A cute face is all you need these days to be considered a good journalist I guess;
VERMILLION — The anchor of the “CBS Evening News,” Katie Couric, has been selected to receive the 2009 Al Neuharth Award for Excellence in the Media.
Her selection has been confirmed by Jack Marsh, executive director of the Al Neuharth Media Center and Freedom Forum in Vermillion. The Freedom Forum presents the award.
I have never cared much for her as a journalist, on top of it all, her producers write most of her questions. You know, the really tough ones like,”What magazines do you read?”
I’m sure the three people who still watch her broadcast are jmping with joy.
Yea out of the three big networks (CBS, ABC, NBC) I believe she was a distant third. It sort of saddens me as I actually like CBS news as a whole because some of their segments and 2nd tier talent is better than the competition, but I don’t care much for Couric herself.
You put Dan Rather back in that position and I’d probably start watching again. Say what you will about Rather, but at least he was entertaining… especially when he went off script.
She has widened the gap from second to third place, she’s vastly overpaid and turned more people away with her blatent bias.
In the bizarro world of today’s MSM, I guess that’s how you pull in the hardware.
It also helps to have some smokin’ hot legs… especially if you’re female. Seriously, do you know of any female TV Reporter with cankles?
Better be careful JR, the DW girls will be over here telling us how sexist we are because we don’t believe Katie deserves the award. She doesn’t deserve the award, because she sucks as a reporter not because of her cankles.
No, it’s totally the cankles. And just look at those crow’s feet sometime!
She just doesn’t have what it takes anymore.
Costner:
“You put Dan Rather back in that position and I’d probably start watching again.”
Rather was entertaing, sure. But deserving of his old job back after Rathergate?
Surely you jest.
If you’re serious, you just came down on the same side as the Birthers and their quest to make hay with (hopefully) false documents.
“Rather was entertaing, sure. But deserving of his old job back after Rathergate?”
I didn’t figure you could let that slip by without a reference to Rathergate. Saw that one coming a mile away.
First off, I think we can all agree Rather dropped the ball on those documents and should have sought secondary confirmation. The difference between Dano and the birthers is he admitted that fact when the documents were challenged and issued a retraction of sorts.
Second, and I know this will really get your panties in a bunch – the “Rathergate” documents were never actually proven to be falsified. The issue was they coudln’t be proven to be legitimate either… thus the problem. Funny how the content of the documents never seems to be the issue, and more than few people have said the content remains accurate.
Third, considering Rather admitted the error in judgement along with several producers, I don’t consider that one incident worthy of banishment. The man was a proven entity for something like 30+ years and I hardly think one flaw on his record should be indicitive of his career as a whole. Like him or hate him, one has to admit Rather was effective and he didn’t need a producer feeding him questions via an earpiece.
He asked tough questions regardless of who was sitting across from him and showed that some reporters are still journalists rather than just news readers. Arguably Rather leaving CBS was an end of an era of real leading newsmen.
There is no way Katie can compete with the babes of Fox News. Isn’t that right Sy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1qAnx-_LmY
cankles
LOL
Costner:
“I didn’t figure you could let that slip by without a reference to Rathergate. Saw that one coming a mile away.”
Than it shouldn’t be a surprise to you that Rather lied when he said this in defense of the original 60 minutes report:
Rather stated Marcel Matley “analyzed the documents for CBS News. He believes they are real,”
When Matley actually told Rather prior to the story running:
Matley told Rather “he could not authenticate the documents due to the fact that they were poor quality copies.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-2004Sep13?language=printer
Yet for 2 weeks after the story CBS and Rather used your favorite tactic and went after the sources as a means to deflect.
In the end, Rather and his producers all were sent packing because it was blatently obvious their agenda was exposed. All of them basically apologized for getting caught, not for their intentions of altering the election. It was also exposed that Rather’s producer was in contact about the story with a top Kerry campaign aide.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665817.shtml
So what’s Rather do next? Fires up the attorneys and sues for $70 million.
Yeah, that sure sounds like a guy who learned his lesson. You want your news from a known liar that’s your perogative.
Bush may very well have been a fuck-off and a slacker back then, but to make an orchestrated effort to falsely document that 2 months before the election and run it as rock solid news analysis in coordination with the Kerry campiagn is beyond outrageous.
You and I both know if someone like Brit Hume was caught running a similarly “rock solid” story backed by unverifiable documents on say Obama’s drug addictions last September, you would’ve demanded Hume deported and Fox shut down.
Shoot, they could put Drew Sandholm on the news at CBS and I’d be more inclined to watch it than with KC on air.
Heck, even Jodi Schwan
In the end, Rather and his producers all were sent packing because it was blatently obvious their agenda was exposed.
Yea…you caugh ’em. That damn liberal media conspiracy.
You and I both know if someone like Brit Hume was caught running a similarly “rock solid†story backed by unverifiable documents on say Obama’s drug addictions last September, you would’ve demanded Hume deported and Fox shut down.
Actually I don’t know that. I might expect a retraction and an explanation, but I wouldn’t be demanding anything.
There you go assuming this is a left vs. right debate. It has more to do with credibility, and I don’t consider this a debate about liberal or conservative, I consider it a debate about journalistic integrity. Rather was wrong – he should have known better, but his record of 30+ years is far more telling than this one incident, and I’ve seen enough to know he isn’t some closet liberal who was seeking to destroy Bush as so many of you uptight righties would like to believe.
costner:
“Yea…you caugh ‘em. That damn liberal media conspiracy.”
Rather himself has admitted as such:
“On Sunday, Biden said that electing Obama president will generate “an international crisis†within the first six months of his new administration because America’s enemies will want to test Obama.
“Watch — we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy,†Biden assured. “I don’t know what the decision is going to be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history, and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it is going to happen.â€
Rather, speaking today on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe†cable program, told host Joe Scarborough that if Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin had said such a thing about her running mate John McCain, it would be “the top story in every major American paper and on every network.â€
Rather says the Obama campaign “can’t be happy†about Biden’s comments and is surprised there haven’t been more political ramifications to Biden’s gaffe.
“Certainly if Sarah Palin had said this, it would be above the fold in most newspapers today,” Rather said. “But let me point out that what happens on the Internet may be as important, or more important, than what’s happening in newspapers,†he added, referring to the spotty mainstream media coverage.
“I’ll be surprised if this doesn’t have a run on the Internet, because if Sarah Palin had said this, the newspapers would have jumped all over it, and so would the major television outlets.â€
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/rather_biden_crisis/2008/10/21/142669.html
Costner:
“and I’ve seen enough to know he isn’t some closet liberal who was seeking to destroy Bush as so many of you uptight righties would like to believe.”
Did you see this exchange?
Bill O’Reilly: “I want to ask you flat out, do you think President Clinton’s an honest man?â€
Dan Rather: “Yes, I think he’s an honest man.â€
O’Reilly: “Do you, really?â€
Rather: “I do.â€
O’Reilly: “Even though he lied to Jim Lehrer’s face about the Lewinsky case?â€
Rather: “Who among us has not lied about something?â€
O’Reilly: “Well, I didn’t lie to anybody’s face on national television. I don’t think you have, have you?â€
Rather: “I don’t think I ever have. I hope I never have. But, look, it’s one thing – â€
O’Reilly: “How can you say he’s an honest guy then?â€
Rather: “Well, because I think he is. I think at core he’s an honest person. I know that you have a different view. I know that you consider it sort of astonishing anybody would say so, but I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.â€
— Exchange on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor, May 15, 2001.
http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/2005/nq20050228.asp
So there you go, you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things. Like if someone asks you if you are a liberal, go ahead and lie about it and sleep like a baby.
I can see why you are such a huge DR fan.
I don’t like Katie. However, I watch the national news on NBC, because I like their announcers the best. They seem to look more like the common person instead of being so made up.
We want to give a journalism award to someone who really deserves it AND is female? Two words, Kimberly Dozier of CBS. Embedded in Iraq and was seriously injured in an attack. Went through rehab and is back again at work, this time for CBS Radio.
What did Couric do… get a metal tube stuck up her butt on national TV?
There is 4 I can think of;
1) Lara Logan. I just think for as young as she is, it is amazing what she has reported, that and the fact she pretty much blown off the supposed scandal about her having a baby out of wedlock with an American contractor, she is back at work and better then ever.
2) Micheael Ware. He always acts and looks like he is either drunk or hungover, but reports the most profound and logical things. I think he is great.
3) Jim Hightower, just because he is my hero.
4) Rachel Maddow. Always willing to take on the rarely reported stories. The only critique I would have of Rachel is she needs to toughen up a bit. When Bush’s speech writer David Frum was on her show berating her sarcasm, she seemed to get emotional, and it wasn’t like he was across the table from her, he was on remote. I personally would of laid in to him, then cut his mic. And laughed about it.
Rather himself has admitted as such
If you feel his comments were admitting such, you clearly aren’t reading the same quotes I am.
So which is it Sy – is Rather part of hte liberal media conspiracy or is he an outsider recognizing it? You seem to want it both ways (big shocker there) but the argument just doesn’t hold water.
Too bad for you (and Rather) that Biden’s comments DID make front page news and were everywhere in the media. Hell even to this day we can’t go a week without hearing about them… so much for that theory.
Did you see this exchange?
No because unlike you I don’t watch Bill O and use his as a source of news. However Rather’s comment is accuarate – you can still be an honest man but have lied. Name me one politician – hell name me one human being – who has never lied.
Based upon your idiotic standards, there are no honest people in America. Except you Sy, because I’m sure you have never lied in your life, so you just might be the world’s only honest person.
Gotta love how you dig up quotes from 2001 in defense of whatever point you were trying to make however. Also gotta love your sources…nrc and newsmax. And you are the guy trying to talk about bias. lol
Like if someone asks you if you are a liberal, go ahead and lie about it and sleep like a baby.
You caught me Sy… I have to lie about it because I didn’t want anyone to know that I might be the only pro-life liberal who happens to be for lower and level taxes, tort reform, union reform, balanced budgets, free markets, welfare reform, term limits, and who doesn’t have the word Democrat on their voter registration form.
Then again, it seems your only defense to those who call you out on your bullshit is to label them as a liberal or a Democrat, so it doesn’t surprise me that you fall back upon that red herring as if it invalidates anything I have said.
STFU Sy – your ignorance is only matched by your bias. You trying to identify bias elsewhere is like Rosie O’donnell snubbing Kirstie Alley because she has gained a few pounds.
Costner:
“So which is it Sy – is Rather part of hte liberal media conspiracy or is he an outsider recognizing it”
No, it was you who was ridiculing the idea of liberal media bias. Try to keep up with whatever point you are trying to make.
Rather has both denied liberal bias in the past, and then acknowleged it with Palin quote. Biden’s gaffe was reported on, sure. But it was a blip, even with his long history of idiotic statements.
Rather’s point is, that if Palin had said the same thing it would’ve been a firestorm, probably worse than some of her other ones. Conversely, if Biden had made one of Palin’s comments, like the bumbled “which magazines?” answer, it wouldn’t have been reported on to the degree or in the same tone as it was with Palin. Instead of “Wow, what an idiot!” you get “Oh, that’s just old Joe, I’m sure he meant…” See the difference? If not, try taking the partisan blinders off for once.
Costner:
“No because unlike you I don’t watch Bill O…” Nor do I. I pulled this from MRC as I referenced. Who merely transcribed it. I also sources CBS and
(ooops hit submit too soon, sorry)
and the Washington Post in the post above it. You’ve claimed some ominscient ability to know where I get my views from as your way to avoid actually countering with your own. The same way you claimed above that:
“and I’ve seen enough to know he isn’t some closet liberal who was seeking to destroy Bush..”
To which I submitted my evidence that Rather justifies his lying in certain cases. So then it comes down to are you taking the man at his word (even though there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary) or is it possible that Rather has been lying since he feels it’s better overall for himself and/or his cause? You refuse to acknolege that possibility, instead you resort to attacking me, once again.
Costner:
“Based upon your idiotic standards, there are no honest people in America. Except you Sy, because..”
Wrong again, my point is that CBS has made their own bed thanks to the likes of Couric and Rather. Remember, these are people who’s job it is to report the news, objectively. That’s not my job. When they don’t, people like MRC and Newsmax call them out on it, usually like I do by throwing their own words back at them. Rush, Oreilly, Olbermann, L3wis, et al are commentators, not reporters or anchors. Like you and I they are free to have their opinions and just like you and are are free to agree or disagree with them.
You can claim “Rather isn’t a liberal” all you want, but have something other than an ad homienem attack on me to back it with.
Costner:
Here’s one more example of the tone I was talking about vis a vis the same event: A Presidential candidate announces his running mate:
“Democrats were quick to portray the ticket as, quote, ‘two Texas oilmen’ because Cheney was chief of a big Dallas-based oil supply conglomerate. They also blast Cheney’s voting record in Congress as, again quote, ‘outside the American mainstream’ because of Cheney’s votes against the Equal Rights for Women Amendment, against a woman’s right to choose abortion — against abortion as Cheney prefers to put it — and Cheney’s votes against gun control.â€
— Reporting on Bush’s selection of Dick Cheney as his running mate, July 25, 2000 CBS Evening News.
vs.
“Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore officially introduced his history-making running mate today, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut….In their first joint appearance they gave a preview of the Gore-Lieberman fight-back, comeback strategy. Their message: They represent the future, not the past, and they are the ticket of high moral standards most in tune with real mainstream America.â€
— Reporting on Lieberman’s selection exactly two weeks later, August 8, 2000 CBS Evening News.
http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/2005/nq20050228.asp
You cannot tell me with a strait face (unless you are lying scum) that those two reports were in any way objectively relayed to Rather’s viewers.
Biden’s gaffe was reported on, sure. But it was a blip, even with his long history of idiotic statements.
Not sure what Amish colony you have been hanging out in, but back in the modern world Biden’s comments have been discussed ad naseum.
Type ‘biden “Obama will be tested”‘ into Google and you are presented with over 1,500,000 million hits. That is over ONE AND A HALF MILLION. You can find quotes and/or clips from almost every major news network and newspaper.
Meanwhile if you type in ‘Palin “Um, all of them”‘ (referencing the Couric quote that everyone feels was so unfair) you get 554 results.
Not 5.5 million.
Not 554,000.
554.
FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FOUR.
Sorry Sy, but your idea of bias isn’t even remotely accurate or based in reality. Sure bias exists on both sides of the aisle, but to think Rather and Couric are exceptions or that they are somehow closet liberals with a secret agenda is absurd.
That’s not my job. When they don’t, people like MRC and Newsmax call them out on it
Therein lies the problem. MRC and Newsmax (much like yourself) have a bad habit of finding bias anytime they don’t like the content. If it makes a Republican look bad it is suddenly bias, but when Brit Hume or Shepard Smith call out a Democrat or ‘accidentally’ label a member of Congress as a Democrat when they are involved in a sex scandal even though they are really a Republican … not a peep from Newsmax or MRC. Oh I’m sure you could find somethin on FAIR.org, but Hume would have you believe he was able to remain unbiased all those years even though his switched gears from journalist to commentator depending upon which show he was on.
At least if you are going to use a media watchdog group as your source, find one that isn’t so obviously biased themselves.
You can claim “Rather isn’t a liberal†all you want, but have something other than an ad homienem attack on me to back it with.
I did that already. You cited one example over the period of three or four decades of reporting. The man sat behind the desk for numerous administrations. He said good and bad about Republicans and Democrats, but yet if you dig hard enough I’m sure you can find a few things he did that appear to be biased.
The problem is you like to cherry pick statements just like you base your entire opinion of Rather on the one event that the far right focuses on… Rathergate. One story out of the thousands upon thousands he ever gave and that is enough for you because the burden of proof you rely upon is so distorted.
You cannot tell me with a strait face (unless you are lying scum) that those two reports were in any way objectively relayed to Rather’s viewers.
Based upon those quotes not they are not at all the same. However based upon the source you pulled them from, it is once again clear they very easily could have (and most likely did) cherry pick quotations to back up their viewpoint that everyone in the media (except those of Fox of course) are closet liberals.
Since you clearly are no fan of Rather, I’m quite you sure you never actually watched his program, and thus from where I’m sitting you haven’t got a clue of his ability to remain impartial. You can pull quotations out of context from your conservative blogs and websites all day long but it doesn’t change a thing.
Asking you to be able to identify bias when you are relying upon biased sources to back up your claims is a futile effort.
I believe Katie’s bird was for Sy.
Helga,
If you are correct, that would prove my point nicely.
Costner:
Nice try on the googles, but you type in Palin “all of them” and leave out the Um and you get 12.1 million hits. You type in Palin + I can see russia and you get 3.3 million.
“Since you clearly are no fan of Rather, I’m quite you sure you never actually watched his program,”
Again, you sure fancy yourself as somone who knows all and sees all. How about some unbiased proof that I’ve never actually watched his program?
And again, nice doublespeak. In one breath you say your sure bias exists on both sides, and of course being omnipotent like you are, you know Brit Hume is biased, but again it’s absurd to think Couric and Rather are, no matter how many quotes you may have “cherry picked”.
You’re right about one thing, you shouldn’t debate Barney Frank, even a dolt like him would shove your circular logic right back up your ass.
After watching and listening to the town hall meetings for the last few weeks I think the salute is right on the money and goes to all of those of your persuasion. The lies and nasty remarks are proof that you and your cohorts really do live some where else. Not in the real world where the rest of us live that is for sure.
Nice try on the googles, but you type in Palin “all of them†and leave out the Um and you get 12.1 million hits.
Not all of which actually relate to her actual quote since the phrase ‘all of them’ can be (and is) a bit more common. In fact at least one link on the very first page of that search has nothing to do with her quote. But spin it however you wish – the facts are the facts.
Again, you sure fancy yourself as somone who knows all and sees all.
No I don’t, and nowhere have I said that. The fact is you claim Rather is biased yet you base it on quotes gleaned from biased websites. And then you want to talk about circular logic? Nice try though.
In one breath you say your sure bias exists on both sides, and of course being omnipotent like you are, you know Brit Hume is biased, but again it’s absurd to think Couric and Rather are, no matter how many quotes you may have “cherry pickedâ€.
Again you fail. I never said Hume was biased, I merely said the websites you referenced would never make such a claim because they only look for liberal bias as opposed to conservative bias.
Thus was my entire point – bias exists where you want it to because you can pick any journalist out there and find quotes from them which can be viewed as bias. If I wanted to be petty like yourself, I could list you a few dozen gems from Hume which would make him look like a conservative hack, but that wasn’t my goal.
Then again, at least Rather didn’t read the news Monday thru Friday and then hop onto an opinion show on Sunday where he would openly display massive amounts of one-sidedness.
Good job defending your biased sources by the way. It is always much more effective to make accusations about me rather than actually take the time to defend your statements.
