Slowly, people ARE starting to realize what Fox and other media outlets are all about... It's time for the News to be News again. 3 part solution: 1. Every channel must provide a 1 hour News program WITHOUT COMMERCIALS. 2. News programs should not be rated by any Ratings system. 3. All News Channels live by the same rules, but are "Pay TV" for revenues as opposed to advertising.
His videos are about what Fox news shows. Not the rest of the media.
Also he is not saying that Fox news does not cover Democrats but they almost always show them in bad lighting are rarely give them the same treatment as republicans. They also misrepresent facts that I, as a conservative, find important to our arguments. They cherry-pick the constitution and for all their "no bias" talk they sure seem biased.
i don't think any network can cover EVERY media event, live and in full. And while this is one that would have been wise to cover, the facts still are: there are only 24 hours in a day.
Yeah I don't think this was very fair. For a news channel to show one party's commentary on something, and then ignore the another party's commentary while claiming it's, for the most part, unimportant (as Brit Hume did) is pretty unprofessional.
I honestly believe that this wouldnt be aa much of a problem, if they didnt say that they are unbiased. Has Jon Stewart or the Daily Show ever made that claim? It's easy to see the bias on both stations for their respective parties, but I hate the fact that Fox is basically lying to people by saying that they aren't biased.
I think it's pretty obvious that their view is that the rest of the media is completely biased towards the democrats, and their "balance" is to balance the scale back towards the republicans.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
ok maybe we fox news listeners should turn on msnbc to get fair and balanced news lol give me feeeking break you people need to get a life if you dont like it turn it off
@ratutevita anyone who claims there is an unbiased major news network anywhere in the world is a numb nuts. even al jazeera and RT are biased...its the degree to which they are biased that is important.
are you kidding me, im not questioning LiberalViewer, im talking about the dude that commented below me( the reply button doesnt work the way it sould ).
to make it simple my comment is for: "WheelManProductions"
but if any chance you were defending WheelManProductions i guess i will grow a brain, and stay clear of hate filled people like you, WheelManProductions, and right wing extremist.
well who wants to hear a bunch of bleeding heart liberals talk about their shitty opinions. how bout this, president bush pass a law that rejects and vetos the 1st ammendment to all democrats so next time they wanna say something we can just shoot em, hang em, drown em, or my favorite put them on fire. i have been praying for some one to just come along and kill that mega cunt pelosi and someone stab that fucking queer wo always follows her around all u liberals can kiss my bony irish ass!
Fox news is well known to be bias. I am from Canada and i can see it badly. I feel very sorry for people who just watch fox news everyday and think they are getting the news. That is sad.
We can't stand it because they constantly claim to be balanced.
And what's with the "don't watch it" argument? I don't approve of child molestation, so I don't do it. But heck if I'll sit by and let other people get away with it. What Fox is doing isn't as serious, but it's the same basic deal.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Again, I've never heard a liberal say anything about how bias MSNBC is. With the slight exception of Joe Scarborough, MSNBC is nothing but an infomercial for DNC politics. It is pathetic.
At least Fox News will put liberals on the air. There is no conservative voice on MSNBC whatsoever.
Typical liberal comparing Fox News to a child molester. That is just pathetic. Guess you are one of the ones that would sit during the Pledge of Allegiance as well. People like you are slowly destroying America.
I like how you think you can address my patriotism with your only knowledge of me being a comment on YouTube...
I agree, the child molester comparison was in bad taste. Sorry. But my point is that bad journalism will continue to be bad journalism if it isn't criticized. This video is about Fox News, so that's what I comment on. I can't say I know much about MSNBC, but if it has the same problem then so be it. Make videos about it like Liberal Viewer did if you think it needs to be debated.
You just admitted there is a republican on MSNBC...then you say there is no conservative voice on their network whatsoever...make up your mind. Fox is just as biased as MSNBC, every single one of fox's opinion show hosts is either far right or center right. Seriously, you think Fox is really fair as far as promoting liberal viewpoints?
Although MSNBC has a slight slant FOX is outright biased.I spend a lot of time in Europe due to my work&am shocked at somehting NONE of the news channels are talking about.SWEDEN has voluntarily taken in more Iraqi refugees than the US and UK combined.These people have been displaced frm their homes and SWEDEN has come to their rescue.FOX NEws talks of liberal Swedens pblm w/islamic immgrnts yet fails to mention how the US is responsible for the influx.Thankgod for Scandinavian freedom&morals
This video is a silly waste of time. Of course Fox News is biased towards conservatives, as is MSNBC towards liberals. Since Brit Hume's show and Kieth Olbermans show are not so much news, but opinion based, folks will watch what works for them. But, as for ABC, NBC, and CBS sending their anchors on an overseas trip with Obama yet hardly recognize McCains overseas trips......that does not pass the smell test for bias in NEWS programming.
MGEFANTOM, I fully agree I also consider myself very liberal but I believe the press must be neutral, not saying the people themselves must be neutral but not to show their belief when reporting people must hear the full story and decide for themselves
I consider myself fairly liberal, and I absolutely hate Keith Olberman, for the specific reason that he is so overtly biased. It's not good enough to have incredibly biased journalists on both sides. We have to demand unbiased, objective reporting from ALL journalists.
theboringdispatcher wrote: "right on fuck fox news"
You know, I had forgotten Roger had even commented on this video. I wish I would have responded back then. I really do miss Roger as strange as that may seem
you can look at a fight from many different point of views. But, its only at the end, that you can understand the performance. For the result speaks lounder than words. If palestine is at peace before the end of goerge w bush mendate as he said the palestine people will remember Goerge w Bush and 80 pourcent of all world press will loose the right to press. Does Bush KNOW Israel occupies Palestine? does bush Know anything about texas ? God Bless men kind.
Liberal Viewer: FOX is biased, no question about it. However, the fact is people wanna hear what they wanna hear. FOX took advantage of a lucrative opportunity: the right wing demographic. Their identity as a "right wing" network is strictly their domain. As long as the ratings keep thriving, FOX is gonna do what they gotta do.
I was auto-subscribed to LV after I started posting comments on several of his videos. And I only posted comments because I noticed the same flawed logic on many of his videos.
Youre the first person I've ever seen claim they were "auto-subscribed" to a channel on YouTube! LOL! I even thanked you for the subscription after you subscribed!
"Youre the first person I've ever seen claim they were 'auto-subscribed' to a channel on YouTube!"
Well, it's true. I commented on a few of your videos, and now I get email notifications when you post a new video. But no, I never specifically subscribed to your videos.
I guess you must be the special target of some YouTube conspiracy to get you to watch my videos that's never affected anyone else. LOL! Feel free to unsubscribe from my videos if u don't enjoy watching them.
Liberal Viewer: I understand your whole position that FOX is bias, which is near cliche at this point. But if you look at it closer, the "fair and balanced" slogan refers to equal coverage, not so much opinion. For example, FOX will cover the Democratic primaries and analyze it as much as the Repubicans.
(continued)...they follow up with the "You Decide" slogan because any person with a brain will realize FOX is opinionated towards the right, and they should be able sift through it. This is integral in forming your own opinion. Since you're obviously a Liberal, what would you be without the Conservative demographic? Would you be proud of who you are if Conservatives and their flaunting TV programs weren't there? FOX is more of a blessing than you think.
Fox does edit, but it's not just domocrats edited. They edit anybody that does not agree with the neocon agenda. They edit RON PAUL, the only honest republican. The democrats will not help us. By the way fox is supporting hillary now because Ron Paul is the best republican and they cant hide it any more. fox can't have that.
The fuckin proof is shown again and again.. get your fucking head out of your ass abates17. You are a joke to yourself. Stop embarrasing yourself, do us all a big favor and just dont comment.. but it is your right so i do respect that.
anyone with their head unjammed from their asses already know that fox is a single sided propaganda channel. again and again they manipulate and exclude facts to bend the viewers understanding of any given situation. strategically using words and video.
But if you want to watch it, feel free. Just understand what it is. a propaganda channel.
If FOX didn't adopt the "fair and balanced" slogan for themselves, nobody would think to apply either of those words to describe their "news coverage."
Several posters (including me) have pointed out this grammar arg is silly, but abates says it's important to him "demonstrating that LV in unable to concede that he is wrong about anything, even something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
I showed abates times I admitted I'm wrong, but he keeps up the grammar arg w/o ever showing I did anything "demonstrably false."
