posted February 28, 2007 10:38 PM            

quote:

---

Time Magazine is viewed as highly believable by 22% of people familiar enough to rate it, and the New York Times gets a 21% rating.

---

Now acoustic a lesson in logic which you will not get.

If the Pew results had shown more than 21% of respondents had found the Treason Times highly believable the Pew report would have said so but didn't. Logical conclusion, only 21% of respondents found the Treason Times highly believable and that's what Pew reported.

It logically follows...as night follows day...that 79% of respondents to the Pew poll DID NOT find the Treason Times highly believable....or the Pew organization would have not used the 21% number but would have used a higher percentage number to summarize the poll results.

It also follows logically...like night follows day...that only those in category 4..the all or most crowd found the Treason Times highly believable. That's true because all means every single one without exception...except they also added or most, most being an indefinite quantifyer which could be anything over 50% up to an amount just short of all. Everyone else found the Treason Times less than highly believable to one degree or another, ie., half or less than half...by definition.

Pew and other polling organizations are used to handling statistical data. Obviously, you are not or you wouldn't be making the boneheaded statements you're making.

It's becoming clear to me why you never contacted the Pew organization as you said you were going to do. You didn't want them to burst your bubble of illogic.

posted February 28, 2007 10:57 PM            

Maybe you should attempt to define for yourself just what exactly columns 2 and 3 represent, because as long as you fail to understand what those columns are about you're going to continue making an @ss of yourself with your utterly retarded argument.

posted February 28, 2007 11:23 PM            

The polls results and summary Pew wrote up mean exactly what I represented them to mean and nothing else. No twisted distortion of the statistical data and summary can alter the facts.

You continue to nibble around the edges but won't address the main issue. Only 21% of respondents found the Treason Times highly believable. 79% did not.

End of the story.

Edit**

Tell you what acoustic; you get your little graph certified by the Pew organization and then, we'll talk. Until then, you're just belching gas.

posted March 01, 2007 12:34 AM            

By definition, anything less than most..which could be 50% or less than 50% but in no way could less than "most" be above 50% as it relates to the confidence responders had in the Treason Times reporting of the news.

So, if you want to believe 50% or less than 50% confidence in the believability of the Treason Times could be categorized as "believable or "somewhat believable", that's your choice. I would personally choose "somewhat believable for both category 3 and 2 responders with a 2 rating for the NY Times being less believable than a 3 rating.

If the Pew organization had not thrown "most" in as a quantifier it would be an entirely different matter...but they did and words have specific meanings within the context of what's being discussed.

posted March 01, 2007 01:22 AM            

In a scale the two ends are opposites, and everything in between is a lesser degree of the two polls. There is NO case in which this is untrue.

These people put their answers where they saw fit on a scale of 1 - 4. You can best your @ss they weren't thinking about the semantics of the word 'most' when answering these questions. 4 was All or Most a.k.a "highly credible" (to the administrators at Pew) and 1 was Believe Almost Nothing. If you're sitting in your house participating in one of these polls you're not thinking, "Well 'most' must be up to 50%." No, they thought about the opposite polls and what their answer would be. Most people, by nature, don't poll in the extreme. That's why in every case excluding The National Enquirer, columns 2 and 3 are the most populated. In every case except The National Enquirer the total percentage of people choosing numbers 2 and 3 is higher than the combined percentage of those who chose 1 and 4. That should confer to you the importance of the columns two and three and what they mean.

If you're with me, and you understand all this then it should be perfectly clear that column 3 is a lesser degree than total belief, but it's also much more than believing less than half. Column three is where the majority of people voted, and it conveys that there's a general trust of the credibility of most of these publications whilst also leaving room for the publication to make the occasional factual error or mistake.

posted March 07, 2007 10:07 AM            

The fact you don't know the common every day definition English speaking people accept and use for "most" is an indictment of your definitions challenged vocabulary. It's also the reason you are unable to read with comprehension and get upside down in "most" discussions with people who are educated beyond the 8th grade.

posted March 07, 2007 02:10 PM            

quote:

---

The fact you don't know the common every day definition English speaking people accept and use for "most" is an indictment of your definitions challenged vocabulary. It's also the reason you are unable to read with comprehension and get upside down in "most" discussions with people who are educated beyond the 8th grade.

---

I've already described for you in great detail how the word 'most' is not even close to being at issue.

posted March 12, 2007 12:06 PM            

Simply telling the truth in their news reporting would have prevented this and still might. But that's a solution the radical leftist press will not institute.

U.S. News Business Needs New Revenue Model: Study
NewsMax.com Wires
Monday, March 12, 2007

NEW YORK -- U.S. news organizations are feeling pressured to find radical new ways to make money as their financial outlooks worsen despite embracing new technology, a study released Monday said.

One way to do it may be to charge Web users for news in a way they cannot avoid - their Internet access bill, said the study called "State of the News Media 2007."

"The hope that Internet advertising will someday match what print and television now bring in appears to be vanishing," according to the study, published by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group affiliated with the Pew Charitable Trusts.

News outlets, particularly newspapers, were able to rely on advertising and subscriptions for years, and have staked high hopes on their online sales eventually eclipsing weaker print revenue.

That may not work out, however, said Tom Rosenstiel, the study's supervisor and the group's director. The amount of online advertising dollars is still rising, "but now there are growing doubts about how much of that will accrue to news," the study said.

"The people on the countinghouse side have got to come up with a new plan," said Rosenstiel, who used to cover the news business for the Los Angeles Times. "The audience is migrating but the advertising probably never will in sufficient amounts."

With more people expecting to get news for free on the Internet, publishers may need to consider forming consortiums to charge for online news, the study said.

"The increasingly logical scenario is not to charge the consumer directly," the study said. "Instead, news providers would charge Internet providers and aggregators licensing fees for content."***Note, consumers wind up paying whether they want to consume the lies of the leftist press..or not.

Rosenstiel acknowledged that this approach, similar to the cable television model, could result in more expensive Internet access bills. "It's either that or journalism shrinks in America," he said.

Figuring out how the news business will survive is the most pressing question on the minds of publishers as well as investors. But Wall Street's patience is limited, and newspaper stocks have been falling steadily for several years.

Publishers are trying to cut expenses through layoffs, outsourcing and changing what they cover, even as they try to get more revenue through new technology and local coverage that they think will attract more advertisers.

This has led to the sale of several large papers to private buyers. Two U.S. mainstay newspaper companies, Knight Ridder and Pulitzer, were swallowed up by rivals. A third, Tribune Co. , is considering bids for all or parts of the company.

Longtime newspaper analyst John Morton said newspapers must invest more in new technology. While most newspaper executives realize that, it has not proceeded as quickly as it should have, he said.

"The newspaper business has always been a laggard on spending in research and development," he said.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/3/12/113259.shtml?s=us

***Edit

acoustic, you lost this argument from the beginning. You've posted the information which shot you down from the Pew Poll and summary and that information agrees perfectly with what I said.

Only 21% found the NY Times "highly credible/believable. It follows logically that 79% DO NOT FIND THE NY TIMES HIGHLY CREDIBLE/BELIEVABLE

It also follows logically that while only 21% believe "all" or even "most" of what they read in the NY Times, 79% believe LESS THAN ALL OR EVEN MOST on a descending decline from 50% or less, down to little or nothing.

The only column which found the NY Times highly credible/believable was column 4, which was 21% of those polled.

The Times and the rest of the leftist democrat propaganda organs of the press are paying the price for selling out their subscribers by acting as shills for the radicals.

BTW, your little self constructed chart is laughable. There's not one bit of evidence the Pew poll results broke out the way you depict them.

I'm still waiting for you to post the response to the letter you said you were sending to the Pew organization...to prove me wrong.

posted March 12, 2007 02:34 PM            

It would be impossible for me to lose this argument. You don't understand a scale nor their use of the term 'most.' I do. I'd be happy to argue with you about this as long as you like, because you can only make yourself look ignorant by pursuing this, much like your argument against Jan Spiller.

posted March 12, 2007 03:23 PM            

quote:

---

Maybe you should solicit a second opinion from someone you can trust. That's what I'd suggest

---

I know you suggested this acoustic...and you said YOU were going to do it by going straight to the source.

Now acoustic, did you go straight to the source with your fairytale analysis? And did the Pew organization poke gaping holes in your analysis and subversion of the English language?

Is that why you never posted their response?

My problem was not and is not with Jan Spiller. My problem was and remains your misrepresentation of what Jan Spiller said.

This fits you to a tee acoustic.

"The opposition from Mercury to Saturn shows that you are strongly opinionated and defensive."

"You may be inclined to bend the truth in order to get your way with people, but people are more discerning than you realize and often are aware of your deceptions."

"All this adds up to the fact that you must learn to mind your own business and have respect for the privacy of others. Don't assume that other people think a certain way and then complain because they don't think that way."

Now acoustic, I don't take astrology lessons from those who can't read charts. People like you.

Still waiting for you to respond to the fact my Mars in Aries IS NOT unaspected...as you alleged.

Get back to me when the Pew organization straightens you out...both on the English language and their analysis of their own poll.

posted March 12, 2007 03:58 PM            

Regarding Jan Spiller, I've never misrepresented what she said. That's another delusion of yours. We're out of Mercury retrograde now. Perhaps you should pull your head out of your ass. This is one of the most absurd arguments you've ever been party to, and as such it probably belongs lumped with the argument of this thread. They're natural brothers.

posted March 13, 2007 12:48 AM            

I don't need any conformation on the results of the Pew poll. You're the one who is definitions challenged. You're also the one who was going to contact the Pew organization...and then didn't...or you say you didn't.

Still stuck in that Cancer South Node emotional merry-go-round and it shows acoustic. Jan Spiller wasn't lauding that you know...or perhaps you're in too big a fog to have understood that Jan Spiller said that's the way to be a big loser in this life.

Hahahaah, Saturn, planet of restrictions, limitations and constriction shakes hands with your Mercury, planet of intellect and communications...in a hard aspect and you try to spin that as a soft landing.

Don't look now acoustic but you're exhibiting all the negatives of your Mercury opposed Saturn aspect. Opinionated without facts, defensive and worse, deceptive in your verbal communications. I would add to that, the inability to admit when you're wrong....like being wrong about my so called unaspected Mars in Aries.

I know you think no one notices acoustic but I read you like an open book.

posted March 13, 2007 02:28 AM            

quote:

---

Isn't that just like you acoustic. Lack of follow through on assignments you've scheduled for yourself.

---

What's that, Jwhop? You're afraid of attempting contact yourself? Afraid that they would confirm that it's exactly how I said it was? Tell me how much of an ass would you feel if I was protecting you from what Pew said?

Like I said, you ought to contact them yourself. That way you can save a little face.

quote:

---

I don't need any conformation on the results of the Pew poll. You're the one who is definitions challenged. You're also the one who was going to contact the Pew organization...and then didn't...or you say you didn't.

---

I say I didn't? When did I say that? I remember saying that I wasn't sure if I had since I hadn't heard back from them, but I never denied writing them.

quote:

---

Still stuck in that Cancer South Node emotional merry-go-round and it shows acoustic. Jan Spiller wasn't lauding that you know...or perhaps you're in too big a fog to have understood that Jan Spiller said that's the way to be a big loser in this life.

---

Funny, because it's you who's been having to manufacture ways at trying to jab at me lately much to your own undoing. Anywhere outside of GU people see you as pathetic in your attempts at stirring up trouble.

You can try to throw Capricorn NN in my face all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you can't get under my skin in any effective way. You're no psychologist Jwhop, and you're not terribly clever either. It would take skills in both areas for you to even have a chance at accomplishing what you're trying to do. Frankly, you're not up for the task, especially with transitting Mercury sitting opposite your Sun, and pesky tNeptune opposing your Sun/Moon midpoint. Not to mention bad-boy tSaturn sitting near that Sun/Mood midpoint itself.

quote:

---

I would add to that, the inability to admit when you're wrong

---

You first brother. You first. You've got plenty of fessing up to do lately, so you've got quite a variety to choose from. Will you choose the NN argument, this NYT argument, your hilarious astrology argument in the Randall thread, etc?

quote:

---

Yeah, lalalinda chose a convenient interpretation...from an astrology site you like to quote from.

---

Yeah, here's your Mercury Square Saturn interp from the same site she used:

quote:

---

The square from Mercury to Saturn indicates that your early conditioning has inhibited you from using your imagination in exploiting your potentials. Somewhat traditional in your thinking, you find it difficult to stay in the mainstream of current ideas or develop new ideas. You may be narrow-minded in your opinions because you fear change and the insecurity it represents to you.

In school, you were slow to learn because it required so much effort. You felt you were being punished because you were expected to maintain your grades. It's not that you are incapable, but rather indolent and mentally lazy. When you don't succeed with a minimum of effort, you quickly become depressed. The result is a lack of enthusiasm in developing your creative potentials. Your conservative attitude is a liability, because today's society demands personal assertion in order to succeed. Your fear of competition means you cannot prove to yourself that you are capable of meeting challenges. Unless you adjust your thinking to the rapid changes taking place in the world, you will greatly limit your progress.

Once you get over feeling negative about everything, you can make plans to see that your ideas are acted on. This planetary combination gives many advantages. Instead of fear, have courage to accept the obvious. Replace negative thinking with plans which allow you to face your obligations with optimism. Look to the past, of which you are so fond, for the lessons you need to adequately cope with problems of the present and future. You don't really have any alternative if you want to achieve your objectives in life.

You could achieve success in education, science, politics, conservation of natural resources, government science, industrial management, or architecture. As you can see, some of these fields, especially science amd education, require that you be willing to accept change. You need only the determination to succeed and the ability to capitalize on your creative potentials in order to rise to prominence in any of these occupations.

Be careful not to sign legal documents without reading the fine print, and avail yourself of legal counsel. You can be vindictive if someone tries to take advantage of you. In your job, you are resentful of authority and complain bitterly when someone else gets the promotion you feel you deserve. You must demonstrate your superiority in order to attract attention. You may just have to try harder than others to succeed or gain recognition.

Try to look at the bright side of life and admit that, if you are having difficulty, perhaps you haven't made as much of a contribution as you could have. http://www.astrologyweekly.com/astrological-aspects/mercury-square-saturn.php

---

posted March 13, 2007 03:37 PM            

Jwhop, can you please give me a condensed version of the interpretation for Pisces North Node/Virgo South?

I've ordered Jan Spiller's book but I'm impatient...

posted March 21, 2007 05:51 PM            

quote:

---

What's that, Jwhop? You're afraid of attempting contact yourself? Afraid that they would confirm that it's exactly how I said it was? Tell me how much of an ass would you feel if I was protecting you from what Pew said?
Like I said, you ought to contact them yourself. That way you can save a little face.....acoustic

---

Why should I contact Pew acoustic. You're the one who disagrees with the findings of their poll. It seems to matter not to you that Pew confirmed my position in their summary...and rejected your own. The broken record routine doesn't work with me. Clearly, you are wrong with your asinine assumptions, not to mention the fact you are unable to argue the main thrust underlying what this...as well as other polls on the media actually mean.

quote:

---

I say I didn't? When did I say that? I remember saying that I wasn't sure if I had since I hadn't heard back from them, but I never denied writing them....acoustic

---

Yes acoustic, you did say you would contact the Pew organization to get their interpretation of their poll and charts....but then you didn't. Later, when I asked when you intended to post the Pew response, you said you hadn't contacted them at all. Now, you deny. You would do the flip flopper Traitor Kerry proud. If you did contact Pew...as you said you would, then where is their response?

quote:

---

Funny, because it's you who's been having to manufacture ways at trying to jab at me lately much to your own undoing....acoustic

---

IF I were trying to jab at you acoustic, you'd look like a pin cushion by now. You overrate your importance to me.

quote:

---

Anywhere outside of GU people see you as pathetic in your attempts at stirring up trouble.acoustic

---

Thanks for the admission your little club of backstabbers is alive and well somewhere on the Internet acoustic. You acoustic, are either a weak personality who must summon help from your support group because you aren't strong enough to stand on your own....or you are engaged in an email backstabbing gossip campaign off this site. Either way acoustic, that marks you as the intellectual/moral and spiritual weakling I've always known you are. Would you care to post the Internet address where you and your little band are hanging out now and gossiping about LindaLand members?

quote:

---

You can try to throw Capricorn NN in my face all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you can't get under my skin in any effective way. You're no psychologist Jwhop, and you're not terribly clever either. It would take skills in both areas for you to even have a chance at accomplishing what you're trying to do. Frankly, you're not up for the task, especially with transitting Mercury sitting opposite your Sun, and pesky tNeptune opposing your Sun/Moon midpoint. Not to mention bad-boy tSaturn sitting near that Sun/Mood midpoint itself.....acoustic

---

Capricorn North Node acoustic? Again, you show your total misunderstanding of astrology...and where you're actually coming from. You've ignored Spiller's admonition, even when I rubbed you nose in her own words. You acoustic, are coming from your Cancer South Node..the overly emotional Cancer South Node Spiller warned you would cause you to be a big loser in this life. Time for you to grow up acoustic and move on.

Someone who is incapable of finding aspects to Mars in my chart is hardly someone I'm likely to take seriously in discussions of astrology.

quote:

---

You first brother. You first. You've got plenty of fessing up to do lately, so you've got quite a variety to choose from. Will you choose the NN argument, this NYT argument, your hilarious astrology argument in the Randall thread, etc?...acoustic

---

The North Node argument has been a total loser for you acoustic...as I've demonstrated over and over. The NY Times argument is a total loser for you...as I've demonstrated over and over. What more needs to be said when the NYT has been forced to lay off staff, when their shareholders are in revolt, when their stock has declined more than 40 percent in a rising stock market, when their circulation is down, advertising revenues are down and the general trend for the NYT is down and going lower and when only 21% of poll responders find the NYT a highly credible source of news. You lost that argument long ago.

The confusion created in the minds of beginners and others when astrologers attempt to take off on tangents with their own aspect interpretations, ignoring the time honored and approved thrust of aspect energies cannot be good for astrology. It only gives the skeptics more ammunition. I know you like to go fishing on the Internet to find those interpretations which inflate your undernourished ego acoustic but they aren't really doing you any favors.

quote:

---

h, here's your Mercury Square Saturn interp from the same site she used:

quote:The square from Mercury to Saturn indicates that your early conditioning has inhibited you from using your imagination in exploiting your potentials. Somewhat traditional in your thinking, you find it difficult to stay in the mainstream of current ideas or develop new ideas. You may be narrow-minded in your opinions because you fear change and the insecurity it represents to you.
In school, you were slow to learn because it required so much effort. You felt you were being punished because you were expected to maintain your grades. It's not that you are incapable, but rather indolent and mentally lazy. When you don't succeed with a minimum of effort, you quickly become depressed. The result is a lack of enthusiasm in developing your creative potentials. Your conservative attitude is a liability, because today's society demands personal assertion in order to succeed. Your fear of competition means you cannot prove to yourself that you are capable of meeting challenges. Unless you adjust your thinking to the rapid changes taking place in the world, you will greatly limit your progress.
Once you get over feeling negative about everything, you can make plans to see that your ideas are acted on. This planetary combination gives many advantages. Instead of fear, have courage to accept the obvious. Replace negative thinking with plans which allow you to face your obligations with optimism. Look to the past, of which you are so fond, for the lessons you need to adequately cope with problems of the present and future. You don't really have any alternative if you want to achieve your objectives in life....acoustic

---

Have you ever wondered why I don't talk much about myself acoustic...what I do, what I've done? I proved everything I needed to know about myself long ago. This is background and only part of the story....the story of change, new methods, innovations, new horizons and new localities

When I was about your age acoustic, I was General Supervisor of Operations for one of the most successful corporations in America. At any given time, more than 1000 employees reported to me...through supervisors.....and managers to whom they reported. I controlled, production, production control, materials and material control, customer service/returns, facilities maintenance, warehousing and every other function except shipping, personnel and quality control.

I started there as a production line supervisor. Within 2 years, I was running the operation. I'm never content to learn only my own job and stay within those confines acoustic. During this period I restructured the entire production process, set reasonable line production rates and raised production line efficiencies more than 50%. I saved the company literally tens of millions of dollars annually through cost cutting measures I submitted....and which were approved for implementation. BTW, I still have those proposals, line production rates and all the criteria I used. Not to mention acoustic that the numbers I posted at that corporation looked great on my resume, good enough that another corporation took a run at me and made me General Manager of West Coast Operations....the whole banana. You would know that corporation today as Newell/Rubbermaid. Then, it was Newell Home Hardware and another corporation...Wilshire Lighting.

Before you started blowing smoke up your own ass acoustic, you should have had a look at my Mars in Aries...in the 6th House.
You couldn't survive a month in the environment in which I thrive. It's a fast paced world of objective reality where only results count. You couldn't follow me around until lunch acoustic. Your tongue would be hanging out and by mid afternoon, you'd need oxygen and intensive care.

quote:

---

Your fear of competition means you cannot prove to yourself that you are capable of meeting challenges....acoustic

---

As usual acoustic, you've dialed a wrong number. I'm the most competitive person you've never met and you should thank your lucky stars we haven't met. Not likely, because we live in 2 different worlds. Mine of results oriented objective reality and yours of a head up your ass in fantasyland world.

There is a moral to this story acoustic and it's astrology based, as I will show you shortly.

When I was in 2nd grade, I got a D in reading. By 4th grade, I was reading at 7th grade level and by 7th grade at 12th grade level. I graduated from high school in the top 10 students in my class and scored in the 99th percentile on the National Merit Scholarship Test.

I thrive on competition acoustic. When I was in 3rd grade we played marbles...for keeps at recesses and lunch. I had so many marbles...theirs...that my mother was horrified, made me take the bags of marbles back to school and give them back. That ended my marble playing...why win if there's no payoff? later, I started playing baseball. First time I held a bat, the coach...really the PE teacher laughed and told me I had my hands crossed...and would break my wrists if I tried to swing the bat. By the time I was a freshman in high school, I was the most valuable player on the varsity baseball team, a pitcher (still have that trophy), quarterback on the varsity football team and a forward on the varsity basketball team. I played baseball in college and semipro baseball from the time I was a high school freshman until I was past your age acoustic. From the time I was about 18, I raced cars..mine. A 409 Chevy, a 426 Plymouth Ramcharger and a Pontiac GTO Ram Air, not at the same time..at drag strips all over Southern California...Pomona, Irwindale, San Gabriel Valley, San Fernando, Fontana and at Lions drag strip in Long Beach and at other drag strips as far away as Henderson, Nevada.

Later acoustic, I raced a team of Alaskan Malamutes...mine...in the mountains above Palm Springs, at Big Bear, at Mammoth and other mountain snow areas while I was a member of the California Sled Dog Association and President of the Golden State Alaskan Malamute Club.

Now acoustic, there is a moral to all this...though I'm sure you thought I was only tooting my own horn.

If you actually knew anything about astrology, you would know the hard aspects are to be overcome...moderated or redirected into positive channels of expression.

I have the Mercury Square Saturn aspect and you have the opposition. Which one of us has overcome the negatives of these hard aspects acoustic?

You are deceptive, disingenuous...in some circles they wouldn't be so nice and they would just call you a liar. Your ego will not permit you admit it when you're wrong..hence the broken record responses from you. You will go to any length to avoid taking responsibility for what you've said...when it's clear you are wrong. You make disingenuous arguments which do not address the main issue under discussion. Let's call that attempting to refute an argument by nibbling around the edges where you can find some peripheral issue to attack thinking you can undermine the main issue by finding fault with a triviality.

Perfect example acoustic. A few days ago, Johnny brought up Kindred Spirits again in FFA. Randall made a comment about the role Magnum of Mucous played there...but mistook the object of his outrageous conduct there as being Pid. I noted your attempt to debunk what Randall said....by a rolleyes and a correction...just as though you had undermined Randall's entire comment...when nothing of the sort is true. The main thrust of what Randall said IS true.

I read you like an open book acoustic...since you made your first comment on this forum. Everything you've said since only reinforces my initial impressions.

I've told you before that I am not your father acoustic and you certainly have issues with your parents. I would guess your parents are sun signs from one or two of this group. Scorpio, Aries and Leo. My best guess is Aries/Aries, Leo/Leo or Aries/Leo.
Everything considered, you would have been miles ahead to have listened to your parents...instead of rebelling against their parental authority...which I'm confident is exactly what you did.

BTW acoustic, I'm a Virgo North Node. Which one of us is moving forward towards or operating in the realm we should be pursuing in this life? You're still stuck in Cancer South Node issues and I've definitely moved beyond my Pisces South Node.

posted March 21, 2007 09:53 PM            

quote:

---

Why should I contact Pew acoustic. You're the one who disagrees with the findings of their poll. It seems to matter not to you that Pew confirmed my position in their summary...and rejected your own. The broken record routine doesn't work with me. Clearly, you are wrong with your asinine assumptions, not to mention the fact you are unable to argue the main thrust underlying what this...as well as other polls on the media actually mean.

---

Jwhop, I've been stating the results of their poll. It's you that's been distorting them. The summary doesn't back you up one iota. Believe me, I'd argue in any court in front of any people on this issue, because there isn't the slightest bit of doubt that I'm correct. I sincerely doubt that you could make the same assertion.

quote:

---

Yes acoustic, you did say you would contact the Pew organization to get their interpretation of their poll and charts....but then you didn't. Later, when I asked when you intended to post the Pew response, you said you hadn't contacted them at all. Now, you deny. You would do the flip flopper Traitor Kerry proud. If you did contact Pew...as you said you would, then where is their response?

---

You wouldn't believe me if I did post a response from Pew, so like I said, you ought to contact them yourself, so you can receive the bad news in private. You really don't have any other choice.

quote:

---

IF I were trying to jab at you acoustic, you'd look like a pin cushion by now. You overrate your importance to me.

---

Do I? Is that why you just happened to show up in a couple threads to throw in a few cheap and dishonest shots while you could? As I said, everyone sees right through your nonsense. You never did respond to ILWL in that FFA thread did you?

quote:

---

Thanks for the admission your little club of backstabbers is alive and well somewhere on the Internet acoustic. You acoustic, are either a weak personality who must summon help from your support group because you aren't strong enough to stand on your own....or you are engaged in an email backstabbing gossip campaign off this site. Either way acoustic, that marks you as the intellectual/moral and spiritual weakling I've always known you are. Would you care to post the Internet address where you and your little band are hanging out now and gossiping about LindaLand members?

---

I said that because people you ultimately ignored called you out. Newbie Moggym called you out in the both the Censorship and the Randall thread. InLoveWithLife, who's been here since August, called you out in the thread in FFA and the censorship thread. Old timers like Coral Frequency (who used to be Aries-chick, and Lauren) also called you out (in my Beware of Censorship thread). When you rear your head against me anywhere but here in GU you're going to get into trouble, because you can't attack me without making an ass of yourself. Talk about weak.

Not to mention running away for awhile to let your idiocy be forgotten so that you can regroup.

quote:

---

The North Node argument has been a total loser for you acoustic...as I've demonstrated over and over.

---

quote:

---

The NY Times argument is a total loser for you...as I've demonstrated over and over.

---

Trying to bring in outside information to bolster your imbecilic argument as to what the Pew poll means is ridiculous. You know manipulations like that will never jive with me.

quote:

---

when only 21% of poll responders find the NYT a highly credible source of news.

---

posted March 21, 2007 09:53 PM            

quote:

---

The confusion created in the minds of beginners and others when astrologers attempt to take off on tangents with their own aspect interpretations, ignoring the time honored and approved thrust of aspect energies cannot be good for astrology. It only gives the skeptics more ammunition. I know you like to go fishing on the Internet to find those interpretations which inflate your undernourished ego acoustic but they aren't really doing you any favors.

---

That's just plain ridiculous, especially considering that most aspect interpretations out there on the internet follow the mainstream norms. Lalalinda was incorrect in her assessment, and I was able to back my assessment with lots of interpretations from all over the place.

quote:

---

I proved everything I needed to know about myself long ago.

---

So, you feel so threatened that you need to give me a bio, huh?

We all deal with our chart energies from birth. The smart and/or fortunate of us are able to cope with our harder aspects.

quote:

---

Before you started blowing smoke up your own ass acoustic, you should have had a look at my Mars in Aries...in the 6th House.

---

Perhaps you should check out my Mars in Scorpio in the 6th House.

quote:

---

You couldn't survive a month in the environment in which I thrive. It's a fast paced world of objective reality where only results count. You couldn't follow me around until lunch acoustic. Your tongue would be hanging out and by mid afternoon, you'd need oxygen and intensive care.

---

I guess we'll never know.

quote:

---

You are deceptive, disingenuous...in some circles they wouldn't be so nice and they would just call you a liar. Your ego will not permit you admit it when you're wrong..hence the broken record responses from you. You will go to any length to avoid taking responsibility for what you've said...when it's clear you are wrong. You make disingenuous arguments which do not address the main issue under discussion. Let's call that attempting to refute an argument by nibbling around the edges where you can find some peripheral issue to attack thinking you can undermine the main issue by finding fault with a triviality.

Perfect example acoustic. A few days ago, Johnny brought up Kindred Spirits again in FFA. Randall made a comment about the role Magnum of Mucous played there...but mistook the object of his outrageous conduct there as being Pid. I noted your attempt to debunk what Randall said....by a rolleyes and a correction...just as though you had undermined Randall's entire comment...when nothing of the sort is true. The main thrust of what Randall said IS true.

---

This is interesting.

First, the man who corrupts information from a poll so severely as to say, "Pew poll came out showing only 21% of those polled believed all or even "most" of what the Treason Times prints" (the bold words added by you to completely change the truth of what the poll actually said), is going to lecture me about being deceptive and disingenuous? Tell me, who between us gets their ass handed to them on a regular basis for posting nonsense articles from politically biased websites? (HINT: It's not me!) If you want to see a liar, you need only go as far as your restroom.

Yes, I did correct Randall as it would be a disservice to TINK not to have. I didn't do it with a rolleyes either: Link (I'm not sure, but I don't think you can change posts once the thread has been locked). Also, I do believe that if you're going to try to smear someone for something they were associated with then the facts shouldn't be distorted. The truth of the matter is that Randall was basically airing all of his greivances with me throughout that thread, and in a lot of instances he had his facts wrong.

quote:

---

I read you like an open book acoustic...since you made your first comment on this forum. Everything you've said since only reinforces my initial impressions.

---

I wish I could believe you there Jwhop, but I just happen to think that if you read me like an open book you'd be able to deal with me. Let's face facts now. You have a really difficult time dealing with me.

quote:

---

I've told you before that I am not your father acoustic and you certainly have issues with your parents. I would guess your parents are sun signs from one or two of this group. Scorpio, Aries and Leo. My best guess is Aries/Aries, Leo/Leo or Aries/Leo.

---

I don't think of you as my father. My father, while perhaps being as delusional and self-important as you sometimes, is a much nicer person.

My parents, as I've said on many threads during my time here, are Aries Dad and Leo Mom. My Mom's three brothers are also Leos. I also have two Aries sisters, an Aquarius sister, and a Leo brother. Yes, I am an earthling in a fire house.

quote:

---

Everything considered, you would have been miles ahead to have listened to your parents...instead of rebelling against their parental authority...which I'm confident is exactly what you did.

---

I'm on the path I'm supposed to be on. Whether you choose to believe that or not is up to you. No one is their parents.

quote:

---

BTW acoustic, I'm a Virgo North Node. Which one of us is moving forward towards or operating in the realm we should be pursuing in this life? You're still stuck in Cancer South Node issues and I've definitely moved beyond my Pisces South Node.

---

Have you? It seems like someone who has incorporated their Virgo North Node fully would be planted in reality, and yet when given a choice, you choose biased, so-called "news" articles as your source of information even despite the factual challenges that have been mounted on these sources repeatedly. You also have a problem with accepting objective truth when it doesn't fit in to the scheme of the reality you maintain in your head. Sounds like the confusion and disorientation of Pisces South Node. Given Neptune's conjunction with your North Node, your fantasy life is quite active.

posted March 22, 2007 07:40 AM            

Whew.

And I'm not saying I want to change your behavior. I just don't enjoy it. Yes, yes, I know ... don't read it, yada yada. I was just looking to see if either of you had contacted Pew yet. Guess that wouldn't be as entertaining(?) for you.