On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 6:14:15 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-06-04 2:47 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:37:27 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:13:55 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>> On 2022-06-02 12:08 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 11:13:18 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>> On 2022-06-02 10:44 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>> WTF are you talking about?
> >>>>
> >>>> "Reported facts is an oxymoron" is a general observation and has nothing to do with you whatsoever.
> >>> Got it; I snipped my reply. Let's move on.
> >>>> It has to do with the various media sources that report the news.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unless you work for CNN, you shouldn't take it personally.
> >>> LOL! Some (Ash, eg), are just as nasty about Fox. It may be true that
> >>> there are some media that don't report facts, but only wrong information
> >>> or 'misinformation,' and probably true that all of them report some
> >>> misinformation sometimes.
> >>>
> >>> But they're also reporting facts -- true information -- and even the
> >>> most skeptical reader has to use them as the source of beliefs -- of his
> >>> "reality," as you've called it. It's undeniable that most of our facts
> >>> about the world are based on purely reported information.
> >>>>>> so "reported facts" is oxymoronic.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you didn't understand this.
> >>>>> It's actually not that easy to understand what's going on in someone's
> >>>>> unless they actually spell it out.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's an observation about the news, George.
> >>> But certainly not a true one. There are facts that we get from news
> >>> media reports; and we all rely on the media for such facts.
> >>>
> >>> Jim believes 19 people were shot dead in Uvalde, Texas. So do I, and
> >>> I'll bet so does everyone else reading. That's a non-controversial
> >>> 'fact'. But our only reason for our believing it's a fact is that it was
> >>> reported. It's a "reported fact" (as opposed to a sensory fact, eg.)
> >>> It should be obvious to everyone who reads it.
> >>> Maybe, but thinking about shows it's just as obviously wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Some things reported in the media are facts; "reported" and "fact" are
> >>> not contradictory terms.
> >> You have absolutely no sense of humor.
> >>
> >> A joke doesn't have to apply to every news story without exception.
> >>
> >> The general consensus among your average man on the street is that news sources can't be trusted.
> >>
> >> Hence the joke.
> >
> > George also promotes not to trust the news.
> I "promote" not to trust your news, as it always turns out to be fake
> news - like the above claim.
> >
> > Sad thing is the news was always a vital part of our democracy-
> I call bullshit; a free press is necessary for freedom, but not for
> "democracy" - you can hold elections just fine without one, as in
> Russia, eg

Are elections in Russia very legitimate, though?

> > so much that the Soviets, through the KGB (which Putin was chief of), spent so much effort to turn the public against the news, just like George does.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > When the average man on the street doesn't trust the news, who will he? His fellow men who also don't trust the news and will turn to sources, with no controls over them, like online that will tell them what they want to believe.

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:34:06 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 6:14:15 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On 2022-06-04 2:47 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:37:27 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:13:55 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>> On 2022-06-02 12:08 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>>> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 11:13:18 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > >>>>> On 2022-06-02 10:44 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > >>>> WTF are you talking about?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "Reported facts is an oxymoron" is a general observation and has nothing to do with you whatsoever.
> > >>> Got it; I snipped my reply. Let's move on.
> > >>>> It has to do with the various media sources that report the news.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Unless you work for CNN, you shouldn't take it personally.
> > >>> LOL! Some (Ash, eg), are just as nasty about Fox. It may be true that
> > >>> there are some media that don't report facts, but only wrong information
> > >>> or 'misinformation,' and probably true that all of them report some
> > >>> misinformation sometimes.
> > >>>
> > >>> But they're also reporting facts -- true information -- and even the
> > >>> most skeptical reader has to use them as the source of beliefs -- of his
> > >>> "reality," as you've called it. It's undeniable that most of our facts
> > >>> about the world are based on purely reported information.
> > >>>>>> so "reported facts" is oxymoronic.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you didn't understand this.
> > >>>>> It's actually not that easy to understand what's going on in someone's
> > >>>>> unless they actually spell it out.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It's an observation about the news, George.
> > >>> But certainly not a true one. There are facts that we get from news
> > >>> media reports; and we all rely on the media for such facts.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jim believes 19 people were shot dead in Uvalde, Texas. So do I, and
> > >>> I'll bet so does everyone else reading. That's a non-controversial
> > >>> 'fact'. But our only reason for our believing it's a fact is that it was
> > >>> reported. It's a "reported fact" (as opposed to a sensory fact, eg.)
> > >>> It should be obvious to everyone who reads it.
> > >>> Maybe, but thinking about shows it's just as obviously wrong.
> > >>>
> > >>> Some things reported in the media are facts; "reported" and "fact" are
> > >>> not contradictory terms.
> > >> You have absolutely no sense of humor.
> > >>
> > >> A joke doesn't have to apply to every news story without exception.
> > >>
> > >> The general consensus among your average man on the street is that news sources can't be trusted.
> > >>
> > >> Hence the joke.
> > >
> > > George also promotes not to trust the news.
> > I "promote" not to trust your news, as it always turns out to be fake
> > news - like the above claim.
> > >
> > > Sad thing is the news was always a vital part of our democracy-
> > I call bullshit; a free press is necessary for freedom, but not for
> > "democracy" - you can hold elections just fine without one, as in
> > Russia, eg
> Are elections in Russia very legitimate, though?

About as legitimate as your post-edits.

> > > so much that the Soviets, through the KGB (which Putin was chief of), spent so much effort to turn the public against the news, just like George does.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > When the average man on the street doesn't trust the news, who will he? His fellow men who also don't trust the news and will turn to sources, with no controls over them, like online that will tell them what they want to believe.

On 2022-06-04 5:26 p.m., W-Dockery wrote:
> George J. Dance wrote:
>
>> Robert and Ash would be oxymorons themselves, if they had the oxy.
>
>
> No argument with that.
>
> 🙂

Thanks. I'm glad that joke didn't pass without comment; I was rather
proud of it.

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:13:09 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-06-04 5:26 p.m., W-Dockery wrote:
> > George J. Dance wrote:
> >
> >> Robert and Ash would be oxymorons themselves, if they had the oxy.
> >
> >
> > No argument with that.
> >
> > 🙂
> Thanks. I'm glad that joke didn't pass without comment; I was rather
> proud of it.

Much more funny than Stevie Wonder jokes, in my opinion.

🙂

On 2022-06-04 8:32 p.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 6:14:15 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On 2022-06-04 2:47 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:37:27 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:13:55 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-06-02 12:08 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 11:13:18 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-06-02 10:44 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
>>>>>> WTF are you talking about?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Reported facts is an oxymoron" is a general observation and has nothing to do with you whatsoever.
>>>>> Got it; I snipped my reply. Let's move on.
>>>>>> It has to do with the various media sources that report the news.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless you work for CNN, you shouldn't take it personally.
>>>>> LOL! Some (Ash, eg), are just as nasty about Fox. It may be true that
>>>>> there are some media that don't report facts, but only wrong information
>>>>> or 'misinformation,' and probably true that all of them report some
>>>>> misinformation sometimes.
>>>>>
>>>>> But they're also reporting facts -- true information -- and even the
>>>>> most skeptical reader has to use them as the source of beliefs -- of his
>>>>> "reality," as you've called it. It's undeniable that most of our facts
>>>>> about the world are based on purely reported information.
>>>>>>>> so "reported facts" is oxymoronic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you didn't understand this.
>>>>>>> It's actually not that easy to understand what's going on in someone's
>>>>>>> unless they actually spell it out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's an observation about the news, George.
>>>>> But certainly not a true one. There are facts that we get from news
>>>>> media reports; and we all rely on the media for such facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim believes 19 people were shot dead in Uvalde, Texas. So do I, and
>>>>> I'll bet so does everyone else reading. That's a non-controversial
>>>>> 'fact'. But our only reason for our believing it's a fact is that it was
>>>>> reported. It's a "reported fact" (as opposed to a sensory fact, eg.)
>>>>> It should be obvious to everyone who reads it.
>>>>> Maybe, but thinking about shows it's just as obviously wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some things reported in the media are facts; "reported" and "fact" are
>>>>> not contradictory terms.
>>>> You have absolutely no sense of humor.
>>>>
>>>> A joke doesn't have to apply to every news story without exception.
>>>>
>>>> The general consensus among your average man on the street is that news sources can't be trusted.
>>>>
>>>> Hence the joke.
>>>
>>> George also promotes not to trust the news.
>> I "promote" not to trust your news, as it always turns out to be fake
>> news - like the above claim.
>>>
>>> Sad thing is the news was always a vital part of our democracy-
>> I call bullshit; a free press is necessary for freedom, but not for
>> "democracy" - you can hold elections just fine without one, as in
>> Russia, eg

> Holy shit! Is the real or some imposter troll? You're citing Russian elections that "elected" Putin over American elections? If the free press (Russia had a state run press for their "election") isn't so vital -- why is it protected in the Constitution as one of core freedoms,

As I told you, a free press is vital for freedom (not for "democracy").
The First Amendment's in the Bill of Rights because that's what the Bill
of Rights was for: to protect individual freedoms from "democracy."
(That's why the Second Amendment that you've been trashing is in there
as well.)

