rehmwa 2
TheAnvil 0
All of the other network news centers, including the Clinton News Network (CNN) reported the story as well. If memory serves there WAS about US$10K of damage done, and some idiots spent over a quarter million investigating erroneous charges.
That is no indication of Fox being unfair and unbalanced. It is also no indication of anyone being branded as anti-American who disagrees with the Bush administration or FoxNews.
That is no indication of Fox being unfair and unbalanced. It is also no indication of anyone being branded as anti-American who disagrees with the Bush administration or FoxNews.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
TheAnvil 0
I beg to differ - FoxNews is not far right. Perhaps a little right, but far-right - give me a break. If it were far right there would be quotes from FoxNews folks similar to Malveaux's remarks about Justice Thomas, Bryant Gumpbell's 'fucking idiot' remark about the head of the Family Values Coalition, and the myriad of other comments from the mainstream media.
I visit the democratic underground website from time to time for entertainment purposes, and they DO flame Fox incessantly, as do many other leftist sights.
I also think it was a reasonable assumption that prior to the advent of the internet and FoxNews, the leftmedia DID have a stranglehold on the news agenda. Didn't hear anything about the Moskito Indian massacre in the eighties, did you? That might have made the Sandinistas, the darlings of Bonior, Kerry, and the left, look a bit evil and give the Reagan Administration a bit of a break on their central American fiasco. With the internet and Fox, that would not have been the case.
I visit the democratic underground website from time to time for entertainment purposes, and they DO flame Fox incessantly, as do many other leftist sights.
I also think it was a reasonable assumption that prior to the advent of the internet and FoxNews, the leftmedia DID have a stranglehold on the news agenda. Didn't hear anything about the Moskito Indian massacre in the eighties, did you? That might have made the Sandinistas, the darlings of Bonior, Kerry, and the left, look a bit evil and give the Reagan Administration a bit of a break on their central American fiasco. With the internet and Fox, that would not have been the case.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
turtlespeed 226
QuoteQuoteThe press, no matter what media they are involved in, demographically leans to the leftie side of things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep repeating this idea as a fact. Prove it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone else think that that woudl be really neccessary? Why should I have to overstate the obvious?
If I were to say, "It is obvious that all Republicans are frothing idiots that have been bitten by rabid dogs", would that make it true? No. It wouldn't. You are saying the entire national media leans far to the left, but then refuse to show any proof. Substantiate your assertion with some facts.
Well actually to referance your post, I don't see any books being written and published about, "Republicans are frothing idiots that have been bitten by rabid dogs".
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
kiltboy 0
Unfortunately/fortunately, depending on your viewpoint, I think the opinion of the Japanes government and electorate are what matters.
Does Japan get Fox? If so the current administration should be set.
David
Does Japan get Fox? If so the current administration should be set.
David
jfields 0
QuoteI don't see any books being written and published about, "Republicans are frothing idiots that have been bitten by rabid dogs".
Gimme time! I can only go through my To-Do list so fast...
TheAnvil 0
Once again, you claim Fox is 'right' and then present no evidence to support this claim. I will concede that Fox does lean a BIT right but far right - not by a long shot.
If FOX NEWS were a far right outlet, you would be able to present quotes akin to some of the ones presented by the Media Research Center, Bernie Goldberg in his book, Ann Coulter in hers (there are some errors in there, but that does not in any way mitigate the effectiveness of the MAJORITY of her quotes therein), etc. FAIR's website doesn't seem to be able to do this.
I think it's the details that Fox reports and CNN doesn't that infuriates the left so much. Take the ILWU strike for instance. I watched CNN coverage on this several times and never ONCE heard the salaries of these overpaid crybabies mentioned - perhaps they did so when I wasn't watching, but it was NOT mentioned frequently. I saw it on FOX, however. Striking whiners who make six figures don't get a lot of sympathy from the public. Striking whiners DO get sympathy from the public when they appear on TV looking like blue collar workers and their salaries aren't mentioned.
Food for thought.
Beers to all,
Vinny the Anvil
If FOX NEWS were a far right outlet, you would be able to present quotes akin to some of the ones presented by the Media Research Center, Bernie Goldberg in his book, Ann Coulter in hers (there are some errors in there, but that does not in any way mitigate the effectiveness of the MAJORITY of her quotes therein), etc. FAIR's website doesn't seem to be able to do this.
