If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTOV9 Steubenville-Wheeling)   A political science professor tells students not to use openly fictitious parody of real-life news sites like The Onion or Fox News as sources for their work   (wtov9.com) divider line 261
    More: Obvious, Fox News, news sites, professors  
•       •       •

8373 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2013 at 11:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



261 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-15 01:04:13 PM

justtray: From your link;

Whatever the truth of the dispute between the two reporters and WTVT, it seems clear that the station did not at the trial court level admit that it had attempted to distort the news story or assert the"right to lie"in its broadcasts. Instead, the station claimed its editorial decisions were based on an effort to air a fair and accurate story, and defended its editorial prerogatives under the First Amendment - editorial prerogatives that are indisputable, if the guarantee of a free press means anything.

They didn't assert their "right to lie," just their right to say whatever they want regardless of facts. As usual this just boils down to yet another one of your semantic faux arguments.

I read your entire link, and it boils down to this and, "but Fox won so therefore they didn't argue a right to lie." Except that they did, that was their defense. Or maybe you just don't know what editorials are?

Either way, apologize for falsely asserting the story was "complete fabrication," because it's not. It is 100% true, and even the opinion legal post you had to dig around to find doesn't refute it.


Am I in bizarro world?  Did you just post that.....

Whatever the truth of the dispute between the two reporters and WTVT, it seems clear that the station did not at the trial court level admit that it had attempted to distort the news story or assert the"right to lie"in its broadcasts. Instead, the station claimed its editorial decisions were based on an effort to air a fair and accurate story, and defended its editorial prerogatives under the First Amendment - editorial prerogatives that are indisputable, if the guarantee of a free press means anything.

Do you know what "did not.... admit" means?  "it seems clear that the station did not at the trial court level admit that it had attempted to distort the news story."

You have intentionally turned that sentence into the EXACT opposite of what is says.

I am at a loss.  That is the worst post I have ever seen.
 
2013-02-15 01:04:18 PM

halfof33: Weaver95: so - do you think Fox News is exactly the same as MSNBC? you never answered, you just keep changing the subject and hoping I didn't notice.

Oh my god.....

halfof33: Further, I have stated that ALL 24 Hour News Channels are farking garbage (just not based on the lies you told) Walk Off Grand Slam Home Run.

I am at a loss, I truly am.  Can weaver not go back and read the posts in this thread??  Why would he keep grossly misrepresenting the thread?


ok, but WHY do you believe this?  details, man!  details!  WHY do you believe all 24 hour news channels are garbage?  what - SPECIFICALLY - makes you distrust all news channels?  gimme a list - it doesn't even have to be a long list.  just two or three things you find wrong with CNN, MSNBC and Fox News.

lets make this simple for you:

I, halfof33, do hereby affirm and acclaim the following things to be wrong with the below mentioned cable news channels:

Fox news is wrong because:
1.
2.
3.

MSNBC is wrong because:
1.
2.
3.

CNN is wrong because:
1.
2.
3.

Just copy/paste the above format and fill in the blanks.  it don't get any easier than that my friend.
 
2013-02-15 01:05:18 PM

munchy: Oh yeah now I remember why I rarely come out here anymore. I knew there was a reason.


You shouldn't stop here. This is bat country.
 
2013-02-15 01:06:51 PM
Batshiat crazy!!!
 
2013-02-15 01:08:49 PM

Weaver95: ok


After accusing me of lying, and dodging the question now he wants me to jump through his little hoops, without even acknowledging the dozens of baseless claims he made against me.

Here's your answer:  Turn off the TeeVee and pick up a book.

Start with one on logic.
 
2013-02-15 01:10:20 PM

halfof33: Weaver95: ok

After accusing me of lying, and dodging the question now he wants me to jump through his little hoops, without even acknowledging the dozens of baseless claims he made against me.

Here's your answer:  Turn off the TeeVee and pick up a book.

Start with one on logic.


lets' try this again:

I, halfof33, do hereby affirm and acclaim the following things to be wrong with the below mentioned cable news channels:

Fox news is wrong because:
1.
2.
3.

MSNBC is wrong because:
1.
2.
3.

CNN is wrong because:
1.
2.
3.

