CampusProgress has a review of the conservative documentary, "Indoctrinate U" that is the latest volley from the conservative movement saying "College campuses are liberal and…. SOMETHING!!!!!!".
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Today’s Edition Of Conservative Caterwauling
May 27th, 2007
93 Comments
How many college Professors have been in a classroom with?
I had a Group therapy lecture us for over an hour on why Social security had to be overhauled…
How many college Professors have you been in a classroom with?
I had a Group therapy lecture us for over an hour on why Social security had to be overhauled…
I’ve been in a lecture hall with my fair share of professors. What’s your point? It isn’t the fault of the left that conservatives don’t choose to become educators. More MBA’s are conservatives, you don’t see our side freaking out about that.
I’m afraid you’re even more incoherent than usual this time, Frank. Is your confusing anecdote supposed to show liberal or conservative bias? (I thought overhauling Social Security was a right wing cause, not a left one. Of course, first it’s necessary to convince folks that it is irreparably broken before it can be abolished, as has been the goal of free-market absolutists for over 50 years) And what the hell is a group therapy lecture? Isn’t that a bit too touchy-feely a subject for a hard nosed conservative to be going at?
Rheinhard: I’m studying to be a therapist. Methods of Group Therapy is required. The lecture was a totally inappropriate improv on the evils of privatization, and how we needed a tax increase,etc., etc.
It isn’t the fault of the left that conservatives don’t choose to become educators
That’s just silly. It doesn’t matter if they ARE liberal. It’s what they teach that matters. I took a course in Personnel Psychology (aka Industrial Psychology) where I had to sit through Michael Moore’s first LIE – umentary, “Roger and Me”. The movie was so unbelievable I had to say so to the Professor. He said,”Oh no,it’s all true.”
I did some research and discovered that even Michael Moore admitted that he didn’t mean for it to be factual.
Several Professors tried to sell us the “agent of change” baloney that educators weren’t supposed to just convey knowledge to kids, we were supposed to change society.
Don’t tell me College campuses aren’t overflowing with liberals. There is a mountain of evidence.
Let me use Frank’s Logic(TM) here for a second.
My Economics teacher this past semester was a capitalist. Therefore, all college professers, students, and mascots are all conservative hacks.
Also, Frank, I think it’s a bad idea for a sociopath to become a therapist. Maybe you should look into business administration.
*reads link*
*GASP*NOT MULTICULTURALISM!!! ANYTHING BUT THAT!!!!!!111!111one1!1111!111 Everyone knows that American is the only culture that’s allowed to exist.[/rolleye]
People who study history and economics deeply enough to become college professors quite often do end up with pretty progressive views on the subject.
That could either be because of some dastardly anti-conservative conspiracy, or because conservative views on these issues are bullsh*t.
Occam’s razor.
Wilbur: You’re not seriously suggesting that education, per se makes one tend towards liberalism, are you?
George H. Nash and Russell Kirk would disagree.
Bascially it all comes down to OH NOES PEOPLE HAVE OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS HELP HELP HELP
Big mewling babies.
You’re not seriously suggesting that education, per se makes one tend towards liberalism, are you?
That would be a reasonable inference from observable phenomena. The burden is on you if you have another explanation.
That does not mean, of course, that all highly educated people are liberal, but the trend is there. One or two, or even twenty or thirty exceptions do not invalidate the hypothesis.
fd10801:
You poor dear! I just hope you didn’t get the vapors!
Maybe you should have enrolled in Patrick Henry, Messaih, or Regent University. I heard they’re more centrist (focused on The Truth) institutions of higher learning. Or couldn’t you get in?
Wilbur: I don’t see why the burden of proof is on me. Why? Because you said what you said first?
All that we know is that many college professors are liberal.It might be possible that many people in other professions are smarter, or much smarter, than college professors.
It’s possible that all of those people are conservative.
You have proved nothing.
Because you’re the one making the fuss, that’s why.
Liberal arts professors do tend liberal and left, but the overwhelming majority do teach other points of view and encourage classroom debate. 99% of liberal profs would much prefer to have conservative students in their classes who thoughtfully argue conservative points of view rather than apathetic students who just want a high grade. And the fact that say, an English or history or physics professor is a liberal or leftist will not necessarily have any real effect on his or her teaching. I had a history professor undergrad who was a hardline Communist, but he taught European history in a very traditional way – his syllabus would pass any test made up by Horowitz and company.
Many other departments outside the liberal arts aren’t as diverse ideologically. Economics departments generally teach primarily or exclusively free-market economics and ignore other schools of thought, and that does have a real impact on the way many people think about economic issues:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070611/hayes
Would the same conservatives who want philosophy and sociology departments to have to teach more conservative ideas also want business schools to have to teach labor and environmental issues?
And finally, the issue of the culture wars is really overblown. For 90% of students, college is about careers, sex and partying, and class is just something you do to kill time. As the article suggests, there is no evidence at all that university professors are radicalizing their students. (The Bush administration has done much more to make young people into Democrats than 100,000 leftist professors could ever do.)
“For 90% of students, college is about careers, sex and partying, and class is just something you do to kill time.”
Having lead my share of college discussion sessions while working on my phd I’d have to agree with this statement. Or else they are business or engineering majors in a humanities course and simply don’t care because they’re interests and efforts must be directed elsewhere.
I’m extremely liberal but I am also extremely conscious of how and when I address political issues in my presentations. When I do, I would much rather have students disagree with me, than agree. It’s called an open exchange of ideas which promotes free thinking.
The vast majority of professors i have worked with believe the same. The right loves painting a distorted picture of the world to suit its agenda. This is yet another example.
Oh and Frank, if your prof gave a lecture on the dangers of privatization and you say silently in class, fuming away, or failed to respond in your final paper or whatever, then you failed yourself as a student. Plain and simple.
The right loves painting a distorted picture of the world to suit its agenda. This is yet another example.
Yeah. This campaign should nicely complement the “The Liberal Media/MSM” one that was unfortunately successful. Look for “even the liberal…[insert university here]…says that…” as right wingers do with the SCLM.
Mr Pipeline, we were supposed to comment on every class within a few says of each class. I did so. I informed him that I wasn’t paying good money for a course in the Principles of Group Therapy to learn about Social Security.
Your comment was unnecessary. Plain and simple.
His answer, “I felt you should know about it”.
And I wasn’t fuming.
Mr Pipeline Wilbur), we were supposed to comment on every class within a few days of each class. I did so. I informed him that I wasn’t paying good money for a course in the Principles of Group Therapy to learn about Social Security.
Your comment was unnecessary. Plain and simple.
His answer, “I felt you should know about it”.
And I wasn’t fuming.
“where I had to sit through Michael Moore’s first LIE – umentary”
When you say shit like this, we all laugh at you. It is clear you have zero desire for an intellectually honest debate and you just want to start a fight.
This is probably because you know you can’t win an intellectually honest debate.
Oh, pardon me! I guess I should have said, “We were forced to sit through a film, falsely labeled a documentary, which even the creator acknowledged was fraudulent.”
Who’s that “we”? Editorial or imperial?
….Don’t tell me College campuses aren’t overflowing with liberalsfd10801 1:16:34 AM
Since you’re panties are in such a twist, just go to a Conservative Christian College and quit whining. I’m sure part of that evidence this size of the campus Republican clubs.
The interviews in Roger and Me were accurate, the facts of the case were accurate. He didn’t show the meeting he eventually had with Roger Smith, and so what? Downsizing hurts communities and GM is run by fools. That why they lost to imports.
Mike: The “facts” of the case were not accurate. He was chastised in an interview for “documentary” magazine, for using deceptive editing, and deliberately distorting data. He never denied it — Why would you?
“While is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives”-John Stuart Mill
Frank, take a deep breath and explain to us why your prof screened Roger and Me in a class on industrial psychology and try to explain to us why you objected.
Frank, I never claimed to prove anything, I advanced what seemed to me to be a reasonable hypothesis: That more education tends to make one more liberal.
This hypothesis elegantly explains observable phenomena, such as the fact that college faculty tend to be more liberal than the population at large, and that college graduates voted for Kerry in 2004 in greater percentages than non-college graduates.
Until another explanation comes along that explains these phenomena as elegantly, I’ll go on using this as my working hypothesis.
If you’ve got another explanation I’d be glad to hear it. That’s all I meant by “the burden’s on you”. Since you haven’t offered one, I hypothesize that you haven’t got one.
If you want to criticize my hypothesis further without offering any constructive comments, that is your privilege, but please get it straight:
I am not arguing that more “intelligence” makes one liberal. “Intelligence” is a subjective commodity, whereas years in college and degrees earned are more objectively quantifiable.
Also, I am not arguing that more education always produces a liberal. Clearly a lot of factors go into making a person liberal or conservative. Education is a big one, but it’s not always determinative.
The class was called Personnel Psychology; its former name was Industrial Psychology. It was about the psychology of employment and attendance, work stressors, the Hawthorne effect, and such.
Apparently, “Roger and Me” was a tale or worker displacement, and the general coldheartedness of Corporate America, General Motors in particular.
Some scenes from the film: A TV host, Wink Martindale, I think, was called in to boost morale after the great firings in Flint, MI. A lady was shown selling squirrel meat — the implication was that it was getting more popular because people couldn’t afford traditional meats. A homeless, unemployed man was shot down in the street.
But here’s where the real unreality set in: The employees and ex – employees said things in interviews like they were offered no other opportunities; they were forced to quit without getting their pensions, even thought it seemed they should have been vested. No one mentioned the Union. I repeat — no one mentioned the Union.
I knew something was wrong then. The UAW was one of the most powerful unions in the country. Why wasn’t their action, or inaction mentioned?
So, I said to the Professor, “This can’t be true”.
He said, “Well, it is”.
I said, “If only for their own image, GM would never treat their employees this way. This would have been news all over the country.”
So, I said, “Where was the union in all of this? Where was the government? They bailed out Chrysler.”
The Professor said “Well, it’s true. This really happened.”
Of course, by now, I knew I was getting nowhere, and no one was backing my play. So I more quietly said, “That can’t be right.”
Then the girl behind me made a mistake. She said,in a sarcastic tone of voice, “Why don’t you look it up?”
You know what happened next. It wasn’t easy in the pre personal Internet days, but I did it.
I found news paper articles, articles from Business Week and US News all describing what General Motors did for its employees. For one thing, they were all offered an opportunity to train for and move to, Tennessee to build Saturns. Vested pensions got early retirement. There were other thing that I’ve forgotten. Also, Wink Martindale came to town for a town event well before the firing. The lady selling squirrels was part of a news story about the health hazard of eating squirrel meat — it had nothing to with the firings. Finally, the homeless man shot in the street was mentally ill, and never worked for GM.
But the most incriminating evidence came from an interview in Documentary magazine, where the interviewer upbraided him for deceptive editing (something he continues to do to this day), and presenting misleading data. He said to Moore [I'm paraphrasing]: A documentary maker presents in a graphic way the film that tells his side of the story. You made things up and presented things as true that weren’t true. Ho could you do that?
Moore’s answer: I considered the film to be an editorial. It didn’t have to be factual.
I actually typed up a paper, and called it “Roger and Me, and Michael and Me”, but before I gave it to the teacher, I remembered Bill Wilson’s advice about “Restraint of tongue and pen”, and never gave it to the Professor.
My final term paper was on the various reasons employees tell lies to get out of going to work. Surprisingly, there was very little research on it, so that fascinated me. I got an “A” for the course.
This thread isn’t about Roger and Me and your desperate attempts to find the tiniest of flaws in it. CSS only brought it up to point out that you’re clearly not interested in an honest discussion, to which your response was a sarcastic insult. Again.
Nimrod Gently: I could tell you and CSS to sod off, because this is not your thread. But I won’t do that.
I was asked a question by an unidentified individual, and I thought I should answer it,for reasons I need not explain to you.
You know,now that you’ve all taken to ordering me about, instead of just insulting me, I’m kinda missing the insults.
You know what happened next. It wasn’t easy in the pre personal Internet days, but I did it.
I shudder to think.