I think it's the details that Fox reports and CNN doesn't that infuriates the left so much. Take the ILWU strike for instance. I watched CNN coverage on this several times and never ONCE heard the salaries of these overpaid crybabies mentioned - perhaps they did so when I wasn't watching, but it was NOT mentioned frequently. I saw it on FOX, however. Striking whiners who make six figures don't get a lot of sympathy from the public. Striking whiners DO get sympathy from the public when they appear on TV looking like blue collar workers and their salaries aren't mentioned.
Food for thought.
Beers to all,
Vinny the Anvil
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
turtlespeed 226
LMAO....
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Follow the link for the guest list comparison between "Special Report" on Fox and "Wolf Blitzer Reports" on CNN for the first 19 weeks of 2001.
http://www.fair.org/reports/fox-cnn-guest-list.html
Of the 56 partisan guests on Special Report between January and May, 50 were Republicans and six were Democrats -- a greater than 8 to 1 imbalance. In other words, 89 percent of guests with a party affiliation were Republicans.
On Special Report, 65 of the 92 guests (71 percent) were avowed conservatives--that is, conservatives outnumbered representatives of all other points of view, including non-political guests, by a factor of more than 2 to 1.
Of Blitzer's 67 partisan guests, 38 were Republicans and 29 were Democrats -- a 57 percent to 43 percent split in favor of Republicans. Thirty-five out of 109 guests (32 percent) were avowed conservatives, with the remaining 68 percent divided up among the rest of the political spectrum, from center-right to left.
http://www.fair.org/reports/fox-cnn-guest-list.html
Of the 56 partisan guests on Special Report between January and May, 50 were Republicans and six were Democrats -- a greater than 8 to 1 imbalance. In other words, 89 percent of guests with a party affiliation were Republicans.
On Special Report, 65 of the 92 guests (71 percent) were avowed conservatives--that is, conservatives outnumbered representatives of all other points of view, including non-political guests, by a factor of more than 2 to 1.
Of Blitzer's 67 partisan guests, 38 were Republicans and 29 were Democrats -- a 57 percent to 43 percent split in favor of Republicans. Thirty-five out of 109 guests (32 percent) were avowed conservatives, with the remaining 68 percent divided up among the rest of the political spectrum, from center-right to left.
billvon 3,107
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I also think it was a reasonable assumption that prior to the advent
> of the internet and FoxNews, the leftmedia DID have a stranglehold
> on the news agenda.
The Wall Street Journal was part of this leftist stranglehold?
>it were far right there would be quotes from FoxNews folks similar to
>Malveaux's remarks about Justice Thomas . . .
And if the LA Times were far left there would be articles about how the recent SUV vandals are heroes. However, the article contains far more about the definition of domestic terrorism and how it applies to them than any sort of heroic stand they've taken.
On the eve of the war with Iraq, a Washington Post reporter wrote a story quoting sources that said the administration had a "lack of hard evidence" of WMD's in Iraq. That left-leaning liberal rag put that gem right there where everyone could see it - on page A17. Heck, if they had really been centrist and balanced they would have put it on A18 and made the print so small no one could have read it.
> of the internet and FoxNews, the leftmedia DID have a stranglehold
> on the news agenda.
The Wall Street Journal was part of this leftist stranglehold?
>it were far right there would be quotes from FoxNews folks similar to
>Malveaux's remarks about Justice Thomas . . .
And if the LA Times were far left there would be articles about how the recent SUV vandals are heroes. However, the article contains far more about the definition of domestic terrorism and how it applies to them than any sort of heroic stand they've taken.
On the eve of the war with Iraq, a Washington Post reporter wrote a story quoting sources that said the administration had a "lack of hard evidence" of WMD's in Iraq. That left-leaning liberal rag put that gem right there where everyone could see it - on page A17. Heck, if they had really been centrist and balanced they would have put it on A18 and made the print so small no one could have read it.
TheAnvil 0
Quite interesting, but Special Report is news commentary and only one of several shows on FoxNews. Nice #'s, but they're used for support rather than illumination.
I see about an equal # of lefties as conservatives on my favorite news commentary show, Hannity & Colmes, as I do conservatives.
Few libertarians on any of the programs, however. I guess Neal Boortz kicking O'Reilly's ass in public has made us persona non grata.
I see about an equal # of lefties as conservatives on my favorite news commentary show, Hannity & Colmes, as I do conservatives.
Few libertarians on any of the programs, however. I guess Neal Boortz kicking O'Reilly's ass in public has made us persona non grata.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
TheAnvil 0
The WSJ is my favorite newspaper, but I don't consider it as major of a media outlet as the LA Times, NYTimes, CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, Fox, etc. I'll agree with you that it's pretty damned balanced, but look at the demographics of its readers as compared with the other outlets and you'll see why.
