions with me (beginning with "why are you here?," which is fine), and I think it's healthy to discover on my own that the Dollar regulars are people with opposing views, and not the enemy. That's not how I view any of you, or I wouldn't be here. Everyone's horizons can be broadened!
March 24, 2010, 7:49:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Gatxer: Ah, yes, that whole "water seeks its own level" thing. Okay, well, here are a few of the comments I have made here, this one to you: " I respect your strong opinions, though clearly I don't agree. I want to point out one thing, though -- there's no moderation on the Examiner. I can delete comments after they're posted, but don't; after all, most of them are slamming me, and I don't see any reason to take down comments of those who disagree with me. The Examiner comments, many of them, are vile -- against me. One would think that if anyone complained, it would be me . . . I come here to get another view of the world, not necessarily to defend News Hounds (though that seems to be my role much of the time). Each of us at News Hounds, like anywhere, has to own our own behavior, and what we stand for. I would hope that me, personally, standing for civility isn't something you view negatively?" And to Danny, " I think that you and I should call a detente for now -- agree to disagree -- and move on to subjects that have real value, rather than a "who is less civil" argument. Can we agree on that?" And in response to Danny's absolutely baseless accusation that I would resort to sexually derogatory remarks: "Yes, Danny, but I have no interest in your sex life, genitals or anything else except spirited debate. Sorry to disappoint." Perhaps you could point out what, in these comments, is unreasonable, lacking civility, or being unwilling to respond to challenges from those on this site.
March 19, 2010, 1:51:02 AM EDT – Like – Reply
GATXER
". I can delete comments after they're posted, but don't; after all, most of them are slamming me"
Well I know for a fact that you are lying about that....on the very first thing I read of yours a comment I thought was gross was deleted by you....which while it was the right thing to do......you have now LIED....not a good way to show me how you are here for the good.
I caught this lie the 1st time you said it but let it pass in hope that you might be here for the reasons you said......since then I found out what hope gets you.
I could care less about if you delete comments at a blog.....why you feel the need to lie about it makes me wonder what else that does matter are you lying about?
As I said.....you are NOT the first hound to come here......and you are acting just a I expected.
March 19, 2010, 2:33:35 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
I have never deleted a single Examiner comment that was posted on my site -- never. I have never moderated a single Examiner comment -- never. I have an editor at Examiner who may have done so -- at one time my site was swarmed by Freepers -- but I have not. There would be no reason for me to lie about that: I think I've had very good reason in the past to delete comments, but have chosen to let everything stand. Why you would call me a liar without offering any substantiation is just astounding. I'm acting like you expected? Let's call that one a self-fulfilling prophecy, guy.
March 19, 2010, 2:54:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply
GATXER
Oh so it wasnt you...it was someone else who deleted it........Sorry but thats complete BS.....maybe that kind of stuff flys at the hounds but I just lost what little respect I had for you.
As for the comment...think Dyke. Ring a bell Now?
Why would I think you told a lie when of course nothing is your fault and you only told a lie because of me.
Again...I know for a FACT that a comment was deleted when you said you NEVER do that........thats a LIE.....hell maybe Bill ORielly deleted it....yea thats the ticket!
March 19, 2010, 3:09:58 AM EDT – Like – Reply
GATXER
Oh and just for the record I almost defened you to Danny....since you are new here....silly me.
Goodnite!
March 19, 2010, 3:11:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Julie Driscoll
Dyke . . . nope, doesn't ring a bell, and I deleted no comments. I've been called way worse on that site than a dyke, I can tell you that, and I couldn't care less. I still wonder why you think I would bother to lie to you about this or anything else. All I can say is, wow. But I do thank you for being such a detailed, exacting reader of my Examiner page -- you seem to know it better than I do. Good night.
March 19, 2010, 3:18:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Gatxer, simmer down a bit. Switch to decaf. As long as Julie is here she is entitled to the same respect as others are. I don't want to see her called a 'liar', especially when it's about something extraneous and something that you can't possibly prove she IS lying about. So please watch your demeanor.
How about we all another topic for awhile?
March 19, 2010, 10:15:33 AM EDT – Like – Reply
GATXER
Your site so fine...but....she clearly says she doesn’t delete comments and never said someone else might....until I called her on it and now a magical editor has come up and they "might" have deleted it.
In my mind she lied....it couldn’t be clearer....and I’ve given her the same respect I would get at newshounds after saying something TWICE that clearly wasn’t true.
The comment was posted....then deleted......that’s a fact. As a gay man I remember it said in the photo she looked like a Bull Dyke and upset me greatly and it’s no longer there.....however with my high respect to you I will drop it.
I hate people who lie........that’s why I came here after someone sent me that KO video lying about Fox you made.....and I’ve been here everyday since.....but its true that I get "bent" out of shape when I catch any Newshound in a lie.....but that’s more of a family issue...I will try to be nicer to Julie.
I won’t post on this issue again.
March 19, 2010, 4:42:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Fair enough.
March 19, 2010, 4:43:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply
ramjet
GATXER<img src="http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/icon10-external-url.png"/>
"Oh and just for the record I almost defened you to Danny....since you are new here....silly me."
You lie.
March 19, 2010, 3:44:36 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Big R little amjet,
And what is your evidence for that?
March 19, 2010, 12:14:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
What is it with this calling people liars business.
Is everyone channeling Kreskin now?
March 19, 2010, 3:55:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply
GATXER
Well I feel that she wasnt clear on our "rules" about making comments that you cant back up.....so I felt that Danny should give her a break on her first "mistake" howvever when I saw the first thing I knew wasnt true...I felt maybe I was wrong. So I said nothing.
While Ive been comming here for years now I dont comment very much. I guess Juile being a "hound" pushed my buttons on that alone. Im sure Juile and I agree on many things other than Fox News.
March 19, 2010, 4:49:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
I don't have any problem with someone's saying that someone else is lying, if they have strong reasons for believing that and can give their reasons.
However, lie is a strong word and it does connote not only telling a falsehood but the intent to tell a falsehood. In most cases, one would be more prudent to say he or she strongly doubts that the other is not telling the truth and to give one's reasons.
Just to say that someone is lying and not give any reasons . . . we are back to the accusation by pronouncement school of debating.
Here is how it works: You just pronounce someone is or is doing [insert your favorite accusation here] and if the accused challenges you just say essentally . . . I've just just pronounced you to be [insert your favorite accusation] on general principles. If you don't agree with me that you are not [insert your favorite accusation], well let's just agree to disagree and you go to your church and I'll go to mine. And if you push the issue that you are not what I proclaim you to be, then, prideful creep that you are, you are just killing the discussion and diverting attention from more important issues than your guilt or innocence.
Neat trick isn't it? Horrendous debating, but a neat trick.
You are the expert on fallacies, Cecelia. What I have just described must be a named fallacy, but I can't quite put my finger on it. For example, hasty generalization doesn't quite cut it. What's a better name for it?
March 19, 2010, 4:34:40 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Cecelia
Egocentrism, is what you're describing, Danny, and it's easy for all parties to get caught up in it.
March 19, 2010, 5:11:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
No, I don"t think egocentrism captures fallacy that I am talking about. Oh well.
March 19, 2010, 7:08:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply
