What Steinbeck won't tell of Mice and CNN (and Harry Tuttle)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Admit it, you facist

[Nubclear]

Imran, still angry over the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, I was hoping for a Communist utopia that would last forever. Damn you and your Pinochet loving friends

[Odin]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Are you the alleged Pinochet supporter?

Thats Albert Speer and Fez. Tass is on our side, OB.

[Whaleboy]

Is Pinochet the new banana or something?

[Q Classic]

Harry, has it ever come to your mind that plastic bottles don't shatter?

actually, oncle boris, you're wrong.
nalgene bottles are plastic. throw one off the top of a building at least 150 feet high, with some liquid in it, and it will shatter.
counterexample to your claim. you are therefore wrong. qed.

Are you the alleged Pinochet supporter?

he's not the one i was referring to.

Has it ever come to your personal attention that Oncle is French for Uncle?

france

I'm here telling you I witnessed an obvious case of mediatic lie with my own eyes, and there are are stupid right wingers answering me I made that up, pretending that I'm a would-be leftie wearing Nike shows and eating at McDonald's.

the mass media lies! no! you can't be serious! fox news would never lie to us americans!

[Harry Tuttle]

Wow, I'm flattered. A thread all of my own. I wonder when Boris will demand that I be banned because I proved him wrong... Hold on a little bit, I need to do some stretching before I begin...

[Harry Tuttle]

Re: What Steinbeck won't tell of Mice and CNN (and Harry Tuttle)

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
1. The CNN article quoted a US official who said they were commited to progressing nicely on the topic of agricultural subsidies. I found this dubious, since in a WTO summit this fall, Third World countries left discussions earlier as a protest against Europe and America's unwillingness to loosen their position. I even remember hearing Western officials, before the summit, saying that they would be making concessions on this topic. So obviously, it turned out to be a lie, if the Third World diplomats were pissed to the point of leaving prematurely. Some analysts even claimed that this was a major crisis in the history of the WTO. So if what the US official was saying is true, there must have been some drastic change in the US policy over the last few months.
"All right", said I, "let's see what Latin America officials had to say about this". Seems I had been too naive, because the CNN piece didn't bother asking two or three to verify the statement of the PR guy. What kind of crap journalism is this??? How could have journalism ever been about quoting someone without asking his counterparts' point of view? We call this "Press Release", not journalism.

This was my first point: either the article is bad journalism, or either the bias was done on purpose. But Harry Tuttle failed to see such an obvious point and accused me of changing the discussion's topic.

Actually you did try to change the subject. The thread that Sava started and the topic we were all on had nothing to do with the actual issues being discussed at the WTO article. The thread, and article, are about supposed police brutality during the talks.

You decided to jump in and start running your mouth about agricultural subsidies, something that no one was commenting on. Here's the thread for reference:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=104750&perpage=30&pagenumber=1

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

The problem is, you have to watch a 30 seconds pro-ecologic advertisement or subscribe to the site in order to see it. Seems like watching an ad on Fox or on CNN is not a problem for anyone, but Harry Tuttle decided that the communist ad was a proof of bias and thus rendered useless an article he wouldn't even read.
So, communist ads are a proof of bias, but free-market banners are not.

I used a widely known and middle-of-the-road news source. You used a biased anti-wto article from a webbased magazine. An article that we couldn't even read because you need to subscribe to their website. It is bias. In fact, that is the definition of biased. Are you having a problem understanding the language again???

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Someone near me had been carrying a plastic bottle for water. Notwithstanding that he didn't have any fluid, the police handcuffed the guy, seized the bottle and claimed its goal was to make a Molotov cocktail. I don't expect Harry Tuttle to be a brilliant mind, but still this quote regarding this course of event is simply idiotic to the point of being embarassing:

Flammable liquid can be contained in a glass or plastic bottle. Plastic melts when burned and flammable liquid tends to EXPLODE when lit in an enclosed environment. Did you not pass chemistry in high school???

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Which leads me to this final thought: from the time I witnessed these sad events, I lost great faith in our democracy system and started to understand the angry protesters violent motives: they are destroying windows out of despair and powerlesness, not because they are brainwashed lefties (ok, maybe a bit of both but nothing that can justify such oppression).

Despair???!?!?!?!?! My god, you are a moron! Those people out there live in the greatest country in the world! They have more freedom than any other citizens on Earth! You think they were so distraught that they started BREAKING THINGS!?!?

AND NO, democracy is a form of government. Rights and free speech are seperate.

de·moc·ra·cy

1) Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2) A political or social unit that has such a government.
3) The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4) Majority rule.

In a democracy the people can vote to deny free speech. They can vote for a dictator. They can vote to exclude a portion of the populace! It is a form of government, not a declararion of rights!

If you want to attack someone on this board I suggest you get your goddamn facts straight before you do it. I will tear you a new one everytime you illiterate ass.

[Fake Boris]

actually, oncle boris, you're wrong.
nalgene bottles are plastic. throw one off the top of a building at least 150 feet high, with some liquid in it, and it will shatter.
counterexample to your claim. you are therefore wrong. qed.

Forgoing that the guys didn't have any flammable fluid on him, the fact remains that the guy was on the street, not on top of a dungeon, screwing with a princess of something.

So, to the benefit of everyone, I have just tried recreating the environment of the demo to make an empirical experiment. I took a plastic spring water (just like the guy had) bottle filled with fluid, and put a cloth on its end. I went out on the street and tried several things: throwing it as high in the air as I can, hurling it at my feet to the macimum of my force , throwing it forward (just like you would throw a real one on a bunch of policemen).

I did that a few dozen times until my arm and my hand hurt (the temperature was cold). The bottle didn't splatter.
Now I'm sure you're laughing your ass out, because I responded seriously to your useless troll. So be it, I don't mind.

[Nubclear]

Go away fakeboris Lest I sic pinochet on you!!!

[Harry Tuttle]

Troll? I was answering the hate filled thread you started that was pointed directly at me. Is it my fault that you have such a thin skin that you can't take constructive criticism? Where did you come from anyhow? Do you do anything else here besides attack people?

[orange]

Imran, still angry over the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?

Yes, I was hoping for a Communist utopia that would last forever. Damn you and your Pinochet loving friends

Comrade Tassadar and Imran Siddiqui just made my night

[Fake Boris]

Re: Re: What Steinbeck won't tell of Mice and CNN (and Harry Tuttle)

Actually you did try to change the subject. The thread that Sava started and the topic we were all on had nothing to do with the actual issues being discussed at the WTO article. The thread, and article, are about supposed police brutality during the talks.

Yes. And it is the article that YOU posted that had a few line about agricultural subsidies. Now, I won't accuse you of changing the topic, because I really don't mind you posting this CNN article.
My point was to prove the bias of your article, so as to question its objectivity, and thus the veracity of the facts it had brought to the discussion. In fact, I even gave a mini conclusion halfway through my post to resume my argument, which was: "beware! possible bias".
Not only I took the time to say it might be biased, I also took the time to explain WHY. That is not thread hijacking.

That is argument sub-specification, as in there can never be any wrong in specifying the fact necessary to prove the argument that is necessary to bring the fact that is needed to... (and so on).
As a student of philosophy, I had always thought the few minutes the teacher spent on explaining this in basic classes useless. Now I can understand them better.

I used a widely known and middle-of-the-road news source. You used a biased anti-wto article from a webbased magazine. An article that we couldn't even read because you need to subscribe to their website. It is bias. In fact, that is the definition of biased. Are you having a problem understanding the language again???

Now, I didn't claim it wasn't biased. I only defended the necessity to read article from both biases, left and right, to have a better understanding of the facts. "Widely known and middle of the road"? Then what? Pravda was widely known and middle of the road. Goebbels' radio stations were.
In fact, I'd expect a "middle of the road source" to have some bias in the form of commercial imperatives. Not criticizing their owner's interests being the first. Making short, undetailed and analysis lacking stories that are only meant to be resumes being the second. Not being too harsh on advertisers being the third.

Again, you don't have to subscribe to read the leftist article. You just have to watch an ad to get a one-day pass to all of their content. Look better, the option is there.
And still, I wonder why you would believe ideologic incentives to be worse than financial ones. CNN's financial interests, while probably not a sufficient proof to claim they are lying, surely lack the sincerity of the left solidarity drive.

Flammable liquid can be contained in a glass or plastic bottle. Plastic melts when burned and flammable liquid tends to EXPLODE when lit in an enclosed environment. Did you not pass chemistry in high school???

You can read my previous post about my experiments.
Now, please consider that the principle of a Molotov cocktail is that the cloth is lit on the part outside and above of the bottle. Therefore, it won't melt the plastic as the heat goes up. Also, the point of such a rudimentary weapon is not for the fire to light the fluid inside, but rather for the fluid to spread over a surface and/or human, as to burn a building or a person.
In fact, the cloth has to be thightly inserted in the overture of the bottle, thus preventing the fire from passing inside, and also preventing it from being separated from the bottle, when it is thrown, either by the wind or acceleration.
And then, still consider that the person didn't have flammable fluids on him and that he had been drinking water with the bottle.
Take my word for it. Everyone who saw the scene didn't think it could even have happened

Despair???!?!?!?!?! My god, you are a moron! Those people out there live in the greatest country in the world! They have more freedom than any other citizens on Earth! You think they were so distraught that they started BREAKING THINGS!?!?

And the police has been known to protect this so-called freedom.

http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usa_police

By the way, many rankings done by organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the UN place the US behind Canada and most of EU concerning privacy rights, civil liberties, and freedom of speach.
Is the US the greatest country in the world? The most powerful, without question. But it doesn't even rank in the top ten in the UN classification, who sum up such things as wealth, wealth redistribution, justice, education and literacy, etc.

AND NO, democracy is a form of government. Rights and free speech are seperate.

False. The premise behind giving everyone the right to vote is that they are all equal. Which means that you stop being democratic the moment citizens are treated arbitrarily and unfairly (thus in a manner supposing they are unequal). This is plain logical coherency. Democracy also supposes free flow of information, simply because transparency is needed for the people to make their own choice. Denial of free speech is also a denial of this transparency.

Governments are composed of two things:
1. Modus potandi, i.e. the way power is handled
2. Modus operandi, i.e. the conditions needed for this power to be operative in conformity to its premise. (example: you can't call yourself communist if the means of production are privately owned).

And no, I am not illiterate. I'll have to assume your comment about this was some brilliant literary figure beyond my comprehension.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Troll? I was answering the hate filled thread you started that was pointed directly at me. Is it my fault that you have such a thin skin that you can't take constructive criticism? Where did you come from anyhow? Do you do anything else here besides attack people?

I was accusing Q-Cubed of trolling, not you. I even quoted him to show I was replying to him and himself only.

I do take criticism, but I see some fun in mocking people. This does not mean I have not considered your arguments. Some sarcasm here and there has never hurt. And hey, you can even mock me, as long as you do it along with some arguments. Wittiness is also preferable.

Arguments are the meat, the sarcasm is the dessert.



It's easy to get emotional in remote discussions. I'm sure if we met we could be talking quietly in front of a pint of beer.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
It's easy to get emotional in remote discussions..

For the defective, perhaps.