Instead of presenting me with some FoxNews examples of conservative extremism you've given me an article I've already read from a news source I never once mentioned here. Try again.
Instead of presenting me with some FoxNews examples of conservative extremism you've given me an article I've already read from a news source I never once mentioned here. Try again.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
wmw999 2,584
QuoteFox is just the best example of being the closest to the middle of the road.
I think that depends on where your road is.
That said, are there any fairly mainstream media outlets that are more to the right than Fox?
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
QuoteI see about an equal # of lefties as conservatives on my favorite news commentary show, Hannity & Colmes, as I do conservatives.
Right, and then you have Hannity taking the rightist stance with his booming voice and charismatic quotes. Versus Colmes (an admitted moderate up against a far right Hannity) with his weasel like looks and mousy voice defending the views on the left.
billvon 3,107
>Instead of presenting me with some FoxNews examples of
>conservative extremism you've given me an article I've already read
>from a news source I never once mentioned here.'
Well, let's see. I gave you an example of a left-bashing story they published, and indeed dedicated a lot of screen-space to, a story that turned out to be false. You didn't like that one because other outlets mentioned it in passing. So I'll try one more time, this time giving some examples of their defense of the war.
March 14: Anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood damage.
March 19: Shepard Smith reports that Iraqis are planning to detonate large stores of napalm buried deep below the earth to scorch coalition forces. Fox Military Analyst Major Bob Bevelacqua states that coalition forces will drop a MOAB on Saddam's bunker and give him the "Mother of All Sunburns."
March 23: FOX begins 2 days of unequivocal assertions that a 100-acre facility discovered by coalition forces at An Najaf is a chemical weapons plant. Only weeks later is it briefly conceded that the chemicals definitively detected at the facility were pesticides.
March 28: Repeated assertions by Fox News anchors of a red ring around Baghdad in which Republican Guard forces were planning to use chemical weapons on coalition forces. A Fox "Breaking News" flash reports that Iraqi soldiers were seen by coalition forces moving 55-gallon drums almost certainly containing chemical agents.
April 10: Fox "Breaking News" report of weapons-grade plutonium found at Al Tuwaitha.
April 10: To show that France is in bed with Saddam Hussein, Fox begins running old footage of Saddam Hussein's September 1975 trip to Paris to meet with Jacques Chirac and tour a nuclear power plant. They of course do not show the footage of Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam in 1984, as he opens relations with Iraq _after_ Hussein uses chemical weapons against the Iranians.
April 13: Fox Graphic: "Bush: Syria Harboring Chemical Weapons."
April 16: Fred Barnes on Special Report with Brit Hume blames the looting of the Iraqi National Museum on the museum staff.
April 18: Bill O'Reilly opens his show calling Iraqis "ungrateful."
April 21: Bill O'Reilly opens his show calling Iraqi Shiites "ungrateful SOBs" and "fanatics." He concludes that "[we] can't tolerate a fundamentalist state" in Iraq.
April 22: Lt. Colonel Robert Maginnis states on The O'Reilly Factor that the probability of finding WMDs is a 10 out of 10. O'Reilly states that if no WMDs are found within a month from today, then that spells big trouble.
>conservative extremism you've given me an article I've already read
>from a news source I never once mentioned here.'
Well, let's see. I gave you an example of a left-bashing story they published, and indeed dedicated a lot of screen-space to, a story that turned out to be false. You didn't like that one because other outlets mentioned it in passing. So I'll try one more time, this time giving some examples of their defense of the war.
March 14: Anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood damage.
March 19: Shepard Smith reports that Iraqis are planning to detonate large stores of napalm buried deep below the earth to scorch coalition forces. Fox Military Analyst Major Bob Bevelacqua states that coalition forces will drop a MOAB on Saddam's bunker and give him the "Mother of All Sunburns."
March 23: FOX begins 2 days of unequivocal assertions that a 100-acre facility discovered by coalition forces at An Najaf is a chemical weapons plant. Only weeks later is it briefly conceded that the chemicals definitively detected at the facility were pesticides.
March 28: Repeated assertions by Fox News anchors of a red ring around Baghdad in which Republican Guard forces were planning to use chemical weapons on coalition forces. A Fox "Breaking News" flash reports that Iraqi soldiers were seen by coalition forces moving 55-gallon drums almost certainly containing chemical agents.
April 10: Fox "Breaking News" report of weapons-grade plutonium found at Al Tuwaitha.
