My response to Montana Fats:

>Good God Almighty, bro, are you still taking those drugs I warned
> you about? Yack, yack, yack, and not a lot worth reading.
>
> >>But evidently you did anyway. Thanks.
>
> Here's an example: "are often the result of beginning the coverage
> of an event or starting a story with a pre-conceived notion of the
> narrative." Last summer I listened to about two hours worth of uncut
> Ed Murrow broadcasts from London during WWII. Funny thing about
> Murrow, he always started his coverage with a pre-conceived notion
> that the Nazis were bad guys. You going to lump him in with your
> "so-called professional journalists?????"
>
> >>Well, here's an example of "hearing" what you wanted
to hear in
> what I wrote. Do you really think I'm talking about an obviously
> reasoned opinion, like Murrow's on the Nazis? Tell me I'm mistaken.
> And his opinion of the Nazis does not constitute the narrative of a
> story, it's background. And he, and everyone, knew what the Nazis
> were about by the time he was in Europe reporting on the war. What
> I'm talking about is going in to report on a situation and, mindless
> of the facts, fitting it into a preconception of what's going on. If
> you're ointerested, I'm thinking specifically about the Jena, LA
> thing but it happens frequently, for instance also in the Duke
> lacrosse players rape case last year. In both instances the media
> went in primed to find racism in a community in the south and fit it
> into their preconceived models when the facts have subsequently
> shown it to be otherwise. Are you familiar with these two
> particularly egregious cases of unprofessionalism by the media? If
> you were, you might have been less likely to misunderstand and
> mischaracterize my comment.
>
> I find it ironic that you would take to task those who misuse the
> English language while at the same time misusing it yourself!
>
> >>That would have been ironic, if I had actually misused the
> language, which, as I just explained, I did not.
>
> You call yourself an openminded individual, but look at everything
> through the colored glasses of a conservative, right-wing
> Republican. What a laugh!
> Here's a news flash for you: The human brain was created and/or
> evolved to deal with the life encountered by humans of 100,000-2
> million years ago. How in the heck is it supposed to keep pace with
> the advancement thrust upon it today???? Can you imagine a human of
> even 2000 years ago successfully integrating into and dealing with
> out society today? The amazing thing is that ANY of us cope, ANY of
> us survive. That may be the greatest argument in favor of
> creationism there is. How else do you explain our ability to adapt
> as fast as the technology around us?
>
> >>I'm a little surprised at the level of condescension in this
> paragraph. I think I'm open-minded enough to listen to points of
> view like yours and not get quite this angry. Yes, I'm
> open-minded(although I can't recall ever making a point of it
> verbally, as you seem to imply), but not to the extent that I don't
> allow myself to form strong opinions about some things. And I doubt
> that any of us are free of looking at things through some sort of
> glasses. What's your pair look like? Or are you singularly able to
> address any issue without preconceptions? If so, congrats. And
> here's a news flash for you: the human brain hasn't gotten any
> bigger recently. People have just adapted to their surroundings,
> whether it's been flora, fauna, steel buildings, metal things
> rolling down the street or aluminum tubes in outer space. And I'm
> sorry, but I DON'T think we have as much to be stressed about as our
> parents or their parents or THEIR parents.
>
> Bush is an idiot.
>
> >>Ah, now we come to the crux of the diatribe.
>
> He's not intentionally stupid, it just comes naturally.
>
> >>Yep, they passed out those Harvard MBAs with Cracker Jack in the
> 70's.
>
> He's lost the trust of the people
>
> >>Well, let's be clear - you and some others.
>
> and I just wish the election was this November instead of next. Who
> knows how much more damage he can do to this country between now and
> then? And people thought Nixon was bad. At least Nixon was smart.
> Paranoid, sure, but smart. Bush is just clueless.
>
> >>In my opinion, nothing I wrote was this vitriolic. Where did this
> come from?
> Sounds like your just letting off steam.
>
> Does anyone but me find it humorous that the author of a blog would
> scold us about not listening?
>
> >>What the hell is this supposed to mean? Just because I blog I'm
> incapable of being a good listener? Why would you say this? Maybe
> it's supposed to be funny. But then, you could have used "ironic"
> again. It actually might be a little ironic. And why would anyone
> take this "listening" item to be an attack on everyone in general
> and themselves in particular? Have you really never experienced
> this? Are you secretly concerned that you're not a good listener?
> What makes you think I was talking about you? Sheesh.
>
> (I was going to use the word harrange, but I don't know how to spell
> it and Blogman would have pointed that out as an indication that my
> argument was spurious. Is that how you spell spurious?)
>
> >>Another "spurious" accusation against blogman. If I have
corrected
> your spelling before, was it accompanied by a discounting of your
> argument? Show me where. And I've never said your arguments were
> spurious, only mistaken. And YOU can look up harangue
>
>  
> October baseball is the best. The national pasttime is in fact. This
> year, all the games in the regular season ended up on Direct TV and
> I couldn't watch my beloved Astros go down the tube one more time.
> Oh, well. I wanted to see Cleveland do to the series, but once
> again, oh, well.
>
> >>October baseball is great. Any crappy baseball game, anytime, is
> better than any football or basketball game, even the
> championships.
>
> All of this is, of course, in good fun.
>
> >>Sure glad it was all in good fun. I'd hate to see what you'd
write
> to me if you were pissed.
>
>
> I don't get out here very often anymore and was feeling a bit
> truculent tonight.
>
> >>I guess that's a mild understatement. You'll also be pleased
to
> know I had to look up truculent. I guess you didn't think anything I
> had to say was worthwhile? Oh well, thanks for responding.