posted March 22, 2007 04:47 PM            

quote:

---

I'll still like you even if you do say my Mercury is lodged in Myanus.

---

posted March 22, 2007 07:09 PM            

I had you pegged in the right phew from the beginning and nothing has changed.

I see you edited out the rolleyes from your comment to Randall. Easy to do but then, I'd already seen it.

You failed to mention that the thread I was "called out" on was closed by Randall. So acoustic, did you expect me to react childishly...like you and start a new thread to show everyone my oowie?

You have an over exaggerated idea of your importance to me acoustic or of a need to prove you wrong. You are almost always wrong but that's no skin off my nose. Consider it a public service when I take the time to point your errors out to you.

Gratifying to see I was right about your parents...Aries and Leo. Bet they ran a pretty taut ship and dragged your butt through a lot of knot holes trying to get you to shape up. You should have listened to them.

posted March 22, 2007 08:29 PM            

quote:

---

I had you pegged in the right phew from the beginning and nothing has changed.

---

No, you pegged me as a radical from the beginning when the actuality is that you're the radical. You are the one with credibility issues. You are the one that can't play nice with others. You are the one who can't accept the facts if they go against your own views. You're the one that takes issue with tolerance. You're even the one to post the views of other radicals like Ann Coulter.

It takes a fanatacism similar to your own in order to beat you, because you're tenacious, but my fanatacism is just a hat I wear to keep you in check. It is cumbersome and annoying, but it's better than you bullying everyone into submission. You realize people don't hate GU because of me, right? They hated GU long before I ever showed up. They hate GU for the atmosphere you've single-handedly created. You tell me what kind of person takes a place and makes it hostile. While you're at it, why don't you define for yourself what happens in GU while you're away.

quote:

---

I see you edited out the rolleyes from your comment to Randall. Easy to do but then, I'd already seen it.

---

I didn't edit out anything. It's exactly as it originally was.

quote:

---

You failed to mention that the thread I was "called out" on was closed by Randall. So acoustic, did you expect me to react childishly...like you and start a new thread to show everyone my oowie?

---

You were called out well in advance of these threads closing.

quote:

---

You have an over exaggerated idea of your importance to me acoustic or of a need to prove you wrong. You are almost always wrong but that's no skin off my nose. Consider it a public service when I take the time to point your errors out to you.

---

If I'm so forever-wrong, dear Jwhop, what is this strange influence I seem to hold? Why do people so often agree with me? And if you're so often right, why is it that people constantly disagree with you? There's a logical outcome to always being right. Think about what that outcome would be, and then think about whether you get that outcome.

quote:

---

Gratifying to see I was right about your parents...Aries and Leo. Bet they ran a pretty taut ship and dragged your butt through a lot of knot holes trying to get you to shape up. You should have listened to them.

---

posted March 22, 2007 08:50 PM            

In the beginning, you were "Acoustic God". A rather blasphemous choice of names for someone who attempted to argue the Christian Bible with me...unsuccessfully.

Then, because of your BS, I demoted you to "Acoustic god".

Still more BS from you so I demoted you to "Acoustic".

Since you're incapable of posting without including a healthy dose of bullshiit, it became necessary to think of you as a "small case" person ...hence "acoustic".

One of your problems acoustic is that you think a consensus opinion confers authority and correctness. My experience is that consensus opinions are almost invariably wrong and those who hide behind them are the weakest of the weak.

posted March 22, 2007 08:56 PM            

quote:

---

One of your problems acoustic is that you think a consensus opinion confers authority and correctness. My experience is that consensus opinions are almost invariably wrong and those who hide behind them are the weakest of the weak.

---

Who's hiding?

You know what kind of people aren't into consensus ideas/concerns/opinions? Dictators.

posted March 23, 2007 03:25 PM            

quote:

---

They hate GU for the atmosphere you've single-handedly created.

---

I just wanted to say that it takes more than one person to create a hostile environment. You can't just blame that on Jwhop. If you want to get technical, everyone who has come in here at one time or another and argued with insults and innuendo helps further create the "atmosphere" of which you speak. That includes you, me, Mirandee, Daydreamer, Pid, Jwhop, and nearly everyone else who has ever argued in here.

posted March 23, 2007 08:12 PM            

The Executive Branch of the US government does NOT run on consensus opinion. The President seeks opinions and makes the decisions.

