Stupid Is as Stupid Does


How ignorant do you have to be, to be a Fox hater? Pretty ignorant! With J$P Audio!

If you're a Fox hater, the end justifies the means. Distorting, lying, smearing--anything goes. One main qualification for membership in this scruvy band proves to be something more down to earth: ignorance. Since some of them watch the channel rarely if ever, the haters frequently don't have the slightest idea what they are talking about. Our first example is a claim that John Gibson has been desperate to rescue Speaker Dennis Hastert:
on Tuesday he calls in Bill Kristol to defend Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert in the Mark Foley scandal .... Whenever the Republicans are in trouble just call in John Gibson to contain the stink.

Now, if this Einstein had any idea what he was talking about, he would be aware that Gibby has been calling for Hastert to resign since Day One of this brouhaha:

GIBSON: If a congressman is under investigation on the complaint of a minor, that congressman's leadership should know what it is about and, frankly, I don't think they would have involved all those people and taken the step of confronting Foley if they did not know what was in those e-mails.... As it is now, it's a disaster and that has to be the fault of the House leadership.

Here are a few more samples of John Gibson "defending" Dennis Hastert.

It's so much easier to smear Fox when you don't bother with facts. Just ask the premier FNC haters, the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed mob). They claim they watch the channel, though they've admitted writing critiques without first bothering to actually watch the program. Yet this gang of biased bowsers demonstrates repeatedly how uninformed they are, and not just about FNC.

Newspooch Judy apparently hates Fox so much that she will slander other journalists and our Armed Forces to achieve her goal. Why else would she make this preposterous statement regarding the famous photo of the flag raising at Iwo Jima?
[Martha] MacCallum, of course, never mentioned that the flag raising was posed, not spontaneous.

Say what? The Associated Press refers to this urban myth as a "false rumor". And a filmed record of the event taken by Sgt. Bill Genaust matches Joe Rosenthal's photograph and proves it was not "posed". But what matters truth when you can take a cheap shot at a Fox reporter?

The same goes for newsmutt Chrish, talking through an alleged "guest blog" by one "Priscilla". She ridicules Brit Hume:
Hume mentioning his wife as a Bureau Chief (she is no longer at Fox).

Like we said, these cretins just don't know what they are talking about:

Washington Bureau Chief Kim Hume will leave her position after the midterm elections in November...

If ignorance is bliss, then the newspoodles must be the most delirious dogs in the pound. The ultimate proof comes from the ever-unreliable Melanie, talking about Gen Wesley Clark:
Fox News hired Clark, generating a fair amount of fanfare, in June of last year to be its "Foreign Affairs Analyst," but his name has since disappeared from the Fox News bios so the two have apparently parted ways.

It's a double dollop of cluelessness. Clark's name didn't "disappear" from the Fox News bios because it wasn't there in the first place. FNC hasn't added military analysts to its web biographies for at least two years. But the credulous kennel-dwellers lap it up as if they were reading holy writ:
  • How does Murdock sleep at night knowing the truth and not giving a damm like that?
  • General Clark must have rejoiced when the two of them--he and FNC--parted ways. Like being de-mobbed after a hard stint.

The truth: Gen Wesley Clark and Fox have not "parted ways". He was, and still is, a military analyst for the channel. Did Melanie even watch the program she's writing about? If so, how could she not have seen this:



He was on again today (Saturday), and again introduced as a Fox Military Analyst. Oh well, just another stoopid mistake from another illiterate hater. Or so we thought, until we offered a correction to her inaccuracies:



That comment lasted about five minutes before it was summarily erased. Then:



Within moments that one vanished as well. But the false statements in the article are still there, uncorrected, to this day.

A mistake is just a mistake; we all make them. But when a mistake is proven to be false and pointed out to the writer, and when the writer deletes the correction and deliberately allows the falsehood to stand...that is more than just another ignorant boner. That's a lie.

posted: Sat - October 21, 2006 at 06:07 PM       j$p  send 

OverHere
Just when I think they can't get any worse over at the pound...
October 21, 2006, 6:27:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
It hasn't gotten any worse over there. The pooches have been stagnating at the bottom of the barrel for quite some time now.
 
Once they hit rock bottom, they stayed there writhing like leeches in a putrid bath of ignorance, hate, and lies.
October 22, 2006, 11:03:56 AM EDT – Like – Reply

sknabt
J$, my response to post is found here:
 
http://www.forums.eyesonfox.org/YaBB.pl?num=1161530986/0
October 22, 2006, 11:36:33 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
That's pretty interesting...write a response and put it on a forum you control, where I can't even see it because some it requires some registration ritual.
 
If you ever decide to make an open explanation for your smear of John Gibson, this space is available.
October 22, 2006, 11:50:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply

OverHere
I think the fact that they keep these attacks up in the face of overwhelming evidence of their lying means they keep getting worse. But that's just semantics, either way, yeah, they're about as bad as it gets.
October 22, 2006, 9:38:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Sword of Damocles
J,
 
He posted it in our forums area because the space is not as limited as it is here in the comments section.
 
My last comment to you went on 3 times as long as you saw and when I went to save it, the rest was too long and it was lost.
 
We put the forums there for more lengthy discussion. We require registration for obvious reasons. If you are concerned, you can always put false info. You can easily get at his response.
 
So I will ask, where, what and when did the MP3 come from where Gibson asks/demands Hastert's resignation? Was it Gibson's radio show?
 
And his point about Gibson was not that he wanted Hastert in or out. His point was Gibson was trying to control the stink. We hear it all the time. Foley is gone. Why are we still talking about the whole thing?
 