When I have time, I clean up his falsehoods with the truth
Yet, youve been keeping up this attempt to show I made a grammar error for weeks (months?) and have yet to DEMONSTRATE what u claimed was "something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
Can you really blame me for for applying the sentiment "who cares?" to such a protracted, failed attempt to show I made a grammar error?
You did that yourself, when you cited the results of numerous Google searches, and didn't realize that the search results did not support your usage...over, and over, and over again.
Refusing to accept my Google searches only saves you from admitting you are wrong. You still have yet to DEMONSTRATE what u claimed was "something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
If its "demonstrably false" shouldn't u be able to DEMONSTRATE it?
Again, refusing to accept my Google searches only saves you from admitting you are wrong. You still have yet to DEMONSTRATE what u claimed was "something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
If its "demonstrably false" shouldn't u be able to DEMONSTRATE it?
"refusing to accept my Google searches only saves you from admitting you are wrong"
I already showed how your other Google searches are inaccurate, and now you won't quote another one because you're afraid I will do it again. Let me know when you're ready to cut and paste an actual sentence that supports your usage.
Again, refusing to accept my Google searches only saves you from admitting you are wrong by refusing to accept what I demonstrated. You still have yet to DEMONSTRATE anything, never mind what u claimed was "something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
If its "demonstrably false" shouldn't u be able to DEMONSTRATE it?
Your Google searches were wrong. I showed where they were wrong. I refuse to accept false evidence. When you are ready to quote a Google search that supports your usage, let me know. Otherwise, just say, "I am unwilling to quote a single sentence that will support my point," then everyone will recognize how little you care about defending your statement.
Whatever you think of what I have demonstrated does not affect YOUR failure to DEMONSTRATE anything, never mind what u claimed was "something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
If its "demonstrably false" shouldn't u be able to DEMONSTRATE it?
"Whatever you think of what I have demonstrated does not affect YOUR failure to DEMONSTRATE anything"
Yes, it does. Your complete inability to provide multiple cases supporting your usage shows that you are incorrect. I demonstrated it by pointing out that your usage is not supported by Google searches. You are wrong. Let it go.
To DEMONSTRATE something would require YOU providing evidence and u cannot use your refusal to accept evidence found by someone u claim is an "Idiot" to prove anything. Thus, u have yet to DEMONSTRATE anything, never mind what u claimed was "something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
If its so obvious my usage of the word "multiply" was "demonstrably false," why don't u have the expertise to DEMONSTRATE it?
Refusing to accept evidence does not DEMONSTRATE anything about grammar. Thus, u have yet to DEMONSTRATE anything, never mind what u claimed was "something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
If its so obvious my usage of the word "multiply" was "demonstrably false," why don't u have the expertise to DEMONSTRATE it?
Again, to DEMONSTRATE something requires YOU providing evidence and u cannot use your own refusal to accept evidence found by someone u claim is an "Idiot" to prove anything. Thus, u have yet to DEMONSTRATE anything, never mind what u claimed was "something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
If its so obvious my usage of the adverb "multiply" was "demonstrably false," why don't u have the expertise to DEMONSTRATE it?
The results of your research are dispositive because you have been unable to find multiple instances that support your usage. The inability to support your own argument does not contradict the claim that you are an idiot.
And sorry, but you have disrespected me for a long time, by cutting and pasting your same arguments without reading my responses. That is more disrespectful that one name that I called you months ago.
U cannot say someone's supposed inability to find something is dispositive proof that thing does not exist while also claiming that person is an "Idiot."
Do u see you how youve contradicted yourself again, Andy?
"U cannot say someone's supposed inability to find something is dispositive proof that thing does not exist while also claiming that person is an 'Idiot.'"
Yes, I can. The "idiot" comment was related to one argument, not a blanket dismissal of your abilities to find things.
"Do u see you how youve contradicted yourself again, Andy?"
I see that you keep jumping to arguments about "dispositive proof" to hide your inability to find multiple examples that prove your usage.
You did not call my ARGUMENT "idiotic" or qualify your statement in any way so, as Ive pointed, your disrespect for me in calling me an "Idiot" has precluded you from making an argument based on the authoritativeness of my search results
Again, You did not call an ARGUMENT I made "idiotic" you merely called me an "Idiot," so your statement was not qualified in any way. But, I appreciate that you are now arguing that you did not really mean it.
Again, you demonstrate a blatant misunderstanding of the English language. As I just said (and you ignored), my statement followed a refutation of your argument, so it was qualified in that way. And yes, I did mean it: You were (and are) an idiot for making that argument.
Now, are you so much of an idiot that I can't rely on your search results? Please let me know.
Again, You did not call an ARGUMENT I made "idiotic" or even respond to any argument I made, You merely made a sarcastic comment followed by the one word sentence, "Idiot," so your statement was not qualified in any way. But, again, I am pleased you now feel it necessary to argue that you did not really mean it.
Again: I accept your apology! This is great progress!
AGAIN, You did not call an ARGUMENT I made "idiotic" or EVEN RESPOND TO ANY ARGUMENT I MADE. You merely made a sarcastic comment followed by the one word sentence, "Idiot," so your statement was not qualified in any way. But, again, I am pleased you now feel it necessary to argue that you did not really mean it.
AGAIN: I accept your apology! This is great progress!
You did not respond to an argument implied by my video, but merely made a sarcastic comment followed by the one word sentence, "Idiot," so your statement was not qualified in any way. I am pleased,however, you now feel the need to make qualifications and argue that you did not really mean what you posted. That's real progress!
Wow, five posts in a row where you ignore my response and simply paste the same idiotic statements over and over again. Is that a record for you? Somehow I doubt it. Let me know when you learn to read.
I did not ignore your response, but, instead, pointed out u were mistaken to claim u were responding to an argument implied by my video when u called me an "Idiot." In fact, u merely made a sarcastic comment followed by the one word sentence, "Idiot," so your statement was not qualified in any way. I am pleased, however, you now feel the need to make qualifications and argue that you did not really mean what you posted.
"u were mistaken to claim u were responding to an argument implied by my video when u called me an "Idiot.""
Really? I am mistaken about what I meant when I responded? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. I know what I said, and why I said it; I am not responsible for your inability to comprehend language.
"you did not really mean what you posted."
It's amazing that you can completely ignore a direct statement, and post things like this. You're just making yourself look like an idiot.
Again, Ive repeatedly pointed out that the question I asked in that video did not imply any argument, so u were mistaken to claim u were responding to an argument implied by my video when u made your sarcastic comment. And, your one word sentence "Idiot," was not qualified in any way. I am pleased, however, you now feel the need to make qualifications and argue that you did not really mean what you posted.
What u wrote does not change my question into an argument, so u were mistaken to claim u were responding to an argument implied by my question when u made your sarcastic comment. And, your one word sentence "Idiot," was not qualified in any way. I am pleased, however, you now feel the need to make qualifications and argue that you did not really mean what you posted.
I'm bored with this. I'm glad that most liberals are more intelligent than you; with them, I can at least get a decent argument. Your arguments depend on mindless repetition, and ignoring all responses. Let me know when you come up with something original. I'll take any cut-and-paste responses as admission that you can't.
For example, u never explained how the question in my video implied any particular argument, so u were mistaken to claim u were responding to an argument implied by my question when u made your sarcastic comment. And, your one word sentence "Idiot," was not qualified in any way. I am pleased, however, u now feel the need to argue that you did not really mean what you posted.
"u never explained how the question in my video implied any particular argument,"
I don't have to. Even if (as you claim) the video never implied a particular argument, that does not disprove the fact that I was responding to it. So again (and please try to READ this time), my statement was qualified, and I meant what I said.
So back to the topic: Are your search results authoritative, or not?
And by the way, if you are unable to recognize that I meant my previous statement (even after I repeated it eight times), then you really are an idiot.
I'm sorry to hear u are withdrawing your apology and that u are back to affirming your unqualified claim that I am an "Idiot" as u posted on my video titled "Did Pixar Rip Off Pee Wee?" It's a very poor arguing technique as u can see now that it precludes u from depending on me as "authoritative" in making your argument. And, I thought u were making such progress :-( Still,
If u want to accept my searchresults as authoritative that's fine, tho, as I recall, u weren't accepting my search results at all. My point is that u cannot make a sarcastic comment followed by the one word sentence "Idiot" and claim u were attacking an argument not a person. I was pleased u felt the need to try to soften your namecalling which was the point of the apology joke. You should just apologize, but that's for your benefit. I'm just trying to help
"I was pleased u felt the need to try to soften your namecalling"
My "namecalling" was always in context; all I have done is help you understand the context that was there all along. I never understood why you were so personally wounded by that comment in the first place. Perhaps a better understanding of context will help you in the future.