Corporations DON'T run on consensus opinion. The CEO seeks a range of opinions and makes decisions.

This Site DOES NOT run on consensus opinion. Randall makes the calls.

Democrats reached a consensus opinion and ran Algore as their candidate. Algore lost.

Democrats reached another consensus opinion and ran the traitor John Kerry as their candidate. Traitor Kerry lost.

The consensus opinion among demoscats is to tuck their tails between their legs and cut and run out of Iraq. Another loser.

I could go on but you wouldn't get the point.

quote:

---

They hate GU for the atmosphere you've single-handedly created...acoustic

---

Now acoustic, when are you going to tell us where your little club of backstabbers are hanging out now. It's obvious from what you've said...not overly smart though...that you never learned your lesson from the disgusting Kindred Spirits fiasco.

Your continued attempts at deception are perfect examples you are living your Mercury opposed Saturn aspect acoustic. Yes acoustic, people do notice. You aren't going to overcome this hard aspect by laying down and giving in to it.

Good to see you posting here Isis

**Edit

Hmmm acoustic, you say I had plenty of time to respond on the Censored thread? Is that right? You know my schedule?

As I recall, I posted in the early evening. The next day when I logged on, the thread was locked up tight.

posted March 23, 2007 09:33 PM            

The Executive Branch leader is elected, and therefore must, at least at election time, build consensus in order to win office.

Corporations have Board of Directors, so that's out as well.

This site you could claim to be a dictatorship as you say, though it's clear you'd like Randall to take your opinion into consideration.

Al Gore won the popular vote, so, in actuality, a consensus did elect him.

John Kerry received more votes that any presidential contender in history save G.W., which is pretty phenomenal for a candidate which may not have been the best choice.

I do get the point, though. You enjoy when people can ignore others, and in the case of the Executive Branch and this site you think dictatorship is best, which is what I said, right? What other dictatorial traits do you admire?

Now, if you do want to look at those who build and work from consensus, you'll find all sorts of noble people: Saints, Presidents, Civil Rights Leaders, Nobel Peace Prize Winners, etc.

As far as marketing "consensus" as an idea perhaps you should check into Stephen R. Covey, who preaches "Synergy," which is the combined action or functioning between multiple people.

2003 National Fatherhood Award

1999 Speaker of the Year Award

1998 Sikh International Man of Peace Award

1994 International Entrepreneur of the Year Award

National Entrepreneur of the Year Lifetime Achievement Award for Entrepreneurial Leadership

1990 Thomas More College Medallion

Dr. Covey was awarded the first Thomas More College Medallion for continued service to humanity.

Dr. Covey has been awarded eight honorary doctorate degrees. http://www.stephencovey.com/about/awards.html

The 7 Habits of Highly Efective People has sold over 15 million copies internationally. In 2002, Forbes named The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People one of the top 10 most influential management books ever. A survey by Chief Executive Magazine recognized The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People as one of the two most influential business books of the twentieth century. http://www.stephencovey.com/about/professionalbio.html
________________________________________________________________________________________

As to answering Isis, I know her intentions are good, but one need only witness what happens when Jwhop's absent to see the night and day difference in GU. If you wanted to go further than that, then you could poll those who no longer frequent GU for their reasons, and I think it would certainly be a safe bet that Jwhop's personality would be a common thread.

quote:

---

Your continued attempts at deception are perfect examples you are living your Mercury opposed Saturn aspect acoustic. Yes acoustic, people do notice. You aren't going to overcome this hard aspect by laying down and giving in to it.

---

Here's the aspect as written by one of the most popular astrology software packages available: Kepler. (Click the link)

quote:

---

Mercury Opposition Saturn:

    You have an aptitude for solving difficult mental problems due to your careful, methodical approach, attention to detail, and tenacity in following a matter through to its conclusion. You have good powers of concentration and enjoy studying and thinking in solitude. You can get wrapped up entirely in your own thoughts and completely engrossed in some small detail. You are slow and cautious, but extremely thorough in your work. Conservative and something of a skeptic, you may be narrow-minded or closed to any idea which has no concrete proof or scientific verification. You prefer dealing with facts rather than abstract speculation. You may also be distrustful or fearful of anything you cannot understand with your rational mind. You are well-suited to work in research or any field that requires careful study and thought.

