On 24-Apr-24 19:34, Snidely wrote:
> Peter Moylan blurted out:
>> On 24/04/24 10:53, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 19:03:49 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> me >
>>>>> However, he is known for lack of impulse control and cynics say that
>>>>> any smart-ass answer is likely to 'open the door' to a question
>>>>> previously ruled out.
>>>>>
>>>> I think Trump prefers to give testimony on the courthouse steps.  That
>>>> way he doesn't have to worry about cross examination or charges of
>>>> perjury.
>>>
>>> But!  Watch out for his lack of impulse control!
>>>
>>> Those words on the steps or in tweets  can be used against him.
>>>
>>> Right now, he is racking up charges for ignoring the gag order.
>>>
>>> I've heard it said, though not in this trial, that his evening
>>> words would be used against him otherwise in court.  I can
>>> imagine them being relevant when his lawyers want to Object
>>> with some argument, but he has contradicted them in public.
>>
>> At present, Trump's biggest problem is his unwillingness to agree with
>> what his lawyers want.
>
> I think we've seen evidence over the years that lawyers who work for
> Trump end up hating the job.

And yet... He somehow never runs out of lawyers who are willing to work
for him.
He doesn't pay their bills[1], he gets them into serious trouble (and
sometimes massive debt), yet he can still get lawyers to step in.

[1] Even though the money isn't coming out of his pocket.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:48:41 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
wrote:

>I prefer to get my news from sensible sources which aren't tainted by any
>one political party, but which simply print all the news that is fit to
>print

I think that most people who do follow the news think that the
source(s) they follow are "sensible" and untainted...even if they
exclusively follow sources that you feel are very biased right or
left.

"Sensible" and "untainted" are simply words that describe sources we
agree with.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:48:41 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
wrote:

>
>> This one is dated 2020 which makes it old. It says that it
>> looks only at bias, and not at accuracy, which makes it rather
>> beside the point. It might have links for Who watches How
>> Much, but that was 2020. I didn't look.
>
>Again, I don't disagree that you "think" 2020 is "old"; but it's my opinion
>that the news bias does not change quickly - but I do understand that it's
>your opinion that the news bias does change quickly.

Thanks for drawing my attention to "2020" as a date.
Suddenly, this evening, I am working out my thoughts
about timing.

I've been toying around with the idea of my making notable
changes to the Wiki article on Fake_News -- because the
article is mess. Especially, it says only a little about timing.

Here is some history not detailed in it:
"Fake news" was a term occasionally used, originally describing
false items during NY newspaper wars of the 1890s, Hearst
and Pulitzer competing for readers. (Your news is surely 'exclusive'
when you invent it.) Its use became broader than that, but still
not frequent.

The idiomatic use of 'fake news' was suddenly adapted for
Internet sources in November of 2016, shortly after the US election.
People started using that to talk about the election and other
false information. Google ngrams shows a big increase in 2017.
Google search (by date) finds articles mainly in November and
December in 2016.

But early in 2017, Trump started twisting the term, dismissing all
sorts of true charges against himself as "news". Academics
started having to be more specific in talking about types. It is
not clear to me how many of the Right recognized that Trump's
fake-news label meant no more than "I don't like this article."
Did his admirers quit on decent sources in 2017, or much later?

Now, prodded by your post, it occurs to me that the full, bad
effect of Trump's fake-news-excoriation probably did not arrive
until 2021, in reaction to the Big Lie. Especially during the Jan. 6
hearings on the attempted hijacking of the electoral college,
major media gave major coverage, and assumed that there was
no stolen election. That must be unpleasant reading if the sources
you trust are telling you the opposite.

Maybe I'm not aware of it, but I thought that the ultra Right
before 2021 went beyond Trump, with Q-Anon and other
conspiracies; they did not have to support all the same ones.
I did not think that Trumpies totally avoid good sources.

Starting in 2021, they coalesced behind Trump, and Trump
has partly returned the favor by repeating some of their own
extreme conspiracies.