If u want to claim that calling someone an "Idiot" is not a personal attack, that's your problem. I've tried to be nice and help u with your problem b/c, as I explained, it seems more important to me than the grammar error youve been trying to prove I made these many months(another symptom of the same problem?). And, as I said, if you want to accept the authoritativeness of my search results, you first need to actually accept my search results.
You skipped over and did not address important parts of my post. As I explained, if u want to claim calling someone an "Idiot" is not a personal attack, that's your problem. I've tried to help u with your problem b/c, as I explained, it seems more important to me than the grammar error youve been trying to prove I made these many months. And, again, if u want to accept the authoritativeness of my search results, u first need to actually accept my search results.
Nothing about the context changes calling someone an "idiot" into something other than a personal attack, nor does your unwillingness to accept evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches make that evidence go away or prove in any way that I made a grammar error using the word "multiply" as an adverb but not a submodifier. So, u DID attack me personally and did NOT show I made a grammar error
I only "cut-and-paste arguments" u fail to address like these:
1. Nothing about your context changed calling me an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack, and
2. Your unwillingness to accept evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesnt make that evidence go away or prove that I made a grammar error using the word "multiply" as an adverb but not a submodifier.
1. AGAIN, questioning my ability to "comprehend English" doesn't change calling me an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack, and
2. AGAIN, your unwillingness to accept evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesnt make that evidence go away or prove that I made a grammar error using THIS word ("multiply") as an adverb but not a submodifier.
"AGAIN, questioning my ability to 'comprehend English' doesn't change calling me an 'Idiot' into something other than a personal attack"
It explains your inability to understand the statement in context. Again, I'm sorry your feelings were hurt because you didn't understand what I wrote.
You didn't hurt my feelings (the personal attack is your problem, not mine) and I DO understand that:
1. Nothing about your context changed calling me an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack, and
2. Your unwillingness to accept evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesnt make that evidence go away or prove that I made a grammar error using the word "multiply" as an adverb but not a submodifier.
And yet you keep harping about that one word, over and over again for months now. You act like someone who has been deeply hurt.
Since I made the comment, and since I know the context in which it was made, I can tell you that it was not a personal attack, and nothing you can say will change that. Your continued protestations to the contrary are just ignorance.
Again, your inaccurate analysis of my feelings aside:
1. Nothing about your context changed calling me an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack, and
2. Your unwillingness to accept evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesnt make that evidence go away or prove that I made a grammar error using the word "multiply" as an adverb but not a submodifier.
As you keep cutting and pasting your claims without any new information, I will just cut and paste my response:
Since I made the comment, and since I know the context in which it was made, I can tell you that it was not a personal attack, and nothing you can say will change that. Your continued protestations to the contrary are just ignorance.
I am only "cutting and pasting" arguments u fail to address like these:
1. Nothing about your context changed calling me an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack, and
2. Your unwillingness to accept evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesnt make that evidence go away or prove that I made a grammar error using the word "multiply" as an adverb but not a submodifier.
I am not ignoring your response, I am just pointing out that your responses fail to address my points that:
1. Nothing about your context changed calling me an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack, and
2. Your unwillingness to accept evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesnt make that evidence go away or prove that I made a grammar error using the word "multiply" as an adverb but not a submodifier.
I made the statement, and I can confirm that it was completely in context, and not a personal attack. Nothing you can say will refute that.
"Your unwillingness to accept evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches"
You have not shown a dictionary definition that says "multiply" can be used to modify a verb. Your Google searches have also not shown that. When you find one that does, let me know.
Of course I didn't! Your repeated, desperate requests for an apology prove that your feelings really weren't hurt. It's been how many months now, and you still refuse to let this go? Yep, no emotional issues there.
Inability to comprehend context is your problem, not mine.
"And, as I said, if you want to accept the authoritativeness of my search results, you first need to actually accept my search results."
You have to play these little word games to hide your inability to find multiple Google searches that corroborate your usage of the word "multiply." Like I said, if you have evidence, you would have presented it by now.
1. Saying the statement was "completely in context" does not explain how calling someone an "Idiot" is not a personal attack
2. Denying I gave u evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesnt make that evidence go away or prove that I made a grammar error using the word "multiply" as an adverb but not a submodifier. Remember, in addition to what I posted, U were the one who claimed you were going to demonstrate I made an error but u never did.
"does not explain how calling someone an 'Idiot' is not a personal attack"
I can't explain it any more clearly. You may want to print out this discussion and show your English teacher. Maybe she can help you with the difficult concepts.
"doesnt make that evidence go away"
I refuted that "evidence" you provided, and then you refused to provide any more.
"you were going to demonstrate I made an error"
I did, by pointing out your inability to quote multiple examples supporting your usage.
You "can't explain it any more clearly" b/c it is nonsensical to claim that calling someone an "Idiot" is not a personal attack.
And, not only did I provide u multiple examples supporting my usage (and a dictionary), what I do or do not provide does not demonstrate the grammar error u claimed u would demonstrate.
1. Referring to the "context" does not change calling someone an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack
2. Denying I gave u evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesn't make that evidence go away or prove that I made a grammar error using the word "multiply" as an adverb but not a submodifier. Remember, regardless of what I posted, YOU were the one who claimed you were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did.
1. Referring to "context" does not change calling someone an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack
2. Pretending the evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesn't show "multiply" can be used to modify a verb doesn't make that evidence go away and, of course, regardless of what I posted, YOU were the one who claimed you were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did.
"doesn't show 'multiply' can be used to modify a verb"
They didn't. You kept citing examples where you thought "multiply" was being used as an adverb, when it was really a verb or a noun, or you thought it was modifying a verb, when it was actually modifying an adjective. Your mistaken attempts at evidence demonstrate your incorrect usage of the word.
Saying that context "is always relevant" does not change calling someone an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack
2. Pretending the evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesn't show "multiply" can be used to modify a verb doesn't make that evidence go away and, of course, regardless of what I posted, YOU were the one who claimed you were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did.
1. You still fail to admit the simple fact that calling me an "Idiot" was a personal attack
2. Pretending the evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches did not show multiple examples supporting my usage doesn't make that evidence go away and, of course, regardless of what I posted, YOU were the one who claimed you were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did. Where is YOUR evidence?
"You still fail to admit the simple fact that calling me an 'Idiot' was a personal attack"
Because it wasn't.
"doesn't make that evidence go away"
Great: go back and find that "evidence" and quote it here. If it really proves your case, I'm sure you can quote numerous examples supporting your usage. And if you can't, then that proves my point.
"Where is YOUR evidence?"
Exhibit A: your continued refusal to quote examples supporting your usage.
1. Saying "it wasn't" does not change calling someone an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack
2. Pretending the evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches I multiply quoted for u doesn't make that evidence go away and, of course, regardless of what I posted, YOU were the one who claimed you were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did.
I only "cut-and-paste" arguments u fail to address like:
1. Saying "it wasn't" does not change calling someone an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack
2. Ignoring the existence of the evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches I MULTIPLY QUOTED for u doesn't make that evidence go away and, of course, regardless of what I posted, YOU were the one who claimed you were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did.
1. Saying "it wasn't" does not address my point that calling someone an "Idiot" is a personal attack
2. Ignoring the existence of the evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches I MULTIPLY QUOTED for u doesn't make that evidence go away and, of course, regardless of what I posted, YOU were the one who claimed YOU were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did. Where's YOUR evidence?
I already addressed that point: You have to look at the context of the statement, and the intention of the person saying it. But whatever I say, you just mindlessly paste in "does not address my point..."
"evidence from the dictionary"
Not all adverbs can modify verbs. Can you refute that? Didn't think so.
"Where's YOUR evidence?"
The fact that you won't quote searches that support your usage. Every post you make just makes that evidence stronger.
1. Saying u didn't intend to call me an "Idiot" and referring to "the context" does not change calling me an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack
2. Ignoring the evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches I MULTIPLY QUOTED IN THE COMMENT SECTION OF THIS VIDEO doesn't make that evidence go away and, of course, REGARDLESS OF WHAT I POSTED, YOU were the one who claimed you would demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did.
And as I said before, "you take what I said, paste 'does not change...' to the end of it, and call that a counter-argument." That's just blind contradiction, not intelligent argument.
"I MULTIPLY QUOTED IN THE COMMENT SECTION OF THIS VIDEO"
Already read and refuted them. Care to post them again to support your argument? Of course not, because you're afraid of getting shot down again.
1. I am not engaging in "blind contradiction," but, rather, I am holding u accountable for failing to address my point that calling me an "Idiot" was a personal attack
2. Claiming u refuted the unrefuted evidence from the dictionary and google searches I MULTIPLY QUOTED doesn't make that evidence go away and, of course, REGARDLESS OF WHAT I POST, YOU were the one who claimed YOU were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did. Where's your evidence?
1. I didn't "ignore" your responses, but, rather, pointed out those responses failed to address my point that calling me an "Idiot" was a personal attack
2. I never claimed "all adverbs can modify verbs," but rather, I pointed to a dictionary and a variety of google searches showing the word "multiply" can be used an adverb but not a submodifier. Remember, regardless of what I post, YOU claimed YOU would demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did.
"I didn't 'ignore' your responses, but, rather, pointed out those responses failed to address my point"
Rote denial is not "pointing out" anything.
"I never claimed 'all adverbs can modify verbs,' but rather, I pointed to a dictionary and a variety of google searches showing the word 'multiply' can be used an adverb"
Great. Show me a dictionary entry that says "multiply" can modify a verb.
1. I'm glad u realize your "rote denial" doesn't address that calling me an "Idiot" was a personal attack
2. I already pointed to a dictionary saying the adverb "multiply" is used "often as submodifier" and many google searches showing "multiply" can be used as an adverb but not a submodifier. But, remember, REGARDLESS OF WHAT I POST, YOU claimed YOU would demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did. Why ask ME to show it when YOU have shown no evidence?
This has been flagged as spam show
Slowly, people ARE starting to realize what Fox and other media outlets are all about... It's time for the News to be News again. 3 part solution: 1. Every channel must provide a 1 hour News program WITHOUT COMMERCIALS. 2. News programs should not be rated by any Ratings system. 3. All News Channels live by the same rules, but are "Pay TV" for revenues as opposed to advertising.
Bawbster1 7 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
This dude is just a whinny bitch. Look at how the media was all over Obama and not McCain... how about that?
Your argument is pointless.
rosevillelax 2 years ago
His videos are about what Fox news shows. Not the rest of the media.
Also he is not saying that Fox news does not cover Democrats but they almost always show them in bad lighting are rarely give them the same treatment as republicans. They also misrepresent facts that I, as a conservative, find important to our arguments. They cherry-pick the constitution and for all their "no bias" talk they sure seem biased.
frostedpornflakes 1 year ago
i don't think any network can cover EVERY media event, live and in full. And while this is one that would have been wise to cover, the facts still are: there are only 24 hours in a day.
jonathanspilger 2 years ago
Yeah I don't think this was very fair. For a news channel to show one party's commentary on something, and then ignore the another party's commentary while claiming it's, for the most part, unimportant (as Brit Hume did) is pretty unprofessional.
HipHopRyan 2 years ago
Don't forget to rate =p
lotsagrapes 2 years ago
I honestly believe that this wouldnt be aa much of a problem, if they didnt say that they are unbiased. Has Jon Stewart or the Daily Show ever made that claim? It's easy to see the bias on both stations for their respective parties, but I hate the fact that Fox is basically lying to people by saying that they aren't biased.
1stpersonshooter 2 years ago
help me ! I need to impeach SCOTUS
davisfleetwood 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rock and Roll the meaning:
1) REACT
2) MARRIAGE then COMFORT RANK
(instant money printing, laugh prints instant, prof kid, bit0h, 3000 days celibate, no guilt by association, cherry)
ans:safe engineering (maple graphing) use functions for distirbution.
KristinaBrooker 2 years ago
Faux News covers for its favorite draft-dodger George W. Bush.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
I think it's pretty obvious that their view is that the rest of the media is completely biased towards the democrats, and their "balance" is to balance the scale back towards the republicans.
jgoemat 2 years ago
how come people who love war never talk about catching bin laden?
akvalues 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ok maybe we fox news listeners should turn on msnbc to get fair and balanced news lol give me feeeking break you people need to get a life if you dont like it turn it off
vinoGCPS 3 years ago
The point is that NEITHER are real news.
Wujenli 2 years ago
lol
GorillaCrypt 2 years ago
how is this promoting msnbc?
akvalues 2 years ago
yes there still are people who wouldnt admit fox is bias....they are called numb nuts
ratutevita 3 years ago 15
Or the asshole named, "CrushallDemocrats" who loves sending me hate mail and I'm a moderate lol...
RunandGunPictures 3 years ago
@ratutevita anyone who claims there is an unbiased major news network anywhere in the world is a numb nuts. even al jazeera and RT are biased...its the degree to which they are biased that is important.
ProductionMarx 1 month ago in playlist Fox News Bias in Its Video Editing
i=hey i'm from canada to and I agree it's crap
thedammend 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A good Liberal is an arrested one
gopconservative78 3 years ago
isnt it ironic how some people here say dont watch what you dont want yet there here watching things the dont agree on
sad....just sad
islakid 3 years ago
islakid, he is investigating the F News channel. Thats why. Surprised you can't even fathom that. Grow some brain.
humpala 3 years ago
are you kidding me, im not questioning LiberalViewer, im talking about the dude that commented below me( the reply button doesnt work the way it sould ).
to make it simple my comment is for: "WheelManProductions"
but if any chance you were defending WheelManProductions i guess i will grow a brain, and stay clear of hate filled people like you, WheelManProductions, and right wing extremist.
islakid 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well who wants to hear a bunch of bleeding heart liberals talk about their shitty opinions. how bout this, president bush pass a law that rejects and vetos the 1st ammendment to all democrats so next time they wanna say something we can just shoot em, hang em, drown em, or my favorite put them on fire. i have been praying for some one to just come along and kill that mega cunt pelosi and someone stab that fucking queer wo always follows her around all u liberals can kiss my bony irish ass!
WheelManProductions 3 years ago
Fox news is well known to be bias. I am from Canada and i can see it badly. I feel very sorry for people who just watch fox news everyday and think they are getting the news. That is sad.
madmercenary 3 years ago 14
News networks should not bias either way, but i think fox takes the cake for the most biased reporting
celloplower 3 years ago
Who gives a sh*t.
If you don't like Fox News, don't watch it.
Fox is not any more bias to Republicans than MSNBC is to Democrats, you just can't stand it because Fox News actually gets good ratings.
bridgeproductions 3 years ago
We can't stand it because they constantly claim to be balanced.
And what's with the "don't watch it" argument? I don't approve of child molestation, so I don't do it. But heck if I'll sit by and let other people get away with it. What Fox is doing isn't as serious, but it's the same basic deal.
vegy08b06 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Again, I've never heard a liberal say anything about how bias MSNBC is. With the slight exception of Joe Scarborough, MSNBC is nothing but an infomercial for DNC politics. It is pathetic.
At least Fox News will put liberals on the air. There is no conservative voice on MSNBC whatsoever.
Typical liberal comparing Fox News to a child molester. That is just pathetic. Guess you are one of the ones that would sit during the Pledge of Allegiance as well. People like you are slowly destroying America.
bridgeproductions 2 years ago
I like how you think you can address my patriotism with your only knowledge of me being a comment on YouTube...
I agree, the child molester comparison was in bad taste. Sorry. But my point is that bad journalism will continue to be bad journalism if it isn't criticized. This video is about Fox News, so that's what I comment on. I can't say I know much about MSNBC, but if it has the same problem then so be it. Make videos about it like Liberal Viewer did if you think it needs to be debated.
vegy08b06 2 years ago
So.
You hate people who sit during the pledge of allegiance?
Well, let's see who you also hate:
Muslims
Atheists
Agnostics
Hindus
and people who believe Church should be seperated from State.
Hm.
SingleShotStudios 2 years ago 2
Really? Absolutely no conservatives on MSNBC? Well, Put Buchanan being a liberal sure is news to me. Smh!
bsnowman 2 years ago
You just admitted there is a republican on MSNBC...then you say there is no conservative voice on their network whatsoever...make up your mind. Fox is just as biased as MSNBC, every single one of fox's opinion show hosts is either far right or center right. Seriously, you think Fox is really fair as far as promoting liberal viewpoints?
sissyfist 2 years ago
The fact that when Hannity and Colmes split, Hannity got to keep the TV time spot, should tell you that immediately.
