The Wall

[BananaStand]

Let's stop here for a minute.

Do you acknowledge that 'repeatedly citing' is not the same as saying 'this is the only news you ever watch?'

And if you do acknowledge that, then why do you try to equate saying one with saying the other?

OMG fuck off with this hair-splitting nonsense. You know what you said. You know why you said it. You know it was a de-rail. You know it was just you jumping on an opportunity to make a personal attack at me.

What's wrong with 'repeatedly citing' a news outlet anyway? If that was all I ever cited, you might have a point. But I don't. I'm going to ask you again, where is the list of poop-approved sources? What is the limit on Fox News? What % of citations I've used belong to Fox News anyway? What is the limit? Have I exceeded it?

You're obviously keeping score....So....what's the score???

The article reported a statistical fact, without bias, spin, or partisanship. That's all. Rather than address the content of the article you chose to make posts ridiculing the source. And when you're called out on it, you spent the next several posts playing stupid hair-splitting semantics.

How about you just keep your shit on topic and nevermind where I get my news. If I post something you don't agree with, say why. But ridiculing evertything from Fox, just because it's Fox, demonstrates your own echo-chamber ignorance. It also demonstrates that you're an ass hole.

[Poopadoop]

OMG fuck off with this hair-splitting nonsense. You know what you said. You know why you said it. You know it was a de-rail. You know it was just you jumping on an opportunity to make a personal attack at me.

What's wrong with 'repeatedly citing' a news outlet anyway? If that was all I ever cited, you might have a point. But I don't. I'm going to ask you again, where is the list of poop-approved sources? What is the limit on Fox News? What % of citations I've used belong to Fox News anyway? What is the limit? Have I exceeded it?

You're obviously keeping score....So....what's the score???

The article reported a statistical fact, without bias, spin, or partisanship. That's all. Rather than address the content of the article you chose to make posts ridiculing the source. And when you're called out on it, you spent the next several posts playing stupid hair-splitting semantics.

How about you just keep your shit on topic and nevermind where I get my news. If I post something you don't agree with, say way. But ridiculing evertything from Fox just demonstrates your own echo-chamber ignorance. It also demonstrates that you're an ass hole.

Is that a 'yes' to my first question that you misrepresented my comment?

[BananaStand]

Is that a 'yes' to my first question that you misrepresented my comment?

No, I got your meaning loud and clear. Ass hole.

It was obvious that you are butt-hurt by the amount of citations from Fox news that I post. I'll ask you again, for a third time now. What is the limit? What % of my citations are allowed to be from Fox? What % have I actually achieved?

Why does it matter anyway? The article reported a fact. Pointing out where I get my news, or how often I get it from that source, doesn't really affect the facts reported in the article. Its' a petty, ass-hole-ish, ad-hominem attack directed at me, for no reason.

it doesn't matter how you worded it, or what you want to claim you meant after the fact. Any fair minded person can see you're just being a hard-headed troll. We never should have got on this tangent, and we never would have if you could consume information with an open and objective mind. Instead, you didn't even read the content before you took a big steaming dump in this thread, laughing at me for reading Fox.

[Poopadoop]

No, I got your meaning loud and clear. Ass hole.

It was obvious that you are butt-hurt by the amount of citations from Fox news that I post. I'll ask you again, for a third time now. What is the limit? What % of my citations are allowed to be from Fox? What % have I actually achieved?

Why does it matter anyway? The article reported a fact. Pointing out where I get my news, or how often I get it from that source, doesn't really affect the facts reported in the article. Its' a petty, ass-hole-ish, ad-hominem attack directed at me, for no reason.

Sorry I'm not clear on whether that is a 'yes' or a 'no' from you. Did you or did you not misrepresent what I said?

[BananaStand]

Sorry I'm not clear on whether that is a 'yes' or a 'no' from you. Did you or did you not misrepresent what I said?

How are you not clear? the first word of my post was "NO"

Your intentions were clear, and I made no misrepresentation.

[Poopadoop]

How are you not clear? the first word of my post was "NO"

Your intentions were clear, and I made no misrepresentation.

So when someone says something, rather than answer what they actually say, you feel it's within your rights to ascribe some other meaning to their words, and reply to that instead. Is that it?

[BananaStand]

So when someone says something, rather than answer what they actually say, you feel it's within your rights to ascribe some other meaning to their words, and reply to that instead. Is that it?

You can't possibly suggest that your comments were not directed personally at me, solely for the purpose of ridicule, just because I get *some* of my news from a different source than you.

But I guess, I'll play along. So fine, what did you actually say?

If you keep quoting Fox News like it's some respected source of information, you can expect to be called out on it.

You said that ^

Now explain to me how citing a fact, released by an official government agency, and reported accurately, without spin, bias, or partisanship, should result in me 'being called out'. Tell me why posting that link today, was SOOO deserving of your mean-spirited dismissal?