Applauding Bob Costas

[woodlawn]

>LOL, oh, but you and Woodlawn are qualified to dole out

>lectures about hypocrisy? yeah riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

Scintillating repartee like the above is what keeps me coming back to this board again and again.

 

> A person who pretends to be concerned about

>>someone while publicly spreading destructive, invasive

>rumors

>>about them for fun should probably spend time focused on

>their

>>own hypocrisy rather than on the hypocrisy of others.

 

How true!

 

>I don't spread rumors for "fun"

 

Really? What you wrote at the time about having your "Christiane Amanpour moment" certainly made it sound as though you were enjoying yourself.

 

> I owed Devon an aplogy and gave it.

 

The fact that you apologized for your hypocritical behavior later doesn't mean it never happened, or that Doug and I are forbidden to mention it.

 

>I don't owe Woodlawn or you an apology for anything I wrote

>about the irony of Woodlawn's agreement with your comments

>about how people should not complain about trivial matters

 

I think Doug has explained as well as anyone could wish why your post attacking me for agreeing with what he said is so patently wrong. There's nothing much I can add, except to point out that slamming someone for ACCURATELY recounting what you wrote here in the past is the surest sign of desperation. You can't challenge what I wrote about your past actions, so you dredge up the tired claim that anyone who remembers what goes on here for more than a few days must not have a life outside this board. From my point of view, any reader who fails to remember such comical antics as yours must be suffering from alzheimers.

[curious2000]

>

>>LOL, oh, but you and Woodlawn are qualified to dole out

>>lectures about hypocrisy? yeah riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

>

>Scintillating repartee like the above is what keeps me coming

>back to this board again and again.

>

>> A person who pretends to be concerned about

>>>someone while publicly spreading destructive, invasive

>>rumors

>>>about them for fun should probably spend time focused on

>>their

>>>own hypocrisy rather than on the hypocrisy of others.

>

>How true!

>

>>I don't spread rumors for "fun"

>

>Really? What you wrote at the time about having your

>"Christiane Amanpour moment" certainly made it sound as though

>you were enjoying yourself.

>

>> I owed Devon an aplogy and gave it.

>

>The fact that you apologized for your hypocritical behavior

>later doesn't mean it never happened, or that Doug and I are

>forbidden to mention it.

>

>>I don't owe Woodlawn or you an apology for anything I wrote

>>about the irony of Woodlawn's agreement with your comments

>>about how people should not complain about trivial matters

>

>I think Doug has explained as well as anyone could wish why

>your post attacking me for agreeing with what he said is so

>patently wrong. There's nothing much I can add, except to

>point out that slamming someone for ACCURATELY recounting what

>you wrote here in the past is the surest sign of desperation.

>You can't challenge what I wrote about your past actions, so

>you dredge up the tired claim that anyone who remembers what

>goes on here for more than a few days must not have a life

>outside this board. From my point of view, any reader who

>fails to remember such comical antics as yours must be

>suffering from alzheimers.

 

Talk about taking someones past comments and distorting the facts to make their point! LOL. Now you are doing what Doug falsely accused me of doing! "ACCURATELY recounting" ? now that's funny. I made a comment over a year and half ago and tried to interject a little humor in an otherwise tense and stressful situation ONE time in all these years and then later apologized for going over the top with it, and you still remember it, dredge it up again and you label me as someone with "comical antics".

 

I did not slam or attack you.I merely pointed out you looked "silly" and ridiculous after the "trivial" P Diddy topic you started on the other site, and then come over here and agree with doug about how "silly" others were for doing the same thing while complaining about the media for reporting on trivial topics as well and then deny that you did it and call me a liar and give me a lecture about hypocrisy while being a hypocrite yourself... It's not a big deal, so don't get so upset. You just refuse to admit you are wrong. Your obsession with this messege board has always come across as silly to me.:-) it's not an attack, it just an observation. :-) get over it already.

[woodlawn]

>it's not an attack, it just an observation

 

Oh? Let's take a look at your "observations."