Ironcabbit 1 year ago
@Ironcabbit I hate Sean Hannity
mattador2792 1 year ago
Although MSNBC has a slight slant FOX is outright biased.I spend a lot of time in Europe due to my work&am shocked at somehting NONE of the news channels are talking about.SWEDEN has voluntarily taken in more Iraqi refugees than the US and UK combined.These people have been displaced frm their homes and SWEDEN has come to their rescue.FOX NEws talks of liberal Swedens pblm w/islamic immgrnts yet fails to mention how the US is responsible for the influx.Thankgod for Scandinavian freedom&morals
Hockeyeurope 2 years ago
wow, this is such an important video. i definitely didn't waste my time watching this.
cowcamaro 3 years ago 3
This video is a silly waste of time. Of course Fox News is biased towards conservatives, as is MSNBC towards liberals. Since Brit Hume's show and Kieth Olbermans show are not so much news, but opinion based, folks will watch what works for them. But, as for ABC, NBC, and CBS sending their anchors on an overseas trip with Obama yet hardly recognize McCains overseas trips......that does not pass the smell test for bias in NEWS programming.
tiledude3 3 years ago
MGEFANTOM, I fully agree I also consider myself very liberal but I believe the press must be neutral, not saying the people themselves must be neutral but not to show their belief when reporting people must hear the full story and decide for themselves
90schld 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
big deal who the hell cares
18305 3 years ago
anybody who cares about the usa, i guess not you...
goldenskatearmy 3 years ago 3
Britt Hume basically said that what the Democrats said was insignificant, and you never even got to hear what they had to say on the channel!
iamth3stig 3 years ago
Gott Im Himmel, Heaven help us. The right is bringing America down.
tak54401 4 years ago
Um, I think a lot of people are forgetting that MSNBC is VERY biased towards Democrats. Look at Keith Olberman, liberal is written all over his head.
tvnewsguy42 4 years ago
I consider myself fairly liberal, and I absolutely hate Keith Olberman, for the specific reason that he is so overtly biased. It's not good enough to have incredibly biased journalists on both sides. We have to demand unbiased, objective reporting from ALL journalists.
mgefantom 3 years ago 2
thats why i watch BBC and PBS
xfvkemosx 3 years ago 2
WBAI also.
DBrown877 3 years ago
Wbai
DBrown877 3 years ago
theboringdispatcher wrote: "right on fuck fox news"
You know, I had forgotten Roger had even commented on this video. I wish I would have responded back then. I really do miss Roger as strange as that may seem
Thx 4 commenting, Roger, wherever you are :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
you can look at a fight from many different point of views. But, its only at the end, that you can understand the performance. For the result speaks lounder than words. If palestine is at peace before the end of goerge w bush mendate as he said the palestine people will remember Goerge w Bush and 80 pourcent of all world press will loose the right to press. Does Bush KNOW Israel occupies Palestine? does bush Know anything about texas ? God Bless men kind.
toplobbyist 4 years ago
this is thought-provoking, thanks for putting it up here!
cfreyja23 4 years ago
Liberal Viewer: FOX is biased, no question about it. However, the fact is people wanna hear what they wanna hear. FOX took advantage of a lucrative opportunity: the right wing demographic. Their identity as a "right wing" network is strictly their domain. As long as the ratings keep thriving, FOX is gonna do what they gotta do.
sfgiantsballin 4 years ago
Obviously this abetes17 is some kind of clown.
NateCola 4 years ago
i noticed he only subscribes to this guy; seems like a fake username through which he likes to harass people. sad :-(
cfreyja23 4 years ago
I was auto-subscribed to LV after I started posting comments on several of his videos. And I only posted comments because I noticed the same flawed logic on many of his videos.
abates17 4 years ago
abates.
Youre the first person I've ever seen claim they were "auto-subscribed" to a channel on YouTube! LOL! I even thanked you for the subscription after you subscribed!
Thx 4 commenting (and for the subscription :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"Youre the first person I've ever seen claim they were 'auto-subscribed' to a channel on YouTube!"
Well, it's true. I commented on a few of your videos, and now I get email notifications when you post a new video. But no, I never specifically subscribed to your videos.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
I guess you must be the special target of some YouTube conspiracy to get you to watch my videos that's never affected anyone else. LOL! Feel free to unsubscribe from my videos if u don't enjoy watching them.
Thx 4 watching/commenting/subscribing :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"I guess you must be the special target of some YouTube conspiracy"
I just assumed it's an auto-add. Really, it's not uncommon.
"Feel free to unsubscribe from my videos if u don't enjoy watching them."
No, I enjoy seeing what ludicrous, baseless, and factually inaccurate arguments you make.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
Then why have u never been able to show that I made any "ludicrous, baseless, and factually inaccurate arguments?"
Thx 4 trying :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
Liberal Viewer: I understand your whole position that FOX is bias, which is near cliche at this point. But if you look at it closer, the "fair and balanced" slogan refers to equal coverage, not so much opinion. For example, FOX will cover the Democratic primaries and analyze it as much as the Repubicans.
sfgiantsballin 4 years ago
(continued)...they follow up with the "You Decide" slogan because any person with a brain will realize FOX is opinionated towards the right, and they should be able sift through it. This is integral in forming your own opinion. Since you're obviously a Liberal, what would you be without the Conservative demographic? Would you be proud of who you are if Conservatives and their flaunting TV programs weren't there? FOX is more of a blessing than you think.
sfgiantsballin 4 years ago
Fox does edit, but it's not just domocrats edited. They edit anybody that does not agree with the neocon agenda. They edit RON PAUL, the only honest republican. The democrats will not help us. By the way fox is supporting hillary now because Ron Paul is the best republican and they cant hide it any more. fox can't have that.
jerstiredofthepcbs 4 years ago
Only someone in serious denial would argue that Fox News is the Republican party house organ. It is an embarassment to journalism as an institution.
christineglamazon 4 years ago
The fuckin proof is shown again and again.. get your fucking head out of your ass abates17. You are a joke to yourself. Stop embarrasing yourself, do us all a big favor and just dont comment.. but it is your right so i do respect that.
love805 4 years ago 2
Thug 1: You look like a scarecrow.
Sartana: I' am your pallbearer.
cguevara12 4 years ago
anyone with their head unjammed from their asses already know that fox is a single sided propaganda channel. again and again they manipulate and exclude facts to bend the viewers understanding of any given situation. strategically using words and video.
But if you want to watch it, feel free. Just understand what it is. a propaganda channel.
antsareus 4 years ago
Doesn't everyone have it figured out yet? FAUX NEWS. You just have to hold your nose to watch it.
Antgne 4 years ago
If FOX didn't adopt the "fair and balanced" slogan for themselves, nobody would think to apply either of those words to describe their "news coverage."
nosleep62 4 years ago
Flat out....who cares?
sounds like liberals have too much time on their hands.
jonkauffman 4 years ago
jonkauffman: "who cares?"
Several posters (including me) have pointed out this grammar arg is silly, but abates says it's important to him "demonstrating that LV in unable to concede that he is wrong about anything, even something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
I showed abates times I admitted I'm wrong, but he keeps up the grammar arg w/o ever showing I did anything "demonstrably false."
When I have time, I clean up his falsehoods with the truth
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
jonkauffman: "who cares?"
Have you considered that he was posting this in response to your video itself?
"I showed abates times I admitted I'm wrong..."
You are quick to cite times you admitted you are wrong, as long as it helps you avoid admitting you are currently wrong.
abates17 4 years ago
abates: "you are currently wrong"
Yet, youve been keeping up this attempt to show I made a grammar error for weeks (months?) and have yet to DEMONSTRATE what u claimed was "something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
Can you really blame me for for applying the sentiment "who cares?" to such a protracted, failed attempt to show I made a grammar error?
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"and have yet to DEMONSTRATE"
You did that yourself, when you cited the results of numerous Google searches, and didn't realize that the search results did not support your usage...over, and over, and over again.
abates17 4 years ago
abates17,
Refusing to accept my Google searches only saves you from admitting you are wrong. You still have yet to DEMONSTRATE what u claimed was "something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
If its "demonstrably false" shouldn't u be able to DEMONSTRATE it?
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"If its 'demonstrably false' shouldn't u be able to DEMONSTRATE it?"
Yes: You have been unable to find numerous Google searches that support your usage.
abates17 4 years ago
abates17,
Again, refusing to accept my Google searches only saves you from admitting you are wrong. You still have yet to DEMONSTRATE what u claimed was "something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
If its "demonstrably false" shouldn't u be able to DEMONSTRATE it?