BTW, omnipotence applies to having great and vast power. If you really want to insult someone acting like they know everything, you should really use the term omniscient which means great and/or vast knowledge. Sorry about the irony in me pointing this out, but thought you would like to know.
Costner,
“BTW, omnipotence applies to having great and vast power. If you really want to insult someone acting like they know everything, you should really use the term omniscient which means great and/or vast knowledge. Sorry about the irony in me pointing this out, but thought you would like to know.”
Look a few posts up, smart guy. Because I used that term as well;
Sy:
“You’ve claimed some ominscient ability to know where I get my views from..”
Again, there you are thinking you know something when you really don’t. That ain’t irony, that’s just pathetic.
Helga:
“After watching and listening to the town hall meetings for the last few weeks I think the salute is right on the money and goes to all of those of your persuasion. The lies and nasty remarks are proof that you and your cohorts really do live some where else. Not in the real world where the rest of us live that is for sure.”
Real world? Don’t look now, but the Obama=Nazi lady is just down the block from you and Barney Frank. And if Pols are going to hold town halls to campaign, then they sure as hell should be able to handle vocal opposition to a policy or program that their constituants are opposed to. I’d bet a paycheck that our most gracious blogger host would agree with that, right L3wis?
Again, there you are thinking you know something when you really don’t.
Sorry Sy, but your usage is simply incorrect. Your quote was “and of course being omnipotent like you are, you know Brit Hume is biased” which clearly indicates you were attempting to use the term omnipotent to indicate that I “know” something. The term has zero relevance in this case and anyone with access to a dictionary can see that for themselves.
I know you feel the need to sound intelligent, but you would be better off admitting your error and moving on. That is how we learn – but far be it from a far right conservative to ever admit they are wrong.
Costner:
“The term has zero relevance in this case and anyone with access to a dictionary can see that for themselves.”
You mean like this one
From Merriam webster:
Main Entry: 1om·nip·o·tent
Pronunciation: \-tənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin omnipotent-, omnipotens, from omni- + potent-, potens potent
Date: 14th century
1 often capitalized : almighty 1
2 : having virtually unlimited authority or influence
3 obsolete : arrant
— om·nip·o·tent·ly adverb
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipotent
After you pull your entire leg our of your mouth take a peek at the first definition where they say it means ALMIGHTY, as in all seeing, all knowing etc. So that would make my usage of it entirely proper. Would you care to debate the definition of the term “Almighty” now, moron?
Soooooooooo then, where does that leave us?
Oh yes, my error..I’ll be happy to admit it, at one point I figured you’d stop trying to make a complete ass out of yourself into an art form, but apparently you’ve got a lot left in the tank.
Would you care to debate the definition of the term “Almighty†now, moron?
Oh yes, my error..I’ll be happy to admit it, at one point I figured you’d stop trying to make a complete ass out of yourself into an art form, but apparently you’ve got a lot left in the tank.
Dance, dance, dance away Sy. You should run for public office because you already have the backpeddling and double-speak concepts down perfectly. Sure takes a big man to stretch so far that he won’t even admit he used the improper term in some vain attempt to appear intelligent.
Gotta love a classy guy who can’t debate the topic at hand, so he then starts whining about ad hominem attacks only to include an ad hominem attack (or two) in practically every one of his posts.
As always…stay classy Sy.
Costner:
“Gotta love a classy guy who can’t debate the topic at hand, so he then starts whining about ad hominem attacks only to include an ad hominem attack (or two) in practically every one of his posts.”
No shit, shirley. You might want to read the thread again. Or have a grown-up read it to you. You lobbed the first rock (post #14) by sarcastically mocking the idea of liberal bias, than finshed your thought by lumping me in with the “uptight righties”. I simply respond as to how I am addressed. Unlike me, you failed to cite anything other than your own OMNIPOTENT wisdom, whereas I provided examples and links from a vareity of sources, no less. Just like I did with the dictionary.
Have you heard the term: “the almighty dollar?” Well, “almighty” in that case is the adjective. Have you heard about adjectives, idiot? They are descriptive of the noun.
Just like the adjective “omnipotent” in my usage to describe your self-perceived ability (noun) is also the adjective, and in no way improper. So, no I won’t admit a mistake that isn’t there. Nice try, d-bag.
Face it Cost, you got fuckin’ owned. You tried once to tell me to use a term I had already used, and now you seem to think somebody appointed you the Grammer police when you obviously don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. When you had nothing better to say, which was pretty much always, you fall back on attacking me or my sources. Than you have the balls to try to project onto me the “one trick pony” or “dancing” whatever other convoluted term you can muster.
All the while you could’ve been backing up your point(s) with some actual research, but either chose not to or didn’t find what you were looking for. Who’s the one who can’t debate, again? Either way, you want everyone to yield when you say “I’ve seen enough of Rather to know blah blah…:
Christ, look at your earlier reply:
Costner:
“First off, I think we can all agree Rather dropped the ball on those documents and should have sought secondary confirmation”
To which I provided you with evidence that secondary confirmation was indeed sought, and info from the inital 4 experts was either ignored or mis-reported. Rather claimed they were authenticated, but he left out that they couldn’t be. WTF? That ain’t my version, that’s what fucking happened! That’s what started the shitstorm. And that is fucking bias pure and simple.
Well, buddy, I’ve seen enough of you to know how full of shit you actually are. And unlike Rather, we have reems of your own posts to provide the evidence.
Sy: You lobbed the first rock (post #14) by sarcastically mocking the idea of liberal bias
Me thinks Sy needs to look up the concept of an ad hominem attack before responding. Unless of course you think “mocking the idea of liberal bias†is a direct assault upon your sensibilities, in which case you clearly have bigger problems as the world must be out to get you.
Then again since I posted two times before that and you responded by attempting lump me in with “the birthers†I guess by your standards I should be offended.
And of course the post you refer to (#14) was in response to your accusation that I “you would’ve demanded Hume deported and Fox shut downâ€. I guess straw man arugments are more civil than ad hominem attacks… although I don’t believe I was the one bitching about ad hominem attacks either – you brought it up during post 21.
Let me know if I need to take notes here Sy – I just have a hard time following your twisted thought processes.
Sy: I simply respond as to how I am addressed.
While whining about ad hominems and including them in the following posts? Got it. Now it all makes perfect sense. You’re not only ignorant, but also a hypocrite.
Sy: Unlike me, you failed to cite anything other than your own OMNIPOTENT wisdom, whereas I provided examples and links from a vareity of sources, no less.
Aside from the fact I explained this already (perhaps you should consider letting a junior high school debate student explain it to you), your sources are still biased. I told you I could cite sources showing Hume had bias – which I will gladly do if you insist – but that those sources would no doubt be less than credible themselves just as your sources are.
We have been through the cherry-picking discussion already, and you doing so does not in any way make your information credible. Hate to break it to you Sy, but finding a source on the Internet doesn’t automatically make it true.
(cont.)
Now as to your dictionary reference, you indicated “and of course being omnipotent like you are, you know Brit Hume is biased†which (no matter how you attempt to spin it) indicates you are equating omnipotence with knowledge.
So let’s agree on the following:
Definition of omnipotent:
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
Definition of omniscient:
1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
Since you seem to be so keen upon using sources – here you go:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omniscient
Now which of those two terms do we think deals with great power and which of those terms has to do with great knowledge?
Tough call on this one… considering the actual definition of omniscient actually includes the term “knowledge†which as you might know (or as you could in theory look up on the Internet) has to do with a state of knowing.
So all of that being said, you actually went so far as to claim since the definition from merriam-webster includes the term almighty then by association almighty means all seeing and all knowing.
However – if you actually look up the term “almighty†on the very website you used as your original source, you find the following:
1 often capitalized : having absolute power over all
2 a : relatively unlimited in power b : having or regarded as having great power or importance
So for those of us playing at home Sy, please cite for me where the term is defined by using the term “know†or “knowledgeâ€.
If you are so dependent upon sources, surely you trust the very website you attempted to use to define your term do you not? Yet that website defines almighty by using the term “power†no less than three times yet never invokes the term “know†or “knowledgeâ€.
You can continue to stretch and pretend you used the proper term, but it is clear you were, and continue to be, incorrect. In case you need a source for the appropriate response, I suggest the following:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apology
Sorry I guess my post may not come through because I included too many links…darn me for trying to post sources as Sy requires.
Anyway – here it is broken into two parts:
ow as to your dictionary reference, you indicated “and of course being omnipotent like you are, you know Brit Hume is biased†which (no matter how you attempt to spin it) indicates you are equating omnipotence with knowledge.
So let’s agree on the following:
Definition of omnipotent:
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
Definition of omniscient:
1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
Since you seem to be so keen upon using sources – here you go:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omnipotent
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omniscient
Now which of those two terms do we think deals with great power and which of those terms has to do with great knowledge?
Tough call on this one… considering the actual definition of omniscient actually includes the term “knowledge†which as you might know (or as you could in theory look up on the Internet) has to do with a state of knowing.
So all of that being said, you actually went so far as to claim since the definition from merriam-webster includes the term almighty then by association almighty means all seeing and all knowing.
However – if you actually look up the term “almighty†on the very website you used as your original source, you find the following:
1 often capitalized : having absolute power over all
2 a : relatively unlimited in power b : having or regarded as having great power or importance
So for those of us playing at home Sy, please cite for me where the term is defined by using the term “know†or “knowledgeâ€.
If you are so dependent upon sources, surely you trust the very website you attempted to use to define your term do you not? Yet that website defines almighty by using the term “power†no less than three times yet never invokes the term “know†or “knowledgeâ€.
I still can’t seem to get this to post – so either it is too long or it doesn’t like URLs to a dictionary. I’ll try it without the links in hopes Sy can look them up for himself.
Now as to your dictionary reference, you indicated “and of course being omnipotent like you are, you know Brit Hume is biased†which (no matter how you attempt to spin it) indicates you are equating omnipotence with knowledge.
So let’s agree on the following:
Definition of omnipotent:
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
Definition of omniscient:
1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
Since you seem to be so keen upon using sources – please note these are taken directly from dictionary.com.
Now which of those two terms do we think deals with great power and which of those terms has to do with great knowledge?
Tough call on this one… considering the actual definition of omniscient actually includes the term “knowledge†which as you might know (or as you could in theory look up on the Internet) has to do with a state of knowing.
So all of that being said, you actually went so far as to claim since the definition from merriam-webster includes the term almighty then by association almighty means all seeing and all knowing.
However – if you actually look up the term “almighty†on the very website you used as your original source, you find the following:
1 often capitalized : having absolute power over all
2 a : relatively unlimited in power b : having or regarded as having great power or importance
So for those of us playing at home Sy, please cite for me where the term is defined by using the term “know†or “knowledgeâ€.
If you are so dependent upon sources, surely you trust the very website you attempted to use to define your term do you not? Yet that website defines almighty by using the term “power†no less than three times yet never invokes the term “know†or “knowledgeâ€.
You can continue to stretch and pretend you used the proper term, but it is clear you were, and continue to be, incorrect. In case you need a source for the appropriate response, I suggest the following:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apology
Sy: Have you heard about adjectives, idiot?
Clearly I have – as seen above.
Sy: Nice try, d-bag.
So this is yet another ad hominem from the guy who whines about ad hominems? Again since you like sources so much – you might wish to look up the term hypocrite on the website of your choosing.
Hope you don’t have any problems with vowels since you seem to have some issue with proper use of adjectives.
Sy: Face it Cost, you got fuckin’ owned.
I disagree – and so does the dictionary.
Sy: somebody appointed you the Grammer police
You misunderstand (big shocker there). I merely pointed out the irony of you attempting to use the term “omnipotent†when it was clear you were using the term improperly. I’m the last person to call someone out for grammar or spelling because frankly I make mistakes all the time and I freely admit doing so. I merely found the humor in your failed usage as it was so clear you were attempting to sound intelligent… I equate it to the person who calls someone else a “moranâ€.
(cont)
Why don’t you two have a fucking cage match already?
While we are at it, let me just say I’m also guilty of the random ad hominem as well… and I wasn’t calling you out for using ad hominems, I was merely citing how hypocritical it was for you to complain about their usage while interjecting a few of your own. If you can’t see the humor in that, then there might not be any hope for you.
Sy: All the while you could’ve been backing up your point(s) with some actual research
Again you simply don’t understand the futility in this exercise. My original point was Rather (aside from the one incident you seem to focus upon) was a good newsman and a respected journalist. You actually are so naive to think that requires me to post sources to back up an opinion?
Perhaps you should read my original post again. Not much has changed since I posted it.
