Dave wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:09:24 -0700, "Capt. JG" said:

Marty, you have to remember that Dave believes it's impossible to ask
intelligent questions if one has a financial stake in the game.

Nothing to do with "intelligent" questions. But of course the choice of
questions, the manner of posing them, the demeanor of the questioner, etc.
have no effect, right, Jon?

He also
believes that it's much more important to attack the moderator before the
debate before actually hearing the questions and the answers than it is to
suspend judgement, skeptical though it may be.

I believe it's helpful to be aware of the moderator's self-interested bias
in evaluating the process, and yes, that it's better to know of the bias
before, rather than after, the debate.

He forgets, apparently, that
both candidates agreed to the conditions of the debate.

Perhaps I missed it, but where was that condition about its being ok if the
moderator stands to make a pile of money if one side wins, and not make that
money if the other side wins? And about the moderator's taking that job
without telling anyone about her conflicting financial interest? If you're
betting on a horse race, would you like to know before placing your bet that
the jockey riding the favorite has bet a bundle on the next ranked horse to
win?


Sounds a lot like you're making excuses for Palin's embarrassing
performance even before it happens.

Utter nonsense, Buckley couldn't have cared less who was moderating
whatever debate he was in. If the moderator is biased, are you
suggesting that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it
and adjust their evaluation accordingly. It certainly sounds to me like
you're saying that Palin is going to come off badly but that we should
understand that she really won and it's the fault of the moderator, but
we are to stupid to think for ourselves.

Let the debate unfold and then judge, don't tell me what to think before
hand.

Cheers
Marty

"Marty" wrote in message
news
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:09:24 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Marty, you have to remember that Dave believes it's impossible to ask
intelligent questions if one has a financial stake in the game.

Nothing to do with "intelligent" questions. But of course the choice of
questions, the manner of posing them, the demeanor of the questioner,
etc.
have no effect, right, Jon?

He also believes that it's much more important to attack the moderator
before the debate before actually hearing the questions and the answers
than it is to suspend judgement, skeptical though it may be.

I believe it's helpful to be aware of the moderator's self-interested
bias
in evaluating the process, and yes, that it's better to know of the bias
before, rather than after, the debate.

He forgets, apparently, that both candidates agreed to the conditions of
the debate.

Perhaps I missed it, but where was that condition about its being ok if
the
moderator stands to make a pile of money if one side wins, and not make
that
money if the other side wins? And about the moderator's taking that job
without telling anyone about her conflicting financial interest? If
you're
betting on a horse race, would you like to know before placing your bet
that
the jockey riding the favorite has bet a bundle on the next ranked horse
to
win?


Sounds a lot like you're making excuses for Palin's embarrassing
performance even before it happens.

Utter nonsense, Buckley couldn't have cared less who was moderating
whatever debate he was in. If the moderator is biased, are you suggesting
that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it and adjust
their evaluation accordingly. It certainly sounds to me like you're
saying that Palin is going to come off badly but that we should understand
that she really won and it's the fault of the moderator, but we are to
stupid to think for ourselves.

Let the debate unfold and then judge, don't tell me what to think before
hand.

Cheers
Marty

As biased as the media is, it's still a tight race. No one is telling you
what to think, they're just lowering your expectations. That way, when Palin
hammers Biden it will have a much greater impact.

I expect Palin to get roasted. It will be embarrassing.

"Marty" wrote in message
news
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:09:24 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Marty, you have to remember that Dave believes it's impossible to ask
intelligent questions if one has a financial stake in the game.

Nothing to do with "intelligent" questions. But of course the choice of
questions, the manner of posing them, the demeanor of the questioner,
etc.
have no effect, right, Jon?

He also believes that it's much more important to attack the moderator
before the debate before actually hearing the questions and the answers
than it is to suspend judgement, skeptical though it may be.

I believe it's helpful to be aware of the moderator's self-interested
bias
in evaluating the process, and yes, that it's better to know of the bias
before, rather than after, the debate.

He forgets, apparently, that both candidates agreed to the conditions of
the debate.

Perhaps I missed it, but where was that condition about its being ok if
the
moderator stands to make a pile of money if one side wins, and not make
that
money if the other side wins? And about the moderator's taking that job
without telling anyone about her conflicting financial interest? If
you're
betting on a horse race, would you like to know before placing your bet
that
the jockey riding the favorite has bet a bundle on the next ranked horse
to
win?


Sounds a lot like you're making excuses for Palin's embarrassing
performance even before it happens.

Utter nonsense, Buckley couldn't have cared less who was moderating
whatever debate he was in. If the moderator is biased, are you suggesting
that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it and adjust
their evaluation accordingly. It certainly sounds to me like you're
saying that Palin is going to come off badly but that we should understand
that she really won and it's the fault of the moderator, but we are to
stupid to think for ourselves.

Let the debate unfold and then judge, don't tell me what to think before
hand.

Cheers
Marty


Dave doesn't have a very high opinion of regular folks, except when they
vote for people like Bush the 2nd.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
news
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:09:24 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Marty, you have to remember that Dave believes it's impossible to ask
intelligent questions if one has a financial stake in the game.
Nothing to do with "intelligent" questions. But of course the choice of
questions, the manner of posing them, the demeanor of the questioner,
etc.
have no effect, right, Jon?

He also believes that it's much more important to attack the moderator
before the debate before actually hearing the questions and the answers
than it is to suspend judgement, skeptical though it may be.
I believe it's helpful to be aware of the moderator's self-interested
bias
in evaluating the process, and yes, that it's better to know of the bias
before, rather than after, the debate.

He forgets, apparently, that both candidates agreed to the conditions of
the debate.
Perhaps I missed it, but where was that condition about its being ok if
the
moderator stands to make a pile of money if one side wins, and not make
that
money if the other side wins? And about the moderator's taking that job
without telling anyone about her conflicting financial interest? If
you're
betting on a horse race, would you like to know before placing your bet
that
the jockey riding the favorite has bet a bundle on the next ranked horse
to
win?

Sounds a lot like you're making excuses for Palin's embarrassing
performance even before it happens.

Utter nonsense, Buckley couldn't have cared less who was moderating
whatever debate he was in. If the moderator is biased, are you suggesting
that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it and adjust
their evaluation accordingly. It certainly sounds to me like you're
saying that Palin is going to come off badly but that we should understand
that she really won and it's the fault of the moderator, but we are to
stupid to think for ourselves.

Let the debate unfold and then judge, don't tell me what to think before
hand.

Cheers
Marty


Dave doesn't have a very high opinion of regular folks, except when they
vote for people like Bush the 2nd.


I'm reluctantly coming to this conclusion.

Cheers
Marty

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message
news
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:09:24 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Marty, you have to remember that Dave believes it's impossible to ask
intelligent questions if one has a financial stake in the game.
Nothing to do with "intelligent" questions. But of course the choice of
questions, the manner of posing them, the demeanor of the questioner,
etc.
have no effect, right, Jon?

He also believes that it's much more important to attack the moderator
before the debate before actually hearing the questions and the
answers than it is to suspend judgement, skeptical though it may be.
I believe it's helpful to be aware of the moderator's self-interested
bias
in evaluating the process, and yes, that it's better to know of the
bias
before, rather than after, the debate.

He forgets, apparently, that both candidates agreed to the conditions
of the debate.
Perhaps I missed it, but where was that condition about its being ok if
the
moderator stands to make a pile of money if one side wins, and not make
that
money if the other side wins? And about the moderator's taking that job
without telling anyone about her conflicting financial interest? If
you're
betting on a horse race, would you like to know before placing your bet
that
the jockey riding the favorite has bet a bundle on the next ranked
horse to
win?

Sounds a lot like you're making excuses for Palin's embarrassing
performance even before it happens.

Utter nonsense, Buckley couldn't have cared less who was moderating
whatever debate he was in. If the moderator is biased, are you
suggesting that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it
and adjust their evaluation accordingly. It certainly sounds to me like
you're saying that Palin is going to come off badly but that we should
understand that she really won and it's the fault of the moderator, but
we are to stupid to think for ourselves.

Let the debate unfold and then judge, don't tell me what to think before
hand.

Cheers
Marty


Dave doesn't have a very high opinion of regular folks, except when they
vote for people like Bush the 2nd.


I'm reluctantly coming to this conclusion.

Cheers
Marty


You're a bit slow. I came to this conclusion when Bush the 1st was
President! LOL


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:


Dave doesn't have a very high opinion of regular folks, except when they
vote for people like Bush the 2nd.


I'm reluctantly coming to this conclusion.

Cheers
Marty


You're a bit slow. I came to this conclusion when Bush the 1st was
President! LOL

Guilty, I have been burned many times by my oft misplaced hopes that my
fellow man is of a better moral caliber than he actually is. Sort of
like hoping that Christians actually embrace and live the values they
espouse.

I do however, sleep well at night. I may not be rich, monetarily, but I
am rewarded in other ways infinitely more valuable.

Cheers
Marty

"Marty" wrote in message
...
I do however, sleep well at night. I may not be rich, monetarily, but I
am rewarded in other ways infinitely more valuable.

Cheers
Marty

Dude... it's obvious!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:29:46 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Marty" wrote in message
news
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:09:24 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Marty, you have to remember that Dave believes it's impossible to ask
intelligent questions if one has a financial stake in the game.

Nothing to do with "intelligent" questions. But of course the choice of
questions, the manner of posing them, the demeanor of the questioner,
etc.
have no effect, right, Jon?

He also believes that it's much more important to attack the moderator
before the debate before actually hearing the questions and the answers
than it is to suspend judgement, skeptical though it may be.

I believe it's helpful to be aware of the moderator's self-interested
bias
in evaluating the process, and yes, that it's better to know of the bias
before, rather than after, the debate.

He forgets, apparently, that both candidates agreed to the conditions of
the debate.

Perhaps I missed it, but where was that condition about its being ok if
the
moderator stands to make a pile of money if one side wins, and not make
that
money if the other side wins? And about the moderator's taking that job
without telling anyone about her conflicting financial interest? If
you're
betting on a horse race, would you like to know before placing your bet
that
the jockey riding the favorite has bet a bundle on the next ranked horse
to
win?


Sounds a lot like you're making excuses for Palin's embarrassing
performance even before it happens.

Utter nonsense, Buckley couldn't have cared less who was moderating
whatever debate he was in. If the moderator is biased, are you suggesting
that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it and adjust
their evaluation accordingly. It certainly sounds to me like you're
saying that Palin is going to come off badly but that we should understand
that she really won and it's the fault of the moderator, but we are to
stupid to think for ourselves.

Let the debate unfold and then judge, don't tell me what to think before
hand.

Cheers
Marty


Dave doesn't have a very high opinion of regular folks, except when they
vote for people like Bush the 2nd.

Dave doesn't consider himself "regular folks". That's where the
delusions start.

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:05:05 -0400, Marty said:

If the moderator is biased, are you
suggesting that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it
and adjust their evaluation accordingly.

Absolutely.

Oh, I'm sorry Dave, must have lost my head, I forgot that you are the
only intelligent person in the USA.

Cheers
Marty

On 1 Oct 2008 18:52:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:05:05 -0400, Marty said:

If the moderator is biased, are you
suggesting that the viewers will lack the intelligence to perceive it
and adjust their evaluation accordingly.

Absolutely.

Dave's projecting.