Just copy/paste the above format and fill in the blanks.
 
2013-02-15 01:10:24 PM
We had to do powerpoint presentations in my government class. The instructions were pretty specific about crediting sources for any picture used. Soooo many kids credited Google.
 
2013-02-15 01:10:35 PM
Frankly; the only news I watch are the daily show and the Colbert report. They tend to be the most balanced; as they lampoon everyone. But, you can tell which way they lean by who they lampoon more. I just think it's symptomatic of current political winds that shows that are intended to be funny are the best source for actual news.

Personally; I feel that all of the 24 hour news channels have agendas to push. And, until we can have real integrity and honesty in the news again; our news networks are farces that seek to entertain; not inform us.
 
2013-02-15 01:11:13 PM
Did anyone mention that Romney will not be sworn in until 2013?

halfof33 - credible since never.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7365771/79826938#c79826938
 
2013-02-15 01:12:59 PM

halfof33: justtray: From your link;

Whatever the truth of the dispute between the two reporters and WTVT, it seems clear that the station did not at the trial court level admit that it had attempted to distort the news story or assert the"right to lie"in its broadcasts. Instead, the station claimed its editorial decisions were based on an effort to air a fair and accurate story, and defended its editorial prerogatives under the First Amendment - editorial prerogatives that are indisputable, if the guarantee of a free press means anything.

They didn't assert their "right to lie," just their right to say whatever they want regardless of facts. As usual this just boils down to yet another one of your semantic faux arguments.

I read your entire link, and it boils down to this and, "but Fox won so therefore they didn't argue a right to lie." Except that they did, that was their defense. Or maybe you just don't know what editorials are?

Either way, apologize for falsely asserting the story was "complete fabrication," because it's not. It is 100% true, and even the opinion legal post you had to dig around to find doesn't refute it.

Am I in bizarro world?  Did you just post that.....

Whatever the truth of the dispute between the two reporters and WTVT, it seems clear that the station did not at the trial court level admit that it had attempted to distort the news story or assert the"right to lie"in its broadcasts. Instead, the station claimed its editorial decisions were based on an effort to air a fair and accurate story, and defended its editorial prerogatives under the First Amendment - editorial prerogatives that are indisputable, if the guarantee of a free press means anything.

Do you know what "did not.... admit" means?  "it seems clear that the station did not at the trial court level admit that it had attempted to distort the news story."

You have intentionally turned that sentence into the EXACT opposite of what is says.

I am at a loss.  That is the worst post I ha ...


You mean the guy's opinion whose blog you are now claiming to be absolute fact? Yes of course not, because as I bolded, it is demonstratably and factually incorrect. Asserting their right to say whatever they want regardless of the facts (editorial) is exactly the same as aruging "right to lie."

I don't know why you're so stupid, but please stop slurping up the lies and distortions. It's dribbling off your lips and all over your face.

Let me reiterate again for you, in very simple English;

Blogger opinion - "it seem clear the station... did not assert it attempted to distort the story"
Factual statement - "the station claimed its editorial decisions were based on an effort to air a fair and accurate story, and defended its editorial prerogatives" (right to lie)
 
2013-02-15 01:13:47 PM

Weaver95: In the syllabus, the professor allegedly says, "The tagline Fox News makes me cringe."

fox news did have a court room slap fight to confirm that they've got the legal right to lie to their audience.  And they use that 'right' every chance they get.  so...yeah.  I can see why a Professor might have a problem with their organization.


So do NBC and CBS lie, only they didn't go to court to prove it, they just do it.
 
2013-02-15 01:14:34 PM

MonoChango: Darth_Lukecash: commies or fascist-two totally different ideology

Actually, historically they have hated each other because they are so similar.  Sort of like the Lutherans Vs Catholics in the 1600's.  As far as I have been able to figure out (correct me if you think I'm wrong) but the only difference is:
Fascist is when a small group of business owners take over and setup a central controlled totalitarian government.
Communist is when a small group of "Workers" take over and setup a central controlled totalitarian government.
End result is the same just a different group in power.


Communism is an economic system. Fascism is a political system. You might as well compare capitalism and democracy. Apples and oranges.
 
2013-02-15 01:20:15 PM
 

justtray: Blogger opinion - "it seem clear the station... did not assert it attempted to distort the story"
Factual statement - "the station claimed its editorial decisions were based on an effort to air a fair and accurate story, and defended its editorial prerogatives" (right to lie)


Blogger?  Jesus. You think that the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP),  is a blogger?

And claiming that a statement that "editorial decisions were based on an effort to air a fair and accurate story, and defended its editorial prerogatives" = "right to lie" is the dumbest god damn thing i have read in a thread full of stupid god damn things.

Just stop it.
 
2013-02-15 01:21:22 PM

MonoChango: jst3p: As someone who is returning to school I can say that in my anecdotal experience it shouldn't be too much of a problem. I like to think of myself as a moderate who leans left on most social issues but most of the kids in classes make me feel like a right wingnut.

In today's academic setting, if you don't bow before the alter of "Group Think" then you are the enemy.
"One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority." -Robert A. Heinlein
If you disagree with the authority (Teacher) you are at best ignorant and at worst evil incarnate. Authority will not except that you have different ideas or that you have come to your own conclusions based on facts and life experience.  If you don't accept their answers and world view (ALL OF IT) then you are not accepting their authority end of story so you must be a _________. (fill in blank for most evil thing they can thing of off the top of head)



Wow, I know I am late to the party, but this is the stupidest not-obviously-a-troll post I have ever seen.  I want to assume that with the crazy number of grammatical errors and misuse of homophones I can invoke Poe's law, but part of me fears that isn't the case.

Please clarify, do you really think academia is as you have represented it?
 
2013-02-15 01:24:47 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

The Network of fake exploding pickups
 
2013-02-15 01:26:42 PM
Ahahahahahahaha! Oh Man!
 
2013-02-15 01:30:37 PM
Who cares? The use of Fox "News" as a cited source for a college paper would only reflect a complete absence of critical thinking on the part of the student. So either he fails the assignment, or he's pushed through and joins the ranks of useless-degree zombies wandering the job market.

If you're determined to be an idiot, it's not likely anyone's going to be able stop you.
 
2013-02-15 01:39:23 PM

Cobataiwan: But Jon Stewart is a fine way to get your news.


Wait, are you serious? So Fox News and Jon Stewart are on the same level of journalistic integrity?
 
2013-02-15 01:41:02 PM

doyner: clane: Liberals hate #1 rated FOX NEWS because sometimes the truth hurts...

More Bud Light is sold each year then Shiner Bock.  Does that make it a better beer?


Good point. But I don't like also never got peoples' boner for Shiner Bock.
 
2013-02-15 01:43:03 PM

halfof33: Weaver95: something like that. the point being that Fox news went to court to prove they had a legal right to flat out lie to their audience...a

False.

0/10


Well, since you have never benn correct ever about anything, point goes to Weaver95.
 
2013-02-15 01:43:17 PM

Marcus Aurelius: They also said Wolfe has gone back to the class and lifted any limitation on research sources


Good.  Let the lazy and gullible expose themselves so I can flunk them, or at least hold them up to ridicule before the entire class.
 
2013-02-15 01:50:20 PM

blatz514: Zachery: Later in the syllabus it goes on to mention that students should not abuse white space to make their fact-sparse articles look bigger than they really are.

Thank you for mentioning that.  I had a English prof. that made us write a 20 page paper all in single space.  Gah.


He sold printer ink on the side?

As a freelance writer, I was always amused that I could charge $1.25 per word even for "a," "of," "the," etc.  Some editors even paid me for my byline.

Yeah, I was a freelance writer that long ago.  Mark Twain got a better rate than most gigs pay today.
 
2013-02-15 01:53:50 PM
A source is a source,
Of course, of course,
And no can challenge a source,
Of course.
That is, of course,
Unless the source
Is a famous Talking Head!
 
2013-02-15 01:55:32 PM
I think I scared halfof33 away.
 
2013-02-15 01:56:08 PM

ghare: 0/10

Well, since you have never benn correct ever about anything, point goes to Weaver95.


Sounds fair:  1/10.

Thanks, genius.
 