But as to those sources, what good would it do to post them – we could exchange sources all day long about the man, and your opinion would remain the same because you obviously take your opinion from biased websites – or at the very least they are the only sources you are willing to cite. I fail to see the benefit in that form of “debateâ€.
However, it should also be clearly understood it is difficult or perhaps impossible to provide sources to show someone isn’t biased whereas it is much easier to selectively cite sentences or snippets out of context to show bias. As I have already said if you wish me to do so in reference to your boy Hume just let me know and I can provide dozens. Does that mean Hume is biased? No – it just means I could present evidence supporting that viewpoint regardless of accuracy.
Sy: Well, buddy, I’ve seen enough of you to know how full of shit you actually are. And unlike Rather, we have reems of your own posts to provide the evidence.
I would assume this is yet another case where we will need to agree to disagree, and from where I’m standing I can’t even hold a candle to your selective ignorance or arrogance for that matter.
As with most of these lively debates you always seem to change the subject when it becomes clear someone has called you out on your bullshit, which is probably why there is such a frequency of the “STFU Sy†responses to your posts.
Maybe I am guilty of one thing – I’m just dumb enough to engage you when the others have figured out it is an exercise in futility (sort of like Frank’s comment about debating a coffee table).
You are free to hold your distorted viewpoint that Rather and the rest of the mainstream media is biased or that I’m delusional for thinking that is merely a cop-out and I will continue to know you’re wrong. It’s just that simple.
Costner:
“Me thinks Sy needs to look up the concept of an ad hominem attack before responding. Unless of course you think “mocking the idea of liberal bias†is a direct assault upon your sensibilities”
Notice how you intentionaly omitted the final part of your post where you used the phrase: “many of you uptight righties would like to believe.” You were responding to me, and up to that point no attacks were launched by me. Go read it again. My first post to you I suggested you might be joking that Rather deserved his old job back, as well as providing the reason why.
You came back with suggesting my panties were in a bunch (again you cited my post) and you went on to give your whitewashed version of how Rathergate went down. Again, with no backing evidence. I cited sources (CBS, NYT) that totally discredit your idea that Rather was simply in a rush,should’ve sought secondary confirmation and he didn’t deserve to lose his job, and all the while trying to DANCE away from the simple point that this was indeed a shining example of media bias. After that comes post #14 where you stepped up your insults on me…it’s all right fucking there above you.
I replied with two other examples, one of which is Rather himself citing the Palin bias, and ended with the rather benign retort as to why you are such a DR fan.
You then went off the deep end and tried to paint a new picture of your own about how Biden’s gaffe was all over the place. I never said it wasn’t, I said the way it was reported and the tone used showed the bias, so you finally try to back yourself up with your google post, to which I showed was bullshit as well. This was also where you spoke with such certainty as to what I watch or don’t, regardless of the fact that it’s an impossibility for you to know any of that, unless you’re a stalker.
Then you’ve launced into which terms I should or shouldn’t use and how, showing again you either aren’t reading what I post (but hey,don’t let that stop you from bashing it) or you are simply using the same technique of:
“As with most of these lively debates you always seem to change the subject when it becomes clear someone has called you out on your bullshit”
So how many times in the above exchanges
did YOU change the subject? I don’t see Biden, Hume or proper grammar techniques in the thread title.
You didn’t call out shit, you went into attack mode, which is how YOU change the subject, then you bitch about people changing the subject. Than to top it off, you call me a hypocrite.
Costner:
“So let’s agree on the following:
Definition of omnipotent:
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.”
Okay, shithead, we are officially in agreement on that working definition. Let’s look at my offending sentance, once again:
Sy:
“of course being omnipotent like you are, you know Brit Hume is biased”
So, you being the noun & subject of the sentance, and “omnipotent” means as above. Inifinite power would include the ability to see all and know all, like God. If there are things you can’t see or know, than that would consqentially make that power finite, and not infinite. So again, my use of the term was entirely proper. Knowlege IS power, if you had some you’d fucking know that.
Costner:
“But as to those sources, what good would it do to post them – we could exchange sources all day long about the man, and your opinion would remain the same because you obviously take your opinion from biased websites – or at the very least they are the only sources you are willing to cite. I fail to see the benefit in that form of “debateâ€.”
You do realize that I cited CBS as a source above, and you claim my sources are biased,
so you just made my point for me. What form of debate would that be? The “drop
your pants & bend over” technique?
Costner:
“My original point was Rather (aside from the one incident you seem to focus upon) was a good newsman and a respected journalist.”
That might’ve been your original point, but you expanded on it when you posted this:
“and I’ve seen enough to know he isn’t some closet liberal who was seeking to destroy Bush as so many of you uptight righties would like to believe.”
Yet you freely acknowlege you can in no way prove that, but of course it’s a cakewalk to prove the opposite with Hume. Except that you’ve rejected the same techniques when applied to Rather. Even though you’ve “seen enough”, you can cite nothing (what good is that? you’ve asked)
all the while you claim to know exactly what I have or haven’t watched, whether or not my opinion can be changed upon seeing sourced material, and now you can speak for all the other posters in here as to why the respond in a particularly ignorant manner.
And thanks so much for granting me the freedom that wasn’t there for you to grant in the first fucking place. Still holding your breath for that unwarranted and undeserved apology, are you?
Christ, Costner..you have taken delusional behavior and arrogance to a whole new level.
Sy: You were responding to me, and up to that point no attacks were launched by me. Go read it again.
I honestly didn’t think you were dumb enough to keep digging yourself a whole, but clearly you are. Your first response to me included the following: “If you’re serious, you just came down on the same side as the Birthers and their quest to make hay with (hopefully) false documents.”
Now since it was clear I wasn’t joking – that was in fact an attempt by you to put me in the same group as the birthers, which I would think anyone with 10 brain cells understands isn’t exactly a compliment.
I won’t even bother to respond to the “hopefully” part of that response.
Sy: I cited sources (CBS, NYT) that totally discredit your idea that Rather was simply in a rush,should’ve sought secondary confirmation and he didn’t deserve to lose his job, and all the while trying to DANCE away from the simple point that this was indeed a shining example of media bias.
Your sources do no such thing. They don’t prove any bias, they merely prove Rather and his producers made an error. Your attempt to paint this as a hidden “agenda” was weak at best and you cannot and did not provide any evidence to suggest there was pattern of behavior from Rather. Oh sure you cherry pick statements of which I repeatedly explain one could choose to do to any journalist, but clearly a few examples are hardly representative of a career that spanned more than four decades and at least five or six different administrations.
Sy: I replied with two other examples, one of which is Rather himself citing the Palin bias
And as your short memory obviously has failed you, I feel the need to remind you that you cannot have it both ways. Either Rather is biased favoring the left or he is identifying bias favoring the left. However I also explained that Rather was simply wrong and that you could find over a million examples of Biden being reported in the very same way Palin was. Again you failed – you tried to post Rather’s opinion on the issue and present it as fact as if that is a deciding factor.
Sy: You didn’t call out shit, you went into attack mode, which is how YOU change the subject, then you bitch about people changing the subject. Than to top it off, you call me a hypocrite.
Actually Sy it was you who started whining about ad hominem attacks after which you continued to response with (you guessed it) ad hominem attacks. That is what makes you a hypocrite, so don’t blame that upon me.
I wasn’t concerned with your ad hominems until you started complaining about the usage of mine…so get over yourself. Again you can’t have it both ways, and if you are that offended I can only suggest you find a new hobby. Hell I’ll freely admit I’ve used ad hominems, and I freely admit I’ve been a hypocrite at times as well. I, unlike some, am willing to admit my errors and faults.
The fact is until you posted in direct response to me these comments were on topic. I expressed an opinion, and because that opinion didn’t happen to come from the mind of Rush or from one of the Fox News pundits you clearly disagreed with it and felt the need to jackass-up the place with your little clever comment about birthers. If you didn’t want me to defend my opinion (and that is what it is Sy) you shouldn’t have posted a direct comment towards me.
Sy: So again, my use of the term was entirely proper.
Sorry, but you’re still wrong. I have no idea where you took dancing lessons, but you should apply for that new show on ABC… Dancing With the Douchebags. You’re almost a lock for first place.
(And yes Sy – that is an ad hominem).
Sy: You do realize that I cited CBS as a source above, and you claim my sources are biased
You clearly know which sources I was referring to – Newsmax and MRC. Those are the sources you attempted to use to show that Rather was a liar and biased whereas your reference to CBS was about the Rathergate issue…the only isolated case you could rely upon.
Sy: What form of debate would that be? The “drop your pants & bend over†technique?
I’m not interested in how you spend your free time Sy, but if you are offering let me just state for the record I’m not interested.
Sy: Even though you’ve “seen enoughâ€, you can cite nothing
So you are asking me to cite evidence to support my opinion that Rather is not biased? Am I honestly understanding you correctly? I have already explained that is a mere impossibility – how does one post that exactly… should I just link to any newscast which doesn’t include bias or would it be better to show times where he investigated Clinton or some other high ranking Democrat? What would actually meet your high standards exactly?
Frankly Sy I’m disappointed in you, because even you should know the burden of proof for this lies upon you. You are the one who made accusations of Rather being biased and thus you are the one who needs to prove it. It isn’t upon my feet to prove you wrong, and thus far you have only been able to rely upon two openly biased websites to post your information. Thus, aside from the Rathergate issue you have done nothing to prove bias, and even Rathergate itself doesn’t prove bias, it only proves Rather didn’t do a good job of validation. If you wish to believe that incident does prove bias that is an opinion… not fact.
Thus in short, you haven’t made your case to anyone who doesn’t frequent Newsmax or Freerepublic on a regular basis. To think you expect me to prove a negative just goes to show how unfamiliar you are with this entire concept of debate.
As to your comments about Hume, once again you either fail to read my posts or you simply cannot grasp the concepts when used in conjunction with big words. I have already said I don’t believe finding some statements from Hume which sound biased proves he himself is biased. It merely means I can find data to make that appear to be the case. There is no double standard as you suggest – I would apply the same criteria to Hume as I do Rather. Finding some cherry-picked snippets from biased websites is never going to be indicative of a man or a career as a journalist no matter how hard you attempt to make it so.
Sy: Still holding your breath for that unwarranted and undeserved apology, are you?
Not at all Sy. It is clear you will never admit when you are wrong, even when all the evidence and facts prove it. I’ve seen enough of your posts here and elsewhere to know you aren’t willing to ever admit your error, but that doesn’t really surprise me considering it seems to be a common trait among your kind.
Sy: Christ, Costner..you have taken delusional behavior and arrogance to a whole new level.
Are you actually able to come up with any original ideas or are you only able to take my own clever labels and turn them back around at me? I mean I know how you like to regurgitate your viewpoints from talk radio hosts but I’d like to think you could at least come up with an insult on your own instead of just recycling mine. I mean where is that clever Sy I have come to know? You shouldn’t rest on your laurels Sy, because before you know it the best you will be able to come up with is to call me a retard… and we wouldn’t want that.
Heck at this point I’m not sure if I should be offended or honored.
Costner:
“I honestly didn’t think you were dumb enough to keep digging yourself a whole, but clearly you are. ”
Ya know, I had a litany of options for your above post, but then I was reminded from your earlier posts that people who try to make hay with typos and grammer are simply petty dickheads.
Costner:
“Heck at this point I’m not sure if I should be offended or honored.”
Thanks for confirming to what level of confusion and frustration you’ve actually sunk to. My guess is this is your waking state.
Costner:
“They don’t prove any bias, they merely prove Rather and his producers made an error.”
An error? Get fucking real. You yourself made the point (and I don’t disagree) that Rather had a long, distinguished career that virtually made CBS News. People like that don’t get sent packing over an error. That’s like saying Mike Vick made an error and should’ve never been let go from the Falcons.
Costner:
“you cannot have it both ways. Either Rather is biased favoring the left or he is identifying bias favoring the left.”
Yet you’ve disputed both vehemently by attacking me and my sources, so apparently you’re confused enough to not see either possibility, even though now you say it’s one or the other. Plus you’ve already said there’s no way to prove it, so why try?
Must be time to accuse me of doublespeak again, self-described hypopocrites do that a lot.
Costner:
“Again you failed – you tried to post Rather’s opinion on the issue and present it as fact”
Incorrect, I posted Rather’s own words on the subject, and you rejected them as out of context. Now you want to imply his opinion on the matter doesn’t hold any weight? I thought he had a decades long distinguished career in media, why on Earth would we listen to those types when we can learn so much from you, the master of having it both ways?