Frank, There’s no question that Moore is a propagandist and not a documentary filmmaker. In fact, it’s been known for a while now that the CEO of general Motors, Roger Smith, spoke with Moore at length at a GM shareholders meeting before Moore began shooting the actual doc, a fact that Moore leaves out of the film and which somewhat alters the conceit behind it.
But I don’t think there’s any doubt that the closing of the GM plant in Flint caused considerable trauma, emotional and economic, to the community surrounding it. Workers, even those retrained, were dislocated to new cities as GM sent the work elsewhere. Layoffs and plant closures can be devastating to a community and Moore goesa long way to illustrating that impact.
I think your prof would have done better to screen Barbara Kopple’s American Dream or Harlan COunty USA but you could probably put that down to a lack of film knowledge instead of liberal bias. Right?
At the same time, your failure to challenge the professor in a suitable manner, either in class or in a research paper, totally undermines your suggestion that a rampant liberal bias somehow shuts down debate in class. You disagreed with the screening of the film, did your own research, wrote a paper and then when it came down to it, you self-censored yourself and backed down. Now you want to blame AA for your intellectual cowardice? Nice. You know researching and writing an academic paper in response to a prof. hardly qualifies as “flying off the handfle” or “losing one’s temper.” Unless you mistake rambling screeds academic research, which wouldn’t be out of character, I imagine.
The bottom line is that after spending many years in academia in a liberal arts field of study I have never known a professor to mark down or penalize a student for holding divergent political views. All I’ve ever seen is a desire to engage in open debate and to promote free thinking.
Your example shows that you went so far and then backed down. You yourself shut down the dialogue, Frank. Not the prof.
You’re right, frameone.
I’m tired.
What else is new?
I’m tired.
You’re right, frameone.
What else is new?
Frank, it’s not my fault that you failed yourself as a student .
I said you were right, frameone. Do you really care — have you ever cared — about anything else?
You made your point. I got it. Thank you. Well done. Way to go. Congratulations. Good job. Keep up the good work.
hilarious.
Shorter Frank: Poor, poor victimized me.
In all fairness to you, frameone (not that you have ever shown any to anyone else), if that was my personal failing, then the professor didn’t just show the film out of ignorance — he insisted it was accurate.
He could have suggested that I research the background of the story. If I was hesitant to question him in front of the class — keep in mind that it was my second semester back in school after 30 years — how would you expect an 18- or 19- year old student to react, a year or so out of the stultifying atmosphere of high school?
I may now know that I could have given him the paper, but the point that people concerned with academic bias are making is that professors are not about to make that point clear to their students.
I had a communications professor once who said, “We grow up learning that the person in the front of the room has authority”.
“Oh pardon me”
And you continue to prove my point. You are not here for an intellectually honest debate, you are here to cause trouble so people will attack you so you can continue to believe you are being oppressed because you are a conservative and a Christian.
The Facing Giants episode is perfect proof of that.
The Facing Giants episode is perfect proof of that.
Elaborate, please.
Wow, Frank. Doesn’t Bill Wilson also suggest that personal responsibility is a good thing?
Mr. Pipeline, I am sure I have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect you don’t, either.
And, please, CSS, explain it all to Zython.
Perhaps you could send him an email.
Yeah, Frank, cuz there’s nothing in AA about personal responsibility — it’s all about blaming authority figures for our problems.
Me: The Facing Giants episode is perfect proof of that.
Zython: Elaborate, please.
Frank said Facing Giants got a PG-13 rating because it was a pro-Christian movie. He claimed this was proof that there is an Anti-Christian bias out there.
I said, no It got a PG rating because it featured a contact sport, (football), and sport violence will almost always get you PG or higher.
(There was more to the exchange than that, but you probably don’t care about the minor details.)
Despite the fact that Frank was wrong about the rating and why it got it, he still claimed it was proof that there Christians are being oppressed are they are just one step away from being fed to the lions.
Okay, that last part isn’t 100% accurate, but his delusions of persecution are too irrational to not make fun of. Frank’s persecution complex is the defining characteristic of his personality.
Without this constant feeling of persecution, Frank would… well, I don’t know what Frank would do. Probably be happy, and happiness is the devil’s tool. One must not embrace the Devil’s tool.
Thanks CS. Frank wouldn’t know REAL persecution if it bit him in the face.
Yeah, Frank, cuz there’s nothing in AA about personal responsibility
Could there be anything more hypocritical than hectoring me about personal responsibility (when I did, in fact,make my objections clearly known), while refusing to post even a nickname?
CSS: Okay that last part isn’t 100% accurate = OK, so what I’m saying isn’t true, but let’s pretend it supports my assertion.
I was wrong about the rating, but I was not wrong about why it got it. There was no mention of mild violence
And, to CSS and Zython, I am not the sort of Christian who is, or feels, persecuted, and certainly not for my Christianity, such as it is.
But I know they are persecuted, and they are certainly mocked and and lampooned in the media with astonishing regularity.
That whole comment was 100% accurate, and you two would do well to reconsider your denial of my assertion that I am persecuted. There is scarcely a comment of mine that is not followed by a negative comment of yours (either of you or both). That may not amount to persecution, but it certainly meets the requirements for harassment in my book.
Your translator’s broken.
CSS: Okay that last part isn’t 100% accurate = Okay that last part was exaggerated for comic effect.
“There is scarcely a comment of mine that is not followed by a negative comment of yours (either of you or both).”
Because there’s nothing more out of line than responding to an idiot on a blog with a negative comment.
Mr “I don’t even have the courage to post a nickname”:
I don’t care what you THINK they are doing, they are commenting negatively on every single one of my comments. Then they are saying that I shouldn’t point that out.
You, whoever you are, should crawl up your ass until you see daylight.
Maybe you are part of the problem, ever consider that?
I always look at Horowitz and his whole organization with outrage mixed with contempt.
His premises and standpoints are so ridiculous and disingenuous and manipulative that it always amazes me that anyone takes his points at all seriously.
It’s kind of like someone quoting Rush Limbaugh’s rants in mixed company: Intelligent, informed people shut off and begin to get alarmed that the wingnut might actually want to engage and have a “rational” discussion about irrational assertions and postulations with them, sorta like what Frank, Horowitz, and I’m sure, this stupid movie all have in common.
Nimrod Gently: If I am “part” of the problem, then someone else is also part of the problem. Did you ever think — at all, about anything?
And speaking of not thinking, here’s Wellstone. He doesn’t even know what the movie, the objection to the movie, or even this portion of the thread are about, yet he is sure that I am wrong.
Is that the legendary liberal open – mindedness?
“CSS: Okay that last part isn’t 100% accurate = OK, so what I’m saying isn’t true, but let’s pretend it supports my assertion.”
The lion comment was clearly a joke. I was pointing that out so you wouldn’t take it seriously.
“I was wrong about the rating, but I was not wrong about why it got it.”
How could that be? You made the claim that is got a harsher rating than it did because it was pro-Christian. I’m telling you that there’s is practically no way a film can show a contact sport and not get a PG rating or higher. Radio got PG, Remember the Titans got PG, Invincible got PG, We Are… Marshall for PG, etc. Getting PG for, “thematic elements” is hardly surprising. If it didn’t get a harsher rating than it deserved, it can’t be because it is a pro-Christian movie.
This is part of my job, I know how the system works. And as I pointed out last time, the system has two Christian priests involved. The MPAA doesn’t consult a Rabbi, an Iman, an Secular Progressive, or even an expert on childhood development, but they consult two Christian priests, (one Protestant and one Catholic, for balance).
And yet, Frank still thinks he can use the MPAA as proof the Christians are being persecuted.
“But I know they are persecuted, and they are certainly mocked and and lampooned in the media with astonishing regularity.
…
There is scarcely a comment of mine that is not followed by a negative comment of yours (either of you or both). That may not amount to persecution, but it certainly meets the requirements for harassment in my book. ”
Calling someone stupid when they say something stupid is hardly persecution or harassment. It is cause and effect.
Most moderate Christians will never be mocked for their beliefs, in fact, calling their beliefs a religion will protect them in ways other groups will never get.
On the other hand, morons should be lampooned and mocked, regardless of why they believe the stupid things they believe.
WND had a poll a while ago after a Democrat talked about what Jesus actually said with regards to helping the poor, the evils of wealth, etc. The number one response was, ‘That doesn’t sound like Christianity to me; that sounds like socialism.’ These people deserve to be called morons, and worse.
Frank: “Is that the legendary liberal open – mindedness?”
Nope. Just an educated guess.
History has shown that you are wrong so often, that it is easier, and faster, just to assume you are wrong.
(That was a joke. … Well, partially a joke.)
CSS proclaims from the mountaintop: “I’m telling you that there’s is practically no way a film can show a contact sport and not get a PG rating or higher”
In the link I provided, it says this:
Fix blockquote
Jesus Frank you are such a massive idiot it defies all possibility:
Just because it’s usually done for horror films or something we’re supposed to believe that a religious producer is above the notion of drumming up publicity for his or her film by tweaking the ratings board? Seriously?
The only people on record who say the MPAA gave the rating for religion are the producers themselves. In fact, the controversy started with a carefully worded comment from the company’s VP of Marketing for crying out loud.
Please, Frank, what are you like a 100 years old? Could you please either grow the fuck up or shut the fuck up? idiot.
“I would be wrong all of the time.”
And there you have it. You are.
Why should I believe anything said by two shit heads who are such pussies, they can’t print their FAKE names?
What are you afraid you’ll ruin your reputation?
The second guy is definitely Nimrod. I can tell by the complete lack of originality and immaturity of the post.
The first guy is probably CSS, because he makes pretensions to being so serious and dignified, that he likes to conceal himself when he acts like a real goon.
Now you’re portraying who you really are. Not content to hide behind your keyboard, not content to make your comments in front of others who might disapprove, not content to make your comments without eMials or URLs so you can receive a response, you guys are so spineless, so gutless, so lacking in testicular integrity, such wimps, such pissants, you can’t even print a fake name.
Scumsucking pigs.
And. don’t forget, Oliver,this is all my fault…
Wise words from Lysander Spooner II.
“Why should I believe anything said by two shit heads who are such pussies, they can’t print their FAKE names?”
Because the facts are so unbelievable:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117945711.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
What an idiot.
“… you guys are so spineless, so gutless, so lacking in testicular integrity, such wimps, such pissants, you can’t even print a fake name.”
And yet, here we are again Frank: you’re totally wrong having been played like a sucker by the people you are so adamant about defending.
Can you think of anything more pathetic?
“The first guy is probably CSS,”
Wrong again, Frank.
“Even you admitted that I am right occasionally. ”
“I don’t think anyone has ever said, “You’re right, Frank”.”
How can these both be true? Either I’ve said you were right in the past or I have not. And I have agreed with you in the past.
“According to the MPAA explanation to the distributor of the film”
You know what, I trust my years of experience in the industry, (albeit as a journalists only), over what some marketing department’s attempts to drum up business.
You can talk about religion and get a G rating. Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie did. However, G ratings are very rare. According to our database, there were 479 films playing in theatres last year, only 14 of those got a G rating. (And quite frankly had The Wild not been released by Disney it would have gotten a PG rating.)
And from the Variety story that was posted:
“The filmmakers say they always expected the PG rating — because of discussions about infertility and depression — and they do not plan to appeal the board’s decision.”
They knew they were going to get a PG rating because of what was in the movie.
And…
“Nevertheless, the claims that Christianity is taboo at the MPAA board has led to a flood of more than 15,000 angry emails to the board.”
They used the Christian Persecution Complex as a marketing tool.
Just curious, what did Prince of Egypt get?
CSS; are you on the ratings board?
Prince of Egypt got a PG “for intense depiction of thematic elements.”
Well, that’s enough comments on that issue…
Getting pwned all the time, sux don’t it, Frank? What a doofus.
Mr. Gutless, ballless, Pipeline: Yeah,12 to one odds — I feel so ashamed.
“Just curious, what did Prince of Egypt get?”
PG. I think for Thematic Elements as well.
“CSS; are you on the ratings board?”
Nope. I’m an entertainment journalist. Mostly box office analyst but also do some reviews.
Frank: “Well, that’s enough comments on that issue…”
Really? You don’t want to continue you Sisyphus-like performance?
“Yeah,12 to one odds — I feel so ashamed.”
Maybe if you weren’t wrong so often, more people would be on your side.
Again, further proof you thrive on a persecution complex. The facts of the debate don’t matter, the only think you care about are the number of people ‘attacking’ you.
CSS: What motivates your comments about me, and towards me?
See if you can answer that without blaming me for them. We might all learn something. I have my suspicions, but I want to hear it from you.
Of course, you don’t have to answer the question if you don’t want to.
Can anyone forward a macro to Frank that reads: “poor, POOR me”?
“What motivates your comments about me, and towards me?”
I respond to you because you are an idiot, and I like making fun of idiots.
Seriously though, the reason I respond to your posts is… no wait… that was pretty much the right answer.
On a side note, if I thought you were capable of learning, I would be kinder in my responses, but I’d still respond.
As I thought. You accept no responsibility for your comments.
How mature of you. How like a “journalist”.
Hmm. Can’t seem to respond here.
Don’t even know if this message will get through
Figures. I write a long post and TypePad eats it, I write two lines and it goes through.
Anyhoo, to recap my last post, (the one that’s gone and not the one where I complained about the post not getting through). …
“As I thought. You accept no responsibility for your comments.”
I took responsibility for my posts. If I didn’t like mocking the stupid, I wouldn’t respond to you so much.
However, the nature of my responses depend heavily on your posts. If you say something stupid, I will call you stupid. If you say something smart, I will… well, I’ll probably ignore you and assume you were an imposter.
“How mature of you. How like a ‘journalist’.”
Oh that’s rich. You call me immature and then make some crack about my profession.
I’ll respond in the most mature way I know how; be referencing genitalia.
Penis.
You probably think you’re a clever guy, but you are a pretentious windbag.
And you haven’t answered my question, because most likely, the true answer, would be too embarrassing.
You follow me around pestering me about the most trivial details of my comments. While sometimes you actually do argue against my comment, in most cases, you simply badger me until you can make some unpleasant comment.
And this you claim is your “contribution” to this blog, which is somehow much more valuable than my contribution, which is conflated with defenses against attacks on my school, my religion, my family, my military service, my choice of a major, my sexual preference, my parenting skills. Yes, all of these have been the subjects of other people’s comments about me.
Now, will you tell me why you do what you do, without blaming me, or will you continue to evade and dissemble?
And I have not referred to you by referencing genitalia
“And you haven’t answered my question,”
Yes I did. You just don’t like the answer because it doesn’t fit in with your persecution complex.
“You follow me around”
You mean I read the comments on a public blog. I haven’t, for instance, looked up your name on Google trying to find something embarrassing to use against you.
Excellent evidence of both paranoia and hypocrisy.
“pestering me about the most trivial details of my comments.”
You mean pointing out when you are wrong about major details. Trivial details would be pointing out someone’s typos or their use of foul language.
“And this you claim is your “contribution” to this blog, which is somehow much more valuable than my contribution”
Well, considering you think I spend all of my time reading your posts looking for ways to attack you, I could see why you would be upset. But I don’t do this. I read practically every post Oliver Willis makes. I have posted in threads where you have not made an appearance. I have also completely ignored threads where you were a major participant.
Where and when I post is not dependent on what you do.
(Which adds narcissism to the list.)
“my sexual preference”
Are you referring to the time I made fun of you for thinking Laura Bush was good looking?
“Now, will you tell me why you do what you do, without blaming me, or will you continue to evade and dissemble?”
I have, twice. Do I need to dumb it down for you?
I mock you cause I like mocking stupid people.
“And I have not referred to you by referencing genitalia”
I didn’t refer to you by referencing genitalia. I just referenced genitalia as a show of maturity. And I’ll do it again.
Labia.
Are you referring to the time I made fun of you for thinking Laura Bush was good looking?
Speaking of narcissism, I wasn’t referring to your comments, I was referring to all the types of comments I have received.
I mock you cause I like mocking stupid people.
Bravo.
I just referenced genitalia as a show of maturity. And I’ll do it again.
Res ipse loquitur
Me: “Are you referring to the time I made fun of you for thinking Laura Bush was good looking?”
Frank: “Speaking of narcissism, I wasn’t referring to your comments, I was referring to all the types of comments I have received.”
It wasn’t narcissism, it was an honest question as I’ve never seen anyone attack you for that. (Or parenting skill, for that matter, but I don’t read every thread you are involved in.)
Me: “I mock you cause I like mocking stupid people.”
Frank: “Bravo.”
So it took me saying it three times before you clued it. And you still ignored most of my points.
Congrats.
Me: “I just referenced genitalia as a show of maturity. And I’ll do it again.”
Frank: “Res ipse loquitur”
It’s called humor, specifically irony.
It’s called humor, specifically irony.
Here in America, it’s called “immature”.
And Frank wrote the book so he should know.
Me: “I mock you cause I like mocking stupid people.”
Frank: “Bravo.”
So it took me saying it three times before you clued it. And you still ignored most of my points.
No, actually, Strowbridge, before you run your victory lap, you need to understand that I was asking you “Why?” because I thought you possessed the minimal introspection required to consider why you were so enamored of mockery, instead of blaming those you mocked.
Since you didn’t, I sarcastically congratulated you for your “talent”.
And that wasn’t a crack about being a journalist. I view your profession with contempt. It is a profession that I have seen, in my own lifetime, degenerate from a cadre of men dedicated to uncovering and reporting the truth, to self – obsessed (like you), ideologically driven whores, who will say whatever their pimps direct them to.
I have never read one of your comments that would lead me to believe otherwise.
fd10801 | May 31, 2007 7:16:52 PM
“It is a profession that I have seen degenerate from a cadre of men dedicated to uncovering and reporting the truth, to self – obsessed, ideologically driven whores, who will say whatever their pimps direct them to.”
Hmmmm, where have we seen this in the last 6 years …?
I imagine 6 years is your lifetime, squirrel.
“No, actually, Strowbridge, before you run your victory lap, you need to understand that I was asking you “Why?” because I thought you possessed the minimal introspection required to consider why you were so enamored of mockery, instead of blaming those you mocked.”
You’ve gone to my site, you know why. And if you are asking for more introspection than that, this is the wrong place for it.
It would take years to explain exactly why anyone of us here do what we do.
“It is a profession that I have seen, in my own lifetime, degenerate from a cadre of men dedicated to uncovering and reporting the truth, to self – obsessed (like you), ideologically driven whores, who will say whatever their pimps direct them to.”
I agree, and 90% of the time, those Pimps are the Republican Party.
“I have never read one of your comments that would lead me to believe otherwise.”
Yeah, cause I here as a Journalist. Have you actually checked out my work?
Awww, Fwank. Don’t be a poopie head!
Yeah, cause I here as a Journalist. Have you actually checked out my work?
I assume you have left out the words “am not”. No I have not.
Considering that most “journalists” are liberal, I find it impossible to believe that 90% of the time, it is the Republican Party that is responsible for the degeneration of the press.
Yet more evidence that your comments are reflective of your work.
It would take years to explain exactly why anyone of us here do what we do.
I’m studying to be a therapist. Give it a try.
I’m betting it’s less than 20 questions.
Me: “Yeah, cause I here as a Journalist. Have you actually checked out my work?”
You: “I assume you have left out the words ‘am not’.”
No. I was being sarcastic.
You: “No I have not.”
Why do the research and risk it contradicting your prejudices.
You: “Considering that most “journalists” are liberal, I find it impossible to believe that 90% of the time, it is the Republican Party that is responsible for the degeneration of the press.”
Did you not pay attention to the build up to the Iraq war?
Even if journalists are liberal, the corporations they work for are almost always conservative.
Me: “It would take years to explain exactly why anyone of us here do what we do.”
You: “I’m studying to be a therapist. Give it a try.”
God help your patients.
You: “I’m betting it’s less than 20 questions.”
The you go first.