 

>I merely pointed out you looked

>"silly" and ridiculous

 

>call

>me a liar and give me a lecture about hypocrisy while being a

>hypocrite yourself

 

 

>Your obsession

>with this messege board has always come across as silly to

>me.

 

As our hosts here have repeatedly explained, a personal attack against another member consists of making a comment about the writer rather than confining your remarks to a description of what he has written. If you are going to post personal attacks against other members, at least be as honest as Doug and I always have been and admit that is what you are doing. Lying about it, as you do in your post above, accomplishes nothing -- except to convey that you believe the members of this board are stupid enough to believe such transparent lies. I really don't think they are.

[curious2000]

ahhh, poor widdle woodie. Do you think I personally attacked you? I just pointed out that I thought your comments were "silly" and that I busted you for your trivial P.Diddy topic and that you are indeed a hypocrite despite your relentless refusal to take your sanctimonious blinders off to see it. Ok, here's what a real personal attack would look like: I think you are a souless,self centered,bitter,mean spirited, pathetic sack of shit!

now that's what I call an personal attack :7

do you feel better now that I demonstrated the difference between an observation and an attack? Now that was "fun". If you don't like it, why don't you go and write an essay about someting really important like trade relationsips with China in the Politics forum. Or you could go over to the other site an post away about P.Diddy's new name change, or Paris Hilton's engagement to another "Paris", or some other frivilous topic which seem to be ok with you to discuss over there, just not in the Lounge.

[woodlawn]

>ahhh, poor widdle woodie. Do you think I personally attacked

>you?

 

As I said, the repartee on this board is just scintillating today.

 

>now that's what I call an personal attack :7

>do you feel better now that I demonstrated the difference

>between an observation and an attack? Now that was "fun". If

>you don't like it, why don't you go and write an essay about

>someting really important

 

On the contrary, I always like exposing hypocrites like you for what you really are. And I never seem to have any trouble getting you to cooperate.

 

Of course I will continue posting on the other site as well. And you will continue reading what I post on both sites. You can't seem to help yourself.

[curious2000]

>

>On the contrary, I always like exposing hypocrites like you

>for what you really are. And I never seem to have any trouble

>getting you to cooperate.

 

 

Oh, how fitting that you think you are so clever to have exposed me as a hypocrite when in fact I exposed you as one and everyone can see it but you. And you cooperated beautifully as I knew you would and showed us all how proudly you wear the crown on hypocrisy! Thank you!! cue the applause sign and standing ovation!!!! Bravo performance! ( eyes rolling)

 

You "never have any trouble getting me to cooperate?" Are you kidding? I have not responded to any of your trite in over a year. I just could not resist this time after that PDiddy trivial fluff you started and then sign on and bark at anyone else that dares to start a topic that is "trivial"...oh, unless it's started by you of course, then is just fine!

:7

 

I though you said you had nothing more to add about this about 3 posts back? you just can't help but have the last word as usual. Maybe just once you will spare us all and shut up, but I doubt it.

[+ glutes]

Well in channel surfing tonite, I see where Nancy Grace/CNN is doing a show on Oliva Newton Johns missing boyfriend.

What could be next, Tom Bosley's missing girlfriend??? (As long as they are Anglo!)

[trilingual]

>If your point is that the US could do better, you need to

>admit that this country is not alone especially when compared

>to Brazilian TV. On my last visit to Rio I was wishing for a

>funny and intelligent "I Love Lucy" rerun, anything was better

>than the crap on my TV.

>

>There's plenty to knock about the US, and you never miss a

>chance to just that. It has long since gotten old.

 

It's amazing how you swine manage to twist everything posted by anyone you don't agree with. If you'll re-read my post, it had to do primarily with the content of U.S. news shows (all car chases and police blotter stories, all the time) compared to news in other countries and by the "export versions" of U.S. channels (like CNN). The contrast is striking.