It would be laughingly easy, as you have suggested, to pull the whole interview up on Youtube and get the full context, and prove without a doubt whether the quote is in context or not. Give it a try and if you are correct I’ll be more than happy to man up and admit I was wrong. If the reverse is true than you can run away and hide like a little girl if you like. That burden falls on you to prove, not me.
Costner:
“I, unlike some, am willing to admit my errors and faults.”
Like the mistake of claiming I should’ve used “omniscient” when I already had? Or like your false claim that my use of “omnipotent” was incorrect? Are you still of the mind that “infinate power” &
“God-like” somehow excludes certain types of knowlege? If so, than that would further prove my claim that you are confused and demented. If not, than that statement above renders you a liar, which is it?
Costner:
“I’m not interested in how you spend your free time Sy, but if you are offering let me just state for the record I’m not interested.”
Rather telling the idea of that being an offer stayed in your mind long enough for you to type that out, especially considering you began your last post trying to showcase what a keen ability you have to discern when one is joking or not. I would say that anyone with 10 brain cells would understand that was an insult, and not an offer.
Nice job though Cost, I think we can coin a new term just for you for this type of reponse. Let’s call it the “Ad-I-might-be-a-homo-nim attack”. Nice ring, but it’s kinda clunky…maybe we just call it a “Costner” for short. Might want to have someone help you out with that, especially if you have a wife or girlfriend.
Just sayin’.
L3wis:
“Why don’t you two have a fucking cage match already?”
It’s starting to look like my confused pal Costner might very well be yearning to get me in a cage with him, but for his own demented reasons. I’m flattered, sure…but homey don’t play dat way.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Sy: Ya know, I had a litany of options for your above post, but then I was reminded from your earlier posts that people who try to make hay with typos and grammer are simply petty dickheads.
So this is what sets you and I apart Sy. I can freely admit I make spelling and grammatical errors such as using “whole” instead of “hole”. Hell, I can even find the irony in me calling you dumb while doing so.
Either way I admit my error.
Sy: People like that don’t get sent packing over an error.
That all depends upon how big the error was, but in this case I think it might have been for appearances sake or it could have been a convenient excuse. I can’t really say, but people have been fired for far less.
SY: Now you want to imply his opinion on the matter doesn’t hold any weight?
Not at all…but his opinion is merely that – an opinion. It doesn’t make it fact nor is it any more relevant than yours or mine. You seem to use it as proof of bias whereas I simply see an opinion. Doesn’t mean it is right, doesn’t mean it is wrong, but it can’t be used as proof either way.
Sy: It would be laughingly easy, as you have suggested, to pull the whole interview up on Youtube and get the full context, and prove without a doubt whether the quote is in context or not. Give it a try and if you are correct I’ll be more than happy to man up and admit I was wrong.
There you go expecting me to do your legwork for you again. If you wish to provide a link, I’ll review it. Otherwise I’ll pass. The burden of proof remains upon you, and thus far you haven’t met that burden.
Sy: Like the mistake of claiming I should’ve used “omniscient†when I already had?
I’m sure you may have used the term properly in previous posts or three years ago for that matter, but in this case your usage of the term was improper. Man up and get over it.
Sy: Rather telling the idea of that being an offer stayed in your mind long enough for you to type that out
So says the guy who devoted a full
twothree paragraphs to discuss it in length. Hmmm.Sy: It’s starting to look like my confused pal Costner might very well be yearning to get me in a cage with him, but for his own demented reasons. I’m flattered, sure…but homey don’t play dat way.
Still focused on this Sy? Should I be concerned here? Nice job with the hypocritical “homo-nim attack” though – at least you are true to form with your hypocrisy.
Costner;
“but in this case your usage of the term was improper. Man up and get over it.”
You speak (or more accurately, doublespeak) of manning up and admitting errors, yet I’ve used both “omniscient” and “omnipotent” properly in this thread. You are now claiming not one, but both were improper. Your dictionary link only backed my point, but like a true, petty dickhead here you are still bashing me with no backing or proof of the opposite. You double speak about the burden of proof, well this one is yours to prove, so have fun with that.
“Still focused on this Sy? Should I be concerned here?”
Still confused I see, cost. Wouldn’t know you any other way.
You raised the question when you launched the costner against me, so the idea eminated from your brain. If someone makes a dick or ass joke and you immediately wonder if it’s an offer, than I’ll suggest you find another hobby. One that includes lots of time on a professional’s couch.
If you truly are concerned, than you can take your seat in the “less than 10 brain cells” club.
Sy: You are now claiming not one, but both were improper.
That wasn’t my intention. I thought it was clear I was focused upon the one instance I cited originally… I apologize if I confused the issue but I wasn’t trying to suggest your usage in a previous post was incorrect.
Sy: Your dictionary link only backed my point, but like a true, petty dickhead here you are still bashing me with no backing or proof of the opposite.
You musthave been reading a different dictionary than the one I posted, because I clearly showed your error – and I even used the very dictionary reference cite you attempted to use to dance your way out of it.
As to the burden of proof it was clearly met by pointing to the actual defintions of both words. One relates to knowledge, the other power. It is unfortunately you refuse to admit this even when a source is provided. That says more about you than anything else you have wrote thus far.
The rest of your post is just packed full of the very ad hominems you bitch about. Granted I don’t expect any of your posts to go without the classic Sy-esque hypocrisy so that much was expected.
Costner:
“One relates to knowledge, the other power.”
Again, I’ll make the point that if you can prove that infinite power does not include the ability to see all and know all you win.
If not, insert your favorite ad hominen or costner here:_______________.
Sy: Again, I’ll make the point that if you can prove that infinite power does not include the ability to see all and know all you win.
Actually Sy, back to YOUR dictionary source again, omniscient is defined as “having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight” and “possessed of universal or complete knowledge”.
The word you used was omnipotent, which again according to that very same website is defined as “having virtually unlimited authority or influence”. Yes you can claim you meant the definition of almighty (which we both know is a stretch), but as I already have pointed out, even the definition of almighty includes references to “power”, but none to “knowledge”.
Thus, nowhere in that defintion does it even suggest the term omnipotent is the ability to ‘see all and know all’. It does include “virtually” though, so even that tosses a wrench into your theory.
You are free to make up your own definitions if you choose of course, but you’re still wrong. You used the term incorrectly… I know it, you know it, and all omniscient beings know it as well.
Not so sure about those omnipotent beings however… they might still be in the dark.