April 10: To show that France is in bed with Saddam Hussein, Fox begins running old footage of Saddam Hussein's September 1975 trip to Paris to meet with Jacques Chirac and tour a nuclear power plant. They of course do not show the footage of Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam in 1984, as he opens relations with Iraq _after_ Hussein uses chemical weapons against the Iranians.
April 13: Fox Graphic: "Bush: Syria Harboring Chemical Weapons."
April 16: Fred Barnes on Special Report with Brit Hume blames the looting of the Iraqi National Museum on the museum staff.
April 18: Bill O'Reilly opens his show calling Iraqis "ungrateful."
April 21: Bill O'Reilly opens his show calling Iraqi Shiites "ungrateful SOBs" and "fanatics." He concludes that "[we] can't tolerate a fundamentalist state" in Iraq.
April 22: Lt. Colonel Robert Maginnis states on The O'Reilly Factor that the probability of finding WMDs is a 10 out of 10. O'Reilly states that if no WMDs are found within a month from today, then that spells big trouble.
QuoteO'Reilly states that if no WMDs are found within a month from today, then that spells big trouble.
What's great about that one is I recall hearing him recently bash "liberal news sources" for expecting proof to surface too quickly.
rehmwa 2
"Bill O opens his show" - that's the editorial segment and opinion of the host. We all agree that Bill is to the right in most areas. But the show still isn't.
Just the facts.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Just the facts.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
quade 4
Not to mention THIS item just in from Drudge (of all people).
Play it down the middle?
Really? How is it possible to "play it down the middle" and NOT talk about his previous career?
Dollars and cents?
Yes, please, I'd love to hear how he's planning on doing anything about the economic problems of California.
Quote
FOXNEWS ORDERS AN END TO WORD-PLAYS ON SCHWARZENEGGER MOVIES; SERIOUS CANDIDATE, SERIOUS COVERAGE
Sun Aug 24 2003 16:10:31 ET
Fox News Channel senior vice president John Moody has ordered an end to Schwarzenegger movie puns in news rotations, according to a report set for Monday release.
"Total Recall," "The Governator," and "Running Man" may be but a few of the never-ending examples on-air Schwarzenegger cuties - but Moody's had enough.
NYT media watcher Jim Rutenberg is preparing to root out a memorandum posted recently in the Fox News computer system: "The urge may seem irresistible to play off Arnold Schwarzenegger's acting career," Moody wrote. "Resist it. Otherwise the effect is often to belittle the candidacy of the front-runner for one of the most important offices in the U.S., and that's not fair and balanced. No more references to 'Conan,' 'Terminator,' and 'Kindergarten Cop' as shorthand for the candidate.... Certainly don't suggest he is part of a 'circus' or lump him in with novelty candidates" like Gary Coleman... Ask yourself if your clever turn of phrase is suggesting that Schwarzenegger's candidacy isn't a serious one. That's exactly the case his political opponents want to press. We need to play it down the middle."
Fox is the only one of the three major cable networks so far to draft such a policy, reports Rutenberg.
John J. Stack, the Fox News Channel vice president for news gathering said of Schwarzenegger, "People do recognize him from his films, but he is now undertaking a very serious mission and we want people to be told all about it."
Besides, he said, California voters, faced with huge economic problems, are by now getting bored with the frivolous aspects of the campaign.
"The circus component is starting to subside. People have gotten their yuks about the porn star and the sitcom representative," he said, "but I think people want to get down to dollars and cents."
Developing...
Play it down the middle?
Really? How is it possible to "play it down the middle" and NOT talk about his previous career?
Dollars and cents?
Yes, please, I'd love to hear how he's planning on doing anything about the economic problems of California.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
QuoteWe all agree that Bill is to the right in most areas. But the show still isn't.
Just the facts.
Lies told by Bill O'Reilly, claiming to be fact, and not during the opening of his show.
“You know, in Europe, this kind of child molestation and child rape is – you know, they let them do it. They don’t enforce it. And in countries like Denmark, it’s even legal.”
Quote"58 percent of single-mom homes are on welfare." -Bill O'Reilly 2/5/02
"52 percent of families receiving public assistance are headed by a single mother" -Bill O'Reilly 2/6/02
"14 percent of single mothers receive federal welfare benefits" -Bill O'Reilly 2/7/02
QuoteO’Reilly explained to Florida state senator Kendrick Meek that, thanks to Gov. Jeb Bush’s "One Florida" program, 37 percent of students at Florida universities were black: "Thirty-seven percent. That’s much higher than the population, the black population, of Florida.
