To anyone who can send a message or post a comment on CRoadwarrior's channel: ask him if he keeps his word? It's been well over 24 hours, and he banned me unjustly and I can prove it.
I posted no insults nor violated any of his rules. I was posting a multi-part comment since YouTube only allows 500 chars. per Text Comment, and the subsequent part would've explained my meaning, But since he has Comments Pending Approval, I can't see my first post to Reply to it until he approves it.
Anybody with common sense should have realized instantly that this story was false Considering her successfull reformer crudentiall as governer or just the fact that she got elected to that job. All you jobless lowlife liberals will believe anything. YOu let your media elitists controll you like brainless puppets
I am glad someone posted this also. It shows that CNN is fair to both sides, and clearly some of the stories about Palin were untrue. I only wish Faux news could be as fair in their reporting also.
You gotta be kidding me, chairmanpolpot. If anything, Fox is the most balanced show out there. Most of the time, they present both sides. Yes, they lean Right, but almost ALL of the other news shows lean Left and far left.
Fox is very biased. Compared to world media, all of American media is biased to the right, even the likes of CNN and MSNBC. But Fox is far more right-biased than they, of course, making them look "left-biased" by comparison.
Fox has been proven to have engaged in deliberate manipulations of facts designed to mislead, if not outright lie.
For instance, THRICE they put "(D-FL)" (DEMOCRAT from FLorida) after REPUBLICAN Congressman Mark Foley's name in the open text captions during his scandal.
Videos of that are available right here on YouTube, recorded directly from a real TV screen with a continuously moving camcorder and thus virtually impossible to fake.
Now, doing that ONCE could be an understandable mistake. Twice, MAYbe. THREE TIMES!? ESPECIALLY •AFTER• being taken to task for the first time VERY publicly by John Stewart on "The Daily Show"!? Not bloody likely.
Much more serious, though, is the testimony of former Fox News employees on what they were ordered to do.
Comalitej....No, I did not forget. I got busy (classes started back up for grad school) and I have other pressing concerns. I did not ban you "unjustly" as you did violate one of my rules clearly. I am unblocking you tonight, but be mindful of how many times you post.
The rules themselves are unjust, for reasons having to do with YouTube limitations.
In Rule #2, you ask us to back up all of our points and arguments (itself a valid rule). In Rule #3, you effectively prevent us from doing so, by disallowing carpet-bombing without telling us in advance how many posts is too many. In and of itself, the lack of a clear threshold of too many, too quickly is unjust, like unto allowing police to decide what the speed limit is at any given time without signs.
But in conjunction with the ridiculously short 500-character YouTube limit on Text Comments length, Rule #3 makes following Rule #2 much more difficult, if not impossible.
This is further exacerbated by your setting of Comments Pending Approval. Now, I do understand why you do this (to pre-empt profanity), but it makes things more difficult. My personal posting style, when posting something that would take more than one 500-character post, is to Reply to MYSELF.
Why? By posting all subsequent parts of a multi-part message as a Reply to the immediately preceeding part, it causes YouTube to indent the messages properly, and cause the LATTER parts of the message to appear AFTER (BELOW) the FORMER parts. In other words, you can read my response in the order intended, as in this very example.
This is IMPOSSIBLE on vids set to Comments Pending Approval, since I cannot see my posts until you approve them. By that time, you may well ban me for Rule #2!
After all, I can't post Part 2 (let alone 3+) of a post, in which I provide evidence to back up an assertion made in Part 1, until I SEE Part 1 and can Reply to it! Yet, if you just see Part 1, you can reasonably conclude that I posted an unsupported assertion, a violation of Rule #2!
You can view any of my posts here on any of a wide variety of subjects and see that I do indeed post in this manner.
Oh, for the record, my use of UPPERCASE is simply in lieu of italics/boldface, for emphasis.
comalitej...I've been doing text comments on YT for a while now, and I know that you do not have to "see" your own posts in order to make multiple part posts. I have very valid reasons for the few rules that I do have, and I stand by them. I was thinking of setting a post number limit, but that is what would be truly unjust. I gauge things pretty much on an individual basis according to the situation instead of a rigid post limit system.