 

There's plenty of junk on Brazilian TV, but the national news network programs, like Globo's Jornal Nacional (one of the world's most widely watched newshours) are far more focussed on real news than local level police stories and "made-up" scandals. GloboNews, the Portuguese-language equivalent of BBC World or Deutsche Welle, has a tight, informative half-hour newscast at the top of every hour, followed by a half-hour documentary or talk show (much like the BBC World format). When big stories hit, they extend their news coverage, but by "big stories" I don't mean hours long car chases on L.A. freeways. I mean things like live coverage of congressional hearings about the current corruption scandal, which have attracted huge audiences. There are also "Meet the Press" type talk shows and roundtables on the main networks, and programs like the Jô Soares show (Brazil's favorite late-night TV host) also have been featuring nearly nightly panel discussions about the scandal starring some of the country's best-known political reporters and commentators. Soares himself (who is a brilliant polymath who's also a musician and best-selling author) participates fully in the discussions, with opinions and insights well worth hearing.

 

Even the nightly "novelas" have worked issues of the current scandal into their plots. If you don't speak Portuguese and have time to get into the novelas, which usually run for 6 - 8 months, they may look like "crap" to U.S. viewers who think "Everybody Loves Raymond" is high art. In fact, the level of acting on the Brazilian novelas is often extremely high (it's virtually impossible to make a living from film and stage acting in Brazil, so most of the country's finest actors also work in novelas). The novelas serve a major social and educational purpose in a country that until recently had an extremely high rate of illiteracy and still has a depressingly small number of people who've completed secondary or university education. The novelas help fill that gap, weaving contemporary themes and issues into their more formulaic surface stories. For example, the central theme of the current prime-time novela "America" is the issue of illegal immigration by Brazilians to the U.S., showing the hardships and dangers would-be immigrants face, how many of them never make it to the U.S., and also the hard lives that face immigrants once they get to the U.S. (precarious jobs, unscrupulous employers, loneliness, etc.). Subthemes have included the plight of the blind and other disabled people in Brazil and breaking down stereotypes about the abilities and talents of disabled people, and the dangers kids face from pedophiles on the interent. So they're not totally fluff, by any means! Other shows, like daytime TV or the endlessly obnoxious Sunday shows like "Domingão do Faustão" are unquestionably the lowest common denominator, but pretty much ALL of U.S. TV is LCD! At least there are major exceptions on Brazilian TV, and there are also many alternatives on cable or satellite TV to the worst of the broadcast shows.

 

The swine who opine also don't seem to know much about Brazil. The reason everybody has tiptoed around the impeachment of Lula is because they're fearful of the effects on the Brazilian economy, which has finally started to do well after long years in the doldrums. Overseas investors seem to have finally realized that Brazil's economy isn't totally dependent on the government or administration in power, so there haven't been many adverse effects so far from the current megascandals. But that's not necessarily a permanent situation, especially if the scandal takes down the finance minister and Lula himself. As for having the wool pulled over their eyes, most Brazilians are bitterly disappointed that the PT's inner circle has turned out to be corrupt. People were really hoping for better. But once proof began to emerge (thanks to the media and the congressional investigations) the wool has fallen from people's eyes and it's now pretty much a given that even if he survives this crisis Lula's a dead duck when his re-election comes up next year. Contrast this with the U.S., where even after it has been conclusively and irrefutably shown that its minority President, who owed his position to a judicial coup d'etat, lied through his teeth (and continues lying to this very day) about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Yet when he came up for election again the wooly-eyed American voters put him back into office! Brazilians, by contrast, may get fooled once, but they're not going to get fooled twice by the same scoundrel.

 

Is everything wonderful in Brazil? No. Nobody (including me) ever said it was. But Brazil's democracy is only 20 years old (after decades of military dictatorship) and it's still struggling to get things right. But they're working at it, and the hope of most Brazilians is that their country will move ahead and they're willing to do what it takes to have it move in that direction. In the U.S. they'd rather not know what's happening in the world or in their own country. They'd much rather watch car chases and watch reruns of that pinnacle of American culture, "Friends," even when their own kids or their neighbor's kids come home in boxes from Iraq. So which is the "better" place? And which has better TV news?

