What about this new twist to the Orlando shooting scenario? The plot seems to twist like a taffy pull every day.

[LeSellers]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think it's fairly obvious. 

And here you are, still.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, LeSellers said:

And here you are, still.

 

You are responding aren't you? 

 I didn't play your game of "I'm not going to let him have the last word, ha ha this proves HE'S the argumentative one!"

[LeSellers]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You are responding aren't you? 

 I didn't play your game of "I'm not going to let him have the last word, ha ha this proves HE'S the argumentative one!"

So, you will argue anything, right?

Pot, meet kettle.

Lehi

 

[Guest MormonGator]

19 hours ago, LeSellers said:

So, you will argue anything, right?

Pot, meet kettle.

 

Wrong-o.   You didn't say that about me until I brought it up about you. Now, just because we aren't on the same page you think "Oh, I'll say that about Gator now." which you are free to do, of course. Remind me of the class bully who is shocked someone finally stood up to him.  

 

And just defending myself against you saying I'll argue about anything hardly means I will argue about anything. What you said was (in your mind) a self justifying comment that has no basis in reality.  I'm not the one constantly getting into arguments here with everyone. 
 

Edited June 19, 2016 by MormonGator

[LeSellers]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Wrong-o.   You didn't say that about me until I brought it up about you. Now, just because we aren't on the same page you think "Oh, I'll say that about Gator now." which you are free to do, of course. 

And just defending myself against you saying I'll argue about anything hardly means I will argue about anything. What you said was (in your mind) a self justifying comment that has no basis in reality. 
 

And here you are, still arguing.

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

19 hours ago, LeSellers said:

And here you are, still arguing.

Lehi

Defending myself. You obviously hit a nerve. Maybe it's just a Gator-LeSellers thing, which it probably is because everyone else is smart enough to ignore us, which we should probably do.  Than again you seem to argue with everyone else here and I don't. So maybe it's a LeSellers thing. 

Edited June 19, 2016 by MormonGator

[LeSellers]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Defending myself.

You imagine I'm doing what, in contrast to your "defending [your]self"?

Lehi

[unixknight]

Guys, the bickering is getting comical. 

The  New York Times is, for better or worse, an immensely influential paper in several ways.  That said, the influence it has these days has diminished both because of competition with "new media" (e.g. Internet blogs, YouTube channels, Facebook, etc.) but also because it isn't well trusted anymore by people on the right wing.  We seem to all agree that the NYT biases left, which suggests that the more to the left an individual is, the more they're likely to trust it.

Shortly after the shooting, the NYT published a coupe of articles.  One of them is highly critical of Trump, accusing him of using the shooting to push his Muslim-ban agenda.

Quote

In a demonstration of his willingness to flout convention and engage in a style of demagogic politics rarely displayed by a presidential nominee, Mr. Trump claimed he had warned of the sort of terrorism that marked the shooting, which killed 50 and was the worst in the country’s history.

On the same day, the same paper praised Obama doing it to push gun control.

Quote

WASHINGTON — The tableau at the White House was chillingly familiar: The somber president, nearing the end of his eight-year term, walked grim-faced to the podium to offer his condolences, promised action in the wake of suffering and pleaded for a new resolve that just might prevent more deaths in a hail of bullets.

Note that both of these articles are from the politics section, and neither is an editorial.

So the bias is clear and obvious, and is sharply left.  This means the NYT has no credibility with people on the Right.  At the same time, it is still influential with those who either share that bias or who read it for its other content, where political bias is either irrelevant or minimal.  Articles on the arts, non-political current events, etc. are still as important as ever, minus the audience lost to New Media.

So IMHO both Gator and LeSellers are correct, depending on what, specifically, you're thinking of, but I think you guys have been talking past each other.

 

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, unixknight said:

I think you guys have been talking past each other.

Here I believe you are wrong. At least, for me, it's not a matter of understanding where MormonGator is saying: I get it. I just think he's wrong.

This started out when he rejected a news story based, not on the facts it presented, but on the site's being biased (to the right, in this case).

The point he disputed was that the site's bias is not the issue, but the facts of the case, i.e., the truth. I don't recall if it was only Brother Brigham, or whether Joseph said it, too, but at least the former said we'd take truth from Satan himself if he offered it. That includes both the Times and Rightwingnews.

Lehi

Edited June 19, 2016 by LeSellers

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

This started out when he rejected a news story based, not on the facts it presented, but on the site's being biased (to the right, in this case).

I can only address the part where you guys were discussing the NYT as an example of bias and use it to illustrate the problem.  I agree that a site's article should be dismissed on the basis of its content and not necessarily its source, but at the same time it is reasonable to be suspicious about the reliability of a source when bias is blatant and obvious. 

If a site tends to be biased it's certainly a simple enough matter to find independent verification (or refutation) though other sources.

[Guest]