and yes you right all teenagers think there "to cool for school"
Since Maddox Stereotyping is right as you say..
Ok so all people who are crazy about old style horror movies are umm gothic fat have little social life...I guess thats right? Since thats the Sterotype I get about them it must be correct.
Where in that article does he say ALL teens talk like that and think they are "2 cool 4 skool"? Simple, it doesn't. All he says is that the kids who were in the movie theater that day were complete idiots. That's not stereotyping.
Ah, now I'm saying "ALL"? kids are like this? I never said that, and neither did Maddox. He's making a statement abou the kids that ARE like that, nothing more. The fact that you somehow got the idea that he was saying all teens are like that is very strange.
As for your stereotype, despite it being greatly idiotic and blatantly incorrect, it's nothing more then a contrived, watered down, dimwitted attack on me and my interest to try to get me back for the put downs of Kid rock. Most horror fans are not gothic, in fact, I know very few that are. All of the horror fans I know are actually quite friendly in real life, and have a very nice social life. Actually, perhaps if you'd venture into the Horror forum from time to time, you'd see that some of the most intelegent and cool members of this site are regulars there (lead my Alisons own boyfriend, the master of sarcasm - Cinemadiction, and the supremely awesome Evil Dead) Neither of which fit you're forced, silly stereotype that I doubt you even believe.
In fact, you're statement isn't even a stereotype, as most people don't even believe that. A stereotype is a misconception of a certain type of people that is greatly accepted. Your statements doesn't fall under this catagory, since they're your views and yours alone.
__________________
Last edited by BackFire on Aug 1st, 2004 at 10:53 PM
As far as I can tell, after doing multiple searches, Terry Gross was only on The Factor once. And after reading the transcript from the segment, Bill O'Reilly never said what was supposedly a direct quote from him. In fact, the word "boycott" wasn't used even once. The discussion had absolutely nothing to do with a boycott of any sort. I read the transcript of the interview on foxnews.com, and a summary on the NPR site.
So unless there's some other interview, Mr. Maddox has incorrectly quoted, and bashed, Mr. O'Reilly something that was never said.
This is another matter of personal opinion and interpretation. However, from what I've seen, he doesn't call someone a coward until all of the following:
1) The person claims Bill O'Reilly lied, exaggerated, or made up something he said on air.
2) Said person ignores or refuses multiple (at least 3) requests for an on air interview.
In which case, I'd whole heartedly agree with someone being a coward. If you're going to call someone a liar or anything else, it is absolutely imperative that you have solid factual evidence of such a thing. But again, it all comes down to speculation, because neither Mr. Maddox or yourself give specific examples of who was called a coward.
1) Another generalization, without any specific examples. Tell me who, and when. Otherwise, it can't really be debated, can it?
2) You have incorrectly quoted me. Your recreated, indirect quote says that I think that anyone that disagrees with him is one sided. What I said was "Honestly, if you don't like what he's got to say, you're probably pretty one sided." Why do you feel it necessary to contort my words? I never even said the word disagree. Yet you went out of the way to spin what I said.
Furthermore, What I said is based in fact. Because most (most being the majority) of the people that dismiss virtually everything Mr. O'Reilly (or anyone else for that matter) says, have a blatant bias. This includes both you, and Mr. Maddox. I can safely say this, because of the fact that both of you bash O'Reilly without giving facts. And you admit to this further down by conceding that it is all opinion.
Again, if we're going to have anything that even remotely resembles an intelligent debate, you need to have facts. You need examples of this. Tell me who he asked rapid fire questions to, without giving time to reply. Generalizations don't work in debates.
This just makes my day, you trying to turn this around on me. But in the end, this is another generalization, without a single fact. What unsubstantiated controversial claim did he make? When? To who? About what? We can't debate what doesn't exist.
Does Mr. Maddox happen to suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder, by any chance? That might very well be thee most poorly structured, incoherent paragraph I have ever read.
But I'll try like hell to assimilate this and squeeze some fact from it.
Mr. Maddox is contending that the quote "In order to be truly successful, you have to be brutally honest with yourself. Excuses and rationalizations have to be put aside. You must define your own life, no let others do it for you." is a "giant self collapsing vortex of hyprocrisy." And one of "literally thousands" of hypocritical statements in one of Mr. O'Reilly's books. But where is the hypocrisy in that statement? What has Bill O'Reilly done to contradict the above quote? How is what he said not true? People do have to be honest in order to be successful. Liars don't make it very far in life. So from the sounds of it, he thinks that this is hypocritical because Bill O'Reilly himself is a liar? That would be the argument, correct? OK. So what are the lies he told that make the above statement hypocritical? Make me a list.
Oh goody, here's an example from Mr. Maddox. "For example, regarding people who support Michael Jackson, he said "all Americans should remain on the sidelines and watch the process." Oh really? Does that include you, Bill? Or are broad sweeping generalizations about what "Americans should do" inapplicable to cranky, joyless blowhards?"
What? Does any of that make any sense to anyone? I'm finding it difficult to even understand what he's complaining about here. Mr. Maddox says that an O'Reilly quote regarding Michael Jackson is hypocritical. How? The O'Reilly quote that "All Americans should remain on the sidelines and watch the process," is a far and valid statement that simply repeats our nations beliefs that all who are charged with a crime are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Where is the "broad sweeping generalization" in that?
I also feel it necessary to point out that Mr.Maddox tells us that the quote was direct at people who support Michael Jackson. But how do we know that, without simply believing that Mr. Maddox didn't make any assumptions as to who it was directed at? I would like to know what episode he's quoting to be able to analyze for myself, all of what was said. I have problems with people that tear apart one sentence, without providing the context in which it was said. But even still, I don't see how that quote in and of itself was a hypocritical generalization, as Mr. Maddox claims it to be.
Humorous? Humorous to whom? Hostile, immature, 17 year old males? You might find it humorous, but some of the words used are highly disrespectful to all sorts of people. Ever hear the old cliche "you catch more flies with vinegar than honey"? It's true. Who wants to listen to someone that does nothing but verbally abuse someone they disagree with? If you want me to dislike someone, or you want to get a point across to me, use facts. Tell me why someone is a liar. Show me where they lied, and what it was about. Don't expect me to believe it just because you say it. So I ask that you help me understand why you say the things you do, by backing up your statements with facts, not opinions.
1) How is it a cop out? I thought you were going to enlighten me with examples of Bill O'Reilly telling lies, so that I might be able to understand why you think the way that you do. I can't distrust a person, because someone else "feels" that they are a liar.
2) "I never once, not ONCE said there was anything more then an opinion presented on that site."
No, but you did say "Anyways, every negative thing I could ever say about Bill O'Riely has already been said beautifully in this article - http://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly" which, after reading "He doesn't really "tell it like it is", he gives his opinions as if they're facts" and "he's not a very good debater at all" tells me that you are about to back up your claims with solid facts. Does it not?
3) "There are no facts here, everything that has been said is merely opinion, including *GASP* you're statements as well. The statement of "everyone who disagrees with him is one sided" is YOUR opinion and nothing more" That is incorrect because as I pointed out above, you recreated what I said, using your own words.
4) "Everything Maddox had to say about O'Riely is HIS opionion (actually he did bring up some facts, like the shitty reviews of his book on Amazon.com)" Actually, that is one fact that you pointed out. But I'm glad I at least have one thing to work with....
The overall rating is 3 out of 5, which is above half, so I fail to see the argument. Anyway, the argument itself is still flawed, because it comes down to other peoples opinion of the book.
The amusing part is, the people who gave it one star are mostly all Maddox followers, and even Maddox himself! HA! Even better, is that the people who slammed it;
1) Aren't registered.
2) Refuse to give any information about themselves, or even their location.
3) Never reviewed any other books! So most of these people actually took the time to go to Amazon, solely to bash O'Reilly's book! If that doesn't show a clear bias....
4) Don't say anything factual about how the book was written, or how the content was laid out. But instead, bash O'Reilly himself.
If I'm going to review a CD, for example, I'm going to review the cd. Not say "This Hole CD sucks. Courtney Love is a drug addicted whore," which has absolutely nothing to do with the item I am supposed to being reviewing.
So again. The people that gave it a fair review, review the book itself. The others say nothing about the book, but instead make themselves look ignorant by simply saying things like "I can still see it when I close my eyes!!! Ahhh! make it stop! for the love of God!" and "I've always had a severe hatred for Bill O'Reilly."
You said "Anyways, I suggest you read the article I posted, there's some extrmely valid points in it." and "it's actually a very solid and humerous article." So I obliged, and said that "Now....I did go through it. Just for you. " I don't really see your argument here. It takes me a lot less time to reply to your posts, then for someone to sit down, dream up elaborate and explicit scenarios about someone smelling socks, and throw it all together in HTML format, then upload it to my site, and make links for it.
Also, I didn't defend Bill O'Reilly. I'm trying to find out why I'm supposed to listen to someone's baseless personal attacks, and accept them as fact. I just want the proof of Bill O'Reilly being a liar and a hypocrite. I am more than open to change. But I need proof of someone's lies before I can call them a liar. Since your and Mr. Maddox both say he's just about the biggest liar and hypocrite ever, I didn't think it would be that hard to extract some fact based examples. But it turns out, it's harder than pulling teeth.
What?! Are you on drugs?! What do you mean that's not the point?! Mr. Maddox makes a clear point against Bill by accusing him of "Aligning himself with the working class while wearing a $3,000 suit."
How is that not the point? My God. You might very well be the most biased, close minded person I've ever tried to have a civil discussion with! How can that be a valid point, and then when I offer up factual evidence against it, it all of a sudden turn into "not the point at all"?!
I'm not a blind fan of anything. Like I said the first time, I like everyone who tells it like it is. I like people that aren't biased. I don't want to associate with people who's minds are so closed to possibility, that they lump themselves into segregated groups like "republicans" "democrats" "liberals" "conservatives" etc.
Time and time again, I've told you that I just want the facts that make you believe the way you do, so that I can better understand your stance. I'm seeking truth and knowledge, not opinion.
Bill O'Reilly at least makes a statement, and then clearly tells me not to take his word for it, but to challenge what he's saying by trying to find the absolute truth. I've never been able to discredit anything he's said. You call him a liar, but can't give me specific examples of when he lied, to who, or what about. So again, why should I believe you over him, if you haven't given me so much as a crumb?
__________________
Last edited by *Alison* on Aug 1st, 2004 at 11:31 PM
You want facts? Well sorry, I can't give particular facts or references to the statements I made and the claims I made towards what I've seen on the O'Reily factor.
I don't REMEMBER who he called a coward, but I know I've seen it happen, and I'm not about to wade through pages of documented transcripts from his show just to prove something I KNOW I've seen happen among the few times I've viewed his show. The same goes for the other instances in which I made claims that I witnessed against Bill O'Reily. As I said, i don't watch his show often, and I don't know remember what guest he called a coward, or what guest he throw rapid fire questions at, I know I've seen him do it though. I'm not going to waste hours of my life finding some text about a show I don't like just to prove something to someone I don't know. The proof is in the show. You claim to watch it often enough, I'm sure you will see it happen at some time or another. Again, I never claimed any of my statements were anything more then opinion, not once.
"Anyways, every negative thing I could ever say about Bill O'Riely has already been said beautifully in this article - http://www.maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly" which, after reading "He doesn't really "tell it like it is", he gives his opinions as if they're facts" and "he's not a very good debater at all" tells me that you are about to back up your claims with solid facts. Does it not?"
No it does not, I meant no connection between the two sentances. Again, no facts anywhere. I simply listed Maddox article because it had to do with O'Reily and I found it humerous and raising some good points. Of course, I know that Maddox spends hours upon hours researching before he posts a quote somebody said, or makes a claim about somebody. If you want his recourses for his claims, I'm sure he'll give them to you. Simply email him, he's not one to make up stuff about someone or take statements out of content.
Again, you want facts as to why I believe the way I do, I gave them to you. I've seen O'Reily do what I've claimed I've seen him do. That is a fact to me. They may not be particular proof for you, if you want proof them you can spend YOUR time looking for that proof, since you're the one that cares about such. If I can't stand to watch his boring and monotonous show for more then 10 minutes, what makes you think I'll be able to stand going through hundreds of transcripts for that same shitty show?
And one more thing, where the hell in Jesus' buthole did you get the idea that I called him a liar? I never called O'Reily a liar. I said I thought he was one sided for the most part, nothing more. Do not claim that I said something when I did not. Again, a liar I never said, one sided I did. And I said that simply because I feel he sides with republicans more often then not. I can usually guess what his stance on something is before I even hear him give it, I do this by simply taking a generic republicans view and identifying it to him, and I'm usually right. (Key word is usually, don't go saying I said "always").
__________________
Last edited by BackFire on Aug 1st, 2004 at 11:54 PM
All of this O'Reily talk has reminded me of watching Ebert and Roeper were they reviewed a documtery on Fox News. I cant remember everything but they showed O'Reily interviewing a guy who had a family member who died in Sept 11. They said O'Reily was extremely pissed off at the guy and kept changing the words of what the guy said in the interview mostly to bash him whenever O'Reily brought it back up.
__________________
“As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods, they kill us for their sport.”
I'm not surprised if that's actually true. Sounds like something he'd do. He seems to think anyone who disagrees with him is a bad person and needs to be humiliated, even if they have good intentions for believing what they do.
Gender: Male Location: Dreaming...Or am I living...
I can give you ONE reason why Bill O'Reily is bias and false and all the other claims that have been put against him.
He's on FOX.
There end of story. Fox Is THE most biased network on the air, being run by Bush's cousin of course.
FOX said that AL Sharpton was a raving loony and LOST black vote with his DNC speech.
Al Sharpton Is GOD!! He has the balls that noone else has. He responded to a direct bash that Bush made on him a week before, Eer heard about that attack? nope!!
Only Fox could make Tereisa (Sp?) Heinz Kerry saying "Shove it" Be worse that Cheny saying "Go F*** yourself" to congress.
FOX Is Bias, Every one ON FOX is bais. They are a Conservative media. End of story.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 1st, 2004 10:35 PM
" I don't really see your argument here. It takes me a lot less time to reply to your posts, then for someone to sit down, dream up elaborate and explicit scenarios about someone smelling socks, and throw it all together in HTML format, then upload it to my site, and make links for it. 