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"refusing to accept my Google searches only saves you from admitting you are wrong"
I already showed how your other Google searches are inaccurate, and now you won't quote another one because you're afraid I will do it again. Let me know when you're ready to cut and paste an actual sentence that supports your usage.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
Again, refusing to accept my Google searches only saves you from admitting you are wrong by refusing to accept what I demonstrated. You still have yet to DEMONSTRATE anything, never mind what u claimed was "something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
If its "demonstrably false" shouldn't u be able to DEMONSTRATE it?
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"Again, refusing to accept my Google searches"
Your Google searches were wrong. I showed where they were wrong. I refuse to accept false evidence. When you are ready to quote a Google search that supports your usage, let me know. Otherwise, just say, "I am unwilling to quote a single sentence that will support my point," then everyone will recognize how little you care about defending your statement.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
Whatever you think of what I have demonstrated does not affect YOUR failure to DEMONSTRATE anything, never mind what u claimed was "something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
If its "demonstrably false" shouldn't u be able to DEMONSTRATE it?
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"Whatever you think of what I have demonstrated does not affect YOUR failure to DEMONSTRATE anything"
Yes, it does. Your complete inability to provide multiple cases supporting your usage shows that you are incorrect. I demonstrated it by pointing out that your usage is not supported by Google searches. You are wrong. Let it go.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
To DEMONSTRATE something would require YOU providing evidence and u cannot use your refusal to accept evidence found by someone u claim is an "Idiot" to prove anything. Thus, u have yet to DEMONSTRATE anything, never mind what u claimed was "something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
If its so obvious my usage of the word "multiply" was "demonstrably false," why don't u have the expertise to DEMONSTRATE it?
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"To DEMONSTRATE something would require YOU providing evidence"
I am providing the evidence: "See how LV can't find multiple instances supporting his usage? There's your evidence."
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
Refusing to accept evidence does not DEMONSTRATE anything about grammar. Thus, u have yet to DEMONSTRATE anything, never mind what u claimed was "something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
If its so obvious my usage of the word "multiply" was "demonstrably false," why don't u have the expertise to DEMONSTRATE it?
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"Refusing to accept evidence does not DEMONSTRATE anything about grammar."
However, your inability to FIND evidence DOES demonstrate that your usage is incorrect.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
Again, to DEMONSTRATE something requires YOU providing evidence and u cannot use your own refusal to accept evidence found by someone u claim is an "Idiot" to prove anything. Thus, u have yet to DEMONSTRATE anything, never mind what u claimed was "something as demonstrably false as a simple misuse of grammar."
If its so obvious my usage of the adverb "multiply" was "demonstrably false," why don't u have the expertise to DEMONSTRATE it?
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"Again, to DEMONSTRATE something requires YOU providing evidence"
No, it requires me to point out the evidence. Your complete inability to find multiple Google searches to support your usage is that evidence.
"u cannot use your own refusal to accept evidence"
Your "evidence" does not support your usage, as I have repeatedly shown.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
U contradict yourself when u claim I am an "Idiot" while also claiming the results of my research are dispositive evidence on proper grammar usage.
When u disrespect the person with whom u are arguing, u lose the ability to make that kind of argument. Sorry, Andy :-(
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
The results of your research are dispositive because you have been unable to find multiple instances that support your usage. The inability to support your own argument does not contradict the claim that you are an idiot.
And sorry, but you have disrespected me for a long time, by cutting and pasting your same arguments without reading my responses. That is more disrespectful that one name that I called you months ago.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
U cannot say someone's supposed inability to find something is dispositive proof that thing does not exist while also claiming that person is an "Idiot."
Do u see you how youve contradicted yourself again, Andy?
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"U cannot say someone's supposed inability to find something is dispositive proof that thing does not exist while also claiming that person is an 'Idiot.'"
Yes, I can. The "idiot" comment was related to one argument, not a blanket dismissal of your abilities to find things.
"Do u see you how youve contradicted yourself again, Andy?"
I see that you keep jumping to arguments about "dispositive proof" to hide your inability to find multiple examples that prove your usage.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
You did not call my ARGUMENT "idiotic" or qualify your statement in any way so, as Ive pointed, your disrespect for me in calling me an "Idiot" has precluded you from making an argument based on the authoritativeness of my search results
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"You did not call my ARGUMENT 'idiotic' or qualify your statement in any way"
The statement followed a refutation of your argument, so yes, it was qualified in that respect.
"your disrespect for me in calling me an 'Idiot' has precluded you from making an argument based on the authoritativeness of my search results"
If you are saying that your search results are not authoritative, then you must believe that you are an idiot. Is that what you believe?
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
Again, You did not call an ARGUMENT I made "idiotic" you merely called me an "Idiot," so your statement was not qualified in any way. But, I appreciate that you are now arguing that you did not really mean it.
I accept your apology!
Thx for commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"so your statement was not qualified in any way"
Again, you demonstrate a blatant misunderstanding of the English language. As I just said (and you ignored), my statement followed a refutation of your argument, so it was qualified in that way. And yes, I did mean it: You were (and are) an idiot for making that argument.
Now, are you so much of an idiot that I can't rely on your search results? Please let me know.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
Again, You did not call an ARGUMENT I made "idiotic" or even respond to any argument I made, You merely made a sarcastic comment followed by the one word sentence, "Idiot," so your statement was not qualified in any way. But, again, I am pleased you now feel it necessary to argue that you did not really mean it.
Again: I accept your apology! This is great progress!
Happy Holidays and thx for commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"You merely made a sarcastic comment followed by the one word sentence, "Idiot," so your statement was not qualified in any way."
So let me get this straight: You are unable to comprehend context from one sentence to the next?
"Again: I accept your apology! This is great progress!"
And apparently you can't even understand a simple sentence. Yes, I did mean it: You were (and are) an idiot for making that argument.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
AGAIN, You did not call an ARGUMENT I made "idiotic" or EVEN RESPOND TO ANY ARGUMENT I MADE. You merely made a sarcastic comment followed by the one word sentence, "Idiot," so your statement was not qualified in any way. But, again, I am pleased you now feel it necessary to argue that you did not really mean it.
AGAIN: I accept your apology! This is great progress!
Happy Holidays and thx for commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"You did not call an ARGUMENT I made 'idiotic' or EVEN RESPOND TO ANY ARGUMENT I MADE."
I responded to the argument implied by your video.
"But, again, I am pleased you now feel it necessary to argue that you did not really mean it."
See? You really don't understand. I DID mean it, and I said so.
"I accept your apology! This is great progress!"
Oh, I forgot that you ignore responses and just cut and paste. Silly me. Please, feel free to keep digging your hole.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
You did not respond to an argument implied by my video, but merely made a sarcastic comment followed by the one word sentence, "Idiot," so your statement was not qualified in any way. I am pleased,however, you now feel the need to make qualifications and argue that you did not really mean what you posted. That's real progress!
Apology accepted!
Happy Holidays and thx for commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"You did not respond..."
Wow, five posts in a row where you ignore my response and simply paste the same idiotic statements over and over again. Is that a record for you? Somehow I doubt it. Let me know when you learn to read.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
I did not ignore your response, but, instead, pointed out u were mistaken to claim u were responding to an argument implied by my video when u called me an "Idiot." In fact, u merely made a sarcastic comment followed by the one word sentence, "Idiot," so your statement was not qualified in any way. I am pleased, however, you now feel the need to make qualifications and argue that you did not really mean what you posted.
Apology accepted!
Happy Holidays and thx for commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"u were mistaken to claim u were responding to an argument implied by my video when u called me an "Idiot.""
Really? I am mistaken about what I meant when I responded? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. I know what I said, and why I said it; I am not responsible for your inability to comprehend language.
"you did not really mean what you posted."
It's amazing that you can completely ignore a direct statement, and post things like this. You're just making yourself look like an idiot.
abates17 4 years ago
abates
Again, Ive repeatedly pointed out that the question I asked in that video did not imply any argument, so u were mistaken to claim u were responding to an argument implied by my video when u made your sarcastic comment. And, your one word sentence "Idiot," was not qualified in any way. I am pleased, however, you now feel the need to make qualifications and argue that you did not really mean what you posted.
Apology accepted!
Happy Holidays and thx for commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"so u were mistaken to claim u were responding to an argument implied by my video when u made your sarcastic comment."
Thanks, but I know what I wrote and why I wrote it.
"And, your one word sentence "Idiot," was not qualified in any way."
Take an English class.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
What u wrote does not change my question into an argument, so u were mistaken to claim u were responding to an argument implied by my question when u made your sarcastic comment. And, your one word sentence "Idiot," was not qualified in any way. I am pleased, however, you now feel the need to make qualifications and argue that you did not really mean what you posted.