`I've been doing text comments on YT for a while now, and I know that you do not have to "see" your own posts in order to make multiple part posts.'
Read what I posted: I didn't SAY that. I said that you have to do so IF YOU WANT THEM TO APPEAR IN THE RIGHT ORDER. If you just post then all as Replies to the other person's post that you're Replying to, then they appear in REVERSE order, or sometimes even a seemingly RANDOM order.
comalitej...I understand what you said, but it is still not a valid argument. Most people either just but an abbreviation like "con't" or "part 1" etc. and go about their business. This is not rocket science. You seem somewhat intelligent so I'm sure you'll figure it out.
Even then, there is the small matter of breaking up the train of thought. I often post my responses as I think of them, while taking brief breaks from work and such. If I have to wait until the post appears, it may take me awhile to remember what I was going to say.
I suppose I COULD type it all up in NotePad or whatever ahead of time, then post it one 500-character chunk at a time. But in my experience, people start responding to the partial post before the completion is posted.
`I was thinking of setting a post number limit, but that is what would be truly unjust. I gauge things pretty much on an individual basis according to the situation instead of a rigid post limit system."
Okay, but do understand that that gives you an unfair advantage, since YOU get to decide how many is "too many," without us even knowing what the criteria are.
If the police could nail you for speeding with no Speed Limit signs, nor default speed limit, on their own whim: just or unjust?
In that situation, sure, some police would be truly honest and ethical, and only nail people who were driving too fast for the traffic conditions at the time. But others who were less ethical might let their personal feelings and biases interfere. "That car is foreign-made." "That driver is black." "I don't like the message / political candidate / whatever on that bumper sticker." Etc.
How could the person who gets the speeding ticket tell the difference between the just and unjust cops?
I always took any dino. comments about her as relating to her churches biblical literalism. If you are a YEC then you do believe man and Dino lived together which is a laughable belief
Their reporting on the book banning basically sounded like it was true as I heard it
To anyone who can send a message or post a comment on CRoadwarrior's channel: ask him if he keeps his word? It's been well over 24 hours, and he banned me unjustly and I can prove it.
I posted no insults nor violated any of his rules. I was posting a multi-part comment since YouTube only allows 500 chars. per Text Comment, and the subsequent part would've explained my meaning, But since he has Comments Pending Approval, I can't see my first post to Reply to it until he approves it.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Anybody with common sense should have realized instantly that this story was false Considering her successfull reformer crudentiall as governer or just the fact that she got elected to that job. All you jobless lowlife liberals will believe anything. YOu let your media elitists controll you like brainless puppets
Gyro911 3 years ago 2
Glad someone posted this. Too bad folks were were SOOOO willing to believe lies instead of getting the facts.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I am glad someone posted this also. It shows that CNN is fair to both sides, and clearly some of the stories about Palin were untrue. I only wish Faux news could be as fair in their reporting also.
chairmanpolpot 3 years ago
You gotta be kidding me, chairmanpolpot. If anything, Fox is the most balanced show out there. Most of the time, they present both sides. Yes, they lean Right, but almost ALL of the other news shows lean Left and far left.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Fox is very biased. Compared to world media, all of American media is biased to the right, even the likes of CNN and MSNBC. But Fox is far more right-biased than they, of course, making them look "left-biased" by comparison.
Fox has been proven to have engaged in deliberate manipulations of facts designed to mislead, if not outright lie.
For instance, THRICE they put "(D-FL)" (DEMOCRAT from FLorida) after REPUBLICAN Congressman Mark Foley's name in the open text captions during his scandal.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Videos of that are available right here on YouTube, recorded directly from a real TV screen with a continuously moving camcorder and thus virtually impossible to fake.
Now, doing that ONCE could be an understandable mistake. Twice, MAYbe. THREE TIMES!? ESPECIALLY •AFTER• being taken to task for the first time VERY publicly by John Stewart on "The Daily Show"!? Not bloody likely.
Much more serious, though, is the testimony of former Fox News employees on what they were ordered to do.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Hey, CRoadwarrior, did you forget something?
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Comalitej....No, I did not forget. I got busy (classes started back up for grad school) and I have other pressing concerns. I did not ban you "unjustly" as you did violate one of my rules clearly. I am unblocking you tonight, but be mindful of how many times you post.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
The rules themselves are unjust, for reasons having to do with YouTube limitations.
In Rule #2, you ask us to back up all of our points and arguments (itself a valid rule). In Rule #3, you effectively prevent us from doing so, by disallowing carpet-bombing without telling us in advance how many posts is too many. In and of itself, the lack of a clear threshold of too many, too quickly is unjust, like unto allowing police to decide what the speed limit is at any given time without signs.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
But in conjunction with the ridiculously short 500-character YouTube limit on Text Comments length, Rule #3 makes following Rule #2 much more difficult, if not impossible.
This is further exacerbated by your setting of Comments Pending Approval. Now, I do understand why you do this (to pre-empt profanity), but it makes things more difficult. My personal posting style, when posting something that would take more than one 500-character post, is to Reply to MYSELF.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
Why? By posting all subsequent parts of a multi-part message as a Reply to the immediately preceeding part, it causes YouTube to indent the messages properly, and cause the LATTER parts of the message to appear AFTER (BELOW) the FORMER parts. In other words, you can read my response in the order intended, as in this very example.
This is IMPOSSIBLE on vids set to Comments Pending Approval, since I cannot see my posts until you approve them. By that time, you may well ban me for Rule #2!
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
After all, I can't post Part 2 (let alone 3+) of a post, in which I provide evidence to back up an assertion made in Part 1, until I SEE Part 1 and can Reply to it! Yet, if you just see Part 1, you can reasonably conclude that I posted an unsupported assertion, a violation of Rule #2!
You can view any of my posts here on any of a wide variety of subjects and see that I do indeed post in this manner.
Oh, for the record, my use of UPPERCASE is simply in lieu of italics/boldface, for emphasis.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
comalitej...I've been doing text comments on YT for a while now, and I know that you do not have to "see" your own posts in order to make multiple part posts. I have very valid reasons for the few rules that I do have, and I stand by them. I was thinking of setting a post number limit, but that is what would be truly unjust. I gauge things pretty much on an individual basis according to the situation instead of a rigid post limit system.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
`I've been doing text comments on YT for a while now, and I know that you do not have to "see" your own posts in order to make multiple part posts.'
Read what I posted: I didn't SAY that. I said that you have to do so IF YOU WANT THEM TO APPEAR IN THE RIGHT ORDER. If you just post then all as Replies to the other person's post that you're Replying to, then they appear in REVERSE order, or sometimes even a seemingly RANDOM order.
Try it yourself if you don't believe me.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
comalitej...I understand what you said, but it is still not a valid argument. Most people either just but an abbreviation like "con't" or "part 1" etc. and go about their business. This is not rocket science. You seem somewhat intelligent so I'm sure you'll figure it out.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Even then, there is the small matter of breaking up the train of thought. I often post my responses as I think of them, while taking brief breaks from work and such. If I have to wait until the post appears, it may take me awhile to remember what I was going to say.
I suppose I COULD type it all up in NotePad or whatever ahead of time, then post it one 500-character chunk at a time. But in my experience, people start responding to the partial post before the completion is posted.
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
`I was thinking of setting a post number limit, but that is what would be truly unjust. I gauge things pretty much on an individual basis according to the situation instead of a rigid post limit system."
Okay, but do understand that that gives you an unfair advantage, since YOU get to decide how many is "too many," without us even knowing what the criteria are.
If the police could nail you for speeding with no Speed Limit signs, nor default speed limit, on their own whim: just or unjust?
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
In that situation, sure, some police would be truly honest and ethical, and only nail people who were driving too fast for the traffic conditions at the time. But others who were less ethical might let their personal feelings and biases interfere. "That car is foreign-made." "That driver is black." "I don't like the message / political candidate / whatever on that bumper sticker." Etc.
How could the person who gets the speeding ticket tell the difference between the just and unjust cops?
COMALiteJ 3 years ago
"debate both sides" is creationism
I always took any dino. comments about her as relating to her churches biblical literalism. If you are a YEC then you do believe man and Dino lived together which is a laughable belief
Their reporting on the book banning basically sounded like it was true as I heard it
CleveDan 3 years ago