Lets see if my post is too long this time.
October 23, 2006, 12:22:30 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Sword of Damocles
I am guessing that mp3 came from Gibson's radio show.
 
I wish he would say things like that more on his Fox show. Its a credit to him.
 
Just for the record, from what I have heard, I don't think Hastert should resign. Unless more comes down the road that shows otherwise.
October 23, 2006, 12:28:33 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Well, Sword, I'm not much interested in a forum so tightly controlled that you can't even see the messages before signing up. As for "false info", I don't like my IP addresses floating around in rough neighorhoods. I don't join until I know what I'm joining.
 
> I am guessing that mp3 came from Gibson's radio show.
 
Correct.
 
> His point was Gibson was trying to control the stink.
 
And his point is completely fallacious. Why should he want to control the "stink" about Hastert when he's been agitating AGAINST Hastert during the whole affair? He has no idea what Gibson was "trying" to do, unless he's Kreskin, or Carnac the Great.
 
His problem, like so many other amateur "media critics", is that he sees One Interview, and then--presto!--there's the "proof" that Gibson is covering for Hastert. Now, what about all the other interviews Gibson has done on the subject? Funny, not a word about them. Not a word about what Gibson said on the news channel, even leaving out the radio show.
 
That's why I used the term "ignorance". I'm not saying your friend, who apparently won't defend himself here, is deliberately trying to mislead. I'm saying that, because his entire knowledge base on the issue is one lousy interview, he is just uninformed. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
I'm not sure that his psychic powers are such that he could read Gibson's mind to determine what he was "trying" to do even if he HAD seen all his segments on this topic. But he sure can't do it when all he knows about is one.
October 23, 2006, 12:44:54 AM EDT – Like – Reply

sknabt
J$, your dodge is so transparent it's hilarious. Unfortunately, your crappy comments aren't designed for debate - as I believe I told you in the past - so I can't begin to respond here.
 
Want proof of why comments suck - other than just length? In my earlier comment with a link I realized, in my haste to post, I left a word out. Can you modify a comment? Heck no. A forum post? Yes.
 
Can I easily find the old comment thread to verify I told you to put up your own forums or post on mine? Nope. Comments are poorly organized by blog entry. Does your search even work with comments?
 
Your fears of "tightly controlled" forums is hilarious. SoD can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall changing the setting so I assume it's YaBB's default. And, considering all the spam we get in our comments, it's not a bad idea.
 
Speaking of "tight controls" you have biased rules favoring yourself (and fellow fans?):
 
"Personal attacks on other posters will not be tolerated. This goes double for personal attacks on us." And, of course, judging by your blog entries what you consider a personal attack against those you disagree with doesn't exclude widespread name calling. I'm just so sure I could get away with behavior remotely as juvenile.
 
We don't play that game at EyesOnFox. And, if we do, it becomes more ammunition for you to attack us with. No?
 
I say it again: Put up your own forums if you're afraid of ours.
October 23, 2006, 8:05:32 AM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I'm impressed. With this awful, constrictive, unusable, awkward, clumsy, all but useless comment system we have from haloscan (like thousands of other sites), you still managed somehow to input eight paragraphs of comments. Now you chose to devote those eight paragraphs not to substance, but to complaining about how unworkable the comments practice is! And, of course, to complain that a rule against name-calling is apparently going to cramp your style.
 
Thank you for your comment.
October 23, 2006, 9:25:58 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
I use Tor/Privoxy/Vidalia (all free software) to block my IP when browsing hostile/hateful forums such as eyesonfox and newshounds. I keep my IP private when it could be used as a target for attack.
 
It's a good idea for you to stay away from those forums not only for security reasons but also because they could edit your words and use them against you. It also lends undue credibility to the sites.
 
The comments here seem to work fine whenever sknabt wants to plug his own site. I wonder if he complains in the same manner at newshounds with their Haloscan system?
October 23, 2006, 12:32:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply

OverHere
I've used those too and they do work well, but I also agree with your other points. One solution would seem to be to use a different name over there, but then you couldn't win in that situation because they'd then accuse you of trying to hide your true identity.
 
I find the whining about this comment system to be silly too. They seem to work fine when someone wants to launch an attack, but the second documentation is asked for Haloscan is just SO oppressive to use...
October 23, 2006, 1:11:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Sword of Damocles
J & all,
 
I won't push the issue further on sknabt's point. He can defend himself.
 
I will however defend the honor of our site. We are not out to screw anyone, pull tricks on or engage in any of the online BS to abuse anyone. I ran a local public forum BBS for nearly 10 years that was also on Fidonet. No censorship ever happened, no posts were altered, it was open to all sides.
 
We even discussed getting responsbile pro-Fox people on to do blogs on our site. We actively support the forums because they allow people to expand as they wish on topics posted on the blogs or beyond them.
 
We are not the kind of forum you have seen before. We are not hostile to anyone. We want open discourse. No tricks.
 
We don't even like our own comment system and have debated turning it off and pushing the forums, but then we might get accused of stifeling commentary.
 
Heck, comments can be altered/edited.
 
None of it will happen on our site. We even have links to sites that have contrary views to ours. We have links to sites that have gone after us too.
 
People automotically assume we are some hate site, full of bile and ready to shred anyone in anyway who goes against us.
 
Its not true.
October 23, 2006, 11:44:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
SoD is an honest character judging by his posts both here and at EOF.com.
 
EOF is a hate-Fox News site as is evidenced by its content.
 
However, SoD has been a moderate voice as a co-administrator there throughout its short history. This does not excuse him from being a representative of the content on the site. If you wish to judge, let eyesonfox report, you decide.
October 24, 2006, 12:25:46 AM EDT – Like – Reply