Apology accepted!
Happy Holidays and thx for commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"What u wrote..."
I'm bored with this. I'm glad that most liberals are more intelligent than you; with them, I can at least get a decent argument. Your arguments depend on mindless repetition, and ignoring all responses. Let me know when you come up with something original. I'll take any cut-and-paste responses as admission that you can't.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
I only repost those points u fail to address.
For example, u never explained how the question in my video implied any particular argument, so u were mistaken to claim u were responding to an argument implied by my question when u made your sarcastic comment. And, your one word sentence "Idiot," was not qualified in any way. I am pleased, however, u now feel the need to argue that you did not really mean what you posted.
Apology accepted!
And thx for commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"u never explained how the question in my video implied any particular argument,"
I don't have to. Even if (as you claim) the video never implied a particular argument, that does not disprove the fact that I was responding to it. So again (and please try to READ this time), my statement was qualified, and I meant what I said.
So back to the topic: Are your search results authoritative, or not?
abates17 4 years ago
And by the way, if you are unable to recognize that I meant my previous statement (even after I repeated it eight times), then you really are an idiot.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
I'm sorry to hear u are withdrawing your apology and that u are back to affirming your unqualified claim that I am an "Idiot" as u posted on my video titled "Did Pixar Rip Off Pee Wee?" It's a very poor arguing technique as u can see now that it precludes u from depending on me as "authoritative" in making your argument. And, I thought u were making such progress :-( Still,
thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"I'm sorry to hear u are withdrawing your apology"
I never apologized, and as I said, only an idiot would repeatedly ignore my statement to that effect.
"and that u are back to affirming your unqualified claim that I am an 'Idiot'"
My statement was always qualified, as I pointed out.
"as u can see now that it precludes u from depending on me as 'authoritative' in making your argument."
I have no problem with your search results being authoritative. Are you saying that they are not?
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
If u want to accept my searchresults as authoritative that's fine, tho, as I recall, u weren't accepting my search results at all. My point is that u cannot make a sarcastic comment followed by the one word sentence "Idiot" and claim u were attacking an argument not a person. I was pleased u felt the need to try to soften your namecalling which was the point of the apology joke. You should just apologize, but that's for your benefit. I'm just trying to help
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"If u want to accept my searchresults as authoritative that's fine,"
Great. So, as I said before, the fact that you were unable to find multiple cases supporting your usage demonstrates that I am correct.
"My point is that u cannot make a sarcastic comment followed by the one word sentence 'Idiot' and claim u were attacking an argument not a person."
Yes, I can, and I did. You seem unable to follow context from one sentence to the next, but I am not responsible for that.
abates17 4 years ago
"I was pleased u felt the need to try to soften your namecalling"
My "namecalling" was always in context; all I have done is help you understand the context that was there all along. I never understood why you were so personally wounded by that comment in the first place. Perhaps a better understanding of context will help you in the future.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
If u want to claim that calling someone an "Idiot" is not a personal attack, that's your problem. I've tried to be nice and help u with your problem b/c, as I explained, it seems more important to me than the grammar error youve been trying to prove I made these many months(another symptom of the same problem?). And, as I said, if you want to accept the authoritativeness of my search results, you first need to actually accept my search results.
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"not a personal attack"
Again, I'm sorry you were so wounded by a comment that was clearly made in context. In the future, I'll be more careful not to hurt your feelings.
"you first need to actually accept my search results"
I have: You were unable to find multiple cases supporting your usage of the word, which demonstrates that your usage was incorrect.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
You skipped over and did not address important parts of my post. As I explained, if u want to claim calling someone an "Idiot" is not a personal attack, that's your problem. I've tried to help u with your problem b/c, as I explained, it seems more important to me than the grammar error youve been trying to prove I made these many months. And, again, if u want to accept the authoritativeness of my search results, u first need to actually accept my search results.
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"is not a personal attack"
Again, if you can't read the statement in context, I can't help you.
"And, again, if u want to accept the authoritativeness of my search results, u first need to actually accept my search results."
I have accepted them. You have been unable to prove your case. Case closed.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
Nothing about the context changes calling someone an "idiot" into something other than a personal attack, nor does your unwillingness to accept evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches make that evidence go away or prove in any way that I made a grammar error using the word "multiply" as an adverb but not a submodifier. So, u DID attack me personally and did NOT show I made a grammar error
Let me know if u have anything new
Merry Christmas and thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"Nothing about the context changes calling someone an 'idiot' into something other than a personal attack"
That's the response I would expect from someone unwilling to comprehend context.
"and from various google searches"
You were unable to provide multiple searches supporting your usage, demonstrating that your usage was incorrect.
"Let me know if u have anything new"
That's a good one, especially coming from the king of cut-and-paste arguments.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
I only "cut-and-paste arguments" u fail to address like these:
1. Nothing about your context changed calling me an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack, and
2. Your unwillingness to accept evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesnt make that evidence go away or prove that I made a grammar error using the word "multiply" as an adverb but not a submodifier.
Happy New Year, Andy, and thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"Nothing about your context changed calling me an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack"
Really, if you can't comprehend English, I can't help you.
"various google searches"
...where you repeatedly mistook how "multiply" was being used.
"as an adverb but not a submodifier."
Again, not all adverbs can modify verbs.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
1. AGAIN, questioning my ability to "comprehend English" doesn't change calling me an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack, and
2. AGAIN, your unwillingness to accept evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesnt make that evidence go away or prove that I made a grammar error using THIS word ("multiply") as an adverb but not a submodifier.
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"AGAIN, questioning my ability to 'comprehend English' doesn't change calling me an 'Idiot' into something other than a personal attack"
It explains your inability to understand the statement in context. Again, I'm sorry your feelings were hurt because you didn't understand what I wrote.
"as an adverb but not a submodifier"
Not all adverbs can modify verbs.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
You didn't hurt my feelings (the personal attack is your problem, not mine) and I DO understand that:
1. Nothing about your context changed calling me an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack, and
2. Your unwillingness to accept evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesnt make that evidence go away or prove that I made a grammar error using the word "multiply" as an adverb but not a submodifier.
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"You didn't hurt my feelings"
And yet you keep harping about that one word, over and over again for months now. You act like someone who has been deeply hurt.
Since I made the comment, and since I know the context in which it was made, I can tell you that it was not a personal attack, and nothing you can say will change that. Your continued protestations to the contrary are just ignorance.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
Again, your inaccurate analysis of my feelings aside:
1. Nothing about your context changed calling me an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack, and
2. Your unwillingness to accept evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesnt make that evidence go away or prove that I made a grammar error using the word "multiply" as an adverb but not a submodifier.
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
As you keep cutting and pasting your claims without any new information, I will just cut and paste my response:
Since I made the comment, and since I know the context in which it was made, I can tell you that it was not a personal attack, and nothing you can say will change that. Your continued protestations to the contrary are just ignorance.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
I am only "cutting and pasting" arguments u fail to address like these:
1. Nothing about your context changed calling me an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack, and
2. Your unwillingness to accept evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesnt make that evidence go away or prove that I made a grammar error using the word "multiply" as an adverb but not a submodifier.
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"I am only 'cutting and pasting' arguments u fail to address"
You are just ignoring my response. I could set up a macro that would debate as well as you do.
abates17 4 years ago
abates17,
I am not ignoring your response, I am just pointing out that your responses fail to address my points that:
1. Nothing about your context changed calling me an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack, and
2. Your unwillingness to accept evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesnt make that evidence go away or prove that I made a grammar error using the word "multiply" as an adverb but not a submodifier.
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"into something other than a personal attack"
I made the statement, and I can confirm that it was completely in context, and not a personal attack. Nothing you can say will refute that.
"Your unwillingness to accept evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches"
You have not shown a dictionary definition that says "multiply" can be used to modify a verb. Your Google searches have also not shown that. When you find one that does, let me know.
abates17 4 years ago
"You didn't hurt my feelings"
Of course I didn't! Your repeated, desperate requests for an apology prove that your feelings really weren't hurt. It's been how many months now, and you still refuse to let this go? Yep, no emotional issues there.
abates17 4 years ago
"that's your problem."
Inability to comprehend context is your problem, not mine.
"And, as I said, if you want to accept the authoritativeness of my search results, you first need to actually accept my search results."