So, now I'm thinking about whether 2021 really started
something new. Or did I miss out on how early Trump's Fake-News
label already had screwed up political discourse?

--
Rich Ulrich

On 2024-04-24 18:37:43 +0000, Sam Plusnet said:

> On 24-Apr-24 13:33, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 24/04/24 16:56, Ken Blake wrote:
>>
>>> In the end, the cities will vote the Democratic party almost every
>>> time. And the rural areas will vote Republican party almost every
>>> time.
>>>
>>> What's left are the swing votes given the two above just about
>>> equal.
>>
>> The same thing seems to happen in every genuine democracy. (I exclude
>> those "democracies" where the most powerful person wins by a landslide
>> every time.) It's very noticeable that in so many countries the ruling
>> party hangs on by a little less than 50% support.
>>
>> My theory on this is that the major parties realign their policies to
>> ensure that they will get approximately 50% support. (In Australia, this
>> means 50% after distribution of preferences. In other countries, apply
>> the local rules to mean "got in by the skin of their teeth".) If, now
>> and then, one party wins by a landslide, that party will adjust its
>> policies to make itself marginal again.
>>
>> The present situation in Australia is that the Labor Party, nominally a
>> left-wing party, is now the dominant right-wing party in the country.
>> After every election, the winning party tries to position itself as
>> occupying the centre.
>
> That latter point isn't happening here in the UK at the moment. The
> party in government has been focused on internal divisions and seems
> determined to move further right - away from the centre.

Aided by the long-term suicide of the Labour Party. As they drive more
and more people away it seems almost inevitable that yoi will get five
more yeas of Tory government.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:58:54 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:

>>I prefer to get my news from sensible sources which aren't tainted by any
>>one political party, but which simply print all the news that is fit to
>>print
>
> I think that most people who do follow the news think that the
> source(s) they follow are "sensible" and untainted...even if they
> exclusively follow sources that you feel are very biased right or
> left.

Can't disagree with you with one glaring exception to point out.

It's not "me" who decides what bias a news skews toward but everyone else,
which is why I constantly pointed out to Rich Ulrich (who is way ahead of
me on understanding media bias trends) that I back up my assertions with
the bias-reporting that everyone else already knows about the news.

https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
https://ground.news/interest/us-presidential-election

I'm sure there are others, but nobody is ever going to rate either MSNBC or
Fox as balanced. If they do, please post the article as I'd love to see it.

> "Sensible" and "untainted" are simply words that describe sources we
> agree with.

I wrote a rebuttal and then deleted it because you're actually correct.

My original rebuttal was that I protested your comment as I read balanced
news (which is rated as balanced by everyone else, not just me) as I had
explained all along with the use of the media-bias categorizations.

But then I thought more about your comment and what you're saying made more
sense that, to me, the longer I considered what you were saying.

For me, a "balanced" news is simply a source I agree with.

For others, MSNBC (which skews left) is a source _they_ agree with, so to
them, it's also "sensible" and "untainted"; likewise with Fox skewing
right.

So I guess a "sensible" logical news story is one we each agree with.

In article <C5gWN.38387$59Pb.6537@fx16.iad>, not@home.com
says...
>
> On 24-Apr-24 19:34, Snidely wrote:
> > Peter Moylan blurted out:
> >> On 24/04/24 10:53, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 19:03:49 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> me >
> >>>>> However, he is known for lack of impulse control and cynics say that
> >>>>> any smart-ass answer is likely to 'open the door' to a question
> >>>>> previously ruled out.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I think Trump prefers to give testimony on the courthouse steps.  That
> >>>> way he doesn't have to worry about cross examination or charges of
> >>>> perjury.
> >>>
> >>> But!  Watch out for his lack of impulse control!
> >>>
> >>> Those words on the steps or in tweets  can be used against him.
> >>>
> >>> Right now, he is racking up charges for ignoring the gag order.
> >>>
> >>> I've heard it said, though not in this trial, that his evening
> >>> words would be used against him otherwise in court.  I can
> >>> imagine them being relevant when his lawyers want to Object
> >>> with some argument, but he has contradicted them in public.
> >>
> >> At present, Trump's biggest problem is his unwillingness to agree with
> >> what his lawyers want.
> >
> > I think we've seen evidence over the years that lawyers who work for
> > Trump end up hating the job.
>
> And yet... He somehow never runs out of lawyers who are willing to work
> for him.
> He doesn't pay their bills[1], he gets them into serious trouble (and
> sometimes massive debt), yet he can still get lawyers to step in.