2013-02-15 01:56:24 PM

halfof33:  justtray: Blogger opinion - "it seem clear the station... did not assert it attempted to distort the story"
Factual statement - "the station claimed its editorial decisions were based on an effort to air a fair and accurate story, and defended its editorial prerogatives" (right to lie)

Blogger?  Jesus. You think that the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP),  is a blogger?

And claiming that a statement that "editorial decisions were based on an effort to air a fair and accurate story, and defended its editorial prerogatives" = "right to lie" is the dumbest god damn thing i have read in a thread full of stupid god damn things.

Just stop it.


In that case keep on slurping.
 
2013-02-15 01:58:47 PM

Weaver95: I think I scared halfof33 away.


lolz

halfof33: But again folks, lets try not to make every thread about me, mmmm'kay? I mean it is flattering and all, but 16.5 Derangement Syndrome is getting as boring as Fox News Derangement Syndrome.

 
2013-02-15 01:59:41 PM

StrangeQ: And due to the butthurt of the retarded conservative students and their equally mentally challenged parents, the professor lifted the ban.


Or, you know, they pointed out the immense farking hypocrisy of saying they "encourage students to go out and inquire and gather information and look at as many different sources as possible on any side, before you reach your opinion" and then say "except that one...it makes me cringe (presumably through disagreement with the profs political leanings)".

Cause, you know, telling someone they encourage them to do something while actively discouraging them is pretty much the textbook definition of being a farking hypocrite.
 
2013-02-15 01:59:54 PM

halfof33: Weaver95: I think I scared halfof33 away.

lolz


so were you gonna answer my question or did you wanna run away some more?  maybe change the subject...?
 
2013-02-15 02:08:34 PM

halfof33: Weaver95: I think I scared halfof33 away.

lolz

halfof33: But again folks, lets try not to make every thread about me, mmmm'kay? I mean it is flattering and all, but 16.5 Derangement Syndrome is getting as boring as Fox News Derangement Syndrome.


Shouldn't be off somewhere Benghazi-ing?

/chess with a pigeon
 
2013-02-15 02:10:03 PM
The kids can read anything the want. Just don't expect anyone to accept it as a source.
 
2013-02-15 02:11:42 PM

Weaver95: so were you gonna answer my question or did you wanna run away some more? maybe change the subject...?


It is funny, the last time you lied and said I didn't answer your question, it turns out i had answered your question.  In this case you want me to explain my opinion why I think all 24 hour news channels are dreck and that people like you who are obsessed with them are Enterprise Class Losers?

No, weaves I'm not going to do that.  Why you might ask? Top ten reasons!

1. I'm not your biatch
2. This thread ain't about me
3. I read.
4. You lie like a mother farker
5. I'm not Obsessed with TeeVee News, like you losers.
6. I'm not your monkey
7. I don't watch CNN
8. I don't watch MsNBC
9. I don't watch FOX

and the final reason is

10. the real weaver95 is tied up in his basement, and his douchebag grandson has hijacked his account and is pretending to be him to keep cashing his social security checks!

Hooray!

feel free, though to drone on about how nifty whatever worthless station you watch all day is.  We all find your obsession with Fox News fascinating.....
 
2013-02-15 02:12:47 PM
Once again I repeat myself, "Fox News" is an oxymoron.
 
2013-02-15 02:13:55 PM

halfof33: Weaver95: so were you gonna answer my question or did you wanna run away some more? maybe change the subject...?

It is funny, the last time you lied and said I didn't answer your question, it turns out i had answered your question.  In this case you want me to explain my opinion why I think all 24 hour news channels are dreck and that people like you who are obsessed with them are Enterprise Class Losers?


you can't do it, can you?  you can't explain your own beliefs or statements.  that right there is evidence enough I suppose.
 
2013-02-15 02:17:03 PM
...Fox News, a professional news organization.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha...deep breath..
s18.postimage.org
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!
 
2013-02-15 02:17:44 PM

Weaver95: halfof33: Weaver95: so were you gonna answer my question or did you wanna run away some more? maybe change the subject...?

It is funny, the last time you lied and said I didn't answer your question, it turns out i had answered your question.  In this case you want me to explain my opinion why I think all 24 hour news channels are dreck and that people like you who are obsessed with them are Enterprise Class Losers?

you can't do it, can you?  you can't explain your own beliefs or statements.  that right there is evidence enough I suppose.