You have to play these little word games to hide your inability to find multiple Google searches that corroborate your usage of the word "multiply." Like I said, if you have evidence, you would have presented it by now.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
1. Saying the statement was "completely in context" does not explain how calling someone an "Idiot" is not a personal attack
2. Denying I gave u evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesnt make that evidence go away or prove that I made a grammar error using the word "multiply" as an adverb but not a submodifier. Remember, in addition to what I posted, U were the one who claimed you were going to demonstrate I made an error but u never did.
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"does not explain how calling someone an 'Idiot' is not a personal attack"
I can't explain it any more clearly. You may want to print out this discussion and show your English teacher. Maybe she can help you with the difficult concepts.
"doesnt make that evidence go away"
I refuted that "evidence" you provided, and then you refused to provide any more.
"you were going to demonstrate I made an error"
I did, by pointing out your inability to quote multiple examples supporting your usage.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
You "can't explain it any more clearly" b/c it is nonsensical to claim that calling someone an "Idiot" is not a personal attack.
And, not only did I provide u multiple examples supporting my usage (and a dictionary), what I do or do not provide does not demonstrate the grammar error u claimed u would demonstrate.
Why not just admit u were wrong?
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"it is nonsensical to claim that calling someone an 'Idiot' is not a personal attack."
Only if you are so completely simple-minded that you can not comprehend the context.
"not only did I provide u multiple examples supporting my usage"
No, you did not. If you did, go ahead and quote them...but of course, you won't do that, because you can't.
"does not demonstrate the grammar error"
Yes, it elegantly and precisely demonstrates it.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
1. Referring to the "context" does not change calling someone an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack
2. Denying I gave u evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesn't make that evidence go away or prove that I made a grammar error using the word "multiply" as an adverb but not a submodifier. Remember, regardless of what I posted, YOU were the one who claimed you were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did.
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"Referring to the 'context' does not change calling someone an 'Idiot' into something other than a personal attack"
Only an idiot thinks that context does not matter.
"Denying I gave u evidence from the dictionary"
I don't deny you gave me evidence from the dictionary; however, none of the evidence says that "multiply" can be used to modify a verb.
"and from various google searches"
...which do not support your usage. Your unwillingness to quote those search results further proves that.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
1. Referring to "context" does not change calling someone an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack
2. Pretending the evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesn't show "multiply" can be used to modify a verb doesn't make that evidence go away and, of course, regardless of what I posted, YOU were the one who claimed you were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did.
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"Referring to 'context'"
Context is always relevant.
"doesn't show 'multiply' can be used to modify a verb"
They didn't. You kept citing examples where you thought "multiply" was being used as an adverb, when it was really a verb or a noun, or you thought it was modifying a verb, when it was actually modifying an adjective. Your mistaken attempts at evidence demonstrate your incorrect usage of the word.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
Saying that context "is always relevant" does not change calling someone an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack
2. Pretending the evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches doesn't show "multiply" can be used to modify a verb doesn't make that evidence go away and, of course, regardless of what I posted, YOU were the one who claimed you were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did.
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"Saying that context 'is always relevant' does not change calling someone an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack"
Do you even read my responses, or do you just copy my statement, paste "does not change calling someone..." at the end, and click Post Comment?
"doesn't make that evidence go away"
Right: the false, erroneous evidence is still there.
"but u never did."
You never showed multiple examples supporting your usage.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
1. You still fail to admit the simple fact that calling me an "Idiot" was a personal attack
2. Pretending the evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches did not show multiple examples supporting my usage doesn't make that evidence go away and, of course, regardless of what I posted, YOU were the one who claimed you were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did. Where is YOUR evidence?
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"You still fail to admit the simple fact that calling me an 'Idiot' was a personal attack"
Because it wasn't.
"doesn't make that evidence go away"
Great: go back and find that "evidence" and quote it here. If it really proves your case, I'm sure you can quote numerous examples supporting your usage. And if you can't, then that proves my point.
"Where is YOUR evidence?"
Exhibit A: your continued refusal to quote examples supporting your usage.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
1. Saying "it wasn't" does not change calling someone an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack
2. Pretending the evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches I multiply quoted for u doesn't make that evidence go away and, of course, regardless of what I posted, YOU were the one who claimed you were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did.
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"Saying 'it wasn't' does not change calling someone an 'Idiot' into something other than a personal attack"
Aaaaaaaand you're back to the cut-and-paste "does not change..." responses. Really, you are too predictable.
"doesn't make that evidence go away"
I notice that you still won't quote examples supporting your usage. Thanks for proving my point once again.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
I only "cut-and-paste" arguments u fail to address like:
1. Saying "it wasn't" does not change calling someone an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack
2. Ignoring the existence of the evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches I MULTIPLY QUOTED for u doesn't make that evidence go away and, of course, regardless of what I posted, YOU were the one who claimed you were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did.
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"I only 'cut-and-paste' arguments u fail to address"
No, I address them, then you take what I said, paste "does not change..." to the end of it, and call that a counter-argument. It's not.
"evidence from the dictionary"
I already demonstrated that not all adverbs can modify verbs. You have yet to refute that.
"and from various google searches"
...which you still will not quote. You must have a really strong case.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
You AGAIN fail to address these arguments:
1. Saying "it wasn't" does not address my point that calling someone an "Idiot" is a personal attack
2. Ignoring the existence of the evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches I MULTIPLY QUOTED for u doesn't make that evidence go away and, of course, regardless of what I posted, YOU were the one who claimed YOU were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did. Where's YOUR evidence?
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"does not address my point"
I already addressed that point: You have to look at the context of the statement, and the intention of the person saying it. But whatever I say, you just mindlessly paste in "does not address my point..."
"evidence from the dictionary"
Not all adverbs can modify verbs. Can you refute that? Didn't think so.
"Where's YOUR evidence?"
The fact that you won't quote searches that support your usage. Every post you make just makes that evidence stronger.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
1. Saying u didn't intend to call me an "Idiot" and referring to "the context" does not change calling me an "Idiot" into something other than a personal attack
2. Ignoring the evidence from the dictionary and from various google searches I MULTIPLY QUOTED IN THE COMMENT SECTION OF THIS VIDEO doesn't make that evidence go away and, of course, REGARDLESS OF WHAT I POSTED, YOU were the one who claimed you would demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did.
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"...does not change..."
And as I said before, "you take what I said, paste 'does not change...' to the end of it, and call that a counter-argument." That's just blind contradiction, not intelligent argument.
"I MULTIPLY QUOTED IN THE COMMENT SECTION OF THIS VIDEO"
Already read and refuted them. Care to post them again to support your argument? Of course not, because you're afraid of getting shot down again.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
1. I am not engaging in "blind contradiction," but, rather, I am holding u accountable for failing to address my point that calling me an "Idiot" was a personal attack
2. Claiming u refuted the unrefuted evidence from the dictionary and google searches I MULTIPLY QUOTED doesn't make that evidence go away and, of course, REGARDLESS OF WHAT I POST, YOU were the one who claimed YOU were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did. Where's your evidence?
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"I am not engaging in 'blind contradiction,' but, rather, I am holding u accountable for failing to address my point"
I repeatedly addressed your point, yet you ignore my responses and say I failed to address it. That is blind contradiction.
"YOU were the one who claimed YOU were going to demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did. Where's your evidence?"
The fact that not all adverbs can modify verbs. You have yet to address or refute this.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
1. I didn't "ignore" your responses, but, rather, pointed out those responses failed to address my point that calling me an "Idiot" was a personal attack
2. I never claimed "all adverbs can modify verbs," but rather, I pointed to a dictionary and a variety of google searches showing the word "multiply" can be used an adverb but not a submodifier. Remember, regardless of what I post, YOU claimed YOU would demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did.
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"I didn't 'ignore' your responses, but, rather, pointed out those responses failed to address my point"
Rote denial is not "pointing out" anything.
"I never claimed 'all adverbs can modify verbs,' but rather, I pointed to a dictionary and a variety of google searches showing the word 'multiply' can be used an adverb"
Great. Show me a dictionary entry that says "multiply" can modify a verb.
abates17 4 years ago
abates,
1. I'm glad u realize your "rote denial" doesn't address that calling me an "Idiot" was a personal attack
2. I already pointed to a dictionary saying the adverb "multiply" is used "often as submodifier" and many google searches showing "multiply" can be used as an adverb but not a submodifier. But, remember, REGARDLESS OF WHAT I POST, YOU claimed YOU would demonstrate I made a grammar error but u never did. Why ask ME to show it when YOU have shown no evidence?
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago