IT Employment

General discussion

Locked

CBS CANCELS 'REAGANS'

By maxwell edison ·
.
From the Drudge Report:

VIACOM CHAIR SUMNER REDSTONE EXPRESSED GRAVE CONCERN FOR NETWORK BROADCAST...

WILL AIR ON SHOWTIME UNCUT [WITH AIDS QUOTE ONLY DELETION]...

CBS will issue press release early in morning; Robert Greenblatt, head of SHOWTIME will announce that SHOWTIME will air the telepic.

Bob Ackerman the Director has said he will re-edit some portions of the film for SHOWTIME.

CBS to write-off $9 million...

----------

Way to go CBS! Kudos to you.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Wasn't me

by Oz_Media In reply to I asked you for a source ...

Once again you have all proved how assumtively wrong you can be well done.

It was nice to find, after posting below, that I can still cause a stir even when I'm not here.

If I had changed my Alias, under the new site setup, ALL my posts wouild have had the alias changed. Try it. All of your posts on all threads, old and new, will change to your new alias, instantly.

Collapse -

by Oz_Media In reply to I asked you for a source ...

"And true, he also has those same characteristics such as the way he cuts and pastes one's comments and simply puts them in quotes, and then replies underneath."

Where would I learn to do that? I always just voiced MY opinion. All to often someone would say, 'who are you talking to' or 'I didn't say that'. So I looked to the mentors, others not quite so highly astute as yourself (oh prehapse it WAS you) included the original comments in quotations with their rebuttal below.

Can you describe another way of answering someone's post point by point and having them know what you are referring to?

Collapse -

Here's how I'd do it

by maxwell edison In reply to I asked you for a source ...

.
OzMentalCase, you asked, "Can you describe another way of answering someone's post point by point and having them know what you are referring to?"

That first sentence indicates who asked the question or made a statement, and then goes on to repeat the question or statement.

That's how I'd do it. It's much clearer as to who said what. Without the preface "George, you said" (or whomever), oftentimes just pasting the quote, even though it was put in quotation marks, appears as though you said it yourself. It get confusing at times.

Commas and periods are also important, as they show necessary pauses and breaks, and they make the writer's intentions clearer. (Or should it be more clear?)

Perhaps Julian will read this and chime in. He's quite knowledgeable in issues of grammar and communicating via the written word.

By the way, OzMentalCase, you said that I was, "one sided and closed minded". Why is it that when I defend a position, you consider it "one sided and closed minded"? That's seldom the case.

For example, if you make a claim that President Bush said something, but through meticulous research and analysis I've determined that he did not say what you suggested, I will attempt to explain as much, perhaps question your assertions, and show where or how you are mistaken. What's close minded about knowing your wrong and stating as much? After all, both statements can't be true. Did he both say something AND not say the same thing at the same time? Of course not; that's not possible. Is it "open minded" to consider both sides in such cases - even if a person is convinced, and can prove, only one of those sides is correct?
Sometimes it's not a matter of opinion that's being questioned, but rather a matter of fact.
Moreover, why is it not you who is "closed minded" because you stick to your guns just as much?

(All rhetorical questions, as you can't possibly answer them in a way that is both consistent with things you've said in the past while being honest and forthright in your reply. Or can you?)

But there ya' go.

Collapse -

ok

by Oz_Media In reply to I asked you for a source ...

Maxwell Edison - You said, and I quote, "Did he both say something AND not say the same thing at the same time? "

It is possible if sources are to be questionable. It is VERY common to see two different statements from two different sources. ie. CNN News, Fox News, BBC news will offer the same story equally biased to appease the given station.

Collapse -

Oz, I agree

by maxwell edison In reply to I asked you for a source ...

But when you get different "stories" from different sources, it' time to go directly to the horse's own mouth. Did he say something or did he not. There's only one correct answer - never an in-between. Do you disagree?

Collapse -

Not at all

by Oz_Media In reply to I asked you for a source ...

Actually Max, you're correct in gettnig it from the horse's mouth. Not knowing the presidential cell phone number I couldn't call and ask. Therefore, I'm relying on the reports made publicly available and must again question the source. You see, even if the source is supposedly BUSH himself, it can still vary in it's message depending on the context and what is omitted vs what is aired.

Similar to your cut and pasting of my replies to posts. Now if I was to go down the list of nasty statements you posted on my behalf, I would agree with what you were saying about me.

Put these statements back into their original context and include the leading posts that triggered my comments, and it's a whole new ball game.

My whole point behind my calling BUSH fanatics followers or sheep, is that they generally take HIS word verbatim and seem to not question his true motives or reasons for his statements.

If Bush was to say that HIS sources have confirmed that Canada is building WMD, I'm sure there would be a massive following of American ciitizens that would back attacking Canada. He is ONLY reporting what HIS sources tell him, now this has been questioned if not proven to be wrong before, why should I take his word verbatim any longer?
I don't question the fact that he is completely capable of running your country, just that he seems to be easily led on by those in whom he trusts.
If this is the case, why should I listen to or back any of his statements if I feel them to be wrong?

Collapse -

Do you have a point?

by Oz_Media In reply to Lets see if this helps yo ...

Nice cut and paste work Jim, you're missing the macaroni and glitter though.
So do you have a point or are you on drugs?

if you do have a point, please make it clear so I can start making you a hat to fit it.

Collapse -

Max, can you apply your own standards to yourself?

by smatteson In reply to Lets see if this helps yo ...

"For example, if you make a claim that President Bush said something, but through meticulous research and analysis I've determined that he did not say what you suggested, I will attempt to explain as much, perhaps question your assertions, and show where or how you are mistaken. What's close minded about knowing your wrong and stating as much?"

And yet if I post claims by President Bush that counter your insistence he is an honest person, you seem to think that just ignoring them and continuing to reiterate your opinion regarding his credibility will suffice in lieu of doing any uncomfortable research and analysis. Perhaps that's because there's no such research or analysis available which would permit you to deny the obvious: that Bush has been caught telling lies, and that you'd like to believe him to be an honest person in spite of that. That bias of yours showing through again, I see.

"Sometimes it's not a matter of opinion that's being questioned, but rather a matter of fact.

Yes, and facts are uncomfortable things to some people, apparently.

"why is it not you who is "closed minded" because you stick to your guns just as much?"

Does this mean you're admitting your closed mindedness for sticking to your guns in the face of the facts? Or are you just trying to label the opposition without being willing to label yourself as well?

Collapse -

smateson - one last attempt at reason

by maxwell edison In reply to Max, can you apply your o ...

But I won't hold my breath thinking you are capable of it.

Your bias is obvious merely by your liberal use of the word "lie". I always try to choose my words carefully and deliberately, and those who liberally throw around words to mean different things always misuse words instead of using words. Lie means to deliberately tell someone something that is known to be false. Lie is not the same as being mistaken. Lie is not the same as making false assumptions. President Bush did not LIE about anything, and your insistence that he did proves your bias against him, and it proves your disingenuous intentions.

Nonetheless, I'll try to address your points anyway.

WMDs:

Point 1: In 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 - EVERYBODY in the WORLD knew that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. The French, the Germans, the Russians, the British, the Saudis, the Americans - past and present administrations, the members of the United States Congress - both the House and the Senate, members of both parties and independents, the "experts", the intelligence agencies - EVERYBODY stated as much. Even the members of the United Nations security council stated as much. There's no denying that fact.

Point 2: If EVERYONE knew it, and if (and that's a big IF) it turns out that they, in fact, do not exist, then EVERYONE was mistaken.

Point 3: Some evidence has indeed been found that they did exist and/or they were working on the development of them.

Point 4: The jury is still out. They may be buried. They may be hidden very well. They may still be found.

Point 5: There is credible evidence that they were moved, by truck, into Syria.

Point 6: According to numerous United Nations resolutions, knowing that they did indeed exist after the first Gulf war (19**), and knowing that as a condition of the cease fire the burden of proof was not on the world of nations to prove they did exist, but rather it was up to Saddam Hussein to prove they DID NOT exist, everyone - including the United Nations Security Council - conceded that Saddam Hussein was in violation of the UN resolutions in that regard because he failed to prove they were destroyed.

Therefore, President Bush DID NOT LIE about anything.

But you will certainly not be open-minded enough to accept these matters of fact, and you will continue to let your bias against President Bush compel YOU to continue your LIES in your lame attempt to discredit him.

Iraq (Hussein) ties with terrorists:

Point 1: There is indeed proof that Saddam Hussein's Iraq regime was supporting terrorist organizations. Whether that support was financial, facilitation, moral, or whatever, it doesn't matter. Make no mistake about it, the war in Iraq is ALSO about the war on terrorism.

Point 2: Terrorist organizations are presently in Iraq. If there were no ties, they wouldn't be there.

Point 3: I'm perfectly happy with the might of the United States military fighting terrorists in their own backyard instead of in Boston or Baltimore or Britain or anywhere else.

Bill Clinton:

Point 1: In the hundreds (probably thousands) of discussion messages I've posted, I've very seldom - if ever - mentioned Bill Clinton. The only reason I did in this thread was to illustrate the difference between a REAL LIE and what you mistakenly called a lie. To give a retort that I always bring him up is most disingenuous and most untrue.

Last Point: You're an idiot. (Okay, go ahead and say that I'm resorting to "name calling".)

Collapse -

Max - Point 5

by Cactus Pete In reply to Max, can you apply your o ...

Are you referring to the news released last week about the satellite photos showing a truck convoy headed towards Syria in the days just before the bombing started?

I have a problem with that report that came out. It's kinda late. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to have decided what that convoy was back when it happened? It troubles me to be led to believe that it took however many months it has been now to determine that this was WMD being moved.

I'm also not sure why Syria and the old Iraq would be helping each other. I thought they weren't on the best of terms - I thought only Jordan tolerated Saddam.... and that was shaky.

Anyway, either they took too long to figure out what was going on, or they held onto the info for release at a strange time...

Or you weren't referring to that...

Related Discussions

Related Forums