They win "15 minutes of fame", and publicity. As
Trump demonstrates,there's no such thing as bad publicity.
At least, in USA.

Janet

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 03:53:37 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:58:54 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>>I prefer to get my news from sensible sources which aren't tainted by any
>>>one political party, but which simply print all the news that is fit to
>>>print
>>
>> I think that most people who do follow the news think that the
>> source(s) they follow are "sensible" and untainted...even if they
>> exclusively follow sources that you feel are very biased right or
>> left.
>
>Can't disagree with you with one glaring exception to point out.
>
>It's not "me" who decides what bias a news skews toward but everyone else,

Of course it's you. You are deciding which of everyone else's
opinions are the correct opinions.

On 23/04/2024 06:06, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 20:12:40 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Apparently a "Sandoval" is a colloquial term for a specific USA New York
>> State criminal law component.
>>

<snip>

>
> In Trump's case today, the prosecutors were reported to have
> brought 13 questions:

Apparently "Trump" is an acceptable AmE person considered 'presidential
material'. In the rest of the world he is a grotesque little cunt.

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:10:04 +0100, Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:

>In article <C5gWN.38387$59Pb.6537@fx16.iad>, not@home.com
>says...
>>
>> On 24-Apr-24 19:34, Snidely wrote:
>> > Peter Moylan blurted out:
>> >> On 24/04/24 10:53, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 19:03:49 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> me >
>> >>>>> However, he is known for lack of impulse control and cynics say that
>> >>>>> any smart-ass answer is likely to 'open the door' to a question
>> >>>>> previously ruled out.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> I think Trump prefers to give testimony on the courthouse steps.  That
>> >>>> way he doesn't have to worry about cross examination or charges of
>> >>>> perjury.
>> >>>
>> >>> But!  Watch out for his lack of impulse control!
>> >>>
>> >>> Those words on the steps or in tweets  can be used against him.
>> >>>
>> >>> Right now, he is racking up charges for ignoring the gag order.
>> >>>
>> >>> I've heard it said, though not in this trial, that his evening
>> >>> words would be used against him otherwise in court.  I can
>> >>> imagine them being relevant when his lawyers want to Object
>> >>> with some argument, but he has contradicted them in public.
>> >>
>> >> At present, Trump's biggest problem is his unwillingness to agree with
>> >> what his lawyers want.
>> >
>> > I think we've seen evidence over the years that lawyers who work for
>> > Trump end up hating the job.
>>
>> And yet... He somehow never runs out of lawyers who are willing to work
>> for him.
>> He doesn't pay their bills[1], he gets them into serious trouble (and
>> sometimes massive debt), yet he can still get lawyers to step in.
>
> They win "15 minutes of fame", and publicity. As
>Trump demonstrates,there's no such thing as bad publicity.
>At least, in USA.
>

But - There are a LOT of attorneys who have refused to work
for Trump, even now when they are assured of ink. He is not
getting the cream of the crop. Hm. I recall hearing that one
"cream" lawyer who was paid a big sum in advance refused to
have his name included on one appeal of the case.

I think that they said his lead attorney in the current NY case has
some reputation as a consulting(?) lawyer, but he has only argued
one case in the last 10 years. He and his team have already offended
the judge.