Total minority enrollment for the freshman class entering in 2000 was 37 percent (Florida Times-Union, 8/30/00)-- black enrollment was about 18 percent.
the offer made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak "would have given 90 percent of those settlements back"-- an idea he credited to "what every single American expert who has seen that says." In fact, O’Reilly got the proportion of settlements Barak was prepared to give up almost backwards: He promised Israelis that any deal with the Palestinians would involve "80 percent of the settlers in settlement blocks under our sovereignty" (Jerusalem Post, 9/13/00).
When one Factor interviewee remarked (3/1/02) that "60 percent of all people will live in poverty for one year of their life," O’Reilly shot back: "Not in the United States. . . . No, that’s bogus. I mean, that’s a socialist stat. You can believe it if you want to, but it’s not true." When the guest explained that the number comes from research at Cornell University, O’Reilly shot back: "Well, what more do I have to say?"--
ABC’s John Stossel came on The O’Reilly Factor (1/26/01) to claim that $40,000 in government money is spent annually on anti-poverty programs for each poor family. The stat appears to derive from the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector, who deceptively includes expensive programs that go to non-poor families-- like Pell grants, reduced-price school lunches and Medicare-- in his tally. A few days later (1/29/01), O’Reilly was garbling the already misleading figure: "We’re paying $40,000 per person who [is] on government assistance now"--quadruple the amount of spending Stossel was claiming.
On February 4, Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance questioned whether casual drug users were really funding terrorism, as O’Reilly seems to argue. When Nadelmann pointed out that marijuana and Ecstasy were not involved in Afghanistan, O’Reilly responded, "Well, Ecstasy is," adding that "most comes from Holland."
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/oreillyspin1.htm
quade 4
Ya know, there's a reason the folks at SNL love O'Reilly . . . they don't have to write too many jokes about him. He does it himself.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
turtlespeed 226
I'm not a fan of O...
IMO he's rude, hes degrading, and he's annoying....but I give him this much...he makes alot more money than I do. He has to be doing something right.
IMO he's rude, hes degrading, and he's annoying....but I give him this much...he makes alot more money than I do. He has to be doing something right.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Here's a good one...this is fun:
On his May 19, 2000 broadcast, O'Reilly repeatedly told a guest who brought up his tabloid past: "We won Peabody Awards. . . . We won Peabody awards. . . . A program that wins a Peabody Award, the highest award in journalism, and you're going to denigrate it?"
THE FACTS
(Inside Edition won a Polk Award, not the better-known Peabody, for reporting that was done after O'Reilly left the show--Washington Post, 3/1/01.)
On his May 19, 2000 broadcast, O'Reilly repeatedly told a guest who brought up his tabloid past: "We won Peabody Awards. . . . We won Peabody awards. . . . A program that wins a Peabody Award, the highest award in journalism, and you're going to denigrate it?"
THE FACTS
(Inside Edition won a Polk Award, not the better-known Peabody, for reporting that was done after O'Reilly left the show--Washington Post, 3/1/01.)
skewing happens and we need to understand the cause, but not disregard the data. Just like taking a poll in only one neighborhood. you can't apply it across the board. All I'm saying understand the inputs.
No data can be disregarded unless statistically proven as an outlier with exceptional causes (god, this is my job, which I'm trying to post whore away from). Doesn't happen in opinion polls. again, I never said disregard or invalid, I said consider the data.
Again, I'm not handpicking the jury. I'm interested in just the domestic point of view since the contention is about the domestic news services (sorry Remster). the international poll may be different or not. that would also be fun to see, but it's a different context. If you are interested in those results, set up your own poll here (neat tool). Mine didn't last long, but the results are there for those that voted. You can run the stats yourself (a t-test for proportions) determine the confidence and power of the decision risks vs sample sizes and draw your own conclusions based on responses rather than just the general rhetoric of the post whoring.
In the meantime, stop putting an agenda to my words. As far as demarking responses by state, flying style, country of origin, etc. There are great tools for sorting the effect of these input variables as to whether or not they are significant to a response. I'd only discount an effect if it's not statistically significant to the results.
simply speaking - by recording and accounting for various inputs just tests whether they are meaningful, it doesn't discount them. Good tools are binary logistic regression, linear regression, ANOVA, and contingiency table depending on the type of data. Good luck.
true, the written work does make tone hard to interpret. I bet you are pretty cool.
fun subject, escalate away. I promise to not talk about data tools and only stick to assumptions and inferences from now on.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites