Don't waste your breath, Larry. You know what they say about teaching a pig to sing. (Turns the music up louder).
Souixsie and the Banshees now. Downside Up. On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > In other words you believe the crap you want to, > > >> > > >> I do. > > > > > >As long as it confirms your own biases you mean. > > > > No, it means I have free will and I choose what to believe. > > Free will right, and tell us that when you parrot Rush Limbaugh. With every > response you make, you're just confirming that article I quoted. > > > > > >> > and damn the objective evidence. > > >> > > >> I have an eye for the obvious. Nothing about that abstract would > > lead > > >> me to believe it was objective. Quite the opposite. > > > > > >So as I said, you prefer your own prejudices and will not > > investigate > > >anything that will contradict it. You know keeping one's head in the > > >sand makes breathing difficult Sam. > > > > Again, not what I said or meant. Common sense tells me that if someone > > claims that all news media except Fox is fair, than they probably have > > a bias against Fox. > > Do you have evidence of that or are you just blowing smoke again. When I > mean evidence, you will need to examine how the so-called bias was measured. > Did they measure time spent of supporting a specific viewpoint? How about > focusing more time on one candidate over another? Unfortunately you can't > say that. You have dismissed a series of studies without examining the > methodology used in assessing bias one way or another. Without doing that > you're just blowing smoke out your ass. > > > > As you stated: > > "In other words if you think that Fox News is biased then you will > > find bias. If you think its not biased then you'll think its Fair and > > Balanced." > > > > Don't you find it odd that someone would say ALL media except Fox is > > fair? > > Didn't say that at all. Look at the methodology then decide. Until you do > such all you're doing is demonstrating a confirmatory bias. > > > > > >You're right I am, I have a very skeptical view of things and form > > my > > >own opinions based on evidence, not crappy pablum spoon fed to me by > > >an obese brain dead drug addict. > > > > Your rage is showing :) > > OK you mean your parroting Limbaugh isn't such? I can do a line by line > comparison to what you have said and what Limbaugh said that day or a day or > two later. You will find that the correspondence is very high. Are you > saying that he isn't overweight, or underwent treatment for an addiction to > prescription drugs, or was not busted for drug possession? > > > > >> > > >> > Believe what you want and screw the > > >> evidence. > > >> > > >> What evidence? Did you pay the $15 to find out if they had any > > >> evidence that proves Fox is more biased than al Jazeera? > > > > > >I did. Because I wanted to see what the rating system was and if it > > >was a valid rating system. Also it did not hurt that since I have > > had > > >articles in other journals published by the same company I got a > > small > > >discount. I saw how they did their rating and while not perfect, it > > >made good empirical sense. The scales appeared to have a high degree > > >of face validity. In other words I don't let my biases drive my > > >conclusions, I prefer to let the the data dictate. Nor do I let a > > >confirmatory bias colour my interactions. > > > > To pay for a blatantly biased article shows that you're biased against > > Fox and are hoping for confirmation. That's spoon fed crap for you. > > What evidence was there of bias? you did read the article, I did. You did > not examine how they measured bias, I went through the method section very > carefully. Given that determination, who is demonstrating bias. You see a > certain set of words, and let an automatic heuristic take over, WITHOUT > critically examining the evidence. > > To me that is bias. > > > > > > > >Frankly Sam you have made it very clear that despite whatever real > > >evidence there is, you will dismiss it out of hand because it > > >contradicts your prejudices. Such a narrow world view. > > > > You have such a small view of people that disagree with you. Once you > > open your mind and realize people that are different aren't > > necessarily evil or stupid you wouldn't need so much antacid. > > > Do not try and put word in my mouth or ascribe motives. You have no clue. I > base my conclusions on the evidence. I looked at the research I cited and > concluded, based on the evidence, that the rating systems used in several of > the studies were more than adequate. I try not to let my biases interfer > with these conclusions. > > Here's an example, in one of the studies they used a panel of observers who > were self-identified liberals, conservatives or moderates. They asked the > observers to rate the degree of bias on the sample of news reports > identified as Fox, CNN or a fictitious news station. The inter rater > reliability of the ratings were very high >.90. That means that the > liberals, moderates and conservatives agreed far more often than not when > they rated something as biased. > > Unless you're willing to look at the methodology and do a detailed analysis > of it, you're just demonstrating your own biases. In other words you're > demonstrating the point I was making previously, you're using the Brand of > the news station to short circuit your critical thinking skills and to leap > to a predetermined conclusion. > > To me that's bias. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;192386516;25150098;k Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:260241 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