--
Rich Ulrich

On 2024-04-25 08:26, occam wrote:
> On 23/04/2024 06:06, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 20:12:40 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently a "Sandoval" is a colloquial term for a specific USA New York
>>> State criminal law component.
>>>
>> In Trump's case today, the prosecutors were reported to have
>> brought 13 questions:
>
> Apparently "Trump" is an acceptable AmE person considered 'presidential
> material'. In the rest of the world he is a grotesque little cunt.

To a large percentage of the American people, he is also a grotesque
little cunt. Unfortunately that percentage was not high enough four
years ago.

We have a similar problem in Canada.

--
I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it.

On 25-Apr-24 18:47, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:10:04 +0100, Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <C5gWN.38387$59Pb.6537@fx16.iad>, not@home.com
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 24-Apr-24 19:34, Snidely wrote:
>>>> Peter Moylan blurted out:
>>>>> On 24/04/24 10:53, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 19:03:49 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> me >
>>>>>>>> However, he is known for lack of impulse control and cynics say that
>>>>>>>> any smart-ass answer is likely to 'open the door' to a question
>>>>>>>> previously ruled out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think Trump prefers to give testimony on the courthouse steps.  That
>>>>>>> way he doesn't have to worry about cross examination or charges of
>>>>>>> perjury.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But!  Watch out for his lack of impulse control!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those words on the steps or in tweets  can be used against him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now, he is racking up charges for ignoring the gag order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've heard it said, though not in this trial, that his evening
>>>>>> words would be used against him otherwise in court.  I can
>>>>>> imagine them being relevant when his lawyers want to Object
>>>>>> with some argument, but he has contradicted them in public.
>>>>>
>>>>> At present, Trump's biggest problem is his unwillingness to agree with
>>>>> what his lawyers want.
>>>>
>>>> I think we've seen evidence over the years that lawyers who work for
>>>> Trump end up hating the job.
>>>
>>> And yet... He somehow never runs out of lawyers who are willing to work
>>> for him.
>>> He doesn't pay their bills[1], he gets them into serious trouble (and
>>> sometimes massive debt), yet he can still get lawyers to step in.
>>
>> They win "15 minutes of fame", and publicity. As
>> Trump demonstrates,there's no such thing as bad publicity.
>> At least, in USA.
>>
>
> But - There are a LOT of attorneys who have refused to work
> for Trump, even now when they are assured of ink. He is not
> getting the cream of the crop. Hm. I recall hearing that one
> "cream" lawyer who was paid a big sum in advance refused to
> have his name included on one appeal of the case.
>
> I think that they said his lead attorney in the current NY case has
> some reputation as a consulting(?) lawyer, but he has only argued
> one case in the last 10 years. He and his team have already offended
> the judge.
>
Yesbut. At least the Supreme Court seem to be firmly on his side.

Why else would they take this "Immunity" case and then sit on it for so
long, if not to support Trump's aim to - 'delay delay delay'?

--
Sam Plusnet

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 10:05:53 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:

>>It's not "me" who decides what bias a news skews toward but everyone else,
>
> Of course it's you. You are deciding which of everyone else's
> opinions are the correct opinions.

I respectfully disagree, and I back it up with supreme sense & logic.

The way you think about opinion is not how scientific facts work.
Specifically, in this situation, mathematical probability (statistics).

1. One guy says the earth is flat.
2. Everyone else proves it's not.

A. You maintain that the earth not being flat is just one guy's opinion.
B. I don't.

In this case, every news-bias reporting outfit says what I said, and it
didn't work the other way around - so it's obviously a fact to all who
report on bias (unless you can find a contrary reliable report, of course).

When ALL the data lines up, it's no longer merely an opinion.
It's fact.

Or at least it's a statistical reliability with very high probability of
being correct (within the local community's restrictive bounds of their
commonly held definition of Left/Right of course).

However, as any logical and rational person would, I'm perfectly willing to
entertain anyone who shows a reliable cite showing that MSNBC is NOT left
and/or that FOX is NOT right - but until that happens, it's simply a fact.

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:43:34 -0600, lar3ryca wrote:

> To a large percentage of the American people, he is also a grotesque
> little cunt. Unfortunately that percentage was not high enough four
> years ago.

I think perhaps Trump only won because he was contested by Hillary.
The choice was between who was the least worst grotesque cunt.

Ken Blake scribbled something on Thursday the 4/25/2024:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:43:34 -0600, lar3ryca wrote:
>
>> To a large percentage of the American people, he is also a grotesque
>> little cunt. Unfortunately that percentage was not high enough four
>> years ago.
>
> I think perhaps Trump only won because he was contested by Hillary.
> The choice was between who was the least worst grotesque cunt.

And too many people got it wrong.

/dps

--
And the Raiders and the Broncos have life now in the West. I thought
they were both nearly dead if not quite really most sincerely dead. --
Mike Salfino, fivethirtyeight.com

On Thursday, Ken Blake queried:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:43:34 -0600, lar3ryca wrote:
>
>> To a large percentage of the American people, he is also a grotesque
>> little cunt. Unfortunately that percentage was not high enough four
>> years ago.
>
> I think perhaps Trump only won because he was contested by Hillary.
> The choice was between who was the least worst grotesque cunt.

IMHO Trump won because he was good at fear-mongering, a tactic
Republicans have kept on the front burner since Nixon picked it up from
George Wallace.

Not that it's a new tactic, but it's been very important to the
Republicans for 60 years.

/dps

--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)

On 26-Apr-24 0:36, Snidely wrote:
> Ken Blake  scribbled something on Thursday the 4/25/2024:
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:43:34 -0600, lar3ryca wrote:
>>
>>> To a large percentage of the American people, he is also a grotesque
>>> little cunt. Unfortunately that percentage was not high enough four
>>> years ago.
>>
>> I think perhaps Trump only won because he was contested by Hillary.
>> The choice was between who was the least worst grotesque cunt.
>
> And too many people got it wrong.

Trump was then an unknown (as a political figure), so it was hard to
challenge him on his track record.
Some people seemed to take the approach:

"I'm tired of all these politicians - maybe this guy will be different."

He was.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 26/04/24 00:26, occam wrote:

> Apparently "Trump" is an acceptable AmE person considered
> 'presidential material'. In the rest of the world he is a grotesque
> little cunt.

Grotesque little cunts have managed to get into power in a number of
countries. Only a few years ago an Australian cartoonist produced a
memorable cartoon of three clowns marching in lock step. The three had
the faces of Trump, Johnson, and Morrison. We're now fortunately free of
two of them, and one can hope that the other is wiped out at the end of
this year.

And it's not just the anglophone countries. It's not hard to find
examples elsewhere in the world.

How do such people hang on to power? Easy. It's mostly because voters
will continue to be loyal to their own preferred parties, even if the
person leading the party is a dickhead.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 01:54:38 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote:

>>>> To a large percentage of the American people, he is also a grotesque
>>>> little cunt. Unfortunately that percentage was not high enough four
>>>> years ago.
>>>
>>> I think perhaps Trump only won because he was contested by Hillary.
>>> The choice was between who was the least worst grotesque cunt.
>>
>> And too many people got it wrong.
>
> Trump was then an unknown (as a political figure), so it was hard to
> challenge him on his track record.
> Some people seemed to take the approach:
>
> "I'm tired of all these politicians - maybe this guy will be different."
>
> He was.

Everything said above was correct, except the "too many people" because I
think Hillary got more "people" but not enough electoral votes, right?

I think the reason the Trump "grotesque little cunt" won was a combination
of what Snidely & Sam Plusnet wrote which is the Venn overlap of

Snidely:
(1) Most people vote party affiliations where the country is divided
roughly in half by city population (Democrats) & rural (Republicans).

Sam Plusnet:
(2) Hillary was a known grotesque little cunt while Trump was also known
to be a grotesque little cunt - but he was worse than many had thought.