33's answer to any question that has him stumped is "I've already answered that like a billion times."
 
2013-02-15 02:19:18 PM

Weaver95: I think I scared halfof33 away.


It's not nice to tease like that....
 
2013-02-15 02:19:55 PM

halfof33: 5. I'm not Obsessed with TeeVee News, like you losers.


-This- is actually why I made my initial comment.
Now, I still have no reason to disbelieve your statement that you don't watch cable news, but it is certainly a curiosity that you have spent so much energy in this thread.
 
2013-02-15 02:19:59 PM

udhq: Weaver95: halfof33: Weaver95: so were you gonna answer my question or did you wanna run away some more? maybe change the subject...?

It is funny, the last time you lied and said I didn't answer your question, it turns out i had answered your question.  In this case you want me to explain my opinion why I think all 24 hour news channels are dreck and that people like you who are obsessed with them are Enterprise Class Losers?

you can't do it, can you?  you can't explain your own beliefs or statements.  that right there is evidence enough I suppose.

33's answer to any question that has him stumped is "I've already answered that like a billion times."


its fascinating tho.  he can't explain his beliefs, but he fervently believes in them and won't dare let anyone question him on it.  I'm starting to think he doesn't understand his own ideology.
 
2013-02-15 02:20:39 PM

Weaver95: you can't do it, can you? you can't explain your own beliefs or statements. that right there is evidence enough I suppose.


My belief that I think all 24 Hour News Channels are garbage?  Seriously?  lolz

I'd ask you to regale us with tales of why whatever TeeVee show you watch is the bee's knees, but honestly nobody farking cares.
 
2013-02-15 02:24:51 PM

halfof33: Weaver95: you can't do it, can you? you can't explain your own beliefs or statements. that right there is evidence enough I suppose.

My belief that I think all 24 Hour News Channels are garbage?  Seriously?  lolz


But WHY do you believe this...?  details!

you can't explain it tho, can you?  you can't explain why you think CNN, Fox News and MSNBC are 'garbage'.  you just 'know it'.  you don't actually think much about it, you just 'know' that you are right.  And that's what I find fascinating.  there is no evidence that you even understand your own stated beliefs.
 
2013-02-15 02:24:56 PM
Jesus Christ liberals are morons.

Fox is like any other news station now, news, and commentary. They are more in the center than any other news outlet. But to liberals, that freaks em out.

Remember, liberal "news" networks are saying Rubio is done because he took a sip of water. That is what liberals are, weirdos who can't handle the truth.

Then again, you think 11% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits combined with terrible or negative growth in the economy is awesome, because your "God" as one liberal news reporter put it, is at the helm.
 
2013-02-15 02:26:24 PM
images.wikia.com

Oh Halfie!!!
 
2013-02-15 02:26:37 PM

Weaver95: And they would be wrong. seriously - did you ever TRY to get a bunch of Democrats to all agree on something? Republicans, on the other hand, are easy to force into lock step.


Story time with MonoChango:
My wife is in her office (academic) when a grad student comes in and places a list on her desk.  All it says is a number and yes or no.  "102 - Yes,  103 - No" and so on.
"What is this?"  she asks.
gs, "That is how Congressman Grijalva needs us to vote."
wife,  "But it doesn't say what the proposition is, or more importantly, why I should vote this way."
gs, "What does it matter?  That is how we need to vote."

Now in reality or even internet land there are lots of Democrats that argue with each other, but in my experience within academia, it is purely dictated by authority.   Any and all thoughts, idea, or actions outside of or against any leftist authority is not tolerated. (your mileage will vary)
Have you hung out with real republicans?  I have friends who are are so leftist they might as well be communist and others that patrol the boarder in their free time.  They both have blind spots. So the question is not "Do you have blind spots?" but "What are they?"  (Hint it is usually in your assumptions)  Again in my experience, it is usually the leftist that don't think they have any, and the rightist that know they do.  (your mileage may vary)  The biggest one I've seen is the leftist quickly assume they know why someone with a different opinion is doing something.  Usually they jump to the conclusion that it is out of malice without any real evidence.  "She disagrees with the president's policy because he is black." or "He doesn't like illegal immigration because he hates Mexicans"
I think it has to do with their assumption that leftism is inherently "good".  So, they find it hard to grasp the fact that good people can have a good reason to disagree with some leftist ideas. Thus the assumption that they MUST be inherently evil.  I've seen this 100's of times in these forms and in real life.  When you know what to look for it is pretty easy to spot.
"I don't like X, because of Y"
"Go get your head checked you sick racist fascist, Y is an untruth told by propagandist at FOX"
"Um I didn't say anything about race or centralized totalitarian states, I think your are a leftist troll"
"Shut up, your evil"
Yeah we have degenerated into name calling.
 
