Syntho-sis

*SPOILER ALERT* I had to dig through a bunch of my old notes for this.. Okay so there are 4 lines in the Letter 'W'. There are 2 lines in the letter 'L'. ^ Geometry Subtract 2 from 4 and you get 2. ^ Subtraction 'Broken' constitutes subtraction. 2 lines pieced together can form a 'V'. Pretty simple when you think about it. There was some other weird things I noticed about the angles but I can't remember any of that right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime This is what I meant...

The mall? Don't you think that's a little too upscale for all those dumb white rednecks?

Nah I don't like Fox all that much, I just like messing with people.. Anyways, where were we? So you are saying: The Fox news organization is promoting the protest of our government in Washington D.C.? On what grounds might I ask?

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/08/20/msnbc-lie-to-perpetuate-racial-tensions/ Are you still under the false assumption that MSNBC has never lied?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/business/media/19fox.html You're referring to this, yes? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged As contradicting evidence that there was some 'mass cover-up' by Fox execs. Just in case someone thought that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC#Allegations_of_political_bias Then we can agree that neither organizations actually cover the news, correct? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I did acknowledge it. So repeating yourself is irrelevant, and beside the point.

I thought this was interesting. From 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle' by Robert Pirsig (1974, pp.38-39.) Cited in the Book 'Why people believe weird things' by Micheal Shermer.. Pirsig's Paradox: "So you don't believe in ghosts or science?" "No, I do believe in ghosts." "What?" "The laws of physics and logic, the number system, the principle of algebraic substitution. These are ghosts. We just believe in them so thoroughly they seem real For example, it seems completely natural to assume that gravitation and the law of gravity existed before Isaac Newton. It would sound nutty to think that until the seventeenth century there was no gravity." "Of Course." "So, before the beginning of the Earth, before people, etc., the law of gravity existed. Sitting there, having no mass of its own, no energy, and not existing in anyone's mind." "Right." "Then what has a thing to do to be nonexistent? It has just passed every test of nonexistence there is. You cannot think of a single attribute of nonexistence that the law of gravity didn't have, or a single scientific attribute of existence it did have. I predict that if you think about it long enough, you will go round and round until you realize that the law of gravity did not exist before Isaac Newton. The the law of gravity exists nowhere except in people's minds. It is a ghost!" Just substitute 'law of gravity' with w/e your concept of space-time is...

My apologies then. I entirely misread what he said, I thought he was making a reference to earlier posts where he'd mentioned that he agreed with me on certain aspects of this debate. No problemo..

What is that supposed to mean? So now you resort to personal attack just because I don't agree with you wholeheartedly on every point? Keep your libelous opinions to yourself. I know this, please stop belittling me and understand what I wrote. Quit assuming I'm some right-wing nutcase who watches only fox news, and hasn't the slightest understanding in regards to anything. Arguing down to someone does not make you correct.

That's insulting to my intelligence. By the sum of statements thus far, it seems that's what is being proposed, censorship. What would the other solutions be? Would you be entirely heartbroken if they did starting censoring the networks? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I just don't think it's fair to set a double standard. In conjunction with each other, I do consider them news organizations. In comparison to what "news" actually is...They each only fulfill that role partially. That's a false dichotomy by the way, which is: Fox is either a news organization or a propaganda machine. Something can exists in two states at the same time. Examples: Fox news and MSNBC. Both have traits of a news provider and both exhibit traits of a movement forwarding it's agenda.

No I'm not denying it, but I still do not think they should be 'censored' or some other nonsense. And an attack can still be an attack even if it's 'true' (which is subjective- IMO.) IMO, I doubt there would be as much controversy if Fox news tended toward a more liberal slant (Even if they were being purposely deceptive.) It's a double standard. Yes and they're morons if they believe everything they see on television and get their info from one source. I agree, but still, goes back to my central point which is 'They have the right to believe whatever they want.' And Fox news has the right to discuss w/e it wants. What exactly is it you propose as a solution for this problem btw? That's subjective and therefore irrelevant. Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. What you consider propaganda, your neighbor down the street declares it truth. Just as I worry about those individuals who listen only to Kieth Olbermann.

Well I know censorship has already been tried, in other countries. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What did you mean? I said 'do not watch it.' I don't suggest people argue over things for which they have no control..

E=mc^2 Simply put.

Which goes above and beyond the statement that Fox News is just a 'perspective'. That's a downright attack. Seriously though, what good is it to argue over this? If you don't like it, and do not consider it a news organization, you don't have to watch it. There's plenty of other people who will happily watch it, without complaint. That's the great thing about America, we don't have state-run media outlets shoving propaganda down our throats. Yes there is spin, but it's up to us as citizens to make the decisions on where to get our info and how to interpret it. Some people may not have the same exact preferences as you. I just don't see the purpose in this, at all. I'm 'glad' fox news is around, because as long as EVERYONE has an equal voice then our constitution still means something. I'm just as glad that MSNBC is around, but I obviously don't get all my info from either news organizations. I try to keep it varied, I listen to alot of NPR and watch alot of CNN, but it's up to me (up to everyone) to decide what is relevant to the larger issues. Cheers,

I wish I'd got in on this discussion earlier, now I have to read and watch the video.. Could someone provide a synopsis, perhaps? I have a fairly good understanding of atomic physics...

My skepticism of MSNBC is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The white house did not have a political right (or otherwise) to label Fox News as a propaganda machine or whatever it is they called it. Who cares what they think, it's not their job to take things personally. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Then why attack Fox specifically? There are many other organizations who put just as much spin on the news as they do, nobody's talking about those though. It's always Fox. Would anyone like to explain the excessive bias?

Is it the method of delivery that upsets you, or the material being fed? Perhaps all this skepticism of Fox is simply due to the disagreement of ideologies. That's what I see it as. This is mass ad hominem. Simple lesson in human nature.

Well we as Americans, don't pay them to worry about what pundits say about Obama. It's not their job, so to speak. For them to target a specific news organization, is wrong on so many levels. If this was ABC news could you imagine the firestorm?

Okay, than it's perfectly fair to apply to same criteria to MSNBC, is it not? Which goes back to what I stated earlier. Whether they are 'news' or not, they still have a right to say whatever they want, however they want to say it. And why the White house, is getting all fussy over this I haven't the faintest idea.

No, all that is required is a citation under news on Wikipedia. Decoys do not walk, nor do they talk, like a duck.

If only Occam's razor applied to every aspect of life: see women Cheers,

At this point every post I make on this thread is entirely satirical. I can't believe we kept this nonsense going as long as we did.

It's possible with infrared goggles, which he most likely has stashed in his coffee pot. Evidence against it? Don't pin the burden of proof on me.

Well personally I don't consider MSNBC news either, that's if you apply the same criteria to all news organizations. If I want 'news' I watch CNN or BBC.