I don't think in this upcoming election that Biden is as disliked by the
majority as Hillary was but I think voting will still be down party lines.

Who has the most electoral votes?
Only the swing states know for sure.

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:26:04 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

>Apparently "Trump" is an acceptable AmE person considered 'presidential
>material'. In the rest of the world he is a grotesque little cunt.

Trump seems to be following the playbook of our former president Jacob
Zuma, step by step. The resemblance is uncanny.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:03:01 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 10:05:53 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>>It's not "me" who decides what bias a news skews toward but everyone else,
>>
>> Of course it's you. You are deciding which of everyone else's
>> opinions are the correct opinions.
>
>I respectfully disagree, and I back it up with supreme sense & logic.
>
>The way you think about opinion is not how scientific facts work.
>Specifically, in this situation, mathematical probability (statistics).
>
>1. One guy says the earth is flat.
>2. Everyone else proves it's not.
>
>A. You maintain that the earth not being flat is just one guy's opinion.
>B. I don't.
>
>In this case, every news-bias reporting outfit says what I said, and it
>didn't work the other way around - so it's obviously a fact to all who
>report on bias (unless you can find a contrary reliable report, of course).
>
>When ALL the data lines up, it's no longer merely an opinion.
>It's fact.
>Whether or not the source of the cite(s) is(are) "reliable" is a matter of opinion.

>Or at least it's a statistical reliability with very high probability of
>being correct (within the local community's restrictive bounds of their
>commonly held definition of Left/Right of course).
>
>However, as any logical and rational person would, I'm perfectly willing to
>entertain anyone who shows a reliable cite showing that MSNBC is NOT left
>and/or that FOX is NOT right - but until that happens, it's simply a fact.

If a such a cite is produced, it can only be accepted if the source is
- in your opinion - "reliable", so it all comes back to you deciding
if the claim made is opinion or fact.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 00:09:08 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:

>>However, as any logical and rational person would, I'm perfectly willing to
>>entertain anyone who shows a reliable cite showing that MSNBC is NOT left
>>and/or that FOX is NOT right - but until that happens, it's simply a fact.
>
> If a such a cite is produced, it can only be accepted if the source is
> - in your opinion - "reliable", so it all comes back to you deciding
> if the claim made is opinion or fact.

Fair enough.

Obviously the sensible response from me, to give you the best chance of
proving your point of view, would be to accept _any_ published source.

Do you have any published source on news bias that claims that MSNBC is NOT
left leaning and that Fox is NOT right leaning? If so, I welcome reading
it.

Now you may not find any source on the entire Internet that would say what
you wished it would say (i.e., that Fox is not right and that MSNBC is not
left).

In that case, I would expect that your next response would logically be
that the absence of evidence isn't proof of the fact (or something to that
effect).

But in the end, I cited published well-vetted evidence of my observations.
You haven't cited nary a single published source, vetted or not, for yours.

--
Or is it you have cited nary...

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 22:27:41 -0600, Ken Blake wrote:

> Or is it you have cited nary...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nary
Dialect
not any : not one

Phrases
nary a or nary an
not a single

Nary, most often used in the phrase "nary a" to mean "not a single," is an
18th-century alteration of the adjectival phrase "ne'er a," in which ne'er
is a contraction of never. That contraction dates to the 13th century, and
the word it abbreviates is even older: never can be traced back to Old
English naefre, a combination of ne ("not" or "no") and aefre ("ever"). Old
English ne also combined with a ("always") to give us na, the Old English
ancestor of our no. A, from the Latin aevum ("age" or "lifetime") and Greek
aion ("age"), is related to the English adverb aye, meaning "always,
continually, or ever." This aye (pronounced to rhyme with say) is unrelated
to the more familiar aye (pronounced to rhyme with sigh) used as a synonym
of yes.

Hence, with that definition in mind, I apologize for my prior sentence of:
"You haven't cited nary a single published source, vetted or not."
Here is my belated correction:
"You have cited nary a single published source, vetted or not."

