Skunk Like Marihuana Leads to Brain dead hippies! Says the yellow press.

dandyrandy

dandyrandy

Well-Known Member
I'm 60. I have worked in electronics since I was 14. Amateur radio license at 14. USAF crypto electronics. Many schools and much training. I am getting ready to get off my ass and go work on a machine tool worth a mil and a half. The jet engine part on it is worth $150000. I smoked a j of TGA 3d at lunch and had a Wendy's chicken sandwich. If you guys will excuse me I got to go fix this pos. So much for weed bullshit.
 
P

pabloesqobar

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
This is bothering you way too much. You shouldn't let it.

So you point to all this, is your interpretation of the information I presented and you're upset that I labeled Forbes as right wing propaganda based solely on the link I presented.
Click to expand...
I'm not upset that you labeled Forbes as right wing propaganda based on the article. The opposite. I take issue with you claiming the article is right wing propaganda merely because it was reported on Forbes, among hundreds of media outlets around the world. Because it was the first study of its kind. Ever. Despite being wrong.

I have always contended, over and over again, for you to show me where in that article is the "minute detail" (your words) which you consider "right wing propaganda" which is intended to "convince us" that the London study is correct. If you are simply saying that reporting on this first of its kind study, is ipso facto right wing propaganda, regardless of what the article says, then there's no point discussing this further. (But you did claim there was minute detail you identified which shows the article trying to convince us that the study was legit).


see4 said:
You feel that the article from the link I provided actually represents a complete contradiction to the research it was referring to.
Click to expand...
Never said that, sorry. But the author was critical of their conclusion and pointed out the flaws. Not exactly trying to convince us that the study was legit. Correct?

see4 said:
No, but we could always meet up at a bar near my house and discuss how I could drop you on your head as an adult.
Click to expand...
LOL. Easy Disco, you're about to blow a gasket. You're all riled up.

see4 said:
Fact 1: The research is bullshit.
Fact 2: News sources that perpetuate it either have an agenda or are in it only for the money. They are not doing it to spread the good word.
Fact 3: Forbes is run by a two time failed Republican candidate, and has on numerous occasions published biased right leaning "information".
Fact 4: The article I linked is perpetuating that bullshit research, as I interpret it. The author provide two vague lines playing devils advocate with no supporting evidence behind it. That to me is not a counter argument. To you it is, which is why you drool over Hannity and Fox news.

You agree with fact 1, and I can assume you agree with Fact 2. Fact 3 is not debatable. So that leaves us with Fact 4. Please show me in the article where the author goes into detail countering the claim of the headline and thesis of the research it references.
Click to expand...
I agree with fact 1;

I disagree with Fact 2: News sources are not in the business of only "spreading the good word" as you define it. Some countries did/do that, not here tho. Did you intern for Glen Beck? Sometimes there are newsworthy items that get reported on and there is no vast right wing conspiracy. Should news organizations quit reporting on every study simply because you disagree with the study's conclusion? Do you have a list of what they can and can't report on? How very right wing of you. And if they're in it for the money, well, by definition they're not engaging in right wing propaganda. That could be a legitimate reason for many of the media outlets, including Forbes, to report on that first of its kind study.

Fact 3: Agree. But that's not evidence of the "minute detail" in the article that it is "trying to convince us" that the London article is correct.

Fact 4: Your interpretation is wrong. Their job is to report the news. Hundreds of media outlets reported that study, with no right wing propaganda associated with them. Because it was news. The author had no obligation to go beyond simply reporting on the London study and what it's findings were. But she went further. She very clearly laid out obvious flaws with how they reached their conclusion. She wasn't trying to convince us that the study was valid when she wrote that.

In any event, you're not going to show me the "minute detail trying to convince us"?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
pabloesqobar said:
I'm not upset that you labeled Forbes as right wing propaganda based on the article. The opposite. I take issue with you claiming the article is right wing propaganda merely because it was reported on Forbes, among hundreds of media outlets around the world. Because it was the first study of its kind. Ever. Despite being wrong.

I have always contended, over and over again, for you to show me where in that article is the "minute detail" (your words) which you consider "right wing propaganda" which is intended to "convince us" that the London study is correct. If you are simply saying that reporting on this first of its kind study, is ipso facto right wing propaganda, regardless of what the article says, then there's no point discussing this further. (But you did claim there was minute detail you identified which shows the article trying to convince us that the study was legit).


Never said that, sorry. But the author was critical of their conclusion and pointed out the flaws. Not exactly trying to convince us that the study was legit. Correct?



LOL. Easy Disco, you're about to blow a gasket. You're all riled up.



I agree with fact 1;

I disagree with Fact 2: News sources are not in the business of only "spreading the good word" as you define it. Some countries did/do that, not here tho. Did you intern for Glen Beck? Sometimes there are newsworthy items that get reported on and there is no vast right wing conspiracy. Should news organizations quit reporting on every study simply because you disagree with the study's conclusion? Do you have a list of what they can and can't report on? How very right wing of you. And if they're in it for the money, well, by definition they're not engaging in right wing propaganda. That could be a legitimate reason for many of the media outlets, including Forbes, to report on that first of its kind study.

Fact 3: Agree. But that's not evidence of the "minute detail" in the article that it is "trying to convince us" that the London article is correct.

Fact 4: Your interpretation is wrong. Their job is to report the news. Hundreds of media outlets reported that study, with no right wing propaganda associated with them. Because it was news. The author had no obligation to go beyond simply reporting on the London study and what it's findings were. But she went further. She very clearly laid out obvious flaws with how they reached their conclusion. She wasn't trying to convince us that the study was valid when she wrote that.

In any event, you're not going to show me the "minute detail trying to convince us"?
Click to expand...
You seem upset
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
You seem upset
Click to expand...
Kind of mild compared to 2018. And 2017.

There's a lot more to be upset about now.

I was at my sister in law's house last night in Squirrel Hill. They're members of Tree of Life, 2 blocks away.

Now that's upsetting. A bunch of dead old people by another antisemite with a big gun.

Anybody else upset about that?

More hate speech from the top is surely the answer.

Anybody want to defend that?
 
Justin-case

Justin-case

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
Kind of mild compared to 2018. And 2017.

There's a lot more to be upset about now.

I was at my sister in law's house last night in Squirrel Hill. They're members of Tree of Life, 2 blocks away.

Now that's upsetting. A bunch of dead old people by another antisemite with a big gun.

Anybody else upset about that?

More hate speech from the top is surely the answer.

Anybody want to defend that?
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear this, you guys must be devastated.
My heart goes out to you all, be well.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
Wow, top therad.

UncleBuck, keep bumping these old therads, it's interesting to compare here back then to now.

A lot seems to change in 3 years, seems way more mellow then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top