---

posted March 23, 2007 11:37 PM            

Presidential candidates lay out a general theme for their administration to the general public and are elected or not elected on that basis along with other factors. In the case of democrats they just lie through their teeth to get elected.

Boards of Directors DO NOT run corporations. They give advice and network among themselves and others in their circles...often for the benefit of the corporations on whose boards they sit.

I don't consider Randall to be a dictator...as you obviously do. So why are you still here. Aren't there greener pastures elsewhere? The difference is that I respect individual property rights...in this case, Randall's property and he, by virtue of those rights gets to set the rules here.

Now acoustic, I've asked you numerous times. Where are you and your band of backstabbing gossips hanging out off this site? I'd like to drop by and see what nice things they have to say about other members of LindaLand.

I know it was a lot more fun when the "I hate America crowd" could come on this forum, rip America and get high fives all around. Those days are gone. I also know it was a lot more fun when they could come on this forum and post uncontested lies. Those days are gone too. I know it was a lot more fun when they could come on this forum and call Bush a liar, a thief, Hitler, Satan, a murderer and baby killer and get high fives all around. Those days are gone too. Tough shiiiit. If someone wants to post BS then expect to get challenged and if your little group wants to post lies, defame the US or Bush but don't have the stomach for a political fight that's tough shiiiit too.

Group think is bullsh*t, inefficient and reduces whatever action arises from those decisions to the lowest common denominator. That's the reason the US is a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.

Algore lost the 2000 election. End of that story.

Traitor Kerry lost the 2004 election. End of that story too.

Did you find that "different information" I asked you about acoustic?

I know you like to troll the Internet to find aspect interpretations which give you an ego boost acoustic but let's stick to the facts on the ground.

Let's use the interpretation from the site you like to quote. This one fits.

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

posted March 24, 2007 07:10 AM            

quote:

---

Presidential candidates lay out a general theme for their administration to the general public and are elected or not elected on that basis along with other factors. In the case of democrats they just lie through their teeth to get elected.

---

What? Like "Compassionate Conservatism?" How 'bout Bushes promises to be a "Uniter not a Divider?" Do you want to talk Social Security? How about "changing the tone of Washington?"

quote:

---

Boards of Directors DO NOT run corporations. They give advice and network among themselves and others in their circles...often for the benefit of the corporations on whose boards they sit.

---

Tell that to Roy Disney.

When stock holders get unhappy, Presidents get fired plain and simple. It's unfathomable that you would even attempt to BS me here.

quote:

---

I know it was a lot more fun when the "I hate America crowd" could come on this forum, rip America and get high fives all around. Those days are gone. I also know it was a lot more fun when they could come on this forum and post uncontested lies. Those days are gone too. I know it was a lot more fun when they could come on this forum and call Bush a liar, a thief, Hitler, Satan, a murderer and baby killer and get high fives all around. Those days are gone too. Tough shiiiit. If someone wants to post BS then expect to get challenged and if your little group wants to post lies, defame the US or Bush but don't have the stomach for a political fight that's tough shiiiit too.

---

Wait, when was this? You're saying that this happened while you've been here? I've never seen that, so how could those days be over? If someone wants to post BS, it's most often you! You're right up there with TP only she does it all in one go whereas you tend to spread yours out a tad.

Post BS...

quote:

---

Did you find that "different information" I asked you about acoustic?

---

No, I couldn't be bothered at the moment. Have you gotten your answer back from Pew, yet? Want to share what you learned?

posted March 24, 2007 07:17 AM            

quote:

---

I know you like to troll the Internet to find aspect interpretations which give you an ego boost acoustic but let's stick to the facts on the ground.

---

One can troll the internet for aspect interpretations. The one I referenced wasn't from the internet, though. It was from one of the most popular astrology programs on the market. Professionals sell these reports.

quote:

---

Let's use the interpretation from the site you like to quote. This one fits.

---

Ok, first ... I know you're unwilling to do this, but if you're going to try to make the case that I use a particular website for all of my astrological information it would be wise to have something to back that up. The site Lalalinda used has the interpretation you're trying to use. If you can link to me quoting interpretations solely or even mostly from that site, you might have a case. The fact of the matter is that I get my astrological information from a variety of sources. I even have three astrology programs on my computer right now. I also have three astrology books. This isn't the only astrology group I visit now either. There's a Cancerian astrologer who has her own blog that I enjoy (though I've not quoted).

I'll acquiesce to your prodding on the quotes you like. Strongly opinionated? Even you can agree there's nothing wrong with that. Defensive? Yeah, I'll stand up for myself, and I have stood up for myself at all times here. Inclined to bend the truth? Name it. If you want to accuse me of that, bring it. Illustrate where I've bent the truth, because [after all] "people are more discerning" than I realize, and surely if this is the case our roles should be reversed and I should be the one attempting to manipulate, and you should be the popular one, right? Good luck preparing that case.

Of course, if the shoe were on the other foot. I could easily go back and find articles I've fact-checked from you that are clearly designed to bend the truth and offer convenient deceptions for willing Conservative minds. Hell, I can stay IN THIS VERY THREAD, and find an EXTREMELY clear distortion and manipulation of the truth. I just pointed it out a few posts ago:

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)

THAT is a clear deception with an intent of manipulating the reader. Take it from a Merc opposite Saturn, I know a deception when I see one.

You know what you should do as well, since we're on this subject? Point out my fellow Mercury opposite Saturn person's bending the truth in order to deceive:

quote:

---

watch it there, Big Daddy. I've got a merc opposition to saturn too. - TINK

---

posted March 24, 2007 08:09 PM            

March 23, 2007
Desperate Times at the NYT
Thomas Lifson

The drama at the New York Times Company just got a lot more interesting. In the face of declining revenues and profits, reported earlier this week, the company announced yesterday that it would increase its dividend by almost a third (31%), from 17.5 cents a share to 23 cents a share.

The move smacks of desperation, an effort to prop up a stock price that has lost more than half its value over the past five years. The stock price took a jump when trading opened this morning, but has since lost almost half of that initial gain.

The company's announcement contains some very interesting language:

"The strong cash flow of the Company and our current financial position, with the upcoming sale of our broadcast unit and radio station, give us the ability to return more capital to shareholders. Recognizing that the media marketplace is in the midst of an extraordinary transformation, we will continue to exercise strong financial discipline as we execute on our business strategy and allocate capital. We value our shareholders' support and continue to be focused on improved performance."
Some companies, for example certain tanker operators, return capital to their shareholders when they enjoy strong earnings above the need for reinvestment in continuing operations. But ordinarily, returning capital to shareholders is regarded as a slow motion liquidation.

For the year 2006, the New York Times Company reported a net loss of over half a billion dollars, or $3.76 per share. A write-off of $843 million dollars on its ill-conceived purchase of the Boston Globe and other New England media properties was partially offset by a capital gain on the sale of its television station group. The net result is that while continuing operations do continue to be profitable and generate cash, the downward trendline has not been reversed. The company shows no signs of increasing prosperity, only decline.

As analyzed at American Thinker, the strategy employed by the company to counter the declining fortunes of its print media is not panning out. Internet advertising revenues are growing far slower than they need to, in order to balance out the declines in print.

What this all boils down to is: the company is slowly liquidating itself, as it in fact admits with the telltale phrase "return more capital to shareholders." Pinch Sulzberger is in effect admitting that he cannot use the company's capital as effectively as shareholders could for themselves. Considering how he squandered capital on the Boston Globe, and how he paid over four hundred million dollars for About.com, a company which earned just over $6.5 million last year (a rate of return of about 1.6% a year on its investment) and which is growing only 23.4% a year and faces considerable business risk, this is a refreshing and valuable admission.

Despite the rosy tone of the company's verbiage ("strong cash flow"), Standard & Poor's isn't fooled. It has announced that

The dividend increase is being made "at a time when the financial profile is currently weak for the rating," S&P said in a statement.

"In addition, ongoing challenges within the operating environment have affected year-to-date operating performance, and the company has a heavy near-term capital expenditure plan," S&P said.

S&P rates the New York Times' senior unsecured debt "BBB-plus," the third lowest investment grade rating.
If S&P lowers the debt rating two notches, as Moody's did a year ago, then the Times debt will be one step above junk bond rating.

The Times will hold its shareholder meeting at the New Amsterdam Theatre in New York City at the end of this month. It should be quite a spectacle. The company's pre-emptive return of capital to shareholders will buy it some time with angry holders. But it is not a sign of health.

Update:

Standard & Poors followed through and has put The New York Times Company on its "credit watch list."

"The CreditWatch listing reflects a dividend increase at a time when the financial profile is currently weak for the rating," said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Peggy Hwan Hebard. "In addition, ongoing challenges within the operating environment have affected year-to-date operating performance, and the company has a heavy near-term capital expenditure plan." [....]

Standard & Poor's cautioned that the New York Times' dividend move could cause its rating to drop to "BBB", only two notches above junk status due to the company's operating environment and a heavy near-term capital expenditure plan.

posted March 24, 2007 08:57 PM            

Only in your little leftist fantasyland acoustic. I don't personally know anyone stupid enough to agree with much of what you have to say.

Let's see.

The US oppressed the Iraqi people.

US citizens oppressed the Iraqi people.

The US oppressed Iraqi citizens by not packaging up a water treatment plant and shipping it to Saddam.

I'm a Capricorn. Capricorns don't lie.

Only a few of the excretable utterances of yours which have escaped through the wrong orifice.

"What? Like "Compassionate Conservatism?" How 'bout Bushes promises to be a "Uniter not a Divider?" Do you want to talk Social Security? How about "changing the tone of Washington?"

How could any President unite with the traitorous leftists which infest the democrat party? To do so would be the essence of treason.

"Tell that to Roy Disney.When stock holders get unhappy, Presidents get fired plain and simple. It's unfathomable that you would even attempt to BS me here."

Boards of Directors do not run corporations acoustic. CEOs do run the day to day operations of corporations. Boards of directors are advisory positions. The exception might be the Chairman of the Board....if the Chairman was also the largest shareholder of the corporation. That's hardly ever the case and when it is, that person is usually also the CEO.

Hillary Clinton was a member of the Walmart Board. Show me how Hillary was running Walmart.

"Wait, when was this? You're saying that this happened while you've been here? I've never seen that, so how could those days be over? If someone wants to post BS, it's most often you! You're right up there with TP only she does it all in one go whereas you tend to spread yours out a tad."

If you say you've never seen Bush defamed, never seen the US defamed, never seen Bush called a liar and a thief, Hitler, Satan and other lies and slanders on this forum acoustic...then I say you're a liar.

"I'll acquiesce to your prodding on the quotes you like. Strongly opinionated? Even you can agree there's nothing wrong with that. Defensive? Yeah, I'll stand up for myself, and I have stood up for myself at all times here. Inclined to bend the truth? Name it. If you want to accuse me of that, bring it. Illustrate where I've bent the truth, because [after all] "people are more discerning" than I realize, and surely if this is the case our roles should be reversed and I should be the one attempting to manipulate, and you should be the popular one, right? Good luck preparing that case. "

The truth is hardly about a popularity contest acoustic. Only an idiot would think it is. I have no doubt you're a big hit with the rest of the backstabbers on this site.

Which brings me back to the question I've asked you numerous times.

Where are you and those who slander, gossip and backstab other LindaLand members hanging out off this site?

"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)"

Still English challenged I see acoustic. Neither the word "only" or the word "even" changes the truth of the sentence in which they were used here. If they were removed, the concept the sentence conveys would remain exactly the same.

"THAT is a clear deception with an intent of manipulating the reader. Take it from a Merc opposite Saturn, I know a deception when I see one."

Thanks for the admission you recognize a deception when you see one. You are deliberately deceptive, recognize you are being deceptive and choose to deceive willingly.

" watch it there, Big Daddy. I've got a merc opposition to saturn too. - TINK"

posted March 25, 2007 06:52 PM            

There's so much bullsh!t nonsense in your post that that's my reaction to most of it.

Thanks for acknowledging that Bush has indeed gone against his campaign promises.

CEO's are accountable to share holders plain and simple. You can't win that argument.

Hillary was actually involved in the shaping of Walmart. If you were speaking from a place of knowledge, you'd know that. Perhaps you should check in to Bob Ortega's book "In Sam We Trust."

quote:

---

If you say you've never seen Bush defamed, never seen the US defamed, never seen Bush called a liar and a thief, Hitler, Satan and other lies and slanders on this forum acoustic...then I say you're a liar.

---

No, what I said is that I never saw people in here posting such things receiving high fives from one another. I do remember people posting stuff like that for which some thought it was interesting, and others thought it was worthy of defending the poster's right to post them. You were there, though, so in your mind it would be logical to think you were doing something about it at the time. You weren't giving anyone high fives, were you?

Perhaps you felt overwhelmed with the amount of people that disagree with your ideology, but as you've learned from Pew there are more people in the US who identify with being a Democrat than there are people who identify with being a Republican. If you don't like being outnumbered there are actions you can take and I'm certain you know what they are.

quote:

---

You are deliberately deceptive, recognize you are being deceptive and choose to deceive willingly.

---

Like I said, good luck making that case. Frankly Jwhop, this is just "radical leftist" in a new form. You're always trying to define me, and you don't recognize that words don't define a person, actions do. If you can't come up with anything where I was diliberately deceptive, then I suppose you're SOL. I've already quite easily shown where you've been deceptive, and here is what you had to say about it:

quote:

---

Still English challenged I see acoustic. Neither the word "only" or the word "even" changes the truth of the sentence in which they were used here. If they were removed, the concept the sentence conveys would remain exactly the same.

---

Only one who is completely lacking in objectivity would try to make the case you're trying to make. You altered the real data significantly, and you did it to suit your own purposes. If that's not a liar, then I don't know what one is.

I've seen how you work, and it's not with dignity, integrity, or a desire to inform in an honest manner. Dignified people aren't quick with bad or illegal labels for people. People of integrity don't have to posture as authorities on subjects. People who are interested in the truth don't post articles from writers who don't objectively fact check their own work.

You are taking all your faults and projecting them on to me. That's why you get the reception you get, and I get the reception I get. People can read other people. You don't think it's a popularity contest. Of course, you wouldn't. You desire freedom from anyone else's thoughts or ideas. You don't recognize that anyone else can enrich your life by broadening your horizons. You think you have enough bright ideas for us all, and yet you're so polarizing you've always maintained your rebel status.

Your MC, Sun, Moon, and Pluto are in Leo; you want to be number one at the exclusion of everyone else. My MC is in Aquarius, which is focused on groups and humanitarianism. The ruler of my 10th, Uranus, is in the 6th, the house of health, service and analysis. Your chart ruler is in Leo on your MC, and focused on career. My chart ruler is in the 7th, focused on relationships, balance, law, open enemies, beauty, and art. My chart ruler is also in Sag, which is itself concerned with law, truth, wisdom, philosophy, etc. Clearly, you are not concerned with others so much, while just as clearly I am. We both have faith in people's ability to read people, and we both know what kind of response we elicit from people.

posted March 26, 2007 04:23 AM              

Thanks for the insight fellas . Astrology is fun!

posted March 26, 2007 06:25 AM            

quote:

---

No, Piduau, I obviously didnt realize jwhop was a Leo. Wellllll it all makes perfect sense now!! I thought I read somewhere jwhop was a Scorpio and at the same time I felt he must have the wrong birth data - like I asked him, '..you sure youre not a Leo?' (there's got to be a heavy Scorp or Pluto influence in there somewhere though ) My mistake. A Leo is much more fitting. I'm sorry your Highness Jwhop.
There are also alot of us who have opposing views to 'jwhop and his crew's' views. And we have also "backed up statments with quotes, articles and statistics that can call be found online and therefore properly sourced." But those have seemed to have been forgotten about. Or overlooked...ignored? Nooo...all of the quotes, articles and statistics that dont fit in with the certain line of thinking that goes on here are false -- they're all made up, of course!

And it's not about "go pound sand, I am too busy to dig up facts". Facts have been found and posted here - over and over again. But when they dont fit in with certain people's points of veiw, they are disregarded. And it becomes pointless and tiring. I played that game here for awhile and I'm done.

There were alot of people who shared similar views to many of us here, that have dissapeared. I wonder why? They've made countless numbers of intelligent posts - that can also be "backed up" - but were ridiculed for their views. This is not a friendly forum. That - sadly - is why the more intelligent people, tend to stay out of it.

To each their own, I say!! I don't care what you all believe. I'm not looking to change any minds here.

Let's lighten this forum up a bit, k?! Not sit high atop our throne and try to scare people away.

-26Taurus, September 21st, 2004 http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000577-2.html

---

You came to Jwhop's defense that time as well.

posted March 26, 2007 01:13 PM            

It's the real estate market. Next time it will be the auto market. Time after that, it will be some other excuse.

But those of us who have more than 2 brain cells to rub together know exactly why the main stream press is in crisis mode.

Yes, ONLY 21% of poll responders believe the NT Times is a highly credible source for news. That means FULLY 79% of those responding DO NOT BELIEVE the NY Times is a highly credible source for news.

When polled by the Pew organization, ONLY 21% of responders said they believed all or EVEN MOST of what the Times reports.

Some other print news media fared even worse than the NY Times...but not by much.

Declining circulation and readership of print news media outlets translates directly into declining advertising revenues. Due to advertising rates being tied directly to circulation numbers and readership, these bastions of leftist propaganda are taking a major hit. But then, they've needed a swift kick in the ass for a very long time.

The bottom line is simply that those seeking news will not accept lying press outlets as their source.

Hang in there acoustic. You may yet be distinguished...as the very last believer in and reader of the NY Times and Associated Press stories.

Monday, March 26, 2007 11:16 a.m. EDT
Newspapers Roiled by Declining Ad Revenue

Newspaper ad revenue suffered a sharp drop in February, with some leading U.S. publications showing double-digit declines compared to February of last year.

USA Today, the country’s highest-circulation newspaper, had a 14 percent drop in ad sales in February compared to February 2006. At the New York Times, ad revenue fell 7.5 percent. The Wall Street Journal was off 10 percent.

The Tribune Company, publisher of the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun, reported a drop of more than 5 percent, as did McClatchy, whose papers include the Miami Herald and Sacramento Bee.

Collectively, February ad sales were "the worst group performance to date,” said Steven Barlow, an analyst at Prudential Equity Group.

Mark Fratrik, an economist at BIA Financial Network, told the New York Times: "The younger groups, the most desired demographics, are just not reading [newspapers].”

Newspaper circulation peaked in 1984 at 63 million, but today stands at 53 million.

Analysts said the decline in ad revenue was due in large part to the shift of classified ads from print to online, and to the weakness of the real estate market in several areas, the Times reported.

Revenue from real estate ads in Tampa, for example, dropped 44 percent in February compared to last year. Overall real estate classified ad revenue in California was down 20 percent in February.

posted March 26, 2007 04:07 PM            

Oversimplified - it takes two to tango. And Jwhop isn't dancing with himself...

posted March 26, 2007 05:14 PM            

Leaving the Left http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/22/INGUNCQHKJ1.DTL

You brought nothing to this table beyond your leftist blather which pegged you in exactly the right phew when you couldn't tell the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative. This initial bit of bullshiit from you was the tipoff you are so far to the left that even Liberals are confused by you as Conservatives.

What proof did you bring to the table to prove America oppressed/repressed the Iraqi people while Saddam was in power in the 1990's...as you asserted?
You lost that one.

Did you think anyone was going to believe a philosophy moron who was and had been agitating for the lifting of sanctions on Iraq so Saddam could continue his chemical weapons production. Did you think she was going to be a credible source?
You lost that one too.

Did you think George Galloway...a man whom Saddam paid almost a $1,000,000 to help him get sanctions lifted was a credible source?

What proof did you bring to the table here to back up your loony assertion that American citizens also oppressed/repressed Iraqi citizens during the reign of terror under Saddam?
You lost that one too.

What proof did you bring to the table here to back up your assertion that Capricorns don't lie?
You lost that one too.

What proof did you bring to the table here to back up your entirely brain dead assertion that the US oppressed/repressed Iraqi citizens by not packing up a water treatment plant and shipping it to Saddam?
You lost that one too.

What proof did you bring to the table to prove your nonsense that Bush cherry picked intelligence to lead America to war?
You lost that one too.

What proof did you bring to the table to refute an article about the insane George Soros and his mad fantasy he sometimes has that he's god?
I'll answer this one for you acoustic. In your fact checking..which leaves everything to be desired...you quoted Media Matters on the subject of George Soros

Media Matters in a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros. Organized and funded by George Soros and David Brock is a Soros butt boy.

Now acoustic, answers to those questions would be a very small start because this forum is replete with your nonsense statements and these are only a tiny sample. Every source you've attempted to use here to back you up have been found to be among the fraternity of leftist loons.

posted March 26, 2007 05:21 PM            

I guess you're advocating that everyone should leave, so that the tango doesn't happen? Just leave Jwhop by himself to rail against Democrats. Just allow this section of the site as Jwhop's haven of intolerance?

Or perhaps you're saying that people should marginalize him like Lotus. Just ignore every ignorant thing that comes out of his mouth? Not act to correct his information when it is presented wrong? Maybe you think I should handle him with kids gloves, because he needs his self-esteem boosted; he needs to be made to feel like he's right about something?

posted March 26, 2007 06:24 PM            

I will say only this:

My statement speaks to the fact that in an argument, all parties arguing are responsible for creating a divisive atmosphere. That includes you, myself, and many others. Plain and simple. You can make whatever excuses you want AG, but you are a part of the problem as much as you assert Jwhop is.

I think of any individual on this site, Jwhop is the one least in need of ego boosting and being treated with kid gloves. C'mon, this guy has balls of steel, and doesn't cry or make "they are mean they should leave" threads when people call him names, disagree with him, or try to make out that he single handedly creates a divisive environment.

Quite the contrary, I see it as those opposed to Jwhop's views that want to be treated with kid gloves.

Oversimplified: It's about consistent behavior on behalf of many individuals.

And honestly, bickering back and forth with him IMO makes you look as bad as you think Jwhop is.

posted March 26, 2007 06:26 PM            

quote:

---

What proof did you bring to the table to prove America oppressed/repressed the Iraqi people while Saddam was in power in the 1990's...as you asserted?

---

Iraq's infrastructure went down the toilet during sanctions. That is irrefutable. You disagree with my proved assertion that the U.S. did withold items from Iraq. Wasn't it Republican Chuck Hagel that proved my point? Instead, you believe that it was some grand orchestration on Saddam's part. It's possible that it was a combination of the two, but it is not possible to say that there were no Iraqi deaths due to sanctions the U.S. pushed for and monitored. That you think you won this argument is proof of the absolutely subjective nature of your mind.

posted March 26, 2007 06:55 PM            

quote:

---

And honestly, I think if it were one of your "supporters" acting exactly like Jwhop, you'd be defending them. And have. I've seen it myself. The whole, "he made them do it, he started it, it's ok cause he's mean" or whatever the case may be.

---

No one acts exactly like Jwhop, so I don't see how that's possible.

quote:

---

My statement speaks to the fact that in an argument, all parties arguing are responsible for creating a divisive atmosphere. That includes you, myself, and many others. Plain and simple. You can make whatever excuses you want AG, but you are a part of the problem as much as you assert Jwhop is.

---

As I pointed out previously the atmosphere here changes significantly when Jwhop's not here. You seem to be avoiding that fact. Do you honestly believe it's remotely as bad in here when Jwhop takes one of his breaks?

quote:

---

Ahh, I see, are you now the penultimate authority on what is and is not "correct information". Again, I would argue what is and is not "correct" info is incredibly subjective. Unless we're talking about observable scientific facts (3x3 is 9, the sun shines in the sky, etc).

---

No, I've never said that I was the authority on what is and what is not "correct information." If you were to say that I claim myself more interested in the truth than Jwhop, then I'd agree with you. I don't routinely create threads out of articles from biased, and often factually-challenged writers. There's a night and day difference in what either of us brings forward as truth.

quote:

---

Seems to me that you view yourself as a beacon of truth here, railing against Jwhops supposed lies, but again, as was discussed in the spirituality thread, "truth" is often subjective. I don't agree with everything Jwhop says, but it's not my job to edumacate people to the contrary. They need to view info and make up their own minds on what is the "truth".

---

In a way, I do, in as much as I don't agree with people posting fallacies as accurate information, or manipulations of the truth as the absolute truth. Jwhop has an agenda that's opposed to virtually half the country, and he starts more threads here than anyone. I have an agenda to keep one person in check. My reasons are:

* to allow people an alternate perspective
* to show rightist propaganda for what it is
* to show people that it's ok to question people who believe themselves to be an authority on everything political under the sun.

I do agree with both you and 26Taurus for a lot of the time. People who would blindly believe Jwhop perhaps deserve what they get. When I step away, that is the reason. On the other hand, if Jwhop didn't deserve the response he gets, then he wouldn't elicit it.

quote:

---

I've said all I have to say on the subject. You can go ahead and attack me, try to impugn my character, make me out to be a "jwhop crony" or whatever you need to do to sleep well at night. But the fact remains that Jwhop is not out there tangoing all by himself.

---