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 22:27:41 -0600, Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 00:09:08 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>>However, as any logical and rational person would, I'm perfectly willing to
>>>entertain anyone who shows a reliable cite showing that MSNBC is NOT left
>>>and/or that FOX is NOT right - but until that happens, it's simply a fact.
>>
>> If a such a cite is produced, it can only be accepted if the source is
>> - in your opinion - "reliable", so it all comes back to you deciding
>> if the claim made is opinion or fact.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>Obviously the sensible response from me, to give you the best chance of
>proving your point of view, would be to accept _any_ published source.
>
>Do you have any published source on news bias that claims that MSNBC is NOT
>left leaning and that Fox is NOT right leaning? If so, I welcome reading
>it.
>

You misunderstand my point. I accept that MSNBC is left-leaning and
that FOX is falling-over right. Those are opinions that I have formed
by exposure to MSNBC and FOX.

Where I disagree with you is in how we arrive at those conclusions.
You suggest that the arrival is based on cites from "reliable" sources
and my argument is that those sources are only "reliable" because they
echo your opinion. Any cite you find that offers a contrary view will
be discounted as "unreliable".

You form your opinions about the biases of the targets (MSNBC and FOX,
in this case) when you view their output. If you later search out
sites that rate the leanings of those targets, you will accept as
"reliable" only those that reinforce your opinion.

>But in the end, I cited published well-vetted evidence of my observations.
>You haven't cited nary a single published source, vetted or not, for yours.

What you have published is a list of sources that express opinions
that agree that MSNBC is left-leaning and FOX is right-leaning. I
agree with those sources and share those opinions.

However, I did not need the reinforcement of a roll call of the
opinions of others. I formed my own opinions.

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:03:01 -0600
Ken Blake <Ken@OneOfMany.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 10:05:53 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> >>It's not "me" who decides what bias a news skews toward but everyone else,
> >
> > Of course it's you. You are deciding which of everyone else's
> > opinions are the correct opinions.
>
> I respectfully disagree, and I back it up with supreme sense & logic.
>
> The way you think about opinion is not how scientific facts work.
> Specifically, in this situation, mathematical probability (statistics).
>
> 1. One guy says the earth is flat.
> 2. Everyone else proves it's not.
>
> A. You maintain that the earth not being flat is just one guy's opinion.
> B. I don't.
>
> In this case, every news-bias reporting outfit says what I said, and it
> didn't work the other way around - so it's obviously a fact to all who
> report on bias (unless you can find a contrary reliable report, of course).
>
> When ALL the data lines up, it's no longer merely an opinion.
> It's fact.
>
> Or at least it's a statistical reliability with very high probability of
> being correct (within the local community's restrictive bounds of their
> commonly held definition of Left/Right of course).
>
> However, as any logical and rational person would, I'm perfectly willing to
> entertain anyone who shows a reliable cite showing that MSNBC is NOT left
> and/or that FOX is NOT right - but until that happens, it's simply a fact.

Compared with Europe both US parties are pretty right-wing.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:06:17 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:

> You misunderstand my point.

Oops. I'm sorry.

> I accept that MSNBC is left-leaning and that FOX is falling-over right.
> Those are opinions that I have formed by exposure to MSNBC and FOX.

Oh. OK. We agree. I also agree from my own observations (which are rather
limited as both make me wretch) that Fox is further to the right and lower
down on what is factual news than is MSNBC to the left, and higher up.

But I don't trust my own observations. And nobody should trust their own
observations - otherwise we'd all still be claiming the earth is flat
and the earth rotates around the sun and germs spontaneously generate.

> Where I disagree with you is in how we arrive at those conclusions.

OK. Thank you for clarifying the finer point of your argument. Appreciated.

> You suggest that the arrival is based on cites from "reliable" sources
> and my argument is that those sources are only "reliable" because they
> echo your opinion. Any cite you find that offers a contrary view will
> be discounted as "unreliable".

I should be clear with you that I agree with your fundamental point of
view. Everyone has an "opinion" which is based on "something".

I like Japanese vehicles based on the reliability of the ones I've owned.
I dislike German vehicles based on the reliability of teh ones I've owned.

Are Japanese vehicles more reliable than German vehicles?
Your argument is that it would be my opinion that they are, and your
argument is I might seek out what I consider reliable sources to confirm
that if you were to challenge that opinion.

Maybe they are. Maybe they're not. I'm sure we might find sources saying
each is more reliable than the other.

In the end analysis, we might have to resort to statistical analysis to
draw a graph of the results, much like those media bias charts are drawn.

> You form your opinions about the biases of the targets (MSNBC and FOX,
> in this case) when you view their output. If you later search out
> sites that rate the leanings of those targets, you will accept as
> "reliable" only those that reinforce your opinion.

I fully understand that you think that is the case, but you don't seem to
know aspergers people seek out the truth, where as Richard Feynman once
aptly said, the whole process of science starts with a guess, and then you
test that guess, and if the tests fail, you throw out that guess.

Most people hang on to their guess forever as if it's part of their ego.
I don't.

I think you consider me like most people.
I'm not.

If I have a strongly held opinion (such as I think gravity is a force,
which is what I was taught in undergraduate physics many decades ago) and
even if I can find a billion articles that say gravity is a force, I will
drop that strongly held opinion if someone shows that gravity isn't a
force. (Relativistically, gravity is the result of a geometric deformation
and not a classic force - at least that's the Minkowski manifold.)

Most people hold on to their strongly held opinions, no matter what.
I don't.

I think the reason is that most people consider their opinions part of
their ego. I don't.

All you have to do is make a reasonable argument and I'll believe it.
Of course, some arguments have fluid answers, such as whether you think
gravity is a force (in the traditional sense of a force) or not.

Or whether you think Toyota makes more reliable vehicles than BMW.

>>But in the end, I cited published well-vetted evidence of my observations.
>>You haven't cited nary a single published source, vetted or not, for yours.
>
> What you have published is a list of sources that express opinions
> that agree that MSNBC is left-leaning and FOX is right-leaning. I
> agree with those sources and share those opinions.
>
> However, I did not need the reinforcement of a roll call of the
> opinions of others. I formed my own opinions.

You are different than I am, and maybe in terms of Myers-Briggs, you may be
a highly intuitive person. I'm not. I'm midway between iNtuitive and
Sensing, which makes me balanced in how I take in information.

I'm also midway between Feeling and Thinking when it comes to making
decisions based on that information, which also makes me balanced.

People who are highly intuitive tend to not bother with too much data.
People who are highly sensing expend energy to take in lots of data.

As a balanced person, I do both.

For example, I bought my first Toyota in a "Sensing" manner, after months
of research, while I bought my first BMW in an "iNtuitive" manner, after
recommendations from friends (I bought it off a friend, in fact).

After owning each for decades (yes, plural - I hold on to vehicles for up
to three decades at times as I fix them myself) I've come to the "opinion"
that BMW makes great propulsion systems, but BMW is lousy at putting
everything together into a working system as many of the parts outside the
suspension and drive train fall apart in just a few years.

Meanwhile, the Toyota has over 300K miles on it after almost 30 years, and
I've only had to replace the clutch (which I do myself) and mount the tires
(which I do myself) and replace the cooling system (which, being plastic,
sucked - but I had to replace the bimmer's cooling system three times as
often as the expansion tank is garbage).

In the end, you'd say that I harbor a strong "opinion" that BMW's have a
lower reliability than Toyota's, and you'd say that if I wanted to back
that up with "reliable" cites, I'd look for self-bias confirmation from the
likes of Consumers Union (aka Consumer Reports) and not, for example, Car
and Driver (as Car and Driver would optimize performance in ratings, over
reliablity).

It's all good.
I think we agree in principle on everything you said.

The reason is you're being sensible. And logical.
As am I.