Mr.Plum v Superjoe

[hhfarang]

I didn't want to hijack the Libya thread any further, but I couldn't let this go so I thought this thread would be an appropriate place to post it. Maybe the thread should be renamed "MrPlum v Nearly Everyone Else" as that seems to be the way he likes it.

MrPlum has risen to a new level of lies and misinformation in the following post on that thread:

hhfarang wrote:
I doubt Obama is feeding him talking points...

I didn't mention Obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_C ... hite_House

'While promoting his memoir, What Happened, Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary (2003–2006) for President George W. Bush stated on the July 25, 2008, edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews that the Bush White House routinely gave talking points to Fox News commentators

Very convenient of you MrPlum to only use the part of the text that you agree with while ignoring the rest that contained the real truth on the subject.

Using his own source all you have to do is read the rest of the paragraph he quoted as well as the following paragraph to see how he manages to omit the truth while promoting the lie. Here's the full text.

While promoting his memoir, What Happened, Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary (2003–2006) for President George W. Bush stated on the July 25, 2008, edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews that the Bush White House routinely gave talking points to Fox News commentators — but not journalists — in order to influence discourse and content. McClellan stated that these talking points were not issued to provide the public with news, but were issued to provide Fox News commentators with issues and perspectives favorable to the White House and Republican Party.

McClellan later apologized to Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly for not responding to Matthews' suggestion that "Bill" or "Sean" received the talking points; McClellan said he had no personal knowledge that O'Reilly ever received the talking points. Furthermore he pointed out "the way a couple of questions were phrased in that interview along with my response left things open to interpretation and I should not have let that happen."

Shame on you MrPlum! I gave you a little credit before for just believing in your agenda but this is a case of total misinformation exactly like you accuse big business, doctors and pharma companies, governments, Jews, and media outlets of doing. I will not waste my time reading your propaganda any longer and you are going on my ignore list.

[MrPlum]

I didn't want to hijack the Libya thread any further, but I couldn't let this go

Why didn't you ask me politely to explain why I omitted that paragraph instead of acting in such a hostile fashion? I would have done so.

Think about that second paragraph for a minute and read between the lines. O'Reilly is a powerful man. He is hardly going to admit that he receives 'talking points' from the White House, it would destroy his credibility. So he has demanded McLennan withdraw the charge. McLennan never actually made it but he didn't challenge it when someone else did. One reason (and the most likely IMO) is because he knew it to be true. McLennan subsequently said he had no 'personal knowledge...' which still leaves the possibility someone else in the White House could have told him. Maybe.

Instead of posting the second paragraph and my musings on whether McLenann was forced to make his statement, which would have led to argument (because some folks are just looking for one) I instead acknowledged it by saying ...'it doesn't explicitly single out O'Reilly'.

Now my question to you is why have YOU omitted THIS sentence from your complaint? It completely negates your charge. Why would you do that?

Now you may think O'Reilly is as honest as the day is long. I think he's one of the most devious snakes I've ever encountered in the media. But considering his ties to the Republican Party, it certainly is '...difficult to imagine him being excluded'. Again here, I am clearly speculating and expressing an OPINION.

Having provided a link, of course I knew members might go and check this for themselves. Why would I leave myself so open? Didn't this occur to you?

I hope this explanation satisfies you. But if it doesn't, please go ahead and use the 'ignore' feature, it will save me having to continually waste my time defending against these baseless attacks.

[Super Joe]

This is classic Plumism, we've got a bit of everything, distorting of information in order to 'fit' a theory, refusal to admit it was contrived when challenged, then personal smears of other posters who disagree with his view. The end result, as here with hhfarang, the posters' points are dismissed out of hand with that now familiar 'airy wave', not before being smeared for his posting in general with this ... "it will save me having to continually waste my time defending against these baseless attacks"

White House 'talking points' fed directly to Bill O'Reilly.
Although it doesn't explicitly single out O'Reilly, it's difficult to imagine him being excluded

Here's what the article really said though, but MrP deliberately left out these two key comments when selectively quoting from the article:

Capture-1.jpg (112.59 KiB) Viewed 518 times

When HHF challenged this creative work, and also pointed out that Bill O'Reilly doesn't even report the news but hosts a show that discusses news and current affairs, MrP couldn't bring himself to accept it, it was just a baseless attack

You would need to provide some examples. Most sites take mainstream 'facts' to support their alternative conclusions. So you've checked all those results and all my posts and only found opinions? No facts or sources? Sorry but I think that's just your 'opinion' and not a fact.

And this was the crux of the issue, MrP displaying familiar faux outrage over claims his posts contain mostly personal opinions of theorists, and rarely based on verifiable facts, then when HHF provides the examples above, MrP smears him using the following as the basis for his argument ... 'opinion and speculation'

I am clearly speculating and expressing an OPINION. Think about that second paragraph for a minute and read between the lines. which still leaves the possibility someone else in the White House could have told him. Maybe.

You couldn't make it up

SJ

[MrPlum]

SJ. Since I am no longer reading all your posts you have the advantage of taking cheap shots, without reply. I understand you can't help yourself.

My post was clearly addressing 'hhfarang', who is quite capable of arguing his own case, without being provided with 'talking points' by you. At least give him time to respond before trying to lead him by the nose.

************************************************************************

Here's what I said which appears to have triggered hhfarang's outburst... 'What's bizarre to me is the faith that you and others have in the honesty of the mainstream media. As if it is any less suspect. AP and Reuters are the two principal sources of stories. That and White House 'talking points' fed directly to Bill O'Reilly.'

The inference there is that if you control AP and Reuters you can decide which stories will go out to thousands of media outlets. You can ignore some and place extra emphasis on others. Whether Islamophobia, or the BBC pumping the latest release of 'Grand Theft Auto'.

I understand why hhfarang challenged my comment on O'Reilly but he still didn't try to ascertain why I made the comment before reacting as he did. The point I was making there is a valid one. Who feeds the media their 'scoops'? Who decides what stories to air and what spin is put on them? There isn't a lot of investigative reporting these days, war reporters are 'embedded'. The Pentagon propaganda budget is said to be around $1 billion. Every government department and corporation have marketing and PR departments feeding the media the stories we see, which invariably are 'faux news'. The CIA is said to have a media manipulation program called 'Operation Mockingbird.'

IMO O'Reilly was taking his talking points from the White House because his spin over the Gulf War made it pretty obvious... the claims were supported by his actual stance. Some of his various lies here... http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1142

O'Reilly is careful about his choice of words. You can say he is just expressing opinion but he clouds the issue as to whether he is a reporter or a commentator with statements like this... 'We hope you depend on us for the truth, because we're going to report the situation in Iraq without an agenda or any ideological prejudice'. — Bill O'Reilly (O'Reilly Factor, 1/17/03)

Reporters 'report' don't they? I thought he was a commentator?

He even tells us Iraq was over oil (Can't have read SJ's 'official' stats) ... "We basically feel that he is a danger to our oil supply there," he explained to one guest (1/14/03).

Sounds like he's 'reporting' again. Who is this 'we' he is talking about?

The idea that O'Reilly was being fed his 'talking points' isn't that far-fetched when you see that a Fox News commentator, Tony Snow, was made the White House press secretary, who was 'often substituting as host of The O'Reilly Factor'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Snow

I agree. 'You couldn't make it up'

The over-reaction to my comment, before finding out whether it has any substance behind it, is premature. As is spinning yet another of my posts into a 'gotcha!' moment.

It's not just the media that is 'Faux'.

[charlesh]

Reporter vs commentator - pedantic nonsense. I would imagine ALL governments USE the media for their particular direction in thought control and behaviour, modification. Julian Assange is but a minnow when it comes to leaks.

[Super Joe]

Reporter vs commentator - pedantic nonsense. I would imagine ALL governments USE the media for their particular direction in thought control and behaviour, modification. Julian Assange is but a minnow when it comes to leaks.

That's right Charles, but the disagreement was never over 'reporter vs commentator', or whether governments do or do not use the media for gain. The 'reporter vs commentator' thing is just what MrP has deceiptfully added here to distort hhfarang's points.


The debate was not about this, but specifically whether Bill O'Reilly was a newscaster or someone who discusses news items already out, expressing opinion over them with guests...

and if you watch him for a few days you will see that he makes it very clear by stating it that his show is not news, it is opinion and should be taken as such.

Really? He's on a News network. Newscasters will tell you constantly about 'White House sources' or 'sources say' and so on.

That O'Reilly is not a 'newscaster' bringing the 'news', is a matter of fact.


SJ

[Super Joe]

Yes, we've seen how long your 'ignores' last with other posters MrP, the truth is you're secretly scrutinizing our every word, working yourself into a frenzy and salivating over your screen in that basement-bunker of yours, until finally you can't take any more or hold back any longer, and in a momentaryfit of rage-cum-excitement you burst onto your keyboard and... and... type. As I said last time ... 'we can set our watches by you'.

Here's what I said which appears to have triggered hhfarang's outburst

MrP makes more stuff up in an attempt to deceive readers, we can see clearly at the top of this page in hhf’s own words what 'triggered'him ...
"MrPlum has risen to a new level of lies and misinformation. Very convenient of you MrPlum to only use the part of the text that you agree with while ignoring the rest that contained the real truth on the subject. Using his own source all you have to do is read the rest of the paragraph he quoted as well as the following paragraph to see how he manages to omit the truth while promoting the lie"



The original issue was quite specific, whether or not O’Reilly was a 'newscaster' and whether or not his show broke the 'news' or discussed it, giving opinion on it ...

and if you watch him for a few days you will see that he makes it very clear by stating it that his show is not news, it is opinion and should be taken as such.