[woodlawn]

>Oh, how fitting that you think you are so clever to have

>exposed me as a hypocrite when in fact I exposed you as one

>and everyone can see it but you.

 

I didn't say anything about being clever -- you really should stop lying. In fact, it doesn't take cleverness to deal with someone like you. And who is "everyone"? I don't see anyone taking any interest in this conversation except you. Are you referring to the voices in your head?

 

>You "never have any trouble getting me to cooperate?" Are you

>kidding? I have not responded to any of your trite in over a

>year.

 

Despite your fractured English, you must recognize that the result has been the same on all of the occasions when you have poked your nose into one of my conversations.

 

>I though you said you had nothing more to add about this about

>3 posts back? you just can't help but have the last word as

>usual. Maybe just once you will spare us all and shut up, but

>I doubt it.

 

Again, please stop lying. I said I had nothing more to add about what had been said at that point. And "spare us all"? Who exactly do you imagine that you represent? Weight Watchers?

[curious2000]

>

>>Oh, how fitting that you think you are so clever to have

>>exposed me as a hypocrite when in fact I exposed you as one

>>and everyone can see it but you.

>

>I didn't say anything about being clever -- you really should

>stop lying. In fact, it doesn't take cleverness to deal with

>someone like you. And who is "everyone"? I don't see anyone

>taking any interest in this conversation except you. Are you

>referring to the voices in your head?

 

Do you really think that was a good comeback? It's obvious I was referring to "everyone" as in "all the other readers of the messege board" who are so bored with your same old tired arguments they no longer care to take an interest in responding. Can't you come up with something better than always calling everyone a 'liar" when they write something you don't agree with?

>

>>You "never have any trouble getting me to cooperate?" Are

>you

>>kidding? I have not responded to any of your trite in over a

>>year.

>

>Despite your fractured English, you must recognize that the

>result has been the same on all of the occasions when you have

>poked your nose into one of my conversations.

 

Once again, the same old tired "insult" about everyone else's fractured use of grammer or English when you can't think of anything else, or won't listen to what the other person is trying to point out to you...always "deflecting" the issue with pointing out minor mistakes in grammer usage or spelling instead of admitting you are wrong. It's so transparent and desperate.

>

>>I though you said you had nothing more to add about this

>about

>>3 posts back? you just can't help but have the last word as

>>usual. Maybe just once you will spare us all and shut up,

>but

>>I doubt it.

>

>Again, please stop lying. I said I had nothing more to add

>about what had been said at that point. And "spare us all"?

>Who exactly do you imagine that you represent? Weight

>Watchers?

 

Again, with this obsession with everyone "lying" when you won't accept that you are wrong. It's really annoying. You know what I mean about "spare us all". I mean the "viewing audience" Einstein. A second grader could figure that out. I am sure I speak for the majority of the messege board members when I state that we are sick of your tired, worn out comments. Is the Weight Watchers comment suppose to be a jab at me "if" I was fat? Was that supposed to upset me? I have you know I am in great shape and work out 3 times a week and jog and have never looked better in my life and have no issues with my weight at all. So, that does not insult me at all. But, if I was struggling with my weight, and you made a comment like that what does that prove?That you are just a bully that likes to make fun of fat people? Perhaps you are projecting your own issues about your own struggles with your weight and thought that was a hurtful comment because you are really hurting inside.

 

You really need to come up with a new schtick. The "you're a hypocrite/liar/poor use of English" routine has really run out of steam and is boring me and probably most of the other members to death. But that is just your lame old M.O. that you have been embarassing yourself with here for about 4 or 5 years now.

 

Ok, I am done. I have run out of "troll treats" for the night and have nothing left to feed you. Maybe when you come up with some new arguments I will run out and replenish my supply of "troll treats" and toss them at you so you can gulp them up have something more to chew on.

 

In the meantime, why don't you run along and work on that essay about free trade with China or some other "non trivial" topic and post it in the appropriate forum so all the other members here can marvel at your stellar command of the English language? Go get busy Woodie, we are waiting to see what you come up with....yeah, riiiiiiight

[woodlawn]

> It's obvious I

>was referring to "everyone" as in "all the other readers of

>the messege board" who are so bored with your same old tired

>arguments they no longer care to take an interest in

>responding.

 

But the truth is that you don't speak for anyone. No one has elected you their spokesperson for this or any other purpose. You just like to pretend that they have to infuse your words with an authority they don't really possess. As we both know.

 

>Can't you come up with something better than

>always calling everyone a 'liar" when they write something you

>don't agree with?

 

I only call people liars when they write falsehoods, as you repeatedly have, you liar.

 

>Once again, the same old tired "insult"

 

Given the banal crap with which you smear this board, you are hardly in a position to accuse others of using "old tired" insults. When have you ever contributed anything original here? The correct answer is "Never."

 

 

>Again, with this obsession with everyone "lying" when you

>won't accept that you are wrong. It's really annoying.

 

You certainly deserve to have annoying things said to you in return for all the lies you have told here.

 

>You

>know what I mean about "spare us all". I mean the "viewing

>audience" Einstein. A second grader could figure that out. I

>am sure I speak for the majority of the messege board members

 

Yes, I am aware you like to pretend that you speak for a majority of the members, but the truth is you speak for no one but yourself and your other screen names, as we both know. Pretending that other people elected you their spokesman when no such thing ever happened is rather silly, and simply adds to the already long list of your lies.

 

> Perhaps you are

>projecting your own issues about your own struggles with your

>weight and thought that was a hurtful comment because you are

>really hurting inside.

 

Just what this board needs -- another amateur psychiatrist who imagines himself qualified to analyze total strangers. We really didn't have enough of those already.

 

 

>boring me and probably most of the other

>members to death.

 

Here we go again with the imaginary spokesman routine. Don't you ever get tired of pretending?

 

>Ok, I am done.

 

Oh no, you're not. You and I are just getting started.

[Guest alanm]

On CNN/BBC and Tri's response:

 

I've disagreed with you before (more on that in a minute), but never called you names. What's with addressing others on here as swine?

 

I remember when HooBoy had his "stroke." Some of us, including me,

urged HooBoy strongly to get proper medical care and health insurance.

HooBoy attitude (as posted) seemed to be: whatever will be, will be.

Your response was a rant about how excellent medical care is outside the US & what idiot we were for believing that things were only good in the US. No one had suggested that medical care was inferior outside the US, all we wanted was for HooBoy to get help. Given HooBoy's death a few months later (which may or may not have anything to do with the quality of his medical care), it is difficult not to remember that particular posting when I read yet another anti-US rant for you. Just for your information, I am just as anti-Bush as you are and have been voting for Ted Kennedy in MA since he first ran for the senate in 1962.

 

Alan

[curious2000]

>> It's obvious I

>>was referring to "everyone" as in "all the other readers of

>>the messege board" who are so bored with your same old tired

>>arguments they no longer care to take an interest in

>>responding.

 

>

>I only call people liars when they write falsehoods, as you

>repeatedly have, you liar.

 

same here, as you repeatedly do as well you LIAR

>

>>Once again, the same old tired "insult"

>

>Given the banal crap with which you smear this board, you are

>hardly in a position to accuse others of using "old tired"

>insults. When have you ever contributed anything original

>here? The correct answer is "Never."

 

more LIES, LIAR

>

>

>>Again, with this obsession with everyone "lying" when you

>>won't accept that you are wrong. It's really annoying.

>

>You certainly deserve to have annoying things said to you in

>return for all the lies you have told here.

 

I rarely even post here unlike your obession with posting lies

>

>>You

>>know what I mean about "spare us all". I mean the "viewing

>>audience" Einstein. A second grader could figure that out. I

>>am sure I speak for the majority of the messege board

>members

>

>Yes, I am aware you like to pretend that you speak for a

>majority of the members, but the truth is you speak for no one

>but yourself and your other screen names, as we both know.

 

OMG, you are delusional as well. I can assure you this is the only screename I have ever had here in all these years, I have a life outside this messege board unlike you who lives and breathes to spread hypocritical old arguments that no one but yourself cares to read anymore.

 

>Pretending that other people elected you their spokesman when

>no such thing ever happened is rather silly, and simply adds

>to the already long list of your lies.

 

you would be an authority on appearing to look "silly", since you make yourself look silly every time you post a messege.

 

 

>

>> Perhaps you are

>>projecting your own issues about your own struggles with

>your

>>weight and thought that was a hurtful comment because you

>are

>>really hurting inside.

>

>Just what this board needs -- another amateur psychiatrist who

>imagines himself qualified to analyze total strangers. We

>really didn't have enough of those already.

 

that's right, total strangers, yet you attempted to analyze me with your self imagined ideas that I have other screen names and am I member of Weight Watchers. You must live in your own delusional little world.

>

>

>>boring me and probably most of the other

>>members to death.

>

>Here we go again with the imaginary spokesman routine. Don't

>you ever get tired of pretending?

 

pot: kettle: black

 

>>Ok, I am done.

>

>Oh no, you're not. You and I are just getting started.

 

Ugh! Now that's the most disgusting thing you have ever written. Only in your sick,deluded imagination am I going to give you the satisfaction. You seem a little aroused that someone is actually paying you a few crumbs of attention. I can assure you we are done. I will not spend any more energy or waste anymore of my time responding to your nonsense. Unfortunately , you will continue to spew forth your pathetic hypocritical ramblings to your grave while I go on and enjoy my life. Carry on , liar.

[uptownmike]

The above is just another typical example by Tri of his how bad the USA is and especially "how stupid the American public" is. How many times has he posted on this site how ignorant, uninformed, a herd of cattle, etc etc etc all Americans are who don't happen to agree with his particular view on some social or political issue.

 

Ok Tri, I'm just one of those Americans you call "swine". Since I only have two university degrees, subscribe to and read several economic and news magazines, and travel often internationally for business and pleasure I couldn't possible be in that group of

elite, intelligence people like you.

 

Get over your hate of others, there's a great world out there.

[dfw2sfo]

You boys better watch out or someone's going to end up on America's Most Wanted.

[dfw2sfo]

You boys better watch out or someone's going to end up on America's Most Wanted.

[woodlawn]

>>>Ok, I am done.

 

>>Oh no, you're not. You and I are just getting started.

 

>Ugh! Now that's the most disgusting thing you have ever

>written. Only in your sick,deluded imagination am I going to

>give you the satisfaction. You seem a little aroused that

>someone is actually paying you a few crumbs of attention. I

>can assure you we are done.

 

But that's exactly what you said in your previous post, isn't it. You're not going to lie about it, are you?

[Curmudgeon]

http://www.bitchslaponline.com/troll.jpg

[Guest zipperzone]

>I was pleased to read that Bob Costas refused to fill in for

>Larry King because the topics to cover included the girl who

>disappeared in Aruba.

 

I agree - it has reached the point where it is embarrasing to watch them try and come up with a new angle on the case.

 

But --- I was very glad to see that Chris Pixley, the cute lawyer from Atlanta, agreed to fill in one night. I think he got his 1st TV exposure on Larry King when the Peterson trial was going down.

 

I think he is probably the best looking man I have ever seen on the TV news.

 

And one more TV news person I can't stand and who harps on a news story even more than King is that cunt Nancy Grace. Someone should really put her out of her misery!

[Guest zipperzone]

>>"Bill Hemmer" splitting didn't

>>help their cause either. LOL :+

>

>I saw Bill Hemmer in a NY restaurant a couple weeks back

>(Cru). Not as good looking in person as he is on TV.

 

Some how that doesn't surprise me. I used to have the hots for him but lately I see him as a "goody two shoes" member of the religious right. Although rumers do keep appearing that he is playing on out team.