2013-02-15 02:28:01 PM

Weaver95: udhq: Weaver95: halfof33: Weaver95: so were you gonna answer my question or did you wanna run away some more? maybe change the subject...?

It is funny, the last time you lied and said I didn't answer your question, it turns out i had answered your question.  In this case you want me to explain my opinion why I think all 24 hour news channels are dreck and that people like you who are obsessed with them are Enterprise Class Losers?

you can't do it, can you?  you can't explain your own beliefs or statements.  that right there is evidence enough I suppose.

33's answer to any question that has him stumped is "I've already answered that like a billion times."

its fascinating tho.  he can't explain his beliefs, but he fervently believes in them and won't dare let anyone question him on it.  I'm starting to think he doesn't understand his own ideology.


Well, in his defense, after spending that much time and energy trying to legitimize Benghazi trutherism, anyone would lose touch with the very idea that there exists an "objective reality."
 
2013-02-15 02:28:39 PM

Thunderpipes: Jesus Christ liberals are morons.

Fox is like any other news station now, news, and commentary. They are more in the center than any other news outlet. But to liberals, that freaks em out.

Remember, liberal "news" networks are saying Rubio is done because he took a sip of water. That is what liberals are, weirdos who can't handle the truth.

Then again, you think 11% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits combined with terrible or negative growth in the economy is awesome, because your "God" as one liberal news reporter put it, is at the helm.


You're funny.
 
2013-02-15 02:31:04 PM

Thunderpipes: Fox is like any other news station now, news, and commentary. They are more in the center than any other news outlet. But to liberals, that freaks em out.


In this case "liberals" are just people who think the role of the media is to call balls and strikes, not to reinforce the worldview you came in with.
 
2013-02-15 02:31:57 PM
What would be even better would be if the teacher started allowing Fox news to be sourced, but corrected the misinformation given in the papers, effectively degrading the students work and eventually failing them due to "using inaccuracies and non-fact to state your arguments".

If they want to know how the real world works, teach them.  You can do whatever you like on your paper.  If it is wrong, you fail.
 
2013-02-15 02:32:34 PM

The Bestest: -This- is actually why I made my initial comment.
Now, I still have no reason to disbelieve your statement that you don't watch cable news, but it is certainly a curiosity that you have spent so much energy in this thread.


That is actually a fair question.  I have long been baffled by the obsession with Fox News, so much so that the obsessives flat out make stuff up about it.

Further, any time I post something that goes against the Fark Lib orthodoxy, they typically respond with some idiocy about "Faux News... Derp Rush" which is hilarious, because I don't watch Fox, I don't listen to Rush or Hiannity or that crying jackass.... Glenn Beck  because I think they are idiots just like that other d-bag who came from ESPN.

It is all nonsense from hucksters trying to make a buck.
 
2013-02-15 02:32:37 PM

halfof33: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2009/11/03/fox-lies-videotape-debunki ng -an-internet-myth/


That actually doesn't do a good job of debunking what most people claim, which is that Fox News argued they can lie.  It spends all its time saying that the jury, court, and FCC never said Fox lied, or that they had a right to lie, and that the plaintiffs lost.  That's all well and good, but irrelevant to whether Fox's lawyers ever said Fox had a right to lie.

Of course, you're in a tough position since one cannot prove a negative.  The burden of proof is on the positive assertion, so someone should provide a citation that isn't an article in a newspaper but a citation to a filing or video or audio of the asserted claim before people should accept that Fox did it.
 
Displayed 50 of 261 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report