Really? He's on a News network. Newscasters will tell you constantly about 'White House sources' or 'sources say' and so on.

Here we see how MrP is now dropping his previous assertions about 'news' and 'newscasters' in favour of this new 'reporters and commentators', in a vain attempt to distort hhfarang’s point.




More disinfo made up for effect ...

I understand why hhfarang challenged my comment on O'Reilly but he still didn't try to ascertain why I made the comment before reacting as he did.

LOL, he did ascertain why you made those comments, remember? Then you gave the wiki link as a source of substantiation for your comments, but the link actually stated it had no knowledge of info to O’Reilly, but you deliberately omitted this key part. HHF then posted it’s full and relevant content and highlighted your ommission. So he did look into it, yet here you are refusing to admit that.



And we see MrP scouring the bowels of wikipedia (whom he once branded as liars) and garner support from two ex-White House spokesman Clelland & Snow for his conspiracy theories (oh, the irony of Plum turning to the White House for his facts ), yet all the while ignoring, nay refusing to accept what this very source THEMSELVES, say about this O'Reilly's show...

HOLY GUACAMOLE, the TexMex-munchin' straight-shooter originating from the good 'ol U.S. of A-holes has out-gunned his Tehran-educated opponent the Mighty-Fruit. And as the crowd roars out in the immortal words of hhf's boyhood hero Bill ... "it's just opinion, stupid", the focus of attention shifts back to the fruit-bat, will he or won't he accept that the bullet between his eggs, was infact a shot from a sound 'base'.

So without further doo-doo, ladiiiieeeees & gentlemen, will you please put the tips of your forefingers and thumbs together to form that small circle, and please show your appreciation for MrPlum ... step on up to the plate that man ......

SJ

[margaretcarnes]

OK OK - which iriot put Arcadian up to this?
Mind you it has certainly brought the 2 gladiators promptly into the arena to yet again display their skills.
Must be one of those 'you know you've been in Thailand too long when...' moments. In this case maybe 'you know' etc when you can refer to the age old posts of an adversary with the apparent ease of a magician. Sad really.

[Super Joe]

Sad really.

Yes, I'd say that was a fair assessment Mags But it's just a bit of harmless banter, neither of us take it seriously or get upset by it. Too much time on our hands would probably be the answer, kills a couple of hours of the day when you're not doing much else, plus keeps the brain ticking over. Some people read books or whatever, I've never been able to do that, plus I find the subject interesting, so you're always learning new stuff. I'm on the computer half the day anyway so it's a flitting in and out sort of thing, but yes at the end of the day it is a bit sad... in a happy content kind of way


SJ

[MrPlum]

"I AM going to stalk him", "I WILL keep stalking him". "My obsessive compulsive behavior is justified!"

Anyone who believes a word of this 'guff' please meet me down the 'Dog and Biscuit'. I'll buy you all a drink.

[Arcadian]

[quote="margaretcarnes"]OK OK - which iriot put Arcadian up to this?


Hi Margaret, I`m proud to say it was all my own work! I suspect like many others I was fed up being presented with hours of reading which I can now happily avoid all in one place.

[Super Joe]

"it's just opinion, stupid", the focus of attention shifts back to the fruit, will he or won't he accept it, MrPlum step on up to the plate ......

... sorry hhf, it was too big of an ask, your smear remains, we don't ever wanna see you round these parts again

I was fed up being presented with hours of reading

Sorry Arc, I thought you enjoyed long reads, wish I knew you preferred much shorter articles I got some good ones. Here's one of my favourites, it's a brief of appraisee of Arsenal's honours successes over the past 5 years, complete with pics and stats, enjoy ....


.




.





.





.





.




.




.




.





.

[redzonerocker]

Sorry Arc, I thought you enjoyed long reads, wish I knew you preferred much shorter articles I got some good ones. Here's one of my favourites, it's a brief of appraisee of Arsenal's honours successes over the past 5 years, complete with pics and stats, enjoy ....

only a spud fan counts back 5 years , why don't you just use your other hand? you could go back 11 years then


.




.





.





.





.




.




.




.

[Arcadian]

[quote="redzonerocker
only a spud fan counts back 5 years , why don't you just use your other hand? you could go back 11 years then

I suspect that other may be busy!
.




.





.





.





.




.




.




.[/quote]

[Super Joe]

why don't you just use your other hand? you could go back 11 years then

I suspect that other may be busy!

Pair a gooner w------


SJ