> which means it would also apply to the press being part of elections. I thought you said you were a Libertarian? No free press is very fascist/communist/authoritarian.

Yes, I've said over and over again that I'm a Libertarian. So why are
you trying to pretend I said something about "No free press."

> Saying the press isn't necessary for elections is a slippery slope condoning that the press to be controlled/suspended in other matters*...

Maybe it's a "slippery slope" to saying the press isn't "vital" for
other matters, but since it doesn't mention controlling or suspending
the press for anything, it can't be a "slippery slope" to that.

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:52:47 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On 2022-06-04 8:32 p.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 6:14:15 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On 2022-06-04 2:47 a.m., Ash Wurthing wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:37:27 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:13:55 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>> On 2022-06-02 12:08 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 11:13:18 AM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2022-06-02 10:44 a.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> >>>>>> WTF are you talking about?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Reported facts is an oxymoron" is a general observation and has nothing to do with you whatsoever.
> >>>>> Got it; I snipped my reply. Let's move on.
> >>>>>> It has to do with the various media sources that report the news.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Unless you work for CNN, you shouldn't take it personally.
> >>>>> LOL! Some (Ash, eg), are just as nasty about Fox. It may be true that
> >>>>> there are some media that don't report facts, but only wrong information
> >>>>> or 'misinformation,' and probably true that all of them report some
> >>>>> misinformation sometimes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But they're also reporting facts -- true information -- and even the
> >>>>> most skeptical reader has to use them as the source of beliefs -- of his
> >>>>> "reality," as you've called it. It's undeniable that most of our facts
> >>>>> about the world are based on purely reported information.
> >>>>>>>> so "reported facts" is oxymoronic.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I find it difficult to believe that you didn't understand this.
> >>>>>>> It's actually not that easy to understand what's going on in someone's
> >>>>>>> unless they actually spell it out.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's an observation about the news, George.
> >>>>> But certainly not a true one. There are facts that we get from news
> >>>>> media reports; and we all rely on the media for such facts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jim believes 19 people were shot dead in Uvalde, Texas. So do I, and
> >>>>> I'll bet so does everyone else reading. That's a non-controversial
> >>>>> 'fact'. But our only reason for our believing it's a fact is that it was
> >>>>> reported. It's a "reported fact" (as opposed to a sensory fact, eg.)
> >>>>> It should be obvious to everyone who reads it.
> >>>>> Maybe, but thinking about shows it's just as obviously wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Some things reported in the media are facts; "reported" and "fact" are
> >>>>> not contradictory terms.
> >>>> You have absolutely no sense of humor.
> >>>>
> >>>> A joke doesn't have to apply to every news story without exception.
> >>>> x

> >>>> The general consensus among your average man on the street is that news sources can't be trusted.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hence the joke.
> >>>
> >>> George also promotes not to trust the news.
> >> I "promote" not to trust your news, as it always turns out to be fake
> >> news - like the above claim.
> >>>
> >>> Sad thing is the news was always a vital part of our democracy-
> >> I call bullshit; a free press is necessary for freedom, but not for
> >> "democracy" - you can hold elections just fine without one, as in
> >> Russia, eg
> > Holy shit! Is the real or some imposter troll? You're citing Russian elections that "elected" Putin over American elections? If the free press (Russia had a state run press for their "election") isn't so vital -- why is it protected in the Constitution as one of core freedoms,
>
> As I told you, a free press is vital for freedom (not for "democracy").
> The First Amendment's in the Bill of Rights because that's what the Bill
> of Rights was for: to protect individual freedoms from "democracy."
> (That's why the Second Amendment that you've been trashing is in there
> as well.)
> > which means it would also apply to the press being part of elections. I thought you said you were a Libertarian? No free press is very fascist/communist/authoritarian.
> Yes, I've said over and over again that I'm a Libertarian. So why are
> you trying to pretend I said something about "No free press."

Because Ash just makes it up as he goes along?

> > Saying the press isn't necessary for elections is a slippery slope condoning that the press to be controlled/suspended in other matters*...
> Maybe it's a "slippery slope" to saying the press isn't "vital" for
> other matters, but since it doesn't mention controlling or suspending
> the press for anything, it can't be a "slippery slope" to that.