At 9/28/01 08:34 PM, Shrapnel wrote:
By your logic you mean that people with star power can say what they want. My point is that your position supports a nation of sheep following the shepherd.
Someone has to have "power" to tell us what to do.
Everyone else is afraid to go against the status quo- Maher isn't and that is respectable.
Okay, no. You're taking me WAY out of context. The comments about Maher's star power were only to show that he SUCKS and should therefore watch his ass. If Oprah Winfrey, for example, said what he said, it wouldn't matter as much probably, because unfortunately, you are right. It is a nation of sheep, though you are wrong, I do NOT support it. But you said that Maher has a show where things are said that could lose his job, and you're right. And he might. I'm just agreeing with you and saying I can't BELIEVE anyone is surprised by this.
So the network can kick Maher's "ass out... for whatever reasons". So if one day if and exec wakes up and decides "hey, Maher didn't give me a birthday card- let's fire him" it's ok. Sure- I support Fascism just like you do.
He can still stand on the corner saying whatever he wants, but others, like ABC don't have to support it if they don't wish to.
Again, you are twisting my words. Nice try. If you look at it intelligently and not in a litteral context, I said they can ditch ANY show based on their policies of what is and is not appropriate viewing. And Mr. Maher knew that when he signed a contract which said he was okay with and understood it!!! So, whatever, man. Fascism? HAHA! You ain't gonna win by attempting to label me with bullshit like that!
What do you mean they are not erasing anything?
They aren't really erasing anything. I think they arte trying to go a bit easy for all of the people who had someone die or get lost in the incedent. I mean, 10,000 people presumed dead...
There is no need for me to attack the statements you made because you have made no argument.
I see no point in you using capital letters to emphasize points that aren't there.
What a cheap and lameass attack on my statement. You really need to do better if you want to continue this conversation. You cut my comment in half and call an incomplete fragment "not an arguement"??? I said as you'll see in the last half of this statement, that I believe, rather than erasing as you said, that the media is just trying to give a slight break for those who are still under stress of this situation, you'll also notice, that I said I don't necessarily agree with this policy.
"I think they arte trying to go a bit easy for all of the people who had someone die or get lost in the incedent."
Yea- well millions of Americans die from cancer- you know what? I think they should get rid of cancer from every single movie, book and any other medium because everytime I hear the word cancer or see it dealt with, I get hurt by those I lost from cancer.
You fucking asshole!!! This was an immediate, brutal loss of ten thousand possible lives!!! Whether you're affected by it or not, each life lost affects possibly hundreds of others! I think there is a buffer being provided and though I don't agree with it, I see why it may be done. We have all known about and dealt with cancer for a long time. This happened suddenly, not over years and years, and only a couple of weeks ago. That is a LAME argument. WEAK WEAK WEAK!!!
Up yours for that little "(oh heavens no!)" crack, Tom Fulp!!! And up anyone elses who feel the same way!!!
"Also, I am offended by your need to appear "cutting edge" by acting like you're so cool with things which may be "Anti-American". "
Tom and I already straightened that out. Thanks. And, no, I don't now nor did I ever say that Tom himself was or is "anti-American".
You are offended by his need to appear "cutting edge" by acting he's so "cool with things which may be 'Anti-American'".
You implied he sides with things that may be "anti-american"- this implies that he himself is on the side of things "anti-american". Sure you used 'may' and didn't call Tom "anti-american" outright- but you implied it and you cannot retract what you wrote.
I know you're going to argue this but you can't- it is written here for everyone to judge.
I don't care about your "may" qualifier either.
Big fucking deal. I know what I wrote, dumbass. Say what you want, I never said Tom was anti-American. I suggested that he was trying to appear "rebelious/chic" by acting like anti-American sentiments were okay with him. But again, he straightened that out and I'm cool with what he said so you sit over there in the corner and judge all you want.
Perhaps you could even write an actual argument next time instead of personal attacks.I did.
You seem to change your tone quickly and forget what you said.
No... I remember, but along with my arguments, I expressed an opinion or two of my own, as is my right. Or would you dictate how I write my posts and take away my freedom of speech?
"Up yours for that little "(oh heavens no!)" crack, Tom Fulp!!! And up anyone elses who feel the same way!!!"
Oh my- I'm sure Tom's crack has to do with this argument.
Again, Tom addressed that statement with his own explaination. That has been settled and everyone seems cool with it except you. So... again... make what judgements you need to, I guess. We'll not agree about that.
And if you don't think that's a personal attack, then I have nothing more to say to you.
Yes. It was an attack! I'm proud I said it and I meant it! I will not ever apologize for it. I felt a certain wway about one of Tom's comments and I was honest about it. I'm sorry I don't pass your little what can and can't be posted standard, Mr. 1st ammendment! Frankly, I wish you would stop speaking to me, because your arguments are all weak attempts to twist my words to make me look like an ignorant finger pointer and they aren't working.
Again I would like to thank Tom Fulp for intelligently discussing this with me and not trying to railroad my different opinion out of this thread like you have. He is